WASHINGTON – Former US President Donald Trump has accused the US Department of Justice (DOJ) of corruption and of making false allegations against him.
“The ‘Justice’ Department is CORRUPT. Offered Christopher Steele $1,000,000 to lie about me, paid Russian a fortune to ‘get Trump,’ told Facebook not to mention the Hunter Biden Laptop before the Election, ‘it was Russian disinformation,’ when they KNEW it was not,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Sunday.
Last month, Trump said that the decision by a US jury to acquit Russian national Igor Danchenko on charges of lying to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding the Trump-Russia collusion probe shows the disgraceful nature of the US justice system.
The case against Danchenko started last November, when he pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to the FBI about his role in the discredited “Steele Dossier” used to allege collusion between Trump and the Kremlin during the 2018 US presidential election.
The prosecution contended that Danchenko lied to the authorities about the sources of information given to former British spy Christopher Steele for the dossier on purported contacts between Trump and Russian officials. The indictment against Danchenko accused him of fabricating the information.
A Special Counsel investigation did not find any proof of collusion between Trump and Russia.
Senior FBI intelligence analyst Brian Auten testified in court in October that the FBI had offered $1 million to Steele to provide evidence to back his allegations.
The newly elected Premier Danielle Smith of the province of Alberta in Canada has recently made several powerful statements against the globalist foundation World Economic Forum and its leader Klaus Schwab. She has also decided to cancel a strange consulting agreement that WEF had with the province.
The now-revealed collaboration began in the middle of the alleged Corona pandemic and contributed to the draconian restrictions and lockdowns Canadians were subjected to. There are also those who believe that it is part of something much bigger. At the same time, she demanded that the Trudeau administration end the agenda-driven carbon tax.
On October 11, Danielle Smith was sworn in as Premier of the oil-producing province of Alberta in Canada. It came just five days after she won the leadership election of her United Conservative Party (UCP), largely on promises to stand up to the federal government in Ottawa led by the increasingly unpopular Justin Trudeau.
Trudeau has been leader of the Liberal Party of Canada since 2013 and Prime Minister of Canada since 2015. He distinguished himself during the alleged Corona pandemic as one of the most tyrannical leaders in the world, violently cracking down on peaceful popular protests. Trudeau is a member of the notorious globalist organization World Economic Forum (WEF) elite school Young Global Leaders (YGL).
YGL is a leadership program within the WEF, where politicians are schooled and initiated into the globalists’ plans and are then helped into leadership positions.
‘I find it offensive’
On October 24, barely two weeks after taking office, Danielle Smith made a move that sent the establishment in Canada into a tailspin. The new Premier harshly criticized the WEF and its chairman and founder Klaus Schwab.
“I find it uncomfortable when billionaires brag about how much control they have over political leaders like the head [Schwab] of that organization [WEF] has,” Smith said after a ceremony where her ministers were sworn in to the new provincial government.
“I find it offensive. The people who should be running the [provincial] government are the people who vote for them. And the people who vote for me and my colleagues are people who live in Alberta and who are affected by our decisions,” explained the Premier.
“So quite frankly, until that organization [WEF] stops bragging about how much control they have over political leaders, I have no interest in being involved with them. My focus is here in Alberta, to solve problems for the people of Alberta, with the mandate I received from the people of Alberta,” said Smith, announcing the suspension of the province’s cooperation with the globalist foundation.
Alberta’s new leader was referring to provocative statements made by WEF chief Klaus Schwab. One of these that specifically concerned Canada was done in 2017 at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics where political commentator David Gergen interviewed Schwab. The WEF chief then said that his organization had “infiltrated governments” all over the world. A visibly proud Schwab then also named several heads of state, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as examples of the WEF’s global power and influence.
“Yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I learned that half of his ministers or even more than half are actually our Young Global Leaders (YGL) of the World Economic Forum,” said the arch-globalist Schwab.
WEF health experts?
Danielle Smith further revealed that it has emerged that the province of Alberta has a cooperation agreement with the globalist foundation WEF, something she wanted to end right away.
“They signed a kind of partnership with the World Economic Forum in the middle of the pandemic; we have to deal with it. Why on earth do we have anything to do with the World Economic Forum? It must end,” the new Premier declared firmly.
She was immediately harshly attacked by mainstream media in Canada, who accused her of espousing “extreme right-wing conspiracy theories”, while mainstream media abroad tried to black out her statements.
Many Canadians were surprised to learn that the globalist organization WEF had a direct contract with one of their provincial governments. They were even more surprised when they heard what the agreement was. It did not concern consultation regarding economic issues or even “Agenda 2030 and the global goals for sustainable development”, where the WEF works closely with the UN – or as many critics believe rather dictates to the UN.
Instead, it turned out that early in the alleged 2020 Corona pandemic, the WEF stepped in as health consultants to effectively dictate the pandemic measures taken by the Canadian province of Alberta’s health authority, Alberta Health Services (AHS). Danielle Smith has been a strong critic of this authority and how it, like the previous provincial government, handled the pandemic.
On October 21, ten days after taking office as prime minister and three days before the sensational announcement, Smith commented during the “Question Period with Premier Danielle Smith” on the Western Standard media website that the health authority AHS would be held accountable for both the cooperation with the WEF and the “health councils” which they had given to the provincial government over the last two years. Canada stood out during the pandemic as one of the countries that had the most repressive restrictions and lockdowns in the world. Not least, vaccine-free citizens were grossly discriminated against.
“I think Alberta Health Services is the source of many of the problems we’ve had,” explained Smith, who also described the cooperation with the WEF as “useless”.
Many Albertans were well aware that the health authority AHS was driving the very unpopular restrictions and regulations, as were many other health authorities around the world, but they did not know that the globalist organization WEF was the one pulling the strings. It came as a shock to many and some questioned how the WEF could contribute medical expertise.
Some pundits also cited the example of globalist billionaire Bill Gates, who has been portrayed by the establishment and its media as a pandemic expert in general and a vaccine expert in particular, despite his lack of a relevant education, and where his only direct link is that he has earned multi-billion sums from investing in vaccines in particular.
Globalist puppets
However, there are those who believe that the secret agreement is part of something bigger that is happening beyond public knowledge. One of these is George Gammon, an economist and analyst who made a name for himself by explaining complex economic and political events in an accurate and easy-to-understand manner.
He commented on the news that the WEF had a consulting engagement – on health issues – with the Canadian province of Alberta in a November 5 interview with Daniela Cambone. He did not express the same surprise as many others, but stated that the heads of state and ministers who are in power today have the WEF and its head Schwab to thank for it, that is to say, they are indebted and possibly even dependent on them.
They devote large amounts of their countries’ tax dollars to covert programs that involve the WEF in such a way that the globalist organization can directly influence the country’s policies on issues important to them in order to drive their globalist agenda forward.
Economist Gammon further explained that the arrangement not only brought global power but also revenue to the WEF, which is on paper a Swiss non-profit foundation, and thus also to Schwab personally. These not infrequently very large amounts can then be used to train new leaders in the elite Young Global Leaders (YGL) school, and so on.
For the WEF it is a win-win situation, while for the taxpayers in Canada and other countries it is a double loss, where they lose both their tax money and, in the case of the Corona response, freedoms. Gammon concluded by pointing out that it is probably a common scheme in several countries and described it as pure fraud.
