Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Covid in Sweden: Everything on the table

Sebastian Rushworth, M.D. | October 2, 2021

A group of German celebrities have started the campaign “alles auf den tisch”, which literally means “everything on the table”. It’s a reaction to the shocking lack of indepence and critical oversight that has been exhibited by journalists ever since the pandemic began. The purpose of the campaign is to break through the blinkered media narrative that exists in relation to covid, and allow a wider range of thoughts and opinions to get out.

In order to accomplish this, the celebrities have interviewed a large number of doctors and scientists who have thus far been sidelined by the mainstream media, and put the interviews up on their site allesaufdentisch.tv. The campaign appears to have been pretty effective so far, since the site crashed on launch due to the massive amount of traffic it was getting. Luckily it’s up and running again now. As a part of the campaign, I was interviewed by violinist Linus Roth. We talked about happenings in Sweden, the covid death rate, and lockdowns. The interview is short but sweet, only around twenty minutes long.

October 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccine Effectiveness Hits as Low as Minus-66% in the Over 40s, New PHE Data Shows

By Will Jones • The Daily Sceptic • October 3, 2021

The new Public Health England (PHE) Vaccine Surveillance report was released on Thursday, allowing us to update our estimates of unadjusted vaccine effectiveness from real-world data.

Oddly, the report appeared on a new webpage this week, but the old page didn’t include a note to let you know, so it took me a while to discover it had appeared and where it was.

Following last week’s ‘fact check‘ from Full Fatuous – ostensibly of my piece but with some words of admonition for PHE as well, particularly over the accuracy of the population data – a new note appeared in the report: “Interpretation of the case rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated population is particularly susceptible to changes in denominators and should be interpreted with extra caution.” So there you go. All estimates in this post are based on the data PHE uses and are valid insofar as that data is accurate.

As before, the data is just for a four-week period, which, given that the early part of the Delta surge was dominated by the unvaccinated and the latter part has seen infections rise in the vaccinated, seems to me a mistake. A fairer view would cover the whole Delta surge (as with the estimates I make from the data in the Technical Briefings), but in any case the report gives a snapshot of current relative infection rates.

As Full Fatuous pointed out, PHE don’t recommend using this data to estimate vaccine effectiveness, saying it’s “not the most appropriate method” because it’s unadjusted for risk factors (and, inevitably, they don’t provide the data you’d need to adjust it). However, even if not recommended by PHE, it is certainly a valid method of calculating vaccine effectiveness, which is just a figure which states the relative risk reduction in the vaccinated group, as long as you bear in mind its limitations. All vaccine effectiveness estimates have limitations, and while adjusting for confounding factors is in principle important, it is helpful only if done well, and many studies do not do it well. Unadjusted estimates from raw data are a necessary starting point.

Perhaps the key confounder for the estimates of vaccine effectiveness against infection given here is whether people have been previously infected, with a common assumption being that a higher proportion of the unvaccinated will be previously infected, due to it being a potential factor in people’s decision not to be vaccinated. This may well artificially lower the vaccine effectiveness estimates, but since no one has yet produced data showing how antibodies-from-infection split between vaccinated and unvaccinated it is hard to know how far this is the case.

Unvaccinated here means actually unvaccinated, not partially vaccinated or post-jab. Hospitalisation means “cases presenting to emergency care (within 28 days of a positive specimen) resulting in an overnight inpatient admission”.

As England’s drawn-out Delta outbreak drags on, the infection rates in the vaccinated continue to outpace those in the unvaccinated, reducing (unadjusted) vaccine effectiveness further. For the 60s age group, infection rates are 63% higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated, up from 53% last week, giving an (unadjusted) vaccine effectiveness of minus-63%. But that has been topped this week by the 40s age group, the vaccinated among whom now have an infection rate no less than 66% higher than the unvaccinated, up from 46% in last week’s report and 27% in the report for the month ending September 5th. Vaccine effectiveness has been heading downward in the 30s age group as well, now just 8%, though interestingly it has actually been increasing in the under 18s. On this data, vaccine protection against serious illness and death appears to be holding up. I have included the two previous tables below for comparison.

With infection rates now, on this data, much higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, what remaining justification can there be for vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, and any other policy based on the assumption that vaccines protect other people? When will the Government face up to the reality that vaccines provide poor protection against infection, poor protection against transmission, and thus poor protection of others, and so there is no justification for continuing to build-up the infrastructure of a two-tier, discriminatory state?

