By Lucas Leiroz | December 1, 2021
Paris has always had Africa as a route for its political and economic expansionism, advancing on the continent and making it part of its international sphere of influence. However, it is possible to see that the African people are increasingly indignant with the constant presence of French military personnel in the region, which has resulted in protests taking to the streets of African cities, clamoring for a change. Now, French forces are seeing such demonstrations as a real threat and treating the population in a violent and disrespectful way, with the sole intention of asserting power and demonstrating the strength of the Paris’ agenda.
In recent days, thousands of people have taken to the streets to protest against the French expansionism in many African countries. This week, at least two people died in western Niger due to the brutality of French troops trying to stop a demonstration. During the action of the military convoy that tried to prevent the people from protesting, several shots were fired, leaving, in addition to the fatalities, eighteen injured people – eleven of them seriously wounded. This same convoy had previously performed similar scenes in Burkina Faso, where French military personnel shot at four protesters last week, generating a wave of indignation and revolt on the part of the local population.
According to what has been reported by Agence France-Presse, the convoy has a force of around 100 soldiers and has departed from Côte d’Ivoire and, after circling through Burkina Faso and Niger, is on its way to Mali, where it will be joining a French military base in the Gao region. Apparently, this convoy is making an international tour of the western part of the African continent, acting as a kind of “police force” in the containment of demonstrations, ignoring local authorities and the right of the citizens of these states to demand changes in the security policies that are being implemented in their countries.
The French forces reported that the shooting in Niger was motivated by the protesters’ own actions. According to the troops, the protesters tried to block the convoy’s passage, which was why the soldiers, trying to open the way, acted with the use of force. Obviously, regardless of the actions taken by the protesters, it is inconceivable for trained military personnel armed with war equipment to act with total force against unarmed civilians. Although it is admitted to partially use military power to disperse protesters, it is absolutely reprehensible that this resulted in lethal gunshots, killing innocent citizens who only exercised their civil right to protest against the presence of foreign troops in their country.
Also, there are images and videos circulating on the internet recording the horror scenes that took place in Niger this week, where it is possible to note that the use of force by the French far exceeded the reasonable line to simply disperse a human barricade of protesters. In one of the videos, it is possible to see a French Mirage 2000 strike aircraft dropping flares and tear gas bombs in a high-speed, low altitude pass over the protesters. There are also reports of shootings from military drones.
Commenting on the case, the Nigerien Interior Ministry said in a statement that “an investigation has been opened to determine the exact circumstances of this tragedy and determine responsibility”. However, it should be noted that this is not the first time that such actions have been carried out with impunity by French forces. Not only are the African people tired of the immeasurable violence perpetrated by French troops, but the very governments that “allow” such actions also wish to put an end to them, however, they lack the power to do so.
Faced with immense military asymmetry, with African countries being much weaker than France and still sharing a problematic heritage from the colonial ties of past centuries, West African governments do not have many options to respond to the suffering of their own people. There are no ways to retaliate or punish the French for their criminal acts – and there are no viable ways to expel the Europeans either.
In Mali, the military tried to end the French presence through a coup d’état last year, but the Paris’ forces continue to act freely against the local population in many situations, such as the massacre of 22 civilians during an attack to a Malian village earlier this year. In fact, there seems to be no alternative path for the African states, which, as long as they do not have a political, economic, and military structure strong enough to coercively expel foreign troops, will continue to suffer the consequences of Paris’ neo-colonial expansionism.
France, on its part, has diminished its interest in the African continent. The failure of the occupation of the Sahel showed that the French project for Africa was unfeasible and that, therefore, Paris should change its focus on international projection – which has gradually turned to the European and Mediterranean space itself. On the other hand, France does not want to simply “abandon” Africa, as this would open the way for another world power to occupy this space.
The French project, therefore, consists of reducing the presence of their troops in the African space, but preventing a real “independence” on the part of African governments, preventing them from seeking new alliances. In practice, this materializes in actions such as the ones of this convoy, which spread chaos and instability in the region. The French objective in Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso and Niger is to prevent, through intimidation, a maneuver such as the one that happened in Mali – and, in Mali, the aim is to prevent the military’s plan to succeed.
Indeed, France “does not want” Africa at the moment, but it is not willing to allow Africans to follow their own path of independence. Fostering social chaos, disorder and violence seems to be the French tactic in this regard.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
December 1, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, War Crimes | Africa, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, France, Human rights, Mali, Niger |
Leave a comment
France has sent police reinforcements to overseas territory Martinique, after riots broke out in response to a mandatory Covid-19 vaccine policy for healthcare workers.
Around 70 armed French police officers, known in France as gendarmes, arrived in Martinique on Tuesday to tackle the violent protests, which were marred by arson, looting, and vandalism.
French Minister of Overseas Territories Sebastien Lecornu said in a press conference that “social dialogue is not possible without a sound basis and that sound basis is the re-establishment of freedoms… and our capacity to re-establish order.”
Civil unrest broke out after France imposed a vaccine mandate for healthcare workers in Martinique, which has reported low vaccination rates amid high levels of mistrust in the government and faith in natural medicine
As a result of the riots – which included an attack on the residence of France’s most senior official on the island – France revealed on Friday that it would be postponing its vaccine mandate.
Lecornu has blamed Martinique’s vaccine hesitancy on the island’s culture, saying, “I don’t want to stigmatise but the mistrust over vaccines is cultural.”