“This is the scam that is going on right now and it is something that most people are not aware of,” said Gammon about the WEF-Alberta agreement
‘Hostile politics’
On November 10, Premier Smith tweeted: “It is time to put people’s needs before politics. I have asked Prime Minister @justintrudeau to consider the financial hardships facing so many Canadian families right now.”
The Prime Minister’s tweet referred to a letter she had sent to Justin Trudeau the day before. In it, she stated that the number one problem for Albertans and all Canadians was the rapidly rising cost of living. Smith wrote that “with runaway inflation, many Canadians are struggling to feed their families, pay their rent and utility bills, and afford to get to work.”
She asked Trudeau to change course: “The long-term solution to this cost-of-living crisis involves the federal government changing course to actively promote and deliver more affordable, reliable and responsibly produced energy and food. Current federal energy and agricultural policies have the opposite effect”.
Critics believe that these nefarious policies are also dictated by the WEF.
Smith further wrote that her province of Alberta has already taken steps to deal with rising costs, including pausing the fuel tax and subsidizing electricity and natural gas. She urged Trudeau to do the same and completely eliminate the federal carbon tax, which Trudeau instead wants to raise further. Smith further wrote that “the answer to reducing emissions is not more taxes on consumers or limiting economic growth in our food and energy sectors”.
Later, she sent out another tweet reiterating the main points of the two-page letter: “The carbon tax is hurting Canadians. Families and businesses need a reprieve from high utility bills, prohibitively expensive food and rising gas prices. It is time to end the carbon tax.”
The next day, on November 11, she called the Trudeau administration hostile in a new tweet: “Today our [provincial] government took a step forward to stand up and defend Alberta’s interests against hostile federal government legislation and policies.”
Alberta’s Deputy Premier, Kaycee Madu, has also been highly critical of Ottawa’s “tyrannical” pandemic restrictions and also thanked the Freedom Convoy participants for their efforts to protest them. In a tweet on September 20, he wrote that the pandemic measures were “never about science but about political control and power”.
He saluted all the Canadians who at the beginning of the year stood up against the oppression of the WEF-schooled Trudeau in the name of public health: “Thank you to all those citizens of the Freedom Convoy who had the courage to mobilize against this tyrannical policy. They endured much hatred, abuse, suffering and slander for all of us. I thank them.”
There are many Canadians and people around the world who share his opinion of the brave who dared to stand up for freedom; despite having their bank accounts frozen, being threatened with having their vehicles impounded and ultimately in several cases enduring the brutality of the Trudeau regime.
The globalists and their handy politicians and journalists can now be expected to come down very hard on Smith and Madu, who have taken the side of their constituents and challenged the WEF and Trudeau – something very unusual in modern politics.
We are assured by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the G20, and their friends that pandemics pose an existential threat to our survival and well-being. Pandemics are becoming more common, and if we don’t move urgently we will have ourselves to blame for more mass death of the ‘next pandemic.’
The proof of this is the catastrophic harm done to the world by COVID-19, a repeat of which can only be prevented by transferring unprecedented funds and decision-making power to the care of public health institutions and their corporate partners. They have the resources, experience, knowledge and technical know-how to keep us safe.
This is a no-brainer, all of it, and only a fool who desires mass death would oppose it. But there are still people who claim that the link between the public health establishment and large corporations appears to be the only part of this narrative that withstands scrutiny.
If true, this would imply that we are being systematically deceived by our leaders, the health establishment, and most of our media; a ludicrous allegation in a free and democratic society. Only a fascist or otherwise totalitarian regime could run such a broad and inclusive deception, and only people with truly bad intent could nurture it.
So let’s hope such ‘appearances’ are deceptive. To believe that the premise behind our leaders’ Pandemic Preparedness and Response agenda is knowingly based on a set of complete fabrications would be a conspiracy theory too far. It would be too uncomfortable to accept that we are being deliberately misled by people we elected and the health establishment we trust; that the assurances of inclusivity, equity and tolerance are mere facades hiding fascists. We should examine the key claims supporting the pandemic agenda carefully and hope to find them credible.
Myth #1: Pandemics are becoming more common
In its 2019 pandemic influenza guidelines, the WHO listed 3 pandemics in the century between the 1918-20 Spanish flu and COVID-19. The Spanish flu killed mainly through secondary bacterial infections at a time before modern antibiotics. Today we would expect most of these people, many relatively young and fit, to survive.
The WHO subsequently recorded pandemic flu outbreaks in 1957-58 (‘Asian flu’) and 1968-69 (‘Hong Kong flu’). The Swine flu outbreak that occurred in 2009 was classed by WHO as a ‘pandemic’ but caused just 125,000 to 250,000 deaths. This is far less than a normal flu year and so hardly deserving of the pandemic label. Then we had COVID-19. That’s it for a whole century; one outbreak the WHO classifies as a pandemic per generation. Rare, or at least highly unusual, events.
Myth #2: Pandemics are a major cause of death
The Black Death, the Bubonic Plague that swept Europe in the 1300s, killed perhaps a third of the entire population. Repeat outbreaks over the following centuries caused similar harm, as had plagues known from Greek and Roman times. Even the Spanish flu did not compare with these. Life changed prior to antibiotics – including nutrition, accommodation, ventilation and sanitation – and these mass-mortality events subsided.
Since the Spanish flu we have developed an array of antibiotics that remain extremely effective against community-acquired pneumonia. Fit young people still die from influenza through secondary bacterial infection, but this is rare.
The WHO tells us there were 1.1 million deaths from the 1957-58 ‘Asian flu,’ and a million from the 1968-69 Hong Kong flu. In context, seasonal influenza kills between 250,000 and 650,000 people every year. As the global population was 3 to 3.5 billion when these two pandemics occurred, they classify as bad flu years killing about 1 in 700 mostly elderly people, with little influence on total deaths. They were treated as such, with the Woodstock Festival proceeding without super-spreader panic (regarding the virus, at least…).
COVID-19 has a higher associated mortality, but at an old average age equivalent to that of all-cause mortality, and is nearly always associated with comorbidities. Much mortality also occurred in the presence of the withdrawal of normal supportive care such as close nursing and physiotherapy, and intubation practices may have played a role.
Of the 6.5 million that the WHO records as dying from COVID-19, we don’t know how many would have died anyway from cancer, heart disease or the complications of diabetes mellitus and just happening to have a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. We don’t know because most authorities decided not to check, but recorded such deaths as being due to COVID-19. The WHO records about 15 million excess deaths throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, but this includes lockdown deaths (malnutrition, rising infectious disease, neonataldeath etc).
If we take the 6.5 million toll as likely, we can understand its context by comparing it with tuberculosis, a globally endemic respiratory disease that few worry about in their day-to-day lives. Tuberculosis kills about 1.5 million people every year, which is almost half the annual COVID-19 toll in 2020 and 2021. Tuberculosis kills far younger on average than COVID, removing more potential life-years with each death.
So based on normal metrics for disease burden, we could say they are roughly equivalent – COVID-19 has had an impact on life expectancy overall fairly similar to TB – worse in older populations in Western countries, far less in low-income countries. Even in the US COVID-19 was associated with less (and older) deaths in 2020-21 than normally occur from cancer and cardiovascular disease.
COVID-19 has not therefore been an existential threat to the life of many people. The infection mortality rate globally is probably around 0.15%, higher in the elderly, much lower in healthy young adults and children. It is not unreasonable to think that if standard medical knowledge had been followed, such as physiotherapy and mobility for frail elderly people and micronutrient supplementation for those at risk, the mortality rate may have been even lower.
Whatever one’s views on COVID-19 death definitions and management, it is unavoidable that death is rare in healthy younger people. Over the past century all pandemic deaths have been very low. Averaging less than 100,000 people per year inclusive of COVID-19, they are a small fraction of that caused by seasonal flu.
Myth #3: Diversion of resource to pandemic preparedness makes public health sense
The G20 has just agreed with the World Bank to allocate $10.5 billion annually to its pandemic prevention and response Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF). There is, in their view, about $50 billion needed in total per year. This is the annual, holding budget for pandemic preparedness. As an example of their preferred response when an outbreak occurs, Yale University modelers estimate that to vaccinate people in low and middle income countries with just 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine would cost about $35 billion. Adding one booster would total $61 billion. Over $7 billion has thus far been committed to COVAX, the WHO’s Covid vaccine financing facility, vaccinating most who are already immune to the virus.
To put these sums in context, the annual budget of the WHO is normally below $4 billion. The entire world spends about $3 billion annually on malaria – a disease that kills well over half a million young children each year. The largest financing facility for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria, the Global Fund, spends less than $4 billion per year on these three diseases combined. Other and larger preventable killers of children, – such as pneumonia and diarrhea, receive still less attention.
Malaria, HIV, tuberculosis and diseases of malnutrition are all increasing, while economies globally – the main long-term determinant of life expectancy in lower-income countries – decline. Taxpayers are being asked, by institutions that themselves will benefit, to spend vast resources on this problem rather than on diseases that kill more and younger people. The people pushing this agenda do not appear to be dedicated to reducing annual mortality or improving overall health. Alternatively, they either cannot manage data or have a window on the future that they are keeping to themselves.
Myth #4: COVID-19 caused massive harm to health and the global economy
The age-skewing of COVID mortality has been unmistakable since early 2020, when data from China demonstrated almost no mortality in healthy young to middle-aged adults and children. This has not changed. Those contributing to economic activity, working in factories, farms and transport, were never at great risk.
The economic and personal harm arising from the restrictions on these people, unemployment, destruction of small businesses and supply-line disruption, was a choice made against orthodox policy of the WHO and public health in general. The prolonged school closures, locking in generational poverty and inequality on both a sub-national and international level, was a choice to perhaps buy months for the elderly.
The 2019 WHO pandemic guidelines advised against lockdowns due to the inevitability that they would increase poverty, and poverty drives illness and reduces life expectancy. The WHO noted this disproportionately harms poorer people. This is not complicated – even those at the center of the lockdown and future digital ID agenda such as the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) acknowledge this reality. If the aim of poverty-promoting measures had been to reduce elderly death, the evidence for success is poor.
There seems little reasonable doubt that growing malnutrition and long-term poverty, rising endemicinfectious disease, and the impacts of education loss, increased child marriage and increased inequality will far outweigh any possible mortality reduction achieved. UNICEF’s estimation of a quarter-million child deaths from lockdowns in South Asia in 2020 provides a window into the enormity of the harm lockdowns wrought. It was the novel public health response that caused the massive harm associated with this historically mild pandemic, not the virus.
Facing truth
It seems unavoidable that those advocating for the current pandemic and preparedness agenda are intentionally misleading the public in order to achieve their aims. This explains why, in the background documents of the WHO, the World Bank, G20 and others, detailed cost-benefit analyses are avoided. The same absence of this basic requirement characterized the introduction of Covid lockdowns.
Cost-benefit analyses are essential for any large-scale intervention, and their absence reflects either incompetence or malfeasance. Prior to 2019, the resource diversion being contemplated for pandemic preparedness would have been unthinkable without such analysis. We can therefore reasonably assume that their continued absence is based on fear or certainty that their outcomes would scupper the program.
A lot of people who should know better are going along with this deceit. Their motives can be surmised elsewhere. Many may feel they need a good salary, and the resultant dead and impoverished will be far enough away to be considered abstract. The media, owned by the same investment houses who own the Pharma and software companies sponsoring public health, are mostly silent. It is hardly a conspiracy to believe that investment houses such as BlackRock and Vanguard work to maximize return for their investors, using their various assets to do so.
A few decades of our elected leaders trooping off for closed-door sessions at Davos, together with a steady concentration of wealth with the individuals they were meeting, could not really have landed us anywhere else.
We knew this 20 years ago, when the media still warned of the harm that increasing inequality would bring. When individuals and corporations richer than medium-sized countries control major international health organizations such as Gavi and CEPI, the real question is why so many people struggle to acknowledge that conflicts of interest define international health policy.
The subversion of health for profit runs contrary to the entire ethos of the post-World War Two anti-fascist, anti-colonialist movement. When people across politics can acknowledge this reality, they can put aside the false divisions that this corruption has sown.
We are being deceived for a reason. Whatever that is, going along with a deception is a poor choice. Denial of truth never leads to a good place. When public health policy is based on a demonstrably false narrative, it is the role of public health workers, and the public, to oppose it.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is the former Program Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland.
Further proof of US President Joe Biden reneging on his electoral promises with regard to Palestine is the ongoing refusal to reopen the US Consulate in occupied Jerusalem for use by Palestinians, and opting instead for creating a new role of Special Representative for Palestinian Affairs, which has been given to Hady Amr. Amr served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs, and is known mostly for insisting that Israel devises ways to strengthen the Palestinian Authority; for Israel’s benefit, of course.
Equally clear is that PA Leader Mahmoud Abbas is acquiescing to US demands, despite his lamentations that the Biden administration is also employing the waiting tactic, which has stalled Palestinians’ political trajectory for decades. The PA’s delight at Biden’s election win was just a brief interlude; it soon became clear that his predecessor Donald Trump’s legacy would not be rescinded, apart from the US decision to allocate some financial support for Palestinian humanitarian needs.
According to Axiosquoting an unnamed US State Department official, “The Washington-based Special Representative for Palestinian Affairs will engage closely with the Palestinians and their leadership and, together with Ambassador [Thomas] Nides and his team, continue to engage with Israel on Palestinian-related issues.”
While Israeli media is describing the move as an upgrade of US-Palestinian relations, diplomatic engagement between the US and the PA remains one that prioritises colonial collaboration, given that despite promises to bring the US back to the fold of international consensus regarding the two-state compromise, Washington remains tied to Trump’s political legacy. The international community has also aligned itself with the Abraham Accords, since the plans mirror mainstream engagement with Israel. The PA, on the other hand, simply bleats its opposition and backs down before accepting concessions in return for its subjugation.
Amr will be working under Barbara Leaf, the US Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs who, last September, stated that improving economic conditions in the occupied West Bank was crucial to “sustain improvement in security conditions.” Israel’s security, that is. Diplomatic relations with the PA, as far as the US is concerned, are only valid as long as it means that security coordination will remain “sacred”, as Abbas puts it. Outside of the security coordination parameters, the PA is a main player that only exists as an entity that fails to take political steps against Israel’s colonial expansion.