October 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

This Week in the New Normal #7

OffGuardian | October 3, 2021

This Week in the New Normal  is our weekly chart of the progress of autocracy, authoritarianism and economic restructuring around the world.

1.THE WORST ARTICLE I’VE EVER READ.

The demonisation campaign against those who decline to partake in the untested gene therapy is pervasive and seemingly limitless. Article’s pop up claiming unvaxxed people should be banned from flying, banned from healthcare, banned from state benefits, and even fired from their jobs.

But this article in The Mirror is the worst of the worst. Quite honestly the worst, most hate-filled and insidious article I have ever read, and it is literally my job to search out and read hate-filled and insidious articles.

It’s titled:

Anti-vaxxers want to kill your babies, stage a coup and cause another lockdown!”

… and you don’t really need any more information than that. Read at your own risk.

2. THE RETURN OF LAB-GROWN MEAT

… well, not “the return” exactly, because it never went away. I guess “resurgence” is the better word. There’s certainly a sudden bump in the coverage.

The Guardian “asks the expert” if lab-grown meat will replace the real thing. The “expert” in question makes and sells lab-grown meat and, rather unsurprisingly, they say “yes!”.

And then the Times, with a tone of reluctant surrender, tells us we “must embrace lab-grown meat” whether “we like it or not”.

At the same time, Sky hosts a “climate debate” on lab-grown meat. One of those fake “debates” which serves a pre-determined agenda by basing a staged disagreement on fundamental assumptions which neither side questions.

In this case, it’s just assumed that LGM is good for the planet, and that actual meat is bad for it. Neither of those things are proven to be true.

But good news everyone! Your genetically synthesised meat-like protein paste is one step closer…whether you like it not.

3. “TREAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS SERIOUSLY AS TERRORISM”

The result of the Sarah Everard trial in the UK has kicked off a wave of fear-based propaganda concerning just how much violence against women goes on, and what we need to do about it. Over and over again a list of very predictable names in very predictable publications talk up the idea that women are “still not safe”, or never “feel safe” (which is not the same thing).

Clearly, any murder is a tragedy for the victim and their family, but to present our country, or society, as inherently violent or dangerous is completely disengenuous.

Let’s just check the stats, for the sake of reality.

In the UK, and most of the Western world, violent crime has been generally on the decline for decades. In 2019, EU statistics found a 32% drop in homicides since 2008. In 2020, the UK suffered ~750 murders in a population of 68 million people, meaning a crude murder rate of 0.001% (or 1 per 100,000). Less than one-third of those killed were women, and only 20% of them were attacked on the street.

Our society is not perfect, but violent crime (against either gender) has literally never been less of a danger in the history of the country. In terms of violent crime, the streets are as safe for women as they have ever been. If they don’t feel safe, well that’s probably because the media keep telling them how much “danger” they’re in.

But why? Why the massive exaggeration of the danger? And why the clarion calls for “action” on violence against women?

Well, the same exact reasons behind the “pandemic” narrative. Because hysteria is always useful. Because the people in charge need us to be afraid all the time. Because they want to make sure different genders, races and orientations are constantly mistrustful of one another. And, obviously, because it can be manipulated into increased powers for the state.

Social media companies are already being pressured to “do more to protect women”. After Everard’s murder first in the news in March, people were suggesting male-only curfews so women feel safe on the streets. If Covid has taught us anything, it’s that well-stoked public panic can be parlayed into exactly that kind of insane policy.

The title of this section is taken from a tweet by British Labour MP David Lammy:

It’s not clear what (if anything) David means by this. It’s entirely possible he’s just an idiot playing to the gallery, but anyone familiar with the real purpose, and disastrous societal fallout, of the “War on Terror” should probably be concerned about just how far those in charge could go to (allegedly) “make women feel safe.”

BONUS: THE TOTALLY-NOT-A-CULT OF THE WEEK

Just want to point out that the vaccine-pushers of the New Normal are totally not in a cult.

Whether it’s dressing up dancers like syringes to prance around with glassy-eyed soul-dead TV hosts:

Or literally citing God as the source of the vaccine:

This is all very normal behaviour, and if you perceive it as creepy or cultlike, it’s only because you are a heretic…sorry, I mean a science denier.