Protesters, however, say they are unable to trust officials with their health after previous cases of misconduct – 95% of adults in Martinique have traces of a pesticide with links to cancer in their blood after it was consistently sprayed on the island for several decades.
Martinique was colonized by France in 1635 and has remained under French control despite independence efforts.
December 1, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | France, Human rights, Martinique |
Leave a comment
The Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine this month issued a position statement in which it said: “Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license.”
In the letter below, Dr. Meryl Nass, a practicing physician in Maine and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory board, asked the board to define what it means by “misinformation” and “disinformation,” and to clarify what statutory authority the board has to discipline physicians on the basis of undefined transgressions. The letter, which includes the Nov. 16 testimony Nass gave to the New Hampshire state legislature, has been edited slightly for clarity.
November 22, 2021
To the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine:
I am a physician, licensed in Maine for the past 24 years. I am concerned about the use of the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” and the new threat to physicians’ licenses issued by the board today for undefined behaviors.
I require clarification regarding the board’s definition of misinformation and disinformation and would like to know what statutory authority the board has to discipline physicians on the basis of undefined transgressions.
Please tell me what law or regulation authorizes such threats for speech outside the clinic.
I thought I would provide the board with some information I provide to the public to see if the board intends to term documented facts as misinformation, intends to censor these facts and whether those who provide these facts to the public will be at risk of disciplinary action.
Here is my invited testimony to the New Hampshire legislature (Education Committee) on Nov. 16, 2021. Am I at risk for telling these truths? Please let me know.
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: “[The vaccine] doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you from passing it on.”
[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said: “The vaccines no longer prevent transmission.”
In a high-quality study of all VA beneficiaries just published in Science, by September, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was only 13% effective against infection, the Pfizer 43% and the Moderna 58%.
In a new University of California study of more than 500 vaxxed and unvaxxed people who tested positive for COVID, the amounts of virus in saliva were the same. They could transmit the infection to others, equally.
The UK’s top vaccine expert, Sir Andrew Pollard, said in August, regarding COVID vaccines: “Herd immunity is not a possibility. We need to focus on how do we prevent dying or going to hospital.”
Please understand this: Since we cannot achieve herd immunity with our vaccines, the inevitable result is that practically everyone will eventually get the disease.
Vaccines cannot achieve safe schools and workplaces, because the vaccinated can still transmit, even when asymptomatic.
While public health leaders are hoping frequent boosters will kick the can down the road, there is no reason to think boosters will prevent transmission, when the initial series didn’t.
Instead, it is crucial that we immediately focus on preventing severe disease and death — and early treatment can do this. It saves hospitalizations and lives. This is great news.
Why doesn’t everyone know it?
Because, had the benefit of existing drugs been acknowledged, there could have been no Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) issued for vaccines, remdesivir or monoclonal antibodies — all of which are multibillion-dollar, patented products.
According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the product.”
Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were approved, adequate and available — and cheap. Thus they had to be suppressed.
Many drugs and supplements have efficacy against COVID. I created a handout of treatments for you. Please do not allow therapies for COVID to be restricted. Don’t allow doctors and pharmacists to be persecuted for providing these critical medications.
Few people are aware that in a Senate hearing on May 11, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Peter Marks of the FDA and CDC Director Walensky, what percentage of the employees in their agencies were vaccinated.
None provided a number. Fauci and Marks guessed that a bit over half were vaccinated.
What did thousands of scientists in the National Institutes of Health, FDA and CDC know that you didn’t know? This:
- They knew about sky-high rates of myocarditis in young men, which had been discussed in the Israeli media in April but was not disclosed in the U.S. until June.
- They knew that deaths after vaccination were extremely high — much higher than reported for any other vaccine, ever. The CDC says that VAERS (its Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) received more than 9,000 reports of U.S. deaths related to COVID vaccines, but claims they are rare. RARE? Record-setting deaths have also been reported in the UK and Europe after COVID vaccinations.
There have been more deaths reported to VAERS for COVID vaccines in 10 months than were reported for every vaccine used in the U.S. over 30 years.
As of Nov. 19, more than half (56%) of the deaths reported to VAERS after COVID vaccines occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated. And although the CDC has not investigated them all, the agency still claims, ”A review of available clinical information … has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.”
But CDC officials haven’t linked the deaths to anything else, either.
Let me talk about kids. The CDC estimates that 147 million Americans have already had COVID — and that at least half of our kids are already immune.
Yet the FDA and CDC have not seen fit to allow Americans to use any available test — not PCR, not antibody, not T cell nor any combination of tests to prove immunity — even though the FDA accepts antibody tests as evidence of immunity in COVID vaccine clinical trials.
Why the double standard? It seems the reason to deny natural immunity is to force everyone to be vaccinated, whether they need it or not.
If the vaccines were safe, this policy would be less egregious. But they aren’t safe. The younger you are, the greater is the risk of myocarditis. Reported myocarditis rates in 12- to 17-year-old males after vaccination are 100 times higher than for men over 65.
One study showed that teenage boys are 3 to 6 times as likely to be hospitalized for a post-vaccine case of myocarditis as for a case of COVID.
Myocarditis is a serious side effect, which can cause sudden arrhythmic death. After three months, 25% of kids with myocarditis have still not recovered. No one knows how common this side effect will be in the 5- to 11-year-olds since it was not reported in Pfizer’s trial, which lasted an average of only 17 days after full vaccination for half the child subjects.