The US has stated repeatedly its purported commitment to reopen its consulate in Jerusalem, yet appointing Amr as special representative is another indication that the Palestinian request will go unheeded for the time being. Hence the creation of a role that purportedly champions Palestinian affairs and diplomatic relations with Washington. Yet another “concession” to Palestine that works in Israel’s favour.
Former US Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations, and former Ambassador to Israel, Martyn Indyk described the US move as “a signal to the Palestinians of their importance”. Yet, the US does things differently with Israel. It doesn’t offer concessions to Israel; it offers military, financial and economic support, while Palestinians remain tethered to a humanitarian project that only serves Israel’s expansionist plans and interests. Importance does not necessarily have a positive connotation. In this case, the Palestinians’ “importance” is not directed towards their political rights, but the means through which Israel and the US can further their diplomatic engagement behind a facade that generates less criticism and fewer allegations of American bias towards the colonial-occupation state.
While there has been a great deal of hullabaloo concerning Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, one would probably not have expected senior officials at the United Nations to find it necessary to have their say on the matter. Yet on November 5th Volker Türk, the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, did indeed weigh-in, sending an open letter to Mr. Musk to express his “concern and apprehension” about Twitter’s role in the “digital public square”. He urged Musk to make sure human rights would be “central to the management of Twitter”, and to “address harms” associated with the platform, and also took the time for a bit of finger-wagging at Twitter’s new CEO for sacking Twitter’s human rights team (no, I had no idea it had one either).
The letter was almost certainly only sent so that Türk, who assumed office in mid-October and is a comparative unknown (some UN insiders were apparently hoping for Michelle Obama or Angela Merkel), can get a bit of recognition. But it is instructive nonetheless in giving stark expression to the awkward position which human rights advocates have found themselves adopting when it comes to one of the most salient issues of the day – the regulation of speech online and particularly the subjects of disinformation and misinformation.
This happens in the course of two short paragraphs. Starting off, Türk is keen to emphasise the importance of protecting free speech. Twitter, he notes, is being pressed by governments to take down content or use upload filters, and he urges it in clear terms to “stand up for the rights to privacy and free expression to the full [sic] extent possible under relevant laws”. So, on the one hand, he adopts a strong position against censorship, implying that speech should only be restricted online where it would cross the border into illegality.
Yet on the other hand, in the very next breath, he declares that “free speech is not a free pass” and that the “viral spread of harmful disinformation…results in real world harms”. Therefore, in his view, Twitter must take responsibility to “avoid amplifying content” that results in harms to people’s rights – whether or not, by implication, it is technically legal. Hence, for example, scepticism about the efficacy of vaccines, legally expressed, ought nonetheless to be supressed given the impact it might have on the right to health.
This can only be described as cakeism. For Türk, it is apparently desirable both to protect freedom of expression to the fullest extent possible under the law, and yet also to restrict lawful speech where it might result in ‘harms’. It is easy to see the appeal in the abstract of the idea that these positions can be reconciled, and Türk indeed concludes his letter by suggesting that “our shared human rights offer a unifying way forward”. But it is difficult to see from its content how this could be so. Does Türk believe that freedom of speech should be protected insofar as it is possible to do so? Or does he believe lawful speech should be suppressed to prevent harm? He can believe in one, but he surely cannot coherently believe in both.
The wider point is that human rights advocates like Türk have rather lost faith in their own model. For decades, it has been orthodox human rights doctrine that all human rights are, in UN-speak, “indivisible and interdependent”. The rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, non-discrimination, health, food, housing, education, and so on, all support one another and, indeed, cannot properly be enjoyed without the others. It is therefore not only possible to secure (say) freedom of expression and the right to health – they actually bolster each other.
The rationale for this can be readily understood: if freedom of expression is secure, then people will have access to the full range of information and opinion available on any given topic, and therefore policymakers, healthcare providers, doctors and patients will be able to make better health-related decisions than they would otherwise. There is therefore a direct link between securing freedom of speech and the right to health. (And conversely, of course, securing the right to health means increasing opportunities for people to express themselves freely – one will find it much easier to actively participate in public discourse if one is in good health than not.) What is true in this example is true across the round, and the orthodox position in the UN human rights system has long been that these mutually-supportive linkages can be found throughout the human rights corpus.
This is not, however, the position that Türk adopts in his letter. To reiterate, for the new High Commissioner, freedom of expression and the right to health are not in fact “indivisible and interdependent”, but incommensurate. If people are able to express themselves freely, they will circulate dangerous disinformation about vaccines, and harm will result. Freedom of expression does not reinforce the right to health; it undermines it.
Türk is no loose cannon. As short as his letter to Musk is, it essentially summarises the position adopted in a recent report to the UN General Assembly by the Secretary-General himself. This report manages somehow to express a robust defence of the “right to hold opinions without interference” and an insistence that “free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues… is essential”, while at the same time advocating for state intervention to prevent the spread of inaccurate information concerning “public health, electoral processes or national security” and the demonetisation of legal-but-harmful content. The same schizophrenic attitude is adopted as in Türk’s letter, but the message is clear enough: while it is necessary to pay lip service to the importance of freedom of expression, the system as a whole now disavows the “indivisible and interdependent” doctrine, and instead sees freedom of expression as being potentially antagonistic to other rights.
What are we to make of this? The clue is in the types of harmful inaccurate information that both Türk and the Secretary-General identify as particularly dangerous and hence warranting state suppression – i.e., those implicating public health, electoral processes and national security. It is no accident that these subjects map pretty closely to the issues that are of greatest concern to the global bien pensant class in which these figures are so firmly entrenched – Covid vaccines, ‘election denialism’, and Russian disinformation. And it is not really a great surprise that when the chips are down and the consensus within that class is that oppositional views on those topics represent a genuine threat, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary-General suddenly find that freedom of expression is not so “indivisible and interdependent” with respect to other rights at all. Indeed, it is to be sacrificed where those particular concerns are raised. Human beings, as we know, can be remarkably flexible on points of principle when peer pressure is applied – even, it turns out, senior human rights lawyers and UN Secretary-Generals.
More broadly, if one were being especially cynical, one might say that this is further evidence supporting the long-term criticism of the international human rights system – that it is essentially a forum for pharisaical expressions of right-on opinions which vary in accordance with whatever the ‘current thing’ is. This would not be entirely fair – the UN human rights organs do very important work – but it is sometimes easy to see how this view proliferates. Türk’s letter is suggestive not so much of a commitment to the letter of human rights law, but rather only to the contemporary concerns of a particular elite constituency. This in turn indicates that the UN human rights apparatus as a whole is geared more toward addressing the anxieties of that constituency than it is towards standing up for human rights across the board. Is it any wonder, then, that ordinary people generally take a sceptical view about human rights in the round?
Dr. David McGrogan is Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School.
The spectacular crash of FTX, discussed in TCW yesterday, is developing into a scandal of epic proportions. On Friday November 11 FTX filed for bankruptcy, owing in excess of $3.1billion to more than a million customers, including major institutional investors such as BlackRock and Sequoia Capital. After a brief two and half years of trading, FTX’s rise and fall has left many with more questions than answers. Not least because the scandal is revealing more than just a loss of money, exposing much that the globalists might prefer to remain hidden.
There are two schools of thought. One is that FTX, the world’s second biggest crypto exchange, was run by youthful MIT graduates who got out of their depth. The second is that FTX may have been set up as a scam from the beginning. Without doubt, FTX had the fingerprints of the globalists all over it. It was once heavily promoted by the World Economic Forum, with its own page on their website describing FTX as a ‘cryptocurrency exchange built by traders, for traders’ and its founder regularly attended Davos gatherings. The key question that needs answering is cui bono, who benefited from FTX’s activities? Knowing that might give some clue as to its purpose.
Certainly, in respect of the age of those running the company, FTX was ideal. Globalists have a penchant for youth (vide WEF’s Young Global Leaders programme). Having the young nominally run things is a useful ploy. They attract other young who then form armies of ‘wokeists’ to play the role of useful idiots, as we see in Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil. Youthfulness also creates its own tyranny in the sense that it cannot be challenged without appearing to stand in the way of ‘progress’. Thus the adults in the room become so overawed by the presence of these wunderkind that they forget to ask the obvious questions, such as ‘how much help did you have to get started?’
In the case of the Swedish doom goblin, we are supposed to believe that she spontaneously started skolstrejk för klimatet. Yet curiously she has moments when she appeared incapable of answering questions about climate without a script.
Back in the USA, Mark Zuckerberg apparently built Facebook on the back of some Harvard campus networking in 2004, even though coincidentally the Pentagon had begun work on something similar called Lifelog. Facebook, of course, has the great advantage in terms of collecting data that its users voluntarily provide so much detail. This summer, as if to emphasise the close ties with intelligence services, Zuckerberg confessed to Joe Rogan that Facebook had followed FBI guidance over the Hunter Biden laptop affair and in effect ‘shadow banned’ the story. Even before that, the shine had come off Zuckerberg as his holding company Meta has continued to lose value; now 11,000 employees have been sacked.
Then we have FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried (aka SBF or as some are calling him ‘less bankman; more fried’ and even ‘Sam Bankster Fraud’), the 30-year-old founder of the crypto exchange.
SBF ticked a lot of boxes for the globalists. He was part of the ‘Effective Altruism‘ movement which claims to be about ‘doing good better’. Which meant that he could use some of his $16billion net worth on not-for-profit charities dear to the globalists focused on planet-saving projects. In July 2021 he set up the FTX Foundation which spawned a number of initiatives such as research into stopping future pandemics; FTX Climate, a fund for research into climate change; the FTX Future Fund with areas of interest such as Artificial Intelligence and the risks from bioweapons, and FTX Community, concerned with poverty, animal welfare and community outreach. All good philanthropic stuff, the sort that globalists like.
Institutional investors were reassured by SBF’s collaboration with Congress to develop regulation for the crypto sphere. With such high moral standards and lots of virtue-signalling – saving the planet, working to improve regulation around crypto, hanging out with Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, what could possibly go wrong?
Unfortunately for investors, as bankruptcy proceedings are currently revealing, SBF and his colleagues were involved in an unethical and fraudulent operation. Little did investors realise that SBF was in effect running a Ponzi scheme which secretly reallocated client funds out of FTX into Alameda Research, SBF’s trading company, as collateral to cover risky trades. Because there was no oversight (FTX lacked a board of governance) and no one asked hard questions, FTX ran out of liquidity and became insolvent.
It could be said that SBF’s absence of moral boundaries was reflected in his unconventional lifestyle living in the Bahamas in a polyamorous set-up with several of his colleagues. His supposed girlfriend who was running Alameda Research, Caroline Ellison, is on record describing it as being like an ‘imperial Chinese harem’. He also had no problem being a slush fund for the Democrat Party, being the second largest donor after George Soros; or being involved in financing Ukraine. FTX helped the Ukraine government to set up a crypto donations website, ‘Aid for Ukraine‘, which has led to accusations of US tax money sent to Ukraine being cycled back to the US via FTX.
Those who believe that FTX was a deliberate scam from the start point to SBF’s work with Congress as the main reason for FTX’s creation. It suited those who regard the decentralised nature of crypto as a threat to centralised financial controls to have a Trojan Horse insider who could work to undermine the crypto space. Even crashing FTX helps their cause as now all crypto is tarred with the Ponzi accusation and, having lost money, institutional investors will stay away from the space. At the end of the day, these are all power games. SBF may well have been a victim of larger forces. He served his purpose and had his fun in the sun.
Meanwhile we should all be more wary of wunderkinder. Not least the World Economic Forum, which has deleted FTX from its website and doesn’t seem keen to discuss the matter further. I wonder why?
One week ago, the Ukrainian government may have deliberately attacked neighbor Poland in an attempt to draw the NATO alliance into its war with Russia. The incident involved a missile that hit a grain processing site inside Poland and killed two farmers. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky immediately blamed Russia for the incident even though he surely must have known that the missile had been fired from Ukraine, meaning that he may have been using a so-called “false flag” to create a false narrative of what had occurred. He also immediately called upon NATO to intervene, citing Article 5 of the NATO treaty which requires all members of the alliance to come to the aid of any individual member that is attacked. An attack on one is an attack on all. Poland is a NATO member and it currently hosts a permanent US military base.
The US mainstream media, most particularly the Associated Press and NBC News, immediately repeated the tale being told by Zelensky, but the “blame the Russians” narrative began to unravel. The remains of the missile revealed that it was of a type used for air defense that is in the Ukrainian arsenal, but not currently used by the Russians, and both Moscow and Washington surely had access to satellite imagery that would demonstrate the actual flight path of the missile that struck Poland.
Those in government and the media who wanted to be supportive of Zelensky began to suggest that the Ukrainian missile must have somehow malfunctioned to land in Poland, making it an unfortunate accident. But others more familiar with the performance characteristics of the weapon were skeptical, seeing something possibly more sinister in the tale.
By last Thursday the story had effectively disappeared in much of the mainstream media as it no longer conformed to the acceptable narrative that it was a Russian-launched missile, which Zelensky has since continued to insist to be the case. President Joe Biden, who was at the G-20 Summit conference in Indonesia at the time, to his credit, responded to the news by stating that there was no intelligence to confirm that the missile had come from Russia and that its apparent trajectory did not support that view. Ironically, Biden had authorized an additional $37 billion in aid for Ukraine the day before the incident in Poland took place.
Biden’s message seeking to deescalate the potential crisis was repeated by Pentagon and intelligence personnel during the day, though Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin emphasized that the US would continue to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” He also added that even though the missile was Ukrainian, the incident was Russia’s fault. He did not explain why that was so. NATO’s secretary general Jens Stoltenberg also promoted the same line as Austin, commenting that the incident was “likely caused by a Ukrainian air defense missile fired to defend Ukrainian territory… This is not Ukraine’s fault. Russia bears responsibility for what happened in Poland yesterday because this is a direct result of the ongoing war.”
Given the fact that Zelensky has been saying and doing everything possible to draw the US and NATO into fighting Russia on his behalf, I believe that the missile strike was quite plausibly a deliberate “false flag” attempt to start a much broader war. That such a war could easily turn nuclear reveals just how reckless Zelensky can be. One NATO country foreign diplomat based in Kiev told the Financial Times that “This is getting ridiculous. The Ukrainians are destroying [our] confidence in them. Nobody is blaming Ukraine and they are openly lying. This is more destructive than the missile.”