BONUS II: PROJECTION OF THE WEEK

For those of you who don’t know who Keith Olbermann is, well I envy you..and apologise for introducing you to his existence. He’s a petty, ill-informed, opinionated loudmouth who takes up irrational and bigoted positions on pretty much everything, and trumpets those views loudly to anyone who’ll listen.

And yesterday, he tweeted this…

It takes a serious lack of self-awareness to get your third untested vaccination against a disease you have a 99.5% chance of surviving, and then lambast everyone not worried about the disease for being scaredy cats.

IT’S NOT ALL BAD…

The world of sport, especially American sports, is somewhat of a hotbed of “vaccine hesitancy”. This is down to several factors, most probably to do with many US athletes coming from working-class demographics with longstanding (and entirely justified) suspicions of both the media and big pharma.

By way of contrast with Olbermann’s spittle-spraying diatribe, we present the calm and rational position of NBA star Jonathan Isaac, speaking at a press conference on September 27th:

The NBA has already said they will dock the pay of unvaxxed players who refuse to comply with local mandates. And both the NBA and NFL have put in place massive restrictions on unvaccinated players to pressure them into getting the shot. The media, likewise, is piling on the pressure to conform.

All the players resisting in the face of such a powerful campaign deserve respect. And they serve as a reminder that Covid sceptics, or even just those people who want nothing to do with the vaccine, are not anything like the tiny minority the media tries to pretend we are. And our arguments are rational and informed, not based on the insults and mindless frothing outrage of those trying to pressure us into conforming.

All told a pretty hectic week for the new normal crowd, and we didn’t even mention the “mysterious rise in heart attacks” or the UK’s entirely manufactured “fuel crisis”.

October 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Hospitals Should Hire, Not Fire, Nurses with Natural Immunity

BY MARTIN KULLDORFF | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | OCTOBER 1, 2021

Among many surprising developments during this pandemic, the most stunning has been the questioning of naturally acquired immunity after a person has had the Covid disease.

We have understood natural immunity since at least the Athenian Plague in 430 BC. Here is Thucydides:

‘Yet it was with those who had recovered from the disease that the sick and the dying found most compassion. These knew what it was from experience and had no fear for themselves; for the same man was never attacked twice—never at least fatally.’ – Thucydides

We have lived with endemic coronaviruses for at least a hundred years, for which we have long-lasting natural immunity. As expected, we also have natural immunity after Covid-19 disease, as there have been exceedingly few reinfections with serious illness or death, despite a widely circulating virus.

For most viruses, natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity, and that is also true for Covid. In the best study to date, the vaccinated were around 27 times more likely to have symptomatic disease than those with natural immunity, with an estimated range between 13 and 57. With no Covid deaths in either group, both natural and vaccine immunity protect well against death.

During the last decade, I have worked closely with hospital epidemiologists. While the role of physicians is to treat patients and make them well, the task of the hospital epidemiologist is to ensure that patients do not get sick while in the hospital, such as catching a deadly virus from another patient or a caretaker.

For that purpose, hospitals employ a variety of measures, from frequent hand washing to full infection control regalia when caring for an Ebola patient. Vaccinations are a key component of these control efforts. For example, two weeks before spleen surgery, patients are given the pneumococcal vaccine to minimize postoperative infections, and most clinical staff are immunized against influenza every year.

Infection control measures are especially critical for older frail hospital patients with a weakened immune system. They can become infected and die from a virus that most people would easily survive. A key rationale for immunizing nurses and physicians against influenza is to ensure that they do not infect such patients.

How can hospitals best protect their patients from Covid disease? It is an enormously important question, also relevant for nursing homes. There are some obvious standard solutions, such as separating Covid patients from other patients, minimizing staff rotation, and providing generous sick leave for staff with Covid-like symptoms.

Another goal should be to employ staff with the strongest possible immunity against Covid, as they are less likely to catch it and spread it to their patients. This means that hospitals and nursing homes should actively seek to hire staff that have natural immunity from prior Covid disease and use such staff for their most vulnerable patients.

Hence, we are now seeing a fierce competition where hospitals and nursing homes are desperately trying to hire people with natural immunity. Well, actually, not.

Instead, hospitals are firing nurses and other staff with superior natural immunity while retaining those with weaker vaccine-induced immunity. By doing so, they are betraying their patients, increasing their risk for hospital-acquired infections.