Dr. Eric Rubin, the New England Journal editor, said at FDA’s 5- to 11-year-old vaccine advisory meeting: “We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it.”
The FDA knows our children are the guinea pigs, and now you do too.
Did you know that in Philadelphia, Seattle and San Francisco children as young as 12 are being vaccinated without parental consent or notice? JAMA Pediatrics in July published an article calling for states to amend the law to allow children to consent for themselves.
Will New Hampshire support this attack on parental authority?
All pediatric COVID vaccines are used under EUAs. These remove manufacturer liability from the vaccines, unless willful misconduct can be proved.
Under the Public Readiness and Preparedness (PREP) Act, a finding of willful misconduct requires the manufacturer knew there was a problem with their vaccines, but sold them anyway.
The unforeseen consequence of the PREP Act is that it gives manufacturers a huge incentive to perform the most minimal testing of their products — because if they did not know there was a problem, they cannot be sued for misconduct.
Why are we allowing experimental products that have been inadequately tested, are dangerous in older children and were produced by a manufacturer who can’t be sued to be injected into our children?
But these facts have been obscured by a smokescreen of fatuous “safe and effective” claims made by financially conflicted organizations.
Did they tell you that if your child is injured, you are unlikely to collect a penny? Did they tell you that the compensation program for EUA injuries has not compensated a single COVID drug or vaccine injury — despite a one-year statute of limitations?
Under U.S. law, you have the right to refuse EUAs. And you must be informed of all that is known and unknown about risks and benefits.
But neither of these two requirements are being followed.
Since the pandemic, the rule of law has been tossed aside. I urge you to learn about the law governing the use of EUA products, so I have provided you the relevant section of U.S. Code.
Let me conclude by saying that given the loose regulatory milieu we are in, COVID vaccines will probably be licensed for everyone soon. That imprimatur will not brush away their serious problems.
Please prevent mandates of these extremely questionable products.
Sincerely yours,
Sincerely yours, Meryl Nass, MD
Meryl Nass, M.D., ABIM, is an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War illness, fibromyalgia and toxicology.
© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
December 1, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | CDC, FDA, Maine, NIH, United States |
Leave a comment
An Australian doctor says that he was questioned by police after sending his local MP emails expressing concerns about the Covid-19 vaccines.
The incident took place at the home of Dr Bruce Paix in Adelaide, South Australia. Although police originally said they had come to his house for a firearms check, an officer who was caught on video later admitted that he was there due to emails that Dr Paix had sent to his local MP, Josh Teague of South Australia.
Dr Paix has 32 years of experience and is a former military physician. He has served as a senior doctor in South Australia’s government system, a rescue doctor and also as an anesthesiologist. During his time as a senior military doctor in the Middle East during the MERS outbreak, he managed many health threats.
After educating himself over a long period of time on coronavirus, he concluded that “nothing about the world’s COVID response template makes sense (including in my own state of South Australia) and indeed is likely harmful.”
Dr Paix is particularly concerned about the way that the mainstream media has been censoring reports of adverse reactions caused by the Covid-19 vaccines. He wrote: “The vaccines, in particular, have numerous valid safety risks, and knowledge of these is being systematically suppressed by governments, professional bodies, and media.”
Additionally, the doctor took issue with the ban on alternative treatments against the virus, such as Ivermectin, which is often denied to patients despite a wealth of evidence showing it can be effective in fighting Covid-19.
“Valuable therapeutic options (Vit D, Ivermectin) are being outlawed in favour of a ‘jab or nothing’ strategy,” he lamented.
Dr Paix said that he contacted the MP’s office multiple times to voice his concerns. However, his requests to meet with Teague were denied, and eventually, he says, the MP’s response was to send the police to threaten him.
The doctor pressed the police officer as to why he was there, pointing out that the firearms check was not random and was instead being done in the context of the letters he had sent his MP. In response, the officer told him that he was not aware that the emails contained any criminal offences and that his aim was just to let the doctor know that the police were aware of the emails.
Dr. Paix is not the only physician who has come under fire in the country because of his opinions on the virus. The clinic of Australian physician Dr. Mark Hobart was raided by health officers just a few days before the incident; they confiscated his appointment book and confidential patient files.
Both of the doctors had been giving patients vaccine and mask exemptions, and Dr. Paix had also been instructing patients on how they can obtain Ivermectin for protection against the virus.
December 1, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Australia, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
Leave a comment
1. it is not nor will it ever be possible to be “fully vaccinated” with these vaccines.
2. almost none of this has ever worked and only serves to drive hysteria.
all we need to do to have our lives and livelihoods back is to stop pretending we ever needed to give them up.
3. continuing to play cards with an opponent who smiles at you while dealing off the bottom of the deck is the literal height of stupidity and has been since i first posted this meme over a year ago…
bonus fact:
you cannot obey your way out of tyranny or an appease an oppressor until they stop.
complying so that it will end simply ensures that it will NEVER end.
going along to get along is the interminable, grinding road to subjugation.
disobey.
December 1, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Twitter has updated its policy on personal information to cover videos and photos of private individuals shared without their consent, unless that is done by legacy media, in “public interest,” or other context they approve of.
“Sharing personal media, such as images or videos, can potentially violate a person’s privacy, and may lead to emotional or physical harm. The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities,” Twitter’s Safety division said on Tuesday.