To be sure, Zelensky is capable of anything and no lie is too mendacious for the former comedy actor who is now basking in the glow of his celebrity. Hollywood personalities like Sean Penn and Ben Stiller are increasingly making the pilgrimage to Kiev to shake hands, embrace and do photo ops. And Zelensky’s calendar is also featuring some trips to the United States. On November 30th, he will reportedly be in New York City at a “live event” hosted by the New York Times with Sam Bankman-Fried, Larry Fink (CEO of Blackrock), and US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen as the main speakers.
Yes, Zelensky will be side-by-side with THAT Sam Bankman-Fried, if he shows up, who has also been much in the news lately for his having pulled off the largest currency fraud in history, creating losses for investors totaling multi-billions of dollars as a consequence of the collapse of his exchange-trading company FTX! And it just might be that Zelensky and Bankman-Fried already know each other. Bankman-Fried has been a major financial supporter of Democratic Party politicians, having donated $40 million for “get out the vote” projects in the recently completed election cycle. He is second only to George Soros as a Democratic Party funder, and also has separated donated to causes like unconditionally supporting Ukraine that the Democrats overwhelmingly favor. In April he hosted a conference at his $40 million home in the Bahamas which featured appearances by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton and he has also been a generous supporter of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
There has been considerable speculation that the unregulated and unmonitored flow of billions of dollars of US taxpayer provided money through Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt government provided a perfect mechanism for large scale money laundering. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson has been following the FTX-Ukraine story closely and observes that “The financial collapse of FTX… is exposing evidence that the Democrats, some Republicans, the Ukrainians and FTX organized an elaborate financial kickback scheme. The scheme involved promising members of Congress who sent money to Ukraine a hefty contribution from a Democrat benefactor. In this case, the owner of FTX [Sam Bankman-Fried]. Once the US dollars were credited to Ukraine’s account, President Zelensky and his partners diverted some of the proceeds to purchase crypto currency from FTX. FTX, in turn, sent some of those funds back to the cooperating members of Congress and the Democrat National Committee.”
Other reporting reveals that Bankman-Fried had established a crypto donation “partnership” with the Ukrainian government which provided an estimated $60 million in “assistance” to Zelensky. The Ukrainian government website that reported some details of the arrangement mysteriously was “disappeared” two days before the FTX disaster was made public. The FTX tale, if it turns out to be largely verifiable, underlines just how corrupt a “money pit” called Ukraine is. Hunter Biden gets a well-paid sinecure place on a company board to get to his father and now Ukraine may be directly involved in a massive financial fraud. And Joe Biden obligingly is sending billions of dollars more to that crook Zelensky.
But the real issue is the war. Even assuming that the Ukrainian missile strike on Poland was due to some malfunction, Zelensky comes out of the process smelling really bad as he has worked assiduously at blaming Russia, which clearly is not true. He is using his contrived narrative to dramatically expand the war by creating a situation which would bring NATO directly into the conflict and which could easily go nuclear. Indeed, he is attempting to compel NATO participation. But potentially far worse, if it was a deliberate “false flag” provocation to bring about that end, his tactics should be harshly condemned by all the parties that are currently supporting Ukraine. Beyond that, the US and NATO, burdened with such an “ally,” should take immediate steps to disengage from supporting the fighting and call for a negotiated settlement of the conflict. Joe Biden, if he has any integrity left, and whoever is pulling his strings should not hesitate to take that step.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Long before COVID-19 arrived, I was a close observer of the pharmaceutical industry. My great grandparents believed that pharmaceutical labs were at the forefront of progress, relieving suffering and extending life, and for the most part they were right. My paternal great grandfather owned a large chain of drugstores and was a benefactor of UT Southwestern Medical School. At the time of my birth, my maternal great grandmother gave me a generous gift of Pfizer stock. She had been impressed by Pfizer’s key role in discovering how to mass produce penicillin during World War II (in which her son was killed in action). Eighteen years later her gift paid for my university education. And then, in 1998, Pfizer received FDA approval to sell Viagra.
Pfizer initially developed the drug to treat high blood pressure and angina pectoris. However, as Pfizer’s researchers discovered in clinical trials, the drug was better at inducing erections than managing angina. And so, the company repurposed the drug for erectile dysfunction and launched a massive, global PR and marketing campaign—including seeking moral approval from Pope John Paul II and contracting the war hero and 1996 presidential candidate Bob Dole to be the brand’s poster gentleman—that succeeded in making Viagra a blockbuster. Fortunately for me, I still owned a large chunk of Pfizer stock. The price spiked in late 1998 and reached an all-time high in April of 1999. I sold my entire remaining position, which financed my early years as a freelance author, before my first book was published.
So, I learned firsthand why pharmaceutical companies seek to develop blockbuster drugs with fanatical zeal. Formulating a safe and effective new medicine to address a large, unmet need is very difficult and expensive. Performing clinical trials and obtaining FDA-approval is an arduous process that normally takes several years. Thus, if an opportunity for a new blockbuster presents itself, a big drug company like Pfizer will go to extreme lengths to seize it.
Three years after the release of Viagra, I learned that Pfizer was not the entirely respectable company my great grandmother had believed it to be. I arrived at this realization through my interest in British spy novels. In 2001 I lived in Vienna, around the corner from the Burgkino (Burg Cinema) which still played the 1949 film noir classic The Third Man on its big screen every weekend. I spent many a dreary winter Sunday afternoon watching the film. Based on the novella and screenplay by Graham Greene, The Third Man is a crime story about Harry Lime—an American running a medical charity in Vienna, who makes a killing selling penicillin on the bombed out, impoverished city’s black market. To increase his profits, he cuts the drug with other substances, thereby destroying its efficacy and causing the patients (including children) to die horribly from their infections.
In the film’s most iconic scene, the good guy (played by Joseph Cotton) meets his old friend Harry Lime (played by Orson Welles) on the Giant Ferris wheel in the Vienna Prater amusement park and tries to appeal to his conscience. At the wheel’s apex, the charismatic Harry opens the door, points down to people walking on the ground below, and says:
Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax. … Nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don’t, why should we? They talk about the people and the proletariat; I talk about the suckers and the mugs. It’s the same thing. They have their five-year plans, and so have I.
I sensed that Graham Greene might have based the story on something he’d witnessed or heard about. Doing some research, I learned that Harry Lime was probably based on the British spy Harold “Kim” Philby, with whom Greene worked in British intelligence during World War II. Greene, it seems, discovered that Philby was a Soviet double agent long before he was exposed as such in 1963. Instead of ratting out his friend, he kept it to himself and left the intelligence service in 1944. Several pieces of evidence suggest that when he wrote The Third Man a few years later, he based it on his conflicted friendship with Philby.
John le Carré was also fascinated by Graham Greene and Kim Philby, and his thriller Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy—one of my all-time favorites—was inspired by the Philby story. His novel The Constant Gardener was published in 2001, and I read it with great interest. The story wasn’t set in Cold War Europe, but in Kenya, where a British diplomat’s wife is brutally raped and murdered. Upon closer examination, the diplomat realizes that she was about to reveal a horrifying crime committed by a pharmaceutical company, which murdered her in order to prevent the exposure.
The novel’s plot was reminiscent of a controversial drug trial performed by Pfizer in Kano, Nigeria in 1996 during a meningococcal outbreak. For the trial of its new antibiotic, trovafloxacin, Pfizer gave 100 children this new drug. The control group of 100 other children received the standard anti-meningitis treatment at the time—a drug called ceftriaxone. However, for the control group, Pfizer administered a substantially lower dose of ceftriaxone than the drug’s FDA-approved standard.
When the reduced dosing in the control group was discovered, it raised the suspicion that Pfizer did this in order to skew the trial in favor of its new drug. Five of the children who received trovafloxacin died, while six who received the reduced dose of ceftriaxone died. Other children apparently suffered grave injuries from the administration of the experimental antibiotic without their informed consent. The investigation and litigation that ensued was the stuff of a thriller, involving private investigators, bribery, blackmail attempts, and disappearing records. Thirteen years later, in 2009, Pfizer settled out of court with the plaintiffs.
In his author’s note, le Carré claimed that nobody and no corporation in the novel was based on an actual person or corporation in the real world.
But I can tell you this. As my journey through the pharmaceutical jungle progressed, I came to realize that, by comparison with the reality, my story was as tame as a holiday postcard.
In 2009, the same year that Pfizer settled with the trovafloxacin plaintiffs, the New York Times reported that a U.S. federal judge assessed Pfizer with the “largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine of any kind ever” for its illegal marketing of Bextra and three other drugs. The U.S. Department of Justice was unequivocal in characterizing Pfizer’s officers as guilty of grave criminal conduct at the expense of the American public.
Yesterday I wrote about the FTX scandal, which involves a thirty-year-old living in the Bahamas, usually clad in shorts and flip-flops, who received billions from people all over the world with the promise he would make them rich by investing it in crypto currency. Nobody understood how exactly he was making billions for himself, and he never tried to elucidate it. In spite of no one having the foggiest notion about what he was doing, he was hailed as “this generation’s JP Morgan.”
The sudden fall of Sam Bankman-Fried coincided with the sentencing of former Theranos CEO, Elizabeth Holmes, who was ordered to serve 11 years in prison for defrauding investors of billions. Like Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes—who dropped out of Stanford in 2004 and styled herself after Steve Jobs with the same signature black turtleneck—was hailed as a Wunderkind who’d boldly entered a new frontier in her field.
As was the case with Bankman-Fried’s cryptic crypto exchange, no one understood how Holmes’s blood testing machine worked. She claimed that with just a small pinprick of blood from the finger (instead of the standard 3 ml drawn from a vein on the inside of the elbow) her machine could rapidly and accurately run a large panel of diagnostic tests. The machine was literally and figuratively a black box—purportedly containing proprietary technology that only Theranos engineers were authorized to examine.
To people who’d long worked in the field of blood testing for companies like Siemans, Abbott, and Roche, Holmes’s claims seemed incredible. How could her machine accurately run so many tests on such a tiny quantity of blood? The proposition sounded like magic.
The fact that no one knew anything about the machine didn’t stop investors from pumping billions into the fledgling company, and by 2014, the then thirty-year-old Holmes’s 50% stake was worth $4.5 billion. Were these investors simply naive, or was there something apart from the magic black box that gave them confidence?
Perhaps the most notable thing about Theranos was the attention it drew from the Department of Defense and retired US government eminences including George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Bill Clinton, and Sam Nunn. All were old Washington hands, and they understood that the US government was considering Holmes’s little black box to be (potentially) a strategic asset with military and civilian applications.
These guys knew from experience that if Uncle Sam gets out his checkbook for what appears to be new product of strategic value, the sums transferred can be astronomical. And why not? Such a market does not consist of picky and finicky consumers, but unaccountable bureaucrats spending taxpayer money with reckless abandon.
In 2015, Holmes’s company became the subject of a Wall Street Journal investigation, and soon her fraudulent empire began to crumble. Three years later (in 2018) she was charged for committing massive acts of fraud.
Facing off against Elizabeth Holmes was the young and heroic whistleblower, Tyler Shultz—grandson of George Shultz—who was a key witness in exposing the fraud. For his principled action, he was shunned by his grandfather and subjected to an intimidation campaign by Theranos officers and their heavy-hitting attorneys. The Wall Street Journal’s report on this component of the story reads like a cinematic thriller.
Moderna CEO and billionarie, Stephane Bancel
Just two years after Holmes was charged for fraud, SARS-CoV-2 arrived. At this time, two biotech startups with no history of licensed products—Moderna of Cambridge, Massachusetts and BioNTech of Mainz, Germany—claimed that their experimental mRNA platform could rapidly produce a safe and effective vaccine by simply plugging the SARS-CoV-2 gene sequence into their formula. No long and laborious process of culturing viruses in eggs like conventional flu vaccines—real Star Trek Next Generation stuff.
In other words, We the People were obliged to pay for the mRNA vaccine program (transferring billions of taxpayer money to pharmaceutical executives) and many of us have been forced to receive the injections, but information about the precise nature of these products is not for us to know.
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has been caught telling bare-faced lies about a missile strike on Poland this week. Even the United States and NATO backers of the Kiev regime have repudiated initial claims blaming Russia. The missile came from the Ukrainian military as NATO acknowledges, yet Zelensky continued to assert that it wasn’t from his forces. It is clear that the deadly attack was a deliberate provocation by the Kiev regime to escalate the war into an all-out NATO-Russia conflict, even if that meant World War Three.
The Kiev regime’s proclivity for staging provocations is well documented, albeit assiduously covered up by the Western media. Further cover-up is bursting at the seams owing to the manic and utterly criminal conduct of the Neo-Nazi regime.
In nearly nine months of this conflict, which began on February 24 when Moscow launched its special military operation to end non-stop deadly provocations against ethnic Russians in the Donbass region, the NATO-backed Kiev regime has engaged in countless other criminal provocations. Those provocations include carrying out massacres like the one at Bucha at the end of March, shelling the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, and plotting to detonate a dirty nuclear bomb. As our weekly editorial on October 28 headlined: “Dirty Nuke Bomb Fits Kiev Regime’s Record of Foul Tricks and Corruption”.
The Kiev regime was born out of a dirty trick. The Maidan Square sniper massacres in February 2014 against Ukrainian civilians and police officers culminated in a coup d’état.
It was fitting too that this week saw a Dutch court blaming Russia for the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner in 2014. The real culprits for the crime – in which 298 people onboard were blown out of the sky – were the Kiev regime forces who tried to blame it on Russia-backed Donbass separatists.
All such dirty tricks are purposed to criminalize Russia for “atrocities” and to escalate the war by invoking even more military support from the United States and its NATO partners. The Western states and their pliant corporate media have totally indulged in this propaganda to demonize Russia, if not at times author it.
This week, when the missile hit the village of Przewodow in the Lublin region of eastern Poland – killing two civilians – on November 15, the Kiev regime immediately blamed Russia. The comic-actor-turned-president Zelensky said it was an “act of terrorism” and an attack on NATO, thus justifying the bloc’s collective defense clause. His foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba clamored for NATO to impose a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine and to supply F-15 and F-16 fighter jets.
The hysterical claims, much like the missile itself, completely overshot credibility. There were no Russian air strikes anywhere near the Ukraine-Poland border area at the time. Video footage of munition fragments also quickly indicated that it was an S-300 air-defense missile that was fired by the Kiev regime’s forces.
Remarkably, however, Zelensky’s incendiary claims were promptly rebutted by U.S. President Joe Biden, the Pentagon and other NATO leaders. They firmly said the missile that struck Poland was not a Russian weapon but rather it came from a Ukrainian air-defense battery which, it was claimed, missed its target, accidentally landing on Polish soil.
But even that benign account does not hold water. For a start, the Russian military was not targeting the area with their precision-guided missiles. There were no incoming Russian rockets whatsoever. So what was the Ukrainian S-300 aiming at? The fact that the S-300 was fired westwards toward Poland shows that the act was a deliberate one to hit the neighboring country and a member of NATO.
The rapid rejection of the Kiev regime’s claims by the United States and other NATO powers not only exposes Zelensky and his cabal as liars. It also inadvertently exposes them as criminal provocateurs who are willing to kill civilians for propaganda and political expedience.
Are Washington and its European vassals perhaps beginning to realize that they have created a Frankenstein monster in Kiev whose criminality and corruption know no bounds? The United States and its imperial minions certainly want to undermine and subjugate Russia in a grand scheme of geopolitical control, but even the arrogant would-be hegemon must realize that World War Three is an insane no-win prospect. The Kiev regime has milked the U.S. and the European Union for all their worth and created a fabulous money racket for the NATO military-industrial complex. But this regime’s desperation and its reckless attempts to incite World War Three appear to have become too much even for its Western patrons.
It seems significant that lately, Washington appears to be coaxing the Kiev regime to enter into a peace process with Russia. The U.S. top military commander, General Mark Milley, who is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has urged Kiev to “seize an opportunity for peace”.
Separately, astute independent American military analysts, such as Scott Ritter and Douglas Macgregor, have pointed out that Russia has the decisive upper hand in the conflict. As the war drags on over winter and beyond, the real danger is that the NATO and transatlantic alliance will collapse from the stresses and strains ensuing from devastating economic repercussions. That is why the United States and NATO leaders appear to be feeling the pressure to extricate from the war, or at least to tamp it down.
It was notable that the Kiev regime angrily lashed out at any suggestions of opening a peace dialogue with Moscow.
This would explain why the Zelensky cabal decided to raise the stakes by firing a missile at Poland. The selected target of Przewodow village would have been a tacit concession to limit the casualties, although making the deliberately murderous act no less despicable or unconscionable.
The trouble is the cabal has become so corrupt and wanton that it didn’t sufficiently think through its obvious criminal plan. The missile strike ended up backfiring spectacularly to blow up the regime’s criminality.
The question is: what will the NATO sponsors do about their Neo-Nazi construct in Kiev? The regime is patently out of control and liability for the Western powers. They know they can’t win a conventional war against Russia never mind a nuclear conflagration. So, will we see Zelensky and his cronies being taken out, in one way or another, having become too problematic for their foreign masters?
History shows that the Western powers have used Nazis and fascists in the past as their proxies against the Soviet Union and other adversaries, only for these powers to eventually be compelled to liquidate their proxies when their usefulness expires or becomes overbearing.
When the US HHS invoked the Emergency Use Authorization and the Department of Defense offered COVID-19 vaccination to be administered by the US FDA and CDC, it was clear the FDA was going to play no role in stopping the vaccination freight train that was about to steamroll America. A recent paper from Dr. Maryanne Demasi points out that the FDA “checked-out” early in the COVID-19 pandemic:[i] “Regulatory documents show that only nine out of 153 Pfizer trial sites were subject to FDA inspection before licensing the mRNA vaccine. Similarly, only 10 out of 99 Moderna trial sites and five of 73 remdesivir trial sites were inspected. Now, facing a backlog of site inspections, experts have criticized the FDA’s oversight of clinical trials, describing it as “grossly inadequate.” They say the problem, which predated covid-19, is not limited to a lack of inspections but also includes failing to notify the public or scientific journals when violations are identified—effectively keeping scientific misconduct from the medical establishment. The FDA is “endangering public health” by not being candid about violations that are uncovered during clinical trial site inspections, says David Gortler, a pharmacist and pharmacologist who worked as an FDA medical reviewer between 2007 and 2011 and was then appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA commissioner in 2019-21.”
Demasi goes on to point out the FDA suspended inspections and despite having vast resources, does not utilize their discretionary budget to protect Americans from product safety threats. “With a total budget of $6.1bn in 2021, he [Gortler] suggests the agency needs to be leaner and more efficient, with employees interested in improving public health.” “The bottom line is that the FDA has over 18,000 full time employees, more than any other drug regulatory agency by far, so it could have retrained and retooled anybody to tackle the need for increased inspections,” he says. “Half of its budget, about $3bn, is discretionary, which means it could have hired contractors, retirees, or repurpose existing workers. It chose not to. The FDA was just yawning its way through the pandemic. The entire agency is broken.” “The lack of full transparency and data sharing does not allow physicians and other medical scientists to confirm the data independently and make comprehensive risk-benefit assessments,” continues Gortler, who is now a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center thinktank in Washington DC.”
The most egregious example of FDA malfeasance is the intent to withhold release of the Pfizer regulatory dossier on its COVID-19 vaccine for 55 years knowing it contained reports of 1,223 deaths shortly after administration of their vaccine. In a continued set of historic blunders, the FDA approved the COVID-19 bivalent vaccines with no randomized trials powered for clinical outcomes with Omicron, and no information on safety. I believe Drs Demasi and Gortler are correct, the FDA is broken beyond repair, officials and staff involved in malfeasance should be named as targets in federal investigations since so many lives have been impacted by their malfeasance.
By Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | July 28, 2016
The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – Sixth part of the series titled “9/11 and the Zionist Question”
In his chapter on “Left Gatekeepers” and the “Shame of Noam Chomsky,” Barrie Zwicker refers to the the “New World Order” as the “diaboligarchy’s” directing agency. Less compelling is Zwicker’s reference to the “New World Order” as the “diaboligarchy’s” directing agency. To me this unfortunate choice of words is much too closely associated with the often crude and chauvinistic populism of Alex Jones and his Infowars media network. Many have come to see Jones’ lucrative media operation as a limited hangout set in place by handlers trying to hold the activities of the 9/11 Truth Movement within manageable constraints.
Due to the important findings over fifteen years of the citizens’ investigation into 9/11, the culprits most deeply implicated in the crime can be identified with much more specificity than an entity vaguely described as a “New World Order.” As Kevin Barrett and many others insist, the time has come to name the names of the probable culprits, Noam Chomsky prominent among them.
While Alex Jones ultimately serves the same masters as Chomsky, the former’s media product is often much closer to the mark of what is really going on than the content of Noam Chomsky’s more magisterial pronouncements. Jones goes at least part of the way into realities of the deep state politics of the twenty-first century. Chomsky, however, sacrificed his capacity to contribute cogently to sensible discourse on contemporary geopolitics by making himself a primary instrument of the most consequential deep state deception of recent times. As a leading agent of disinformation in the psychological trenches of the ongoing Global War of False Flag Terrorism, Chomsky has reduced himself to the level of skeptic pretender Michael Shermer. In the style of Shermer, the elder Chomsky has become an establishment TV professor readily available on Netflix. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 