By pushing vaccine mandates, White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci is questioning the existence of natural immunity after Covid disease. In doing so, he is following the lead of CDC director Rochelle Walensky, who questioned natural immunity in a 2020 Memorandum published by The Lancet. By instituting vaccine mandates, university hospitals are now also questioning the existence of natural immunity after Covid disease.

This is astonishing.

I work at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, which has announced that all nurses, doctors and other health care providers will be fired if they do not get a Covid vaccine. Last week I spoke with one of our nurses. She worked hard caring for Covid patients, even as some of her colleagues left in fear at the beginning of the pandemic.

Unsurprisingly, she got infected, but then recovered. Now she has stronger and longer-lasting immunity than the vaccinated work-from-home hospital administrators who are firing her for not being vaccinated.

If university hospitals cannot get the medical evidence right on the basic science of immunity, how can we trust them with any other aspects of our health?

What’s next? Universities questioning whether the earth is round or flat? That, at least, would do less harm.

Martin Kulldorff, Senior Scholar of Brownstone Institute, is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. kulldorff@brownstone.org

October 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Rep. Adam Schiff says YouTube’s ban of vaccine skepticism doesn’t go far enough

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | October 2, 2021

Rep. Adam Schiff praised YouTube’s decision to ban all vaccine skepticism but said it was not the “end of our fight against misinformation.”

On Wednesday afternoon, YouTube announced that it will ban all vaccine skepticism to stop the spread of what it says is misinformation. The ban not only applies to COVID vaccines but also any other vaccines that pharmaceutical companies produce.

While making the announcement, YouTube said: “Today’s policy update is an important step to address vaccine and health misinformation on our platform, and we’ll continue to invest across the board.”

YouTube’s decision was applauded by many, including Rep. Adam Schiff.

“YouTube’s curbing of anti-vaccine content is a strong first step,” the Democrat congressman wrote on Twitter. But this doesn’t mark the end of our fight against deadly misinformation. These policies must be enforced. And we must keep pushing for other companies to follow suit. What do you say, @Amazon and @Facebook?” hinting at his demands for more censorship.

October 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

YouTube Bans Mercola, Others Without Warning but Tips Off Media First

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | October 1, 2021

In a move to override the First Amendment with its own interpretation of what constitutes free speech, YouTube spent the last few days of September planning and executing a coup that included notifying major media of what they were doing before they pulled it off.

The coup was a sudden strike against Mercola.com, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and others whose channels YouTube decided to shut down without as much as a single word of warning — except to news agencies that obviously were tipped off in advance.

According to the Washington Post, YouTube was specifically targeting channels “associated with high-profile anti-vaccine activists … who experts say are partially responsible for helping seed the skepticism that’s contributed to slowing vaccination rates across the country.”

Early in the work day September 29, the Post gave Dr. Mercola exactly 23 minutes to respond to a story they had to have already had written about. They contacted Mercola’s media department just after 9 a.m.; they broke the story at 9:35 a.m.

CNBC’s Jim Forkin must have had a tip too, from YouTube, as he contacted Mercola at 9:12 a.m., with just two sentences: “Have your videos been removed from YouTube?” and “Do you have a statement or comment?”

YouTube, meanwhile, quietly changed their policies regarding who gets to publish on their server and who gets banned. It was a deviously brilliant move: Just change the rules to match the (previously compliant) content of the individuals you want to remove, and provide users no time to remain in compliance of the new rules.

October 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Israel officials intervene to have US academic removed

MEMO | October 1, 2021

Israeli diplomats reportedly put pressure on the dean of a US university to have a teacher critical of the occupation state removed using allegations of anti-Semitism. Details of the intervention by Israeli consular officials, in what has been slammed as another example of the gross interference by a foreign state, were reported by the Intercept.

Israeli consular officials in the southeast US arranged meetings with a dean at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to remove graduate student, Kylie Broderick, from teaching the history department course called ‘The Conflict over Israel/Palestine’. Details of the visit by Israeli officials are said to have been exposed by two UNC professors who had knowledge of the meeting.

The intervention by the Israeli officials followed a pressure campaign by right-wing pro-Israel websites and an advocacy group who pointed to postings Broderick had made on Twitter that criticised Israel and Zionism and, without evidence, cited the postings as evidence of anti-Semitism.

Over the past few years there has been a concerted campaign to conflate anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel using the adoption of a highly controversial definition of racism known as the International Holocaust Definition of anti-Semitism. Seven of the 11 examples of anti-Semitism cited in the IHRA conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Critics have argued that its adoption has had a chilling effect on all levels of society especially in universities and campuses.