The company has thus decided to add “media of private individuals without the permission of the person(s) depicted” to the category of “personal information” not allowed on the platform. Addresses, identity documents, phone numbers, emails, and bank information of private individuals have already been banned under Twitter’s doxing policy.
This policy update “will allow us to take action on media that is shared without any explicit abusive content, provided it’s posted without the consent of the person depicted,” Twitter said.
It does not apply to media featuring public figures, or when media are shared “in the public interest or add value to public discourse,” however. A specific carve-out seems to be sharing images or videos of private individuals “in an effort to help someone involved in a crisis situation, such as in the aftermath of a violent event, or as part of a newsworthy event due to public interest value,” which “might outweigh the safety risks to a person.”
Twitter “will always try to assess the context in which the content is shared,” including whether it is being “covered by mainstream/traditional media” or “adds value to the public discourse, is being shared in public interest, or is relevant to the community.”
Reactions to the policy update have been mainly negative. “Twitter Implements New Rule So It Can Selectively Ban Memes, Mockery Of Democrats” is how the conservative-leaning Federalist reported the policy change.
Conservative pundit Dana Loesch said this will allow Twitter to “muzzle” independent journalists, let “corporate press” set narratives, and silence undercover reporting from the likes of Project Veritas. Independent journalist Tim Pool tweeted that “journalism is largely banned on twitter basically.”
The new rule seems “poorly thought out,” tweeted digital rights advocate Evan Greer, asking “how long before cops try to abuse this to get videos of brutality taken down?”
As written, the update is “not only vague, but literally unenforceable,” argued BBC’s ‘disinformation’ reporter Shayan Sardarizadeh. “How do you define a private individual across different jurisdictions? What exactly is a public setting and what is in the public interest? What is traditional media? This is a minefield.”
The policy update comes less than a day after co-founder Jack Dorsey stepped down as Twitter CEO, appointing Parag Agrawal as his successor. Agrawal is best known for a November 2020 interview in which he said Twitter’s role is “not to be bound by the First Amendment.”
“So, we focused way less on what’s true and what’s false. We focus way more on potential for harm as a result of certain content being amplified on the platform without appropriate context,” Agrawal also said at the time.
November 30, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Twitter |
Leave a comment
The Australian Signals Directorate, Canberra’s equivalent of Britain’s GCHQ or the US National Security Agency, will be granted sweeping new powers to spy on Australians for the first time since its November 1947 founding.
The move allows the agency to collect signals intelligence on individuals within the country without a warrant, although allegedly only in situations where there is an “imminent risk to life.” Domestic terror suspects are cited as a key target in the Directorate’s crosshairs, and it will also collect intelligence in conjunction with the Australian Defence Force for military operations, with ministerial authorization.
Rules governing the reform and protecting citizens’ privacy will be published on the agency’s website, and subject to review and scrutiny by the Australian parliament’s security and intelligence committee. While framed as sincerely concerned with keeping Australians safe, experts have expressed grave reservations about the development. Among them is John Blaxland, Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies at the Australian National University, himself a military intelligence veteran, who warned the powers were ripe for abuse.
“I’m a former insider… I have a much greater appreciation of the need for checks and balances, because power tends to corrupt,” he cautioned. “My concern is the legislation we put forward is being drafted by insiders, it’s drafted with their own concerns in mind.”
Drafted by insiders, the legislation certainly was – it’s inspired by the findings of an extensive review by Dennis Richardson, former chief of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the country’s FBI, conducted in close consultation with Australia’s assorted intelligence services, in a manner akin to foxes being quizzed on how best to guard a henhouse.
Published in December 2020, his appraisal’s discussion of “authorisations” noted that these agencies can already conduct warrantless intelligence-gathering if they believe it to be “necessary, proportionate, reasonable and justified” in certain circumstances, and “would like the ability” to not only use various investigative techniques without official permission, but also with “protection from criminal liability” when doing so.
Leaked documents exposed by journalist Annika Smethurst in April 2018 showed that high-level plans for untrammeled domestic spying by the Australian Signals Directorate date back even further. They revealed how the respective heads of Australia’s Defence and Home Affairs ministries had discussed allowing the agency to access citizens’ emails, bank records and text messages without approval, or trace. A government source told Smethurst they were “horrified” by the proposals, given “there is no actual national security gap this is aiming to fill.”
Australian Federal Police raided both the alleged leaker of the files and Smethurst the next year. In a perverse irony, the charges against her were dropped in May 2020, as Australian High Court judges unanimously ruled that the warrant secured from a magistrate in relation to the raid was invalid, because it not only “misstated the terms of the offence” but was also ambiguous if not outright absurd.
“[The warrant] lacked the clarity required to fulfil its basic purposes of adequately informing Smethurst why the search was being conducted and providing the executing officer and those assisting in the execution of the warrant with reasonable guidance to decide which things came within the scope of the warrant,” the High Court damningly concluded.
In other words, it was impossible to know from the warrant’s wording what the investigation actually concerned, what evidence or information was sought, and what, if any, crime she may or may not have committed. That this baseless and broad investigative authorization was formally granted at all renders the Directorate’s newfound power to conduct warrantless surveillance all the more disquieting. If such procedural perversion can occur even with putative oversight, what abuses will be engaged-in without any meaningful supervision?
Misuse of these capabilities is almost inevitable. In 1973, the US Supreme Court ruled warrants were mandatory for domestic intelligence gathering. Two years later, a Senate investigation found that the NSA and other US intelligence agencies had nonetheless been engaged in unauthorized spying on American citizens, including anti-war protesters, civil rights activists, and political dissidents, monitoring all their private communications from telephone conversations to telegrams. This led to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which made it a dedicated criminal offense to eavesdrop on American citizens without judicial oversight.
Yet,it was revealed in late 2005 that the NSA had all along continued illegally intercepting the phone calls and digital communications of US citizens, with the witting help of major telecoms giants, which passed copies of all emails, web browsing and other internet traffic to and from its customers at home and abroad to the agency, and its British counterpart GCHQ. Files disclosed in 2013 by whistleblower Edward Snowden confirmed this criminal dragnet was truly global in scale, and very much ongoing.
Key components of this international spying network, known as ‘Five Eyes,’ are situated in Australia, at the Pine Gap and Kojarena satellite surveillance bases. According to investigative legend Duncan Campbell, around 80% of the messages intercepted by the latter – which employs US and British staff in key posts – are sent automatically to GCHQ and the NSA. While every Five Eyes member can theoretically veto requests for such material, “when you’re a junior ally” like Canberra, “you never refuse,” Campbell records.
One can’t help but wonder if the Directorate’s new domestic purview is an experiment, gauging levels of backlash and controversy among the Australian public, before similar measures – provably or potentially already in operation – are openly codified across all Five Eyes member states. Ongoing legal battles against mass data collection in various jurisdictions clearly necessitate the practice being legalized and legitimized. If Canberra’s American and/or British friends politely requested they run such a pilot scheme, would or even could they decline?
Reinforcing this interpretation, mere days after the Directorate’s remit was expanded, the Australian government pledged to introduce new laws forcing social media giants to “unmask” anonymous users who post offensive comments, with hefty fines doled out to those companies which are unwilling or unable to do so. The reasons for Canberra’s haste are unclear, although it’s surely no coincidence that London and Washington have battled for many years to end online anonymity for good – it’s only due to intense domestic opposition that these efforts have so far failed.
Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.
November 30, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Australia, Canada, FBI, Human rights, NSA, UK, United States |
Leave a comment
“If Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t break the law, we should change the law”
This quote, from late-night TV host Stephen Colbert, is one of the more concerning reactions to Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty of murder.
What law, precisely, Mr Colbert would see changed is never specified. The vagueness only makes the sentiment more troubling.
Other responses have been just as dishonest, manipulative and foreboding.
Amber Ruffin, another late-night “comedian”, broke down in (very fake looking) tears. Ranting about the “fucked up” jury, “white people getting away with murder” and the “broken system”. Trying to insert racial issues that don’t apply, and telling lies about the facts of the case:
https://twitter.com/ambermruffin/status/1461870102060535813
The “broken system” is all anybody wants to talk about. It’s all over the place.
In Washington, “the Squad” decried the verdict, wailing that “the system is broken”, that it “protects white supremacy”.
Even alternate media aren’t immune. Democracy Now invited the family of Jacob Blake to discuss the verdict, who have no personal ties to the case save the riot was allegedly being carried out in response to Jacob’s shooting. They too wanted to headline the “system is broken”.
But why the misrepresentations and hyperbole? Why race-baiting and manipulation? Why the exploitation of victims’ families?
What exactly do they want to change about the “broken system”?
Is it private prisons?
Is it absurd incarceration rates?
Is it the fact prisoners are used as de fecto slave labour?
Nope. It’s jury trials.
Not just jury trials, however, there are some other areas ripe for “regulation” and “reform” too.
The relentless focus on Rittenhouse “crossing state lines with a firearm” (he didn’t actually, but never mind) would suggest perhaps one potential “fix” is tighter limitations on travel. Covid has highlighted just how much the powers that be really do hate us being able to move around.
Another obvious potential target for these vague reforms is the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms is, ironically, always in the firing line. The USA certainly can’t go full-Australia while guys are allowed to carry rifles around.
Indeed, given how far into the realms of tyranny so many governments are going, all these attacks on the very idea of “self defense” could be a worrying sign.
But, for now, it looks like the first item on the menu of “reform” is definitely trial by jury.
Why do I think that? Well, both Ruffin and Democracy Now make special mention of the jury being “fucked up” and “broken”.
Oh, and this article says so:
After Kyle Rittenhouse trial, Biden still thinks the jury system works. He’s wrong.
Jury trials have been under threat for years, with “educated” middle-class authors writing that, essentially, the law is too important to be put in the hands of ordinary people who are too stupid understand it.
Juries are described as “old fashioned”, “slow” and “expensive”.
Juries are routinely described as racist, too. Before the trial even started, the Rittenhouse jury was criticised for being “too white”.
The Rittenhouse trial is not alone in being used to undermine the jury system, Covid got there first.
In Spring of 2020, the Scottish parliament briefly tried to ban jury trials “as a response to the pandemic”, this was quickly repealed after complaints from the bar association. There’s also talk of removing juries from rape cases to “clear the backlog” and “protect the victim”.
In January this year, Simon Jenkins wrote in the Guardian that Covid has given us an “opportunity” to get rid of Jury trials for good. He would see it replaced with a “trial waiver system”, as much of the US already does.
Trial waiver systems are ripe for corruption, one report describes them as “highly coercive”, and this could easily result in a lot of innocent people pleading guilty to lesser charges because they can’t afford a lawyer or don’t want to risk going to prison. It is not a fair system at all.
Nevertheless, that’s where they want to go – and whether by Covid or Kyle Rittenhouse – they’ll get us there.
November 30, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Have you noticed that many Democrats today are not particularly democratic? Oh, they want everyone, and then some, to vote, but that is where their conception of democracy seems to end. President Biden wants to tamp down on conspiracy theories, but this more by surveilling the public than making the government transparent and accountable.
The banner of one of the party’s leading newspapers, the Washington Post, has asserted that since 2017 that “democracy dies in darkness.” But another of its rags, the New York Times, delayed a story about the Kenosha riots thought troublesome for Democratic Party candidates until after the 2020 election.
What are they going to write when secessionist movements pick up even more momentum? According to a 2018 Rasmussen study, almost two-in-five Democrats thought civil war was likely within the next five years, i.e., by 2023. That was partly due to hatred/distrust of then-president Donald Trump but also an indication that Democrats are more likely to try to use force to keep a disintegrating nation together. Their paternalistic view of the world compels them to reject federalism in favor of centralized power. You’ll own nothing and accept novel medical treatments and like it, or else.
The key to preventing the further disintegration of our governance is access to information, not voting per se. Some people proudly don “I Voted” stickers and buttons. That’s swell, but why did those folks vote as they did? How can Americans discern who to vote for if they do not know who made which decisions, when they made them, and on what basis? Such information has become extremely difficult to obtain without the help of costly lawsuits, like one in Missouri that recently revealed that lawmakers had unconstitutionally ceded power to unelected government administrators.
Similarly, the Fifth Circuit federal court reviewing the Biden-OSHA workplace Covid vaccination mandate could not be cancelled or shouted down, so it easily demolished all the pretexts for the mandate. If the mandated medical treatment (which can be called a “vaccine” only because of a change in the CDC’s definition of that term) is effective, then the only people at risk are the unvaccinated. If it is ineffective, then on what basis can it be mandated? If an emergency truly exists, why wasn’t the mandate put in place earlier and why did it not include small companies? How dangerous is Covid-19 for working people anyway? OSHA could not answer such questions, revealing the vacuity of the mandate.
Even after the court stayed implementation, however, Biden urged companies to comply anyway. Say what? That is not how the rule of law works. Again, it seems that Americans all need to contact a judge or governor to protect themselves from charges of misprision of felony, if not misprision of treason.
Does the Biden administration have pertinent information that it is not disclosing? Or is it covering something up? We may never know, at least those of us in middle age or older, as the FDA wants 55 years to process Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related to its Covid policies. That is not a typo! Nobody involved in this colossal Covid cluster wants to take the blame, and the only way to protect themselves from the flood of FOIA that I predicted last year is to stall, hem and haw, and obfuscate. Then stall some more.
How can Americans allow politicians to spend their money with almost no accountability or transparency? Details of the contracts between the government and major Covid “vaccine” manufacturers, unless leaked earlier, will be unavailable for at least five years. (Canadians and other alleged democrats face similar restrictions.) According to private sector auditors, the Pentagon cannot account for trillions of dollars. Americans will never know the details of that fraud because auditors could not finish their work due to the government’s “many bookkeeping deficiencies, irregularities, and errors.”
Similarly, manipulation of the FOIA request system stymies the investigation of past government mistakes at a wide range of bureaucracies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has long been infamous for its arbitrary decision-making processes.
While with help from another business historian I was able to use FOIA to obtain the information necessary to expose the SEC’s role in creating the conditions at the credit rating agencies that made virtually inevitable the global financial crisis of 2007-9, I cannot be certain that we found everything relevant to the SEC’s flawed decision-making process. The FOIA system was so slow and onerous that it appeared deliberately designed to dissuade researchers from investigating the SEC’s past.
Nevertheless, we wanted next to look at changes in the SEC’s so-called Town Hall Rule regarding stockholders’ right to use management proxy materials to submit proposals to fellow stockholders. After reviewing the extant secondary literature, which is thin and repetitive because it is based solely on the same few publicly-available sources, we decided to press on with an in-depth analysis. This time, though, our fee waiver request was denied on nonsense grounds and our information request was subjected to repeated demands for more specific information.
The demand for more specific information, though, presented us with a Catch-22 or chicken and egg problem. The SEC does not provide researchers with a finding aid, a document routinely created by archival staff to guide researchers to potentially relevant documents. (For an example of a simple one that I helped to create, see here.) Without a finding aid, researchers like me have no idea whether the documents they would like to see even exist, much less the details about them that the SEC’s FOIA request officers purport to need to see. See? FOIA reveals the government at its most inefficient, or systematically corrupt.
All extant historical information related to the U.S. federal government should be saved, catalogued, and/or made text searchable via the National Archives and Records Administration so that researchers can assess previous government actions and decisions lest the government, and nation, fall (again) into the trap of repeating past mistakes. Obviously, the subjects of researcher-led probes should not be in charge of the process of determining which documents are saved and/or made available to researchers. One would think government agencies would relish the opportunity of outside review to help burnish their reputations. Their mistakes are mostly those of administration, not (usually anyway) crimes against humanity. Yet, they jealously guard their turf from outside auditors and other researchers.
Given all that, I would like to take transparency and outside review one step further. People truly committed to the substance of democracy, instead of the charade of voting based on labels, or animal mascots, or vague slogans (ever notice how Make America Great Again and Build Back Better can seem to mean the same thing?), should insist on much greater levels of transparency.
Because the capture of FOIA proves that governments can bureaucratize and render ineffective any citizen information request system, it is high time that democrats begin to insist on the instantaneous release of all government information related to all domestic matters: video recordings of meetings, emails, letters, Slack or text messages, and other forms of electronic or personal communication between government officials, elected and bureaucratic, and between said officials and U.S. residents, including candidates for elected office. The federal government surveils millions of American citizens, so why cannot citizens compel the government to surveil itself, or at least make public all but the most sensitive of its own activities?
Advances in data mining aided by artificial intelligence will allow watchdogs to parse through all that data to expose inefficient, corrupt, or just plain dumb governance in real time. (Maybe they will even find specific instances where government programs work well.) Journalists and “fact checkers” will have access to primary sources of verified authenticity that they can link to to (dis)prove claims of “misinformation.” Then Americans can all vote with the aid of a full, impartial, verifiable analysis about who and what they are voting for, or against.
If complete and instantaneous disclosure proves impossible politically, the United States should return to a government with powers so limited that it need not be constantly audited, watched, or dreaded.
Robert E. Wright is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.
He is the (co)author or (co)editor of over two dozen major books, book series, and edited collections, including AIER’s The Best of Thomas Paine (2021) and Financial Exclusion (2019).
November 29, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular | United States |
Leave a comment
THE Northern Territory of Australia often produces a vague sense of unease due to its climate, desert landscape, remoteness and isolation. You wouldn’t venture far off the main highways. The Territory is also a focal point for the culture wars in view of its large indigenous population, who generally live in remote communities in often abhorrent circumstances. Despite two centuries of policy failure there has been little evidence of new thinking in the centres of power. And, given the poor health generally– putting it very mildly – of the resident Aborigines, and their seeming caution in taking the Covid jab, it is a powder keg.
Now a story has emerged that links the two issues of Aboriginal affairs and Covid elimination. It is not pretty, and it comes while Europe is awash with Covid developments that are, not to put too fine a point on it, redolent of the Third Reich. Jonathan Sumption has touched on these ‘dangerous precedents’ as the ‘first symptom of totalitarianism’:
‘Across Europe, basic norms of civilised society are giving way to panic. The unvaccinated are being excluded from an ever-wider range of basic rights. Austria has criminalised them. Italy has stopped them doing their jobs. The Dutch police have fired on anti-lockdown demonstrators, seriously injuring some of them. We are witnessing the ultimate folly of frightened politicians who cannot accept that they are impotent in the face of some natural phenomena.
‘If lockdowns, forced closures of businesses and other brutal countermeasures work, then why are these countries on their fifth wave of the pandemic and their third or fourth lockdown? How long must this go on before we recognise that these measures simply push infections into the period after they are lifted?’
There is a broad sense that something is about to give. So, not a good week to be caught shipping the unvaccinated off to a Covid camp down under.
This is a story delivered not just by the fringe media but by the Territory’s Chief Minister, Michael Gunner.
After nine new Covid-19 cases were identified in the community of Binjari, it was reported that the Australian army forcibly removed 38 residents said to be ‘close contacts’ to the Howard Springs quarantine camp in Darwin, which I wrote about in TCW Defending Freedom in September (Australia’s Covid concentration camps). Gunner said: ‘Residents of Binjari and [the nearby community of] Rockhole no longer have the five reasons to leave their homes,’ referring to Australia’s five allowable excuses to avoid lockdown (buying food and supplies, exercising for up to two hours, care or caregiving, work or education if it can’t be done from home, and to get vaccinated). He said it was ‘highly likely’ that more residents would be transferred to Howard Springs.
This is a truly astonishing development, even by bizarre Covid policy standards. Very few cases have occurred on Gunner’s patch since March 2020 and the latest piece of policy overreach is in response merely to ‘close contacts’. We do not yet know whether any of those removed are even sick.
Gunner’s now infamous rant against the anti-vaxxers is world class among elected politicians. His enforced removal of the unvaccinated to a holding camp is a global first, as far as I am aware. Australia continues to break new ground.
As a Labor man, Gunner is a partisan brother of the Premiers of Queensland, Western Australia and of Victoria. Daniel Andrews of Victoria needs little introduction. Not a lot more can be said of the Victorian Covid regime, it would seem, that hasn’t already been said and that could possibly add to the public’s understanding of the raving lunatic down south. Western Australia decided long ago in effect to secede and to impose border closures and lockdowns on less than a whim.
Of Queensland, it has recently been observed that there is no Covid crisis yet there are bizarre plans for imminent vaccine passports to be introduced in high summer (December 17, to be precise), following on from months of inexplicable, hard border closures.
Then there is the recent and chilling development of a contract being awarded to build Queensland’s second dedicated Covid quarantine camp next door to Brisbane Airport. One observer has wondered why this ‘facility’ would require double electric fencing, and whether its purposes might one day include accommodation for the removed-and-unvaccinated as well as for incoming travellers slated for more routine and short-term stays.
Also in the recent news is the descent upon the far north outback Queensland town of Charter Towers by the military police, who are now apparently stopping travellers and locals and demanding their papers.
The alt-news reports that the Australian Army, with no published explanation, is booking out hotel chains for the summer on the Gold Coast. (This story has no independent corroboration to date.)
It was then of little surprise that the head of the Australian Medical Association in Queensland had this to say: ‘Life will be miserable without being vaccinated. You won’t be able to hide. There will be no employment. We will be tracking you. You won’t be able to go anywhere.’
Can anyone see a pattern emerging here?
But back to the Northern Territory and its current travails. Just like the unvaccinated Queenslanders, the First Australians in the Territory have no place to hide, however remote they might be.
There is no confirmation yet of whether any force accompanied the removal of unvaccinated First Australians from the two communities, but a Darwin Aboriginal elder has shared her distress. Judy Mills said on a video that Northern Territory Aborigines are being dragged out of their communities by the army and police, taken to health centres and forcibly inoculated.
She called Michael Gunner a ‘coward who is deceiving and killing our people’ and accused the administration of a genocide of ‘blackfellas’.
In another video posted on social media, a community member said there were reports of police rounding people up, taking them to a clinic and forcibly vaccinating them; food supplies were being withheld from families and Territory child welfare services were ‘waiting like vultures’ to grab children. She said the government had taken control of communications from these remote communities and it was difficult to confirm information. ‘There’s a state of emergency here. I’m putting out a cry for help to the world,’ she said.
These are incendiary claims. To call this a brazen move by the Northern Territory Government would be to understate considerably the utter gall of the latest push. Messing with Territory Aborigines is normally a no-go area, with every move on the part of politicians needing to be backed by visible community buy-in, painstakingly sought and obtained. That this can be done – with, apparently, not only the knowledge of our perpetually slithering Prime Minister but also with his blessing and, indeed, his resources – is a measure of how far we in Australia have travelled down the road towards totalitarian control.
And totalitarian control that has, by and large, received a pass from the citizenry. There is, now, precious little second-guessing of the political class and its more rampant actions in relation to the virus by that middle go-along-to-get-along group that sits between the rabid Covid class and we-the-non-conforming Covid dissidents and outcasts. This is the group, probably quite substantial, that was unkindly but not inaccurately described by a retired Federal Court Judge as being satisfied so long as they have ‘Netflix, a full belly and a warm place to defecate’. Concern for the rights of fellow Australians, now including indigenous fellow Australians, is not likely to be a priority.
It would be interesting to see the reactions of white Australians, especially those on the Left who are forever championing the interest of remote communities. I say ‘would’ as I am yet to find this story even mentioned in the Australian mainstream media.
Given that indigenous affairs are a core issue in the culture wars and an obsession in the Left-of-centre media, the absence of comment to date is both noteworthy and odd. I am guessing they just don’t know what to think or to say about this. Many, no doubt, would be (quietly) cheering if the Caucasian unvaccinated were marched off for re-education and solitude, a ‘safe’ distance from the vaccinated. No one has quite said it in public, yet.
One might even term this awful affair the Covid Stolen Generation, a term that will have deep resonance for those with an interest in the recent history of the indigenous people of Australia. It all takes us right back to Central Europe and the Auschwitz meme. Lord Sumption is correct. These are, indeed, highly dangerous times.
The writer is in Australia
November 29, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Australia, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Like most parents across the land, I received a letter from the local council’s Director of Public Health this morning (forwarded by the school in an email) explaining that they have “advised [sic] schools that parents/carers/other visitors are not invited” to nativity plays this year. Not the end of the world in the grand scheme of things, of course – just another depressing example in the long litany of examples of children’s priorities being cast under a bus due to adult panic during the course of this pandemic.
Much more concerning, because of what it said about the mindset of the Director of Public Health in question, was this alarmingly blithe justification for continued restrictions in schools, buried in the body of the letter:
Much as we would all like it to be, the pandemic is not over. Whilst it is clear that the vaccination programme is effective in preventing serious disease and deaths, the vaccine is never going to stop all transmission, and resultant harm, on its own. [Emphasis added]
You couldn’t get a starker admission than this that we long ago moved beyond “flattening the curve” or staving off a dire public health emergency in a once-in-a-lifetime, never-to- be-repeated year. No: we are now in a different place altogether – one in which we must stop transmission “and resultant harm” for its own sake, forever. For how else are we supposed to interpret this statement? On what grounds will parents ever be allowed back into schools to watch nativity plays (or even properly meet their children’s teachers), if the requirement is for “all transmission and resultant harm” to end? We will never be in that position. So in what circumstance does the Director of Public Health envisage there ever will be a return to normal schooling? Ought this not to be made clear to local parents?
More broadly, this incident raises the question of how it is that something so fundamental – children’s schooling – has ended up beholden to the whim of unelected, largely unaccountable, public officials such as this. The local Director of Public Health in any given local authority cannot be voted out. They are not challenged by probing interviews in prominent media outlets. The means by which they are appointed is entirely opaque. And their policy positions, political backgrounds, and motivations are subject to essentially no public scrutiny. Yet they possess the power, at the sweep of a pen, to disrupt the lives of literally tens of thousands of people within their bailiwicks, with the only possible avenue of challenge being a prohibitively expensive and time-consuming claim for judicial review. This ought to be intolerable in a free society. Yet it is the position in which we find ourselves.
Once again, the Covid pandemic and its response have shone a harsh light on British democracy, and revealed it to be in a dilapidated state indeed.
November 29, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