The two UNC professors revealed that in addition to the intervention by the Israeli government, the university faced pressure from a member of the US House of Representatives.

“It is not a new phenomenon where outside parties have tried to stifle academic freedom on this subject,” Broderick is reported saying. “But these people have never seen me teach, never seen my past evaluations which have said that I treat students fairly, and thus have no right to dictate what I say inside the classroom.”

“I think that a representative of a foreign government attempting to police an academic class is, in the first place, ridiculous, and an obvious overreaction to what is essentially an issue that started on Twitter,” Broderick added. “I also think it is strange that the Israeli consulate general was granted an audience. If this was a class on Hungary or Australia, would the university have permitted the attempted interference of a foreign government? The fact that this meeting happened at all is clearly a threat to academic freedom.”

October 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Rand Paul Blasts Biden Health Secretary; “This Is An Arrogance Coupled With An Authoritarianism That Is Unseemly And Un-American”

“You sir, are the one ignoring the science.”

By Steve Watson | Summit News | October 1, 2021

Senator Rand Paul berated Joe Biden’s Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra Thursday, accusing him of ignoring science and displaying authoritarianism by denying Americans the right to take their own medical decisions.

The Senator specifically addressed the government’s refusal to accept that natural immunity to COVID is as effective, and probably more effective, than current vaccines, as well as Becerra’s own description of those who have pointed out this fact as ‘flat earthers’.

Paul charged Becerra with “insulting the millions of Americans, including NBA star Johnathan Isaac who’ve had COVID and recovered.”

Referring to a recent Israeli study that found vaccinated people are up to seven times more likely to get COVID-19 than those who have natural immunity, Paul told Becerra that Americans should be allowed to take a “Look at a study with 2.5 million people and say ‘you know what? Looks like my immunity is as good as the vaccine’ or not.

“Maybe in a free country, I ought to be able to make that decision,” Paul urged.

“Instead, you’ve chosen to travel the country calling people like Johnathan Isaac, and others, myself included, flat-earthers,” the Senator continued, adding “We find that very insulting. It goes against the science.”

Paul then asked Becerra if he was a qualified medical doctor, knowing that he isn’t.

“So you’re not a medical doctor. Do you have a science degree?” Paul further questioned, knowing that Becerra doesn’t.

“You alone are on high and you’ve made these decisions, a lawyer with no scientific background, no medical degree…this is an arrogance coupled with an authoritarianism that is unseemly and un-American,” Paul blasted.

“You sir, are the one ignoring the science. The vast preponderance of scientific studies, dozens and dozens, show robust, long-lasting immunity after infection,” the Senator further charged, demanding that Becerra should apologise for being dishonest.

Watch:

At the beginning of the video Paul warns that YouTube will likely pull it down and censor him again for daring to stray from the government narrative. The Senator noted that the footage is also up on Rumble, and will remain there.

October 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , | Leave a comment

The Ultimate Drug-War Crackdown

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | October 1, 2021

Throughout the long sordid history of America’s war on drugs, drug-war proponents have claimed that if only government officials would really crack down on drug use and drug distribution, the decades-old war on drugs could finally — finally! — be won.

But one big problem is that throughout the decades of drug warfare, there have been crackdowns — big crackdowns.

Many federal judges, for example, some of whom have considered themselves to be fierce drug warriors, have long imposed maximum jail sentences on drug-law violators.

Congress itself has gotten involved in drug-war crackdowns, for example by mandating that federal judges, some of whom weren’t proving tough enough, mete out “mandatory minimum sentences” for drug violators.

There is also the asset-forfeiture racket to consider, a program that entitles DEA officers and state and local cops to steal money from people who are suspected of violating drug laws.

There has been the extradition of Latin American drug lords to the United States, followed by long jail sentences in American prisons.

And of course, there has been the racist component to the drug war, by which cops have used drug laws to stop, search, frame, and harass blacks.

Obviously, those crackdowns didn’t end up winning the war on drugs. On the contrary, the war on drugs is as far away from being won as it’s ever been.

And then came Rodrigo Duterte, the elected dictator of the Philippines and an absolute favorite among American drug warriors. Having been elected in 2016, Duterte announced that he was going to win the war on drugs in the Philippines.

Today, five years later, Duterte is under investigation by the International Criminal Court, which is alleging that Philippine police have killed 6,100 suspects in drug trafficking raids.

Notice the operative word: “suspects.” None of these dead people ever had a trial. None of them were ever convicted. They were just killed.

Moreover, that 6,100 figure might be an extremely low estimate. According to an article in Laprensalatina.com, “Human rights groups speak of between 27,000 and 30,000 dead, mostly victims of alleged extrajudicial executions.” The article also points out that the “victims include 112 children, according to a report published in 2020 by the World Organization Against Torture.”

Duterte is claiming that he’s innocent, but if he isn’t, his system has to be considered the ultimate drug-war crackdown. Just think about it. No constitutional technicalities to follow. No reading of Miranda rights. No criminal defense attorneys. No due process of law. No jury trials.

Just imagine U.S. officials establishing a system in which the cops are empowered to kill anyone they suspect is violating the drug laws. What could be better than that, at least from the perspective of a drug-war proponent, right?

Well, except for one thing. They still haven’t won the drug war in the Philippines! They’re still fighting. And from the way things look, they will be fighting forever, just like American drug warriors!

If the killing spree in the Philippines hasn’t worked to win the war on drugs, isn’t that a good sign that no crackdown, no matter how vicious, can ever succeed in winning the war on drugs?

I suppose a drug-war proponent could say, “Jacob, bring in the military and have them fight the drug war as viciously as they fought the Taliban.” But at the risk of belaboring the obvious, the military lost its war against the Taliban. Moreover, when Mexico used its military to fight to the drug war, the results was tens of thousands of innocent people killed, with no end in sight to the drug war.

I’ve got a better idea, a libertarian idea: Let’s just end the drug war by legalizing all drugs. No more drug-war searches, arrests, harassment, incarceration, or killings. Just leave people free to ingest whatever they want. Leave drug rehabilitation to private groups, like Alcoholics Anonymous.

Legalizing drugs would immediately put all drug lords out of business because they couldn’t compete against legitimate pharmacies and other businesses. It would enable drug addicts to secure sound drugs rather than the polluted drugs that they are forced to buy on the black market and that often lead to their deaths. It would encourage people with drug problems to openly seek treatment. And it would put the entire drug-war enforcement bureaucracy out of business, which would save taxpayers a ton of money.

No crackdown, no matter how vicious, will ever end up winning the war on drugs. The drug war will continue to destroy our civil liberties and bring ever-increasing violence to our land.

More important though is a fundamental principle of liberty: People have the fundamental right to ingest whatever they want, no matter how harmful.

For those two reasons — the futility of winning the war on drugs and the freedom of the individual — there is no reason for Congress or the states to continue the drug war one day longer. To move toward a free, peaceful, prosperous, healthy, and harmonious society, they need to legalize drugs — all drugs — now.

October 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

French President Macron criticized for creating online “thought police” task force

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 30, 2021

The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, has come under fire after forming a committee against online speech that critics are already calling the “thought police.” According to Macron, he considers “conspiracy theories” a “poison” to society.

Macron claimed in an interview that conspiracy theories are a “key problem” for France and that he’s fighting against the idea that “all views are equal, that those of someone who is not a specialist but who has an opinion on the coronavirus are just as valid as those of a scientist.”

However, some have blasted the president for trying to impose an official narrative to secure a second presidency against conservative populists such Marine Le Pen.

François Bernard Huyghe, a political scientist at the Institute of Strategic and International Affairs in Paris, has criticized the president’s commission.

“I don’t think that multiplying laws, censoring social media accounts or treating people as cretins is the solution. It provokes the opposite effect to the one desired and the feeling that something is being hidden,” Huyghe stated in The Times.

Members of the committee will include 15 academics, as well as journalists, teachers and lawyers. Mr Macron asked them to submit a report on these topics, along with algorithms that are “enslaving the public.”

However, the chair of the commission, Gerald Bronner has denied all claims in involvement with the effect of the “thought police”, stating that “There is no question of censorship but of strengthening the space for common debates that are increasingly threatened by a succession of opinions.”

October 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

UK: NOW COVID POLICE ARE TAKING YOUR KIDS – A MESSAGE TO ALL PARENTS

99 Percent | September 30, 2021

October 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Video, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

It appears the Canadian military’s covert Covid propaganda operation has made unjabbed citizens enemies of the state

By Rachel Marsden | RT | September 30, 2021

The shocking revelation that the armed forces implemented a secret information campaign in 2020 to brainwash people over the pandemic is proof of deliberate intent to quash critical and independent thought and freedoms.

As a Canadian citizen who recovered from Covid and acquired natural immunity and antibodies without the anti-Covid vaccine, the government doesn’t much appreciate my narrative.

Proof lies in the fact that when I arrived back home in Vancouver from my work base in Europe in August, the federal government demanded that I pay for my own three-day imprisonment in a government mandated facility at a cost of up to $2,000. Refusal resulted in being ordered in writing to immediately get back on a plane and leave my own country under threat of penalties up to and including imprisonment. All because my acquired immunity didn’t jibe with the government’s “one size fits all” two-jab narrative.

Now I’ve learned that the Canadian military was deployed against unconventional and inconvenient narratives like mine in favor of lockstep groupthink. Does that make me an enemy of the state?

The Canadian military’s Joint Operations Command implemented a propaganda campaign in April 2020 with the intent to manipulate unsuspecting Canadians into falling in line with the federal government’s official positions on Covid-19. The brainwashing operation’s termination was ordered a month later, but in the meantime, it “relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghanistan war,” according to the Ottawa Citizen’s exclusive report on documents obtained under Access to Information.

The operation’s aim, according to the military, was to “head off civil disobedience by Canadians during the coronavirus pandemic and to bolster government messages about the pandemic.”

Generally, government intelligence operations rely on ear-bending friendly journalists and think-tank analysts to publish the state’s talking points in mainstream publications or online. Washington Post journalist Carl Bernstein, best-known for breaking the Watergate scandal, wrote in a Rolling Stone magazine article titled “The CIA and the Media,” back in 1977, how the CIA used “journalist-operatives” to “plant subtly concocted pieces of misinformation.”

He further noted: “There are perhaps a dozen well known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as ‘known assets’ and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects.”

Another known tactic used by military intelligence to manipulate its own country’s citizens is to send out retired generals to spew talking points on various media platforms. In 2008, the Los Angeles Times wrote of the Pentagon’s Iraq War era “message multipliers” program. At the time, Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes had introduced an amendment – overwhelmingly adopted – to investigate the Pentagon’s public opinion manipulation program, unveiled by the New York Times as “cultivating former military officers who became regulars on Fox News, CNN and the broadcast networks.”

“They were fed administration talking points, believing they were getting independent military analysis,” Hodes said at the time of the public manipulation campaign.

So despite the Ottawa Citizen’s reporting that the program was officially quashed one month after its deployment, we really don’t know how much damage was done and to what extent the propaganda distribution it sparked may have since become autonomous and taken on a life of its own.

Canadians now need to know exactly what “government messages” were propagandized and where, and what “enemy narratives” were targeted for smears. Only then is it possible for the public to assess how much of the current conventional wisdom is the result of deliberate boosting or suppressing.

It’s a sad fact that the Canadian military has seen fit to use similar techniques to those that US intelligence has long deployed on foreign opponents. Declassified US intelligence manuals drafted in 1987 show that both the Pentagon and the CIA used similar propaganda techniques in Latin America, with the aim of indiscriminately brainwashing both civilians and guerrillas to support the US-backed movements. And like with the Canadian military campaign, it involved monitoring innocent people for their thoughts and beliefs while minimizing consideration of both basic human rights and the rule of law.

Lest we forget that Canadians were also victims of some of the most egregious brainwashing experimentation under the CIA-led MK-Ultra program to test various mind control methods, including LSD, sensory deprivation, and electroshock therapy, on unwitting Canadians at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal between 1957 and 1964.

We really have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes with this recent revelation that Canadians were once again treated as experimental guinea pigs – this time in the interest of quashing critical thinking or dissent amid the pandemic. What we do see, however, it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg, and that its aim of creating a compliant citizenry has been successful.

More than three in four double-jabbed Canadians consider their unjabbed fellow citizens selfish and irresponsible, according to a new Leger poll. If they’re jabbed, and they have so much confidence in the jab preventing them getting ill, then what do they care what anyone else does? How much has the Canadian military and government propaganda played a role in shaping their views?

The whole truth about the extent of this psychological abuse of innocent Canadian civilians needs to come out – if only so the manipulated can see to what extent they were coerced into turning against their fellow citizens for simply making a different personal choice in what, after all, is supposed to still be a free and democratic country.

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and host of an independently produced French-language program that airs on Sputnik France. Her website can be found at rachelmarsden.com

September 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »