Supremacism, Social Darwinism

Survivors of Ireland’s mother-and-baby homes accuse govt of whitewashing ‘illegal’ vaccine trials on children

RT | January 17, 2021

Survivors of Ireland’s infamous mother-and-baby homes have accused the government of failing to properly investigate vaccine trials that they unwittingly participated in as infants.

The Irish government formally apologized on Wednesday for the now-defunct institutions, noting “an appalling level of infant mortality” at the 18 homes. During their 76 years of operation, an estimated 9,000 children died at the shelters, which were often the last resort of unwed pregnant women ostracized by society. The institutions were not shuttered until 1998.

The government’s five-year investigation also found that a total of 13 vaccine trials involved children living at the homes, describing the tests as illegal and a clear violation of the Nuremberg Code, which was established following Nazi medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners during World War II.

It is believed the trials took place between 1930 and 1973, and all involved either the Wellcome Foundation or Glaxo Laboratories, which later became GlaxoSmithKline.

However, the probe concluded that there was “no evidence of injury to the children involved as a result of the vaccines,” prompting survivors of the homes to question the thoroughness of the inquiry.

Mari Steed, who was born at the Bessborough mother-and-baby home in Cork, was injected with a trial vaccine in 1960 before being adopted by an American family. She was administered a “4-in-1” jab that was designed to ward off diphtheria, polio, tetanus and whooping cough.

Speaking to RTE, she argued that there was no way for the government to determine that the illegal trials didn’t harm the unwitting participants, because survivors such as herself were never properly screened.

“My adoptive parents didn’t know I’d been used in a trial. I’ve never been offered any screening by the state (or the commission) to see if my current health at age 60 has been affected,” Steed said.

In an earlier interview she said she had felt like a “guinea pig” and was furious that her birth mother was never informed she had been used in the tests.

Another survivor of Bessborough, who was injected with an experimental “5-in-1” jab (anti-diphtheria, polio, tetanus, whooping cough and measles), was similarly upset by the commission’s conclusion that the trials resulted in no injuries.

“How do they know there were no ill effects? We don’t even know which infants were involved in this trial,” said Philip Delaney, whose vaccine records suggest he was part of this trial.

The commission that authored the report claims it identified “a number of the children involved” in the tests.

Questions about the potential adverse health effects of the illegal trials are not unwarranted. The commission found that during the 1930s and 1940s, over 40 percent of “illegitimate” children born at the homes died before their first birthday. Despite the shocking statistic, the commission appears to believe that the illegal medical experimentation played no role in the shameful level of infant mortality. Notably, Bessborough had a shockingly high infant mortality rate, with 75 percent of newborns dying within their first year.

January 17, 2021 Posted by aletho | Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Ireland | 1 Comment

America’s Epiphany Moment

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 4, 2021

The blanketing canopy pressing down across the globe of TINA (there is no alternative) is rupturing. The fabric is tearing at the seams. Now, with the U.S. courts having abdicated their role in adjudicating suits in connection with the 3rd November election, it seems that President Trump will make a last effort to change the course of events between 6–20 January (inauguration day). At point of writing, some 140 Republican Representatives say they will challenge the outcome of certain elections on 6 January. Whether this challenge will succeed (in all its dimensions) is moot.

What then? Well, Red America – whether rightly or wrongly – sees that 20 January may prove to be ‘the end of the line’ for them. Eight out of ten Republicans believe the election stolen; that the crucial Georgia Senatorial race likely will be ‘stolen’ too; that the destruction of small and mid-sized businesses through lockdown was a premeditated strategy to further consolidate Big Business Oligarchs; and that ultimately Red Americans will face ‘cancellation’ by an incoming woke ‘soft-totalitarianism’, orchestrated by Big Tech. This is their perspective – their Epiphany revelation. It is, to say the least, bleak.

With such a dark prospect facing Red America, talk has turned toward secession or separation (though not yet to divorce) – the more optimistic see an orderly agreement, allowing Red and Blue America to find political living-space, whilst acknowledging the practical bonds of geography, commerce, currency, debt, diplomacy and military force. But many expect a vengeful repression, and no civility.

Secession, per se, however, is unlikely – and if attempted, likely would end badly. Separation however is already happening in a small de facto way: House moves (estate agents say) are being driven firstly by the overarching ‘colour’ of the neighbourhood being vacated, as well as by the desired destination’s ‘colour’ (i.e. Red or Blue), as America separates into two ‘tribes’.

Yes, many American (and western) myths about American identity and politics lie shattered on the ground. Many still are in a state of shock. They had imagined their elections as somehow sacrosanct. They had imagined the courts as arbitrators. And they never imagined to see a U.S. President ridiculed and humiliated so, by the MSM. Reality has arrived as a slap in the face.

And yes – TINA is over; a market for alternatives is now open for business. The ripples from this unexpected shock of an American epiphany will cascade into the European Union (though European leaders presently, are presenting a Nelsonian (blind) eye to the telescope), and the European media is compliant in simply ignoring anything, save the Tech narrative of reality.

But much more than this, the tear to that oppressive TINA canopy allows other civilisational-states assertively to reject criticisms, or policies, which have been weaponised against their value-systems. If Red America can utterly reject woke values, and vice versa, then why should other civilisations not reject western Enlightenment values?

This is already afoot: as Hungary successfully has faced down the EU over its particular values (which progressive Brussels disdains as illiberal), and as China has made it clear that a trade relationship with Beijing will come only when Europeans put an end to their virtue signalling at others.

Whether the U.S. was a democracy in any meaningful sense prior to Trump had been the subject of substantial debate. A 2014 study concluded that economic power now was so concentrated in the hands of a tiny clique of billionaire-oligarchs that they had amassed virtually unchallengeable political power, leaving next-to-no power in anyone else’s hands. The report concluded that the U.S. resembled an oligarchy, rather than a functioning democracy. Big Tech’s narrative repression during the last months has rubbed painfully home the point of unchallengeable institutional power – to half America.

That debate about when U.S. democracy was lost, however, has been rendered utterly obsolete by the new realities of the Covid era: A combination of sustained lockdowns; the demise of small businesses; and of massive state-mandated pandemic support flowing primarily to corporate élites, has left these oligarchs, together with their Silicon Valley and Wall Street allies, further entrenched, with literally unassailable economic and political power.

Which brings us to the European Union. Perry Anderson, in a lengthy forensic examination entitled Ever Closer Union, details how Europe has steered its course towards an identical oligarchic destination – including all the same pathologies as are now present in the U.S.:

“… It [the EU] is not, obviously enough, a parliamentary democracy, lacking division between a government and an opposition, competition between parties for office, or accountability to voters. There is neither a separation between executive and legislative powers, along American lines; nor a connection between them, along British or Continental lines, in which an executive is invested by an elected legislature to which it remains responsible.

“Rather it is the inverse that holds: an unelected executive holds a monopoly of legislative initiative, while a judiciary, self-invested with an independence subject to no constitutional audit or control, issues decisions that are effectively unalterable, whether or not they conform to the treaties on which they are nominally based. The rule of the Union’s proceedings, whether they are presided over by judges, bankers, bureaucrats, deputies or prime ministers, are secret wherever possible, and their outcome, [proclaimed to represent] unanimity.”

In a striking parallel to the recent course of judicial events in the U.S., Anderson notes that the European Court of Justice, the ECJ, is a “court [its’ judges unelected, its deliberations secret], with an agenda that does not correspond to the intentions of its founders, seeing itself ‘neither as the guardian of the rights of the signatory states, nor as a neutral arbiter between the states and the Community, but rather the driving force of integration”. (This tallies closely with the complaints made against U.S. Supreme Court judicial activism, in respect to the Constitution. It too, has facilitated integration and concentration).

“The ECJs’ assertion of the supremacy of Community over domestic, let alone constitutional laws, has no basis in the Treaty of Rome, which granted it rights of judicial review only ‘with respect to acts of the Union institutions’, not those of member states.

“Yet, in effect, this is exactly what the court now undertakes on a routine basis X proceeding as if ‘the treaty framework, as touchstone on the internal constitutionality of all EU institutional activity X has never actually meant what [the Rome Treaty] so clearly states’.”

Again – as in the U.S. – this ECJ judicial ‘activism’ is setting new rules, well beyond ‘Treaty’ frameworks, without mandate, without legislative validation, or the electorates of Europe being even informed.

The ECJ’s current court president, the Belgian, Koen Lenaerts, has spelled out explicitly the Court’s integrationist ambitions. In his words: ‘There is simply no nucleus of sovereignty that the member states can invoke, as such, against the Community’. The court aims at ‘the same practical outcome as the one that would be obtained through a direct invalidation of member state law’. (The parallel here is with the U.S. Court dismissing any standing for disputes between the fifty co-sovereign U.S. states, over unconstitutional practices).

Again, following in the U.S. path, when confronted with ‘’’[19]68 Woodstock activism’ that seemed to threaten their economic interests – U.S. Big Business simply set-up the K-Street lobbying ‘industry’ that now effectively writes almost all Congressional legislation. The EU duly has followed suit here, too: “Brussels quickly became a magnet for corporate lawyers and investors from America, on the lookout for market opportunities and bringing with them the expectations and practices of a powerful federation”.

These latter soon formed close relations with the substantial number of high-flying Belgian commercial jurists, who, taking full advantage of an ECJ having “‘a settled and consistent policy of promoting European federalism’ … and which has interpreted ‘prohibitions of discrimination against foreign companies so widely’ that ‘almost any national [i.e. member state] regulation could be understood as a market access obstacle …’”. Thus, Anderson concludes, “the ECJ effectively deprived member states of ‘the power to determine the borderline between the private and public sector, market and state’”.

There are now around 30,000 registered lobbyists in Brussels – that is more than double the number infesting Washington, reckoned at a mere 12,000. In Brussels, 63% are corporate and consultant lobbyists, 26% are from NGOs, 7% from think tanks and 5% municipal. “That Europe’s executive could resist infection from the vapours of this swamp is implausible”, writes Anderson

But here is the rub: the deliberate de-linking of political process from society. Christopher Bickerton’s European Integration has as its subtitle, the seemingly anodyne: From Nation-States to Member States. Everyone has an idea what a nation-state is, and many know that 27 countries (with the UK’s departure) are ‘member states’. What is the conceptual difference between the two?

Here, Bickerton’s definition is succinct: ‘The concept of the member state expresses a fundamental change in the political structure of the state: With horizontal ties between national executives taking precedence over vertical ties between [national] governments – and their own societies’. The connection between 27 electorates and the political process thus is severed.

By the time the Cold War had ended in 1990, European executives already had consolidated this transition to member-statehood when crisis intervened: the Euro – far from bringing renewed growth and prosperity – had plunged Italy into prolonged stagnation and regression, and had taken the Eurozone as a whole into turmoil. The EU response then was not to loosen the corsets of ‘member-hood’, but rather to tighten them still further. Today, the response to the pandemic – which precisely highlighted Europe’s lack of solidarity and competence – again brought forth the ‘ever closer union’ and ‘solidarity’ mantra.

The southern belt of European states, however, still pay the price of a misconceived currency union that cannot now be reversed. For, even if currency union, absent fiscal or political union, was a huge mistake, the dissolution of the Eurozone remains something no mainstream Euro-politician sees feasible. Yet, if a second big shock (comparable to the impact of the Great Financial Crisis (of 2008)) were to hit the system – such as, for instance, through continuing lockdowns triggering depression – the European project would have to be radically rebuilt from the bottom up – or discarded.

Hence the ‘trap’ Europe is in – it can neither move forwards, nor backwards. The EU decision to rescue the single currency rather than dismantle it, created an economically repressive and politically authoritarian Euro regime that was hugely counter-productive. “By forcing member states in trouble to adopt fiscal austerity and internal devaluation, reducing labour costs, together with permanent downward pressure on wage incomes, social transfers and public transfers, official policy was ‘utterly devoid of democratic legitimacy”, Fritz Scharpf has suggested.

“In sum”, Anderson finally concludes, “the order of the Union is that of an oligarchy … Regrettably, an EU-wide democracy does not exist, and the reforms adopted since the crisis of 2008 – banking union, stricter fiscal oversight – have made the Union more technocratic, less accountable, and more distant from European electorates”.

But did not ‘the Project’ – for all its flaws – bring peace to Europe? The truth, of course, is that after 1945 there was never any risk of another outbreak of hostilities between Germany and France, or any other of the countries of Western Europe, because the Cold War made the whole region an American security protectorate.

And, just as is the case with the U.S. (now plainly in view, in wake of 3 November), the Union’s path to ‘ever closer union’ and to oligarchy, has created similar carbuncles of division across the European body politic. The strife is economic, cultural and political. Europe has two economies and they are diverging fast; they do different jobs, in different industries, in different places, for different pay. The elites and the have-nots.

On the one hand, Brussels adheres tightly to its trenchantly secular, and ‘progressive’ view, whilst on the other hand, a substantial portion of Europeans (and some member states), hue to a more traditional, spiritual and cultural ethos. And, as Brussels becomes more committed to a tech-led ‘Great Re-set’, these élites occupy a world wholly divorced from that of most working Europeans – two separate disconnected realities, in fact. And with European anger rising at the lockdowns – and at the destruction of small and medium sized businesses (just as in the U.S. people are moving from being financially squeezed, to going hungry).

America may possibly be on the brink of its ‘de-coupling moment’ – in shock at the raw revelation of just how undemocratic America has become; how unchallengeable its’ oligarchy and institutions have become (its’ epiphany in other words). Inwardly, they knew; but suddenly, sharply – like the crack of a crystal breaking – it has become luminously conscious to all.

The European élites pretend not to notice, repeating that all is about to revert ‘to normal’ with a Biden Administration; that the old relationship with the Democratic Party will be resumed. Europe never had a relationship with America, per se – Brussels has always been the European arm of America’s ‘Blue State’, to which it is joined at the hip – as Anderson’s account of the EU ‘acquis’ of all the attributes of unchallengeable power affirms. Yet, there is no ‘normal’; no civility; no ‘working across the aisle’ in Washington, to which Europe can share its ‘return’ with a Harris-Biden Admin.

The big ‘domino’ has fallen: Red America; and Brexit is a second. Does anyone believe that this American epiphany; this exploding of American delusions, will leave Europe untouched? Or, that other states will not observe it too, and understand from it that the past need to submit their own cultures to European moral scrutiny is over?

On 10 December, Rush Limbaugh, a well-known American conservative political show host, said: “I actually think that we’re trending toward secession. I see more and more people asking, ‘What in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York?’”

How long before Europeans more generally say, ‘What in the world do we have in common with those technocrats who operate in Brussels?’

Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat and also a founder and director of the Beirut-based Conflicts Forum.

January 4, 2021 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Economics, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | ECJ, European Union, United States | Leave a comment

Should Dr. Birx Be Forgiven For Breaking Her Own Rules?

By Ethan Yang | American Institute for Economic Research | December 28, 2020

Another day, another politician violates their own rule. Do as I say not as I do; this has been the prevailing theme of the pandemic as politicians openly flout the laws and recommendations they advocate for. From people like Speaker Nancy Pelosi to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to local county supervisors in Los Angeles, hypocrisy thrives at every level of government. Our leaders tell society to suck it up and lock down while providing little justification or direction. Meanwhile, they reserve the right to travel, dine out, and see their loved ones for themselves after devoting effort to prevent the rest of us from doing so. As they enjoy these luxuries, their policies bring economic devastation, social deprivation, and encourage fellow citizens to turn on one another.

Another public official to be added to this long list of hypocrites is Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator. AP News writes,

“The day after Thanksgiving, she traveled to one of her vacation properties on Fenwick Island in Delaware. She was accompanied by three generations of her family from two households. Birx, her husband Paige Reffe, a daughter, son-in-law and two young grandchildren were present.”

This is of course after she and her colleagues made a number of recommendations not to travel or gather on Thanksgiving. According to the New York Post,

“Birx had urged people in the days leading up to Thanksgiving to keep gatherings to “your immediate household.”

“I don’t like it to be any number,” Birx said on CNN’s “New Day.”

“Because you know, if you say it can be 10, and it’s eight people from four different families, then that probably is not the same degree of safe as 10 people from your immediate household.”

Birx said at the time that every American is obligated to make sacrifices to stop the spread of the virus.”

Dr. Birx believes that we should not gather with anyone besides those in our immediate household yet here she is just like many politicians before her. The New York Post also writes that when confronted on the matter Dr. Birx attempted to justify the trip by stating that she was going to “winterize the property before a potential sale.” On the matter it reports,

“I did not go to Delaware for the purpose of celebrating Thanksgiving,” Birx said in a statement.

She argued that the members of the trip belong to her “immediate household,” though she acknowledged they live in separate homes.”

As unconvincing as that sounds, even if Dr. Birx didn’t go to celebrate Thanksgiving that doesn’t change the fact that she was meeting with people from different households. Preparing the house for sale doesn’t change things either as American businesses have been crumbling under the boot of lockdowns since March. Although failing to prepare her house for sale might have lasting and adverse consequences, every day Americans have been making these sacrifices for months.

The New York Post provides a follow up on this situation when it reports that to justify her visit Dr. Birx said the following,

“My parents stopped eating and drinking because they were so depressed,” the 64-year-old complained to Newsy.

“My daughter hasn’t left that house in 10 months, my parents have been isolated for 10 months. They’ve become deeply depressed,” Birx said of the need to “recover from the trauma of the last 10 months.”

Although this is certainly a compelling reason to visit her family, the problem is that this is what countless Americans have been dealing with as well. Dr. Birx has simply realized what the consequences of her policies have been. For many Americans, lockdowns have generated the social agony her family has experienced. Plenty of Americans have also lost jobs and livelihoods. According to data from Yelp, 60 percent of businesses that closed will never open again. For many Americans, they have experienced even worse. According to the CDC, drug overdoses have skyrocketed in 2020, expanding the list of self-inflicted deaths both intentional and unintentional. Despite all this, the average American has obediently complied with these guidelines even though they have every right not to.

Should We Forgive Dr. Birx?

Dr. Birx and the countless politicians like her should be forgiven under the following condition: That they learn from their mistakes and empathize with the average American’s struggle with their policies. To understand the eternal lesson that policy intentions do not equal policy results. If we could have more people in power who understand this truth then society would be better off. Lockdowns are a classic example of a policy that seemed to have benevolent intentions but wound up having lethal consequences. There are laws that work and those that don’t. Lockdowns and all the arbitrary restrictions that come with them promote contempt for the rule of law while doing little to control the virus. They have not only done little to prevent the spread of Covid-19, but they have wrecked society as a result. Part of the process of leadership is having the humility to admit that you were wrong and understanding that you can’t force a square peg through a round hole. Likewise, you cannot drastically shut down society and prohibit everything it means to be human without expecting terrible results.

The great economist Friedrich Hayek once wrote,

“The basic source of social order, however, is not a deliberate decision to adopt certain common rules, but the existence among the people of certain opinions of what is right and wrong…. Except where the political unit is created by conquest, people submit to authority not to enable it to do what it likes, but because they trust somebody to act in conformity with certain common conceptions of what is just. There is not first a society which then gives itself rules, but it is common rules which weld dispersed bands into a society.”

Hayek spoke of lawmaking as a sort of discovery process of policies that are compatible with society rather than simply forcing one’s will on society. Lockdowns are a clear example of an unsustainable law that is not only incompatible with society but impossible to follow. Dr. Birx has learned firsthand that her recommendations are not sustainable in the long run and even she of all people can’t follow such an edict. Rather than feeling humiliated and ashamed, she should attempt to enlighten her colleagues about her discovery. Otherwise, this will go down as another one of countless instances of elitism and hypocrisy exercised by our public servants.

Dr. Birx may have saved her family from emotional trauma or worse by visiting them. Surely she had taken the necessary precautions to ensure that her trip was as safe as possible. It would certainly be reasonable to make such a trip given the circumstances. She weighed the dangers and rewards of the actions she was taking and made a thoughtful decision. Rather than apologizing and retreating, she should fight for the average American’s right to do the same. One could only wish.

Ethan Yang joined AIER in 2020 as an Editorial Assistant and is a graduate of Trinity College. He received a BA in Political Science alongside a minor in Legal Studies and Formal Organizations. He currently serves as Local Coordinator at Students for Liberty and the Director of the Mark Twain Center for the Study of Human Freedom at Trinity College.

December 28, 2020 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Covid-19, United States | 1 Comment

2020: The Year We Lost Our Common Sense, Courage and Civil Liberties

By Robert Bridge | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 28, 2020

Once it became clear to the Western elite that their subjects would readily accept draconian anti-Covid measures, it encouraged them to usher in a code-red lifestyle where there will be no ‘return to normal’ in the foreseeable future and, possibly, ever.

If nothing else, nobody can say we were not warned about the madness that would descend upon leap year 2020, making it one of the worst 366 days ever recorded on the Gregorian calendar.

On October 18, 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, together with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted the incredibly visionary Event 201, an exercise that simulated the outbreak of a pandemic “transmitted from bats to people that eventually becomes… transmissible from person to person.”

The simulation proved to be so uncannily similar to the real thing that started just three months later – from imagining a dramatic drop in air travel and business, to breaks in the global supply chain – that Johns Hopkins eventually felt compelled to release a statement saying their exercise was not intended to be a prophecy of future events.

“To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise,” the statement read, in what just might be the creepiest caveat ever. “For the scenario, we modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic, but we explicitly stated that it was not a prediction… We are not now predicting that the nCoV-2019 outbreak will kill 65 million people.”

Shortly after the global elite played Nostradamus, on January 15^th to be exact (the very same day, incidentally, that the Democrats presented articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump in the Senate), the first Covid-positive person arrived in Seattle from Wuhan, the Chinese city where the disease is said to have sprung to life. From there it has been a non-stop roller-coaster ride of government-sponsored insanity.

Before continuing, it is important to remember the context with which the pandemic has been happening, that is, in the most consequential U.S. presidential election in recent memory. It should thus come as no surprise that the Democrats and Republicans would use the scourge to achieve some sort of advantage, demonstrating Machiavellian opportunism at its very best. Indeed, such is the nature of the political beast.

For example, although Trump shut down the U.S. border on January 31 to Chinese nationals, the Democrats and leftist media pounced, saying the U.S. leader responded too late to make a difference. Even Trump’s use of the term ‘Chinese virus’ was slammed by his opponents as ‘racist.’ Meanwhile, it was the Democrats themselves who were the pioneers in taking the first draconian steps of locking down society to stop the contagion.

On March 16, 2020, six counties in northern California and the city of Berkley ordered an unprecedented stay-at-home order for some 7 million Bay Area residents. This was all part of “flattening the curve” logic that would “buy time for hospitals to gear up for the onslaught…” Well, 233 days later political leaders are not only still flattening the curve, but flattening their economies as well. Today, although the survival rate for those infected with Covid-19 is reported to be in the neighborhood of 99.85 percent, harsh lockdowns continue to wreak havoc, not least of all for small businesses.

This is criminal. Complete BS!!! I guess this is “science”! RT @ClayTravis: Watch this video of an LA bar owner that perfectly crystallizes the absurdity of California’s absurd and ridiculous shutdown rules. pic.twitter.com/XVLmAVyy70

— Larry The Cable Guy (@GitRDoneLarry) December 5, 2020

Consider the situation in California, where Governor Gavin Newsom has mandated yet another ‘shelter-in-place’ order, which has shuttered, among other businesses, hair salons, barbershops, personal care services, movie theaters, wineries, bars, breweries, family entertainment centers and amusement parks. What is hard to fathom, however, is how the corporate big-box stores are considered “essential businesses,” apparently immune to the scourge, while the small business owner is trashed as expendable.

By way of example, consider the tragic plight of Angela Marsden, the owner of Pineapple Hill Saloon and Grill in Los Angeles. In an effort to comply with the ever-changing anti-Covid rules, Marsden spent over $80,000 to build an outdoor patio so she could stay in business during the pandemic. With Newsom’s latest lockdown restrictions, however, city officials denied her permission to serve clients on location, even in the parking lot.

To add insult to injury, the authorities granted permission for a film company to set up a large outdoor eating area for its staff just across the road from where Marsden had built her patio.

“I’m losing everything,” she exclaimed in a video posted to Twitter that has been watched almost 10 million times. “Everything I own is being taken away from me. They have not given us money and they have shut us down. We cannot survive; my staff cannot survive…”

For the Fortune 500 companies, however, the pandemic has translated into a windfall. Between April and September, at a time when thousands of small business were quietly getting crushed underfoot, 45 of the 50 most valuable publicly traded American companies turned a profit, according to the Washington Post.

At the same time, at least 27 of the 50 largest firms slashed their workforce this year, collectively cutting more than 100,000 workers, while at the same time distributing billions of dollars to shareholders. As just one example, Walmart distributed more than $10 billion to its investors during the pandemic while terminating 1,200 office staff.

To put these figures another way, since mid-March – when President Donald Trump declared a national emergency – America’s 614 billionaires saw their net worth explode by $931 billion in total. Jeff Bezos, for example, the founder and chief executive of Amazon, saw his private wealth go from $73.2bn since the start of the crisis to a record $186.2bn.

It would probably come as no surprise that the very individuals who helped pave the way for astronomic wealth generation among the 1 percent, are the same ones breaking their own rules. Governor Newsom and his wife, for example, attended a birthday party with a dozen friends at the French Laundry restaurant in San Francisco. Equally maddening is that Dustin Corcoran, the CEO of the California Medical Association, was also in attendance. And who could forget the photo of Nancy Pelosi walking through a California hair salon when such businesses were deemed ‘super spreaders’?

What’s Good For Thee Is Not Good For Me

A thread ⬇️ https://t.co/42p9Yc2xY7

— Patriotic Candor (@PatrioticCandor) December 3, 2020

Such incidences only served to reinforce the idea that the draconian lockdowns, the worst of which are centered on Democratic-controlled states, were specifically designed not to contain a contagion, but to foster as much anger and frustration among the general population in the most consequential presidential election in many decades. After all, unhappy people have a tendency to vote out their leaders whom they believe are responsible for such dire circumstances. And with the mainstream media almost totally in the Democratic anti-Trump camp, placing the blame on the president has proven no difficult task.

So where do we go from here? Now that we have reached the end of 2020, will the situation begin to improve? Will political leaders begin to loosen the screws and let some semblance of normality return once again? Or will people be forced to rise up and demand the return of their freedom and liberty?

At this great loggerhead in human history, there has been much talk about creating ‘freedom passes’ that will be demanded from people before they are allowed to travel or visit any sort of entertainment again.

“People who test negative for coronavirus could get a five-day freedom pass to attend big events or access public buildings, under plans being considered by public health experts running a trial program in England,” reported Bloomberg in November.

Already, five global airlines – United Airlines, Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic, Swiss International Air Lines and JetBlue – have announced they will observe the so-called CommonPass to passengers on some flights from December.

“The project, developed by non-profit group The Commons Project and backed by the World Economic Forum, uses a digital certificate downloaded to a mobile phone to show a passenger has tested negative for Covid-19,” according to the Financial Times. Here is the kicker: “The airlines are not making the CommonPass mandatory, but in time it will also be used to provide proof of vaccination.”

It seems rather obvious where all of this is heading: mandatory vaccination for anyone who ever wishes to board an aircraft or visit another entertainment venue again. Over time, it is not difficult to imagine a vaccine regimen extending to all human activities, including shopping and even getting a job. Yet what about the millions of people who have expressed extreme skepticism in being administered a vaccine that has been developed so quickly?

Whatever the case may be, should such a plan of action become mandatory, peoples’ lives will be entirely dominated by fears over a virus, together with an endless bureaucratic process of being tested and approved to move about. Vaccines will become a regular requirement since viruses are in a state of constant mutation, which makes them the authoritarian’s dream instrument of domination.

Such a system of totalitarian control, should it ever come into fruition, will have achieved in mere months what fascism could not in years: the pacification and unification of a great swath of the world’s population not by bayonet, but by syringe. In fact, today the people of London are fleeing their fair city not out of fear of the virus per se, but out of fear of the lockdown restrictions put in place by the authorities. To put it otherwise, the world gave an inch and the globalists took a mile, and a person would have to be a fool to believe it could have turned out any other way.

December 28, 2020 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Economics, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Event 201, United States, Walmart, World Economic Forum | Leave a comment

Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to UK Eugenics Movement

By Jeremy Loffredo and Whitney Webb | ~~Unlimited Hangout~~ | December 26, 2020

The developers of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine have previously undisclosed ties to the re-named British Eugenics Society as well as other Eugenics-linked institutions like the Wellcome Trust.

On April 30th, AstraZeneca and Oxford University announced a “landmark agreement” for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine. The agreement involves AstraZeneca overseeing aspects of the development as well as manufacturing and distribution while the Oxford side, via the Jenner Institute and Oxford Vaccine Group, researched and developed the vaccine. Less than a month after this agreement was reached, the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership was awarded a contract from the US government as part of Operation Warp Speed, the public-private COVID-19 vaccination effort dominated by the US military and US intelligence.

Though the partnership was announced in April, Oxford’s Jenner Institute had already begun developing the COVID-19 vaccine months before, in mid-January. According to a recent BBC report, it was in January that the Jenner Institute first became aware of how serious the pandemic would soon become, when Professor Andrew Pollard, who works for both the Jenner Institute and heads the Oxford Vaccine Group, “shared a taxi with a modeler who worked for the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.” During the taxi ride, “the scientist told him data suggested there was going to be a pandemic not unlike the 1918 flu.” Due to this sole encounter, we are told, the Jenner Institute then began to pour millions into the early development of a vaccine for COVID-19 well before the scope of the crisis was clear.

For much of 2020, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was treated as an early front-runner, though its lead would later be marred by scandals related to its clinical trials, including the death of participants, sudden trial pauses, the use of a problematic “placebo” with its own host of side effects and the “unintentional” mis-dosing of some participants that skewed its self-reported efficacy rate.

The significant issues that emerged during trials have provoked little concern from the vaccine’s two lead developers, despite critical attention from even mainstream media of its complications. The lead developer of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, Adrian Hill, told NBC on December 9^th that the experimental vaccine should be approved and distributed to the public before the conclusion of the safety trials, saying,”to wait for the end of the trial would be the middle of next year. That’s too late, this vaccine is effective, available at large scale and easily deployed.”

Sarah Gilbert, the other lead researcher on the vaccine, seemed to believe that pre-mature safety approval was likely, telling the BBC on December 13 that the chances of rolling out the vaccine by the end of the year are “pretty high.” Now, the UK is expected to approve the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine shortly after Christmas, with India also set to approve the vaccine next week.

While the controversies surrounding the vaccine’s trials did ultimately undermine its previous frontrunner status, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine remains heavily promoted as the vaccine of choice for the developing world, as it is cheaper and has much less complicated storage requirement than its main competitors, Pfizer and Moderna.

Earlier this month, Dr. Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of the Lancet medical journal, told CNBC that “The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is the vaccine right now that is going to be able to immunize the planet more effectively, more rapidly than any other vaccine we have” in large part because it is a “vaccine that can get to lower middle-income countries.” CNBC also quoted Andrew Baum, global head of health care for Citi Group, as saying that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine “is really the only vaccine that is going to suppress or even eradicate SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in the many millions of individuals in the developing world.”

In addition to longstanding claims that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine will be the vaccine of choice for the developing world, this vaccine candidate has also been treated by several outlets in the mainstream and even independent media as “good for people, bad for profits” due to the partnership’s “explicit intention of supplying [the vaccine] around the world on a not-for-profit basis, meaning that the poorest nations on the planet will not have to worry about being shut out of a cure due to lack of funds.”

However, investigation into the vaccine’s developers and the realities of their “no-profit pledge” reveals a very different story than that which has been spun for most of the year by corporate press releases, experts and academics tied to the vaccine and the mainstream press.

For instance, mainstream media has had little, if anything, to say about the role of the vaccine developers’ private company – Vaccitech – in the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership, a company whose main investors include former top Deutsche Bank executives, Silicon Valley behemoth Google and the UK government. All of them stand to profit from the vaccine alongside the vaccine’s two developers, Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert, who retain an estimated 10% stake in the company. Another overlooked point is the plan to dramatically alter the current sales model for the vaccine following the initial wave of its administration, which would see profits soar, especially if the now obvious push to make COVID-19 vaccination an annual affair for the foreseeable future is made reality.

Yet, arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine’s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK Eugenics movement. The latter organization, named for the “father of eugenics” Francis Galton, is the re-named UK Eugenics Society, a group notorious for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to “improve racial stock” by reducing the population of those deemed inferior for over a century.

The ties of Adrian Hill to the Galton Institute should raise obvious concerns given the push to make the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine he developed with Gilbert the vaccine of choice for the developing world, particularly countries in Latin America, South and Southeast Asia and Africa, the very areas where the Galton Institute’s past members have called for reducing population growth.

In the final installment of this series on Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s vaccination effort, and race, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine’s ties to Eugenics-linked institutions, the secretive role of Vaccitech, and the myth of the vaccine’s sale being “non-profit” and altruistically motivated are explored in detail.

GlaxoSmithKline and the Jenner Institute

The Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research was initially established in 1995 in Compton in Berkshire as a public-private partnership between the UK government, via the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health, and the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. Following a “review by the [institute’s] sponsors,” it was relaunched in 2005 in Oxford under the leadership of Adrian Hill, who—prior to that appointment—held a senior position at the Wellcome Trust’s Centre for Human Genetics. Hill, the lead developer of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, still leads a research group at Wellcome aimed at “understand[ing] the genetic basis of susceptibility to different infectious diseases, especially. . . severe respiratory infections,” which conducts most of its studies in Africa. The UK’s Medical Research Council has also become a collaborator with the Wellcome Trust, specifically on vaccine-related initiatives. The Wellcome Trust, discussed at greater length later in this article, was originally created with funding from Henry Wellcome, who founded the company that later became GlaxoSmithKline.

Hill’s partner at the Jenner Institute and the other co-developer of the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine is Sarah Gilbert. Gilbert also hails from the Wellcome Trust, where she was a “program director,” and is a student of Hill’s. Together, Gilbert and Hill have worked to position the institute to be the center of all future vaccination efforts undertaken in response to global pandemics.

Professor Sarah Gilbert at Oxford, Photo by John Cairns

The Jenner Institute’s relocation to Oxford was largely facilitated by the Medical Research Council, which donated £1.25 million between 2005 and 2006, after the decision was made to replace the institute’s original sponsors (GlaxoSmithKline, the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health) with the University of Oxford and the Institute for Animal Health, now called the Pirbright Institute. The involvement of Pirbright meant that the relaunched Jenner Institute became unique in developing vaccines for both humans and livestock.

The relaunched Jenner Institute has come to dominate publicly funded vaccine development in the UK as well as the testing of vaccines produced by the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies via clinical trials and has overseen prominent safety trials for vaccines of high media interest in recent years. Some of the Jenner Institute–conducted trials later drew controversy, such as those using South African infants in 2009 in which seven infants died.

An investigation conducted by the British Medical Journal found that the Hill-led Jenner Institute had, in the South African instance, knowingly misled parents about the negative results of and questionable methods used in animal studies as well the vaccine being known to be ineffective. The vaccine in question, an experimental tuberculosis vaccine developed jointly by Emergent Biosolutions and the Jenner Institute, was scrapped after the controversial study in infants confirmed what was already known, that the vaccine was ineffective. The trial, largely funded by Oxford and the Wellcome Trust, was subsequently praised as “historic” by the BBC. Hill, at the time the study was conducted, had a personal financial stake in the vaccine.

Similar instances of dodgy practices in efficacy trials and the effects of increased dosages have led vaccine experts to criticize the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Hill and Gilbert. Hill and Gilbert hold a considerable financial stake in the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. While the vaccine reportedly has an efficacy of over 90 percent, those figures—often cited in mainstream reports—are self-reported by the vaccine’s developers and manufacturers (i.e., the Oxford team and AstraZeneca), which is significant given that Hill and other Jenner Institute scientists have previously been caught manipulating trial results to benefit a vaccine product in which they were personally invested.

The prominence of the Jenner Institute in vaccine development and testing has largely come through Hill’s additional leadership role at the UK’s Vaccines Network, which chooses what vaccines to develop, how to develop them, and which firms should receive “targeted investments” from the UK government. The Vaccines Network also plays a key role in identifying “what vaccine technologies could play an important role in future outbreaks.” Two of the main backers of the UK’s Vaccines Network are the Wellcome Trust and GlaxoSmithKline.

Unsurprisingly, the Vaccines Network has steered many millions of pounds toward the Hill-run Jenner Institute, with completed projects including a “plug and display” virus-like particle platform for rapid-response vaccination. Also funded by the Vaccines Network were the Jenner Institute’s initial studies of novel chimpanzee adenovirus vaccines for coronavirus (in this case, MERS), the same viral vector used for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. In addition to the Vaccines Network, the Jenner Institute also coordinates the efforts of the EU’s Vaccines Network equivalent, MultiMalVax.

Professor Adrian Hill at the Jenner Institute, Photo by John Cairns

The Jenner Institute also has a close relationship with GlaxoSmithKline and the Italian biotech Okairos, which was acquired by GlaxoSmithKline in 2014. Soon after it was acquired, Okairos, and its new owner GlaxoSmithKline, became key players in the 2014 experimental Ebola vaccine push, an effort that mirrors the current COVID-19 vaccine development rush in many key ways. The rushed safety trials for that vaccine were overseen by Adrian Hill and the Jenner Institute and funded by the UK government and the Wellcome Trust. GlaxoSmithKline and Okairos are the only firms represented on the Jenner Institute’s Scientific Advisory Board.

The Jenner Institute, along with GlaxoSmithKline-Okairos and a small French biotech called Imaxio, have been developing an experimental malaria vaccine since 2015, with human trials of that vaccine announced on December 12, 2020. Those trials will be conducted on 4,800 children in Africa over the course of 2021, in many of the same countries where Hill’s research group at the Wellcome Center for Human Genetics has been studying genetic susceptibility to several diseases. “A lot more people will die in Africa this year from malaria than will die from Covid,” Hill recently said in regard to the soon-to-begin trials.

Currently, the Jenner Institute is funded by the Jenner Vaccine Foundation, but the foundation’s documents note on several occasions a considerable influx of money from Wellcome Trust Strategic Awards. A “special review panel” from the Wellcome Trust actually lobbied the Jenner Institute to apply for further “strategic core funding” from the trust after visiting the institute and appraising its work. The Jenner Institute frames its funding from Wellcome as the key guidance behind its development decisions, which are made “based on the successful model of Wellcome Trust Strategic Award support.”

The Jenner Institute’s foundation, however, is not the only source of income for its lead researchers. Hill and Gilbert have been working to commercialize many of the institute’s vaccines through their own private company, Vaccitech. Though media reports often describe the vaccine as being a joint effort between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford, Vaccitech is a key stakeholder in that partnership, given that the vaccine candidate relies on technology developed by Hill and Gilbert and owned by Vaccitech. A deeper look into Vaccitech offers a clue as to why the company’s name has been absent from nearly all media reports on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, as it demolishes the much-touted claim that the vaccine is “nonprofit” and offered at low cost for charitable reasons.

Vaccitech: doing well by going “good”?

The official reason Sarah Gilbert and Adrian Hill created Vaccitech in 2016 per The Times is because “Oxford’s researchers [are] encouraged to form companies to commercialize their work.” Vaccitech, like other “commercialized” Oxford research enterprises, was spun out of the Jenner Institute via the university’s commercialization arm, Oxford Science Innovations, which is currently Vaccitech’s largest stakeholder at 46 percent. Hill and Gilbert are reported to maintain a 10 percent stake in the company.

The largest investor in Oxford Science Innovations, and by extension one of the largest shareholders in Vaccitech, is Braavos Capital, the venture-capital firm started in 2019 by Andrew Crawford-Brunt, Deutsche Bank’s long-time global head of equity trading at its London branch. Through its stake in Oxford Science Innovations, Braavos owns about 9 percent of Vaccitech.

Prior to COVID-19, Vaccitech’s main focus, especially last year, was the development of a universal vaccine for the flu. Vaccitech’s efforts in this regard were praised by Google, which is also invested in Vaccitech. At the same time, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was funding research to develop a universal flu vaccine, reportedly because the field of influenza vaccinology was not yet able “to design a flu vaccine that would protect broadly against the strains of flu that infect people every winter and those in nature that could emerge to trigger a disruptive and deadly pandemic,” according to a STAT News report from last year. The Gates Foundation effort originally partnered with Google’s cofounder Larry Page and his wife Lucy.

To fully finance Hill and Gilbert’s Vaccitech, and specifically its quest to develop a universal flu vaccine, Oxford Science Innovations sought £600 million from “outside investors,” chief among them the Wellcome Trust and the venture-capital arm of Google, Google Ventures. This means that Google is poised to make a profit from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine at a time when its video platform YouTube has moved to ban COVID-19 vaccine–related content that shines a negative light on COVID-19 vaccines, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca candidate. Other investors in Vaccitech include Sequoia Capital’s Chinese branch and the Chinese pharmaceutical company Fosun Pharma. In addition, the UK government has put an estimated £5 million into the company and is also expected to make a return on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

Vaccitech’s homepage showing company co-founders Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert. From vaccitech.co.uk

Information on the profit motive behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has been muddied due to the extensive media promotion of the claim that Hill and Gilbert will not be collecting royalties on the vaccine and that AstraZeneca is not making a profit off the vaccine. However, this is only true until the pandemic is “officially” declared over, and the virus is labeled a persistent or seasonal condition that will require the mass administration of COVID-19 vaccines at regular intervals and possibly annually. Sky News reported that the determination of when the pandemic is over “will be based on the views of a range of [unspecified] independent bodies.” At that point, both Vaccitech and Oxford will obtain royalties from AstraZeneca’s sales of the vaccine.

Those tied to the vaccine have been at the center of promoting the idea that the COVID-19 vaccine will soon become an annual affair. For instance, in early May, John Bell—an Oxford medical professor and an “architect” of the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership—told NBC News, “I suspect we may need to have relatively regular vaccinations against coronaviruses going into the future,” adding that the vaccine would likely be needed every year like the flu vaccine. NBC News failed to note that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in which Bell is involved stands to significantly benefit financially if that does come to pass.

More recently, Bell told The Week that, “should there prove to be a market for regular vaccinations against coronavirus in the future, ‘there is some money to be made.’” Such sentiments have been echoed by Pascal Soriot, the CEO of AstraZeneca, who told Bloomberg last month that the company stood to make a “reasonable profit” once the pandemic was declared over and COVID-19 deemed a seasonal illness requiring regular vaccinations. On this matter, Vaccitech’s CEO, Bill Enright, stated that Vaccitech investors would receive a “big chunk of the royalties from a successful vaccine as well as ‘milestone’ payments” if and when the pandemic is declared over and COVID-19 vaccines become a seasonal event.

Vaccitech, in particular, appears quite certain that this possibility is slated to become reality. For all subsequent iterations of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, Vaccitech will reacquire a much larger percentage of rights to the vaccine, rights it is currently splitting with Oxford for the first iteration. Sky News has noted that the technology that Vaccitech owns “could drive the second generation of COVID-19 vaccines” and that it “has [already] received £2.3 million of public funding to develop it.”

US government officials such as Anthony Fauci have also signaled that the COVID-19 vaccine will require annual shots. Notably, the government, through Health and Human Service’s BARDA, has poured over $1 billion into the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine development. In addition to government officials, several recently published mainstream media reports have claimed that the “expert” consensus “seem[s] to be leaning toward an annual shot like the flu vaccine” with regards to the COVID-19 vaccine. For instance, Dr. Charles Chiu, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of California–San Francisco, recently told Salon, “This may end up being a vaccine that’s not a one-time thing or even a two-time thing. . . it may end up being what we call either a seasonal vaccine, or vaccine that needs to be administered every couple of years.”

Such hints about an annual COVID-19 vaccine from 2021 onward have recently become commonplace from the leading COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers themselves. For instance, on December 13^th, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla was quoted by the Telegraph as saying, “How long this [vaccine] protection lasts is something we don’t know … I think it is a likely scenario that you will need periodical vaccinations.” Pfizer also recently issued a statement that noted that “we don’t know how the virus will change, and we also don’t know how durable the protective effect of any vaccination will be,” adding that its vaccine would be suitable “for repeated administration as booster shots” in the event that the vaccine only induces an immune response for a few months.

Then, this past Tuesday, Moderna released information that suggested immunity from its COVID-19 vaccine would only last several months, with Forbes writing that “the duration of neutralizing antibodies from the Moderna vaccine will be relatively short, potentially less than a year,” an outcome that would favor the push for an annual COVID-19 shot. The developer of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, Ugur Sahin of BioNTech, also stated on Tuesday that “The virus will stay with us for the next 10 years… We need to get used to the fact there’ll be more outbreaks.” He later added that “if the virus becomes more efficient… we might need a higher uptake of the vaccine for life to return to normal,” implying that these regular outbreaks he foresees occurring over the next ten years would be correlated with increased vaccine administration.

Quotes from the developers of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine themselves also point to a pandemic-dominated future and a desire for the crisis to be prolonged so that the vaccine can be widely distributed. Gilbert told the UK Independent in August that she believes COVID-19 is just the beginning and that COVID-like pandemics will become more frequent in the near future. The Jenner Institute vaccine team seems so determined to create the COVID vaccine that, in June, Hill was quoted by the Washington Post in June as stating that he wanted the pandemic to stick around, saying, “We’re in the bizarre position of wanting COVID to stay, at least for a little while. But cases are declining.” He also stated that his team was in “a race against the virus disappearing.”

With the vaccine developers, “medical experts,” government officials, and the CEOs of major vaccine manufacturers all agreeing that a seasonal COVID-19 vaccine is an increasingly likely outcome, it is worth considering a possible ulterior motive regarding the initial “nonprofit” model being used by the Jenner Institute/Vaccitech and AstraZeneca for their joint COVID-19 vaccine.

Given that vaccine guidance in several countries states that each dose of the multidose COVID-19 vaccine must be produced by the same manufacturer as previous doses, the implication is that in the event of a need for periodic COVID-19 vaccine variants, those who initially received the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine would likely be required to receive that same “brand” of vaccine seasonally. In other words, those who initially received the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine would likely be required, not just to receive a second dose of the same “brand,” but continue receiving that same “brand” of vaccine every year. Notably, no interaction studies have yet been conducted on the interactions between the COVID-19 vaccines and other medications as well as other vaccines.

If this turns out to be the case, it would certainly behoove the Oxford-Vaccitech-AstraZeneca team to want their vaccine to be the most widely used one in the first year in order to guarantee the largest market for subsequent annual COVID-19 vaccines. This could be a possible motive behind the efforts of the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership “to supply the entire world with the Oxford jab” and to supply the vaccine “to the most vulnerable groups to COVID-19.” This vaccine has already been purchased, even before regulatory approval, by governments around the world, including in Europe, North America, Australia and most Latin American countries.

The Wellcome Trust

Adrian Hill currently holds a senior position at the Wellcome Trust’s Centre for Human Genomics. The Wellcome Trust is a scientific charity based in London, established in 1936 with funds from pharmaceutical magnate Henry Wellcome. As previously mentioned, Wellcome founded the pharmaceutical company that eventually became the industry giant GlaxoSmithKline. Today, the Wellcome Trust has a $25.9 billion endowment and engages in philanthropic endeavors, including funding clinical trials and research.

Hill has been closely tied to Wellcome for decades. In 1994, he participated in the founding of the Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics and was awarded a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellowship the following year. He became a Wellcome professor of human genetics in 1996.

The Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics website boasts of the large-scale genetic mapping they’ve conducted in Africa. The center also publishes papers that explore genetic dispositions in relation to male fertility and “reproductive success.” The crossroads between race and genes is important in the center’s work, as an entire working group at the center, the Myers Group, is dedicated to mapping the “genetic impacts of migration events.” The center also funded a paper that argued that so long as eugenics is not coercive it’s an acceptable policy initiative. The paper asks, “Is the fact that an action or policy is a case of eugenics necessarily a reason not to do it?” According to Hill’s page on the Wellcome Trust site, race and genetics have long played a central role in his scientific approach, and his group currently focuses on the role genetics plays in African populations with regard to susceptibility to specific infectious diseases.

The Wellcome Genome Campus, which houses the Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, is located on the grounds of Hixton Hall, in Cambridgeshire, England.

Of even greater concern, last year Science Mag reported that Wellcome was accused by both a whistleblower and the University of Cape Town South Africa of illegally exploiting hundreds of Africans by “commercializing a gene chip without proper legal agreements and without the consent of the hundreds of African people whose donated DNA was used to develop the chip.” Jantina de Vries, a bioethicist at the University of Cape Town South Africa told the journal that it was “clearly unethical.” Since the controversy, other African institutions and peoples such as the indigenous Nama peoples of Namibia have demanded that Wellcome return the DNA it collected.

The Wellcome Centre regularly co-funds the research and development of vaccines and birth control methods with the Gates Foundation, a foundation that actively and admittedly engages in population and reproductive control in Africa and South Asia by, among other things, prioritizing the wide-spread distribution of injectable long-acting, reversible contraceptives (LARCs). The Wellcome Trust has also directly funded studies that sought to develop methods to “improve uptake” of LARCs in places such as rural Rwanda.

As researcher Jacob Levich wrote in the Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism, LARCs afford women in the Global South “the least choice possible short of actual sterilization.” Some LARCs can render women infertile for as long as five years, and, as Levich argues, they “leave far more control in the hands of providers, and less in the hands of women, than condoms, oral contraceptives, or traditional methods.”

One example is Norplant, a contraceptive implant manufactured by Schering (now Bayer) that can prevent pregnancy for up to five years. It was taken off the US market in 2002 after more than fifty thousand women filed lawsuits against the company and the doctors who prescribed it. Seventy of those class action suits were related to side effects such as depression, extreme nausea, scalp-hair loss, ovarian cysts, migraines, and excessive bleeding.

Slightly modified and rebranded as Jadelle, the dangerous drug was promoted in Africa by the Gates Foundation in conjunction with USAID and EngenderHealth. Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth’s original mission, inspired by racial eugenics, was to “improve the biological stock of the human race.” Jadelle is not approved by the FDA for use in the United States.

Another scandal-ridden LARC is Pfizer’s Depo-Provera, an injectable contraceptive used in several African and Asian countries. The Gates Foundation and USAID have collaborated to fund this drug’s distribution and introduce it into the health-care systems of countries including Uganda, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, Bangladesh, and India.

Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, where Hill’s Jenner Institute resides, is enmeshed with the Gates Foundation. His employer, the University of Oxford, has received $11 million for vaccine development research from the foundation over the past three years and $208 million in grants over the past decade. In 2016, the Gates Foundation gave $36 million to a team of researchers that was headed by Pollard for vaccine development. In addition, Pollard’s private laboratory is funded by the Gates Foundation. Given this, it should come as no surprise that the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiative (GAVI), a public-private partnership founded and currently funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, plans to distribute the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine to low-income, predominantly African and Asian, countries once it’s approved.

The Galton Institute: Eugenics for the Twenty-First Century

Both the Wellcome Trust and Adrian Hill share a close relationship with the most infamous eugenics society in Europe, the British Eugenics Society. The Eugenics Society was renamed the Galton Institute in 1989, a name that pays homage to Sir Francis Galton, the so-called father of eugenics, a field that he often described as the “science of improving racial stock.”

In the case of the Wellcome Trust, the Trust’s library is the guardian of the Eugenics Society historical archives. When the Wellcome Trust first set up its Contemporary Medical Archive Center, the first organizational archive it sought to acquire was tellingly that of the Eugenics Society-Galton Institute. Wellcome’s website describes the Eugenics Society’s original purpose as “to increase public understanding of heredity and to influence parenthood in Britain, with the aim of biological improvement of the nation and mitigation of the burdens deemed to be imposed on society by the genetically ‘unfit’.” It also states the interests of the society’s members “ranged from the biology of heredity, a subject that developed rapidly during the first half of the 20th century, to the provision of birth control methods, artificial insemination, statistics, sex education and family allowances.” Lesley Hall, Wellcome’s senior archivist, has referred to Francis Galton, a racist eugenicist, as an “eminent late nineteenth century polymath” in her discussion of the Eugenics Society archive held at Wellcome.

A poster published by the Eugenics Society-Galton Institute in the 1930S, from the Wellcome Library

Several top governance positions at the former British Eugenics Society, now the Galton Institute, include individuals who originally worked at The Wellcome Trust, including the Galton Institute’s president Turi King. Dr. Elena Bochukova, a current Galton Council Member and Galton lecturer, previously worked under the direction of Adrian Hill at the Wellcome Trust Center for Human Genetics. The Galton Institute’s Senior Genetics Researcher, Dr. Jess Buxton, was previously a ‘genetics researcher’ at the Wellcome Trust and then went on to carry out independent research financed by Wellcome. Her research, which is particularly race oriented, includes creating the first genetic sequence map of a native Nigerian. Moreover, Adrian Hill himself spoke at the Eugenics Society-Galton Institute at the celebration of their 100th anniversary in 2008.

The Galton Institute publishes what they now call the Galton Review, previously titled the Eugenics Review, where various members of the self-proclaimed “learned society” publish papers focused on population issues, genetics, evolutionary biology, and fertility.

A look at early issues of the Eugenics Review shines a light on Galton’s original ambitions. In the 1955 issue titled “The Immigration of Colored People,” an author asks, “What will become of our national character, good workmanship etc. in the course of a few decades if this immigration of negroes and negroids continues unchecked?” The article ends with an appeal to readers to write their parliamentary representatives and urge them that in view of “racial betterment or deterioration” something must be done urgently to “check the present influx of africans and other negroids.”

Today, it appears that the Galton Institute continues to see the immigration of racial minorities into European cities as an unchecked threat. Mike Coleman, an Oxford professor of demographics and a fellow at the institute runs an anti-immigration organization and advocacy group called MigrationWatch—whose mission is to preserve the European culture of the UK by lobbying the government to stem legal immigration and publishing data that supposedly demonstrates the biological and cultural threat of increasing immigration.

A 1961 issue of the Eugenics Review titled “The Impending Crisis” claims the function of the institute’s upcoming conference is “to honor Margaret Sanger” and describes the population crisis as “quantity threatening quality.”

Sanger, known as the “pioneer of the American birth control movement,” was a staunch advocate for promoting “racial betterment” and the key architect of the Negro Project, which she claimed “was established for the benefit of the colored people.” But as medical ethics fellow at Harvard Medical School, Harriet Washington, argues in her book Medical Apartheid, “The Negro Project sought to find the best way to reduce the black population by promoting eugenic principals.” Sanger was an American member of the British Eugenics Society.

Another early member of the Galton Institute was John Harvey Kellogg, prominent business man and eugenicist. Kellogg founded the Race Betterment Foundation and argued that immigrants and nonwhites would damage the American gene pool. Yet another example is Charles Davenport, a scientist known for his collaborative research efforts with eugenicists in Nazi Germany and his contributions to Nazi Germany’s brutal racial policies, who was vice president of the Galton Institute in 1931.

Another more recent member of the Galton Institute was David Weatherall, for whom the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine at Oxford is named. Weatherall was a member of the Galton Institute when it was still named the Eugenics Society and he remained a member until his death in 2018. Weatherall, who was knighted by the British monarch in 1987 for his contributions to science, addressed the Galton Institute on numerous occasions and gave a senior lecture on genetics at the institute in 2014, of which no transcript or video is available. As an Oxford professor, Weatherall was Adrian Hill’s doctoral adviser and eventually his boss when Hill began working at the Weatherall Institute conducting immunogenic research in Africa. A key fixture of the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine since its founding is Walter Bodmer, a former president of the Galton Institute.

While the Galton Institute has attempted to distance itself from its past of promoting racial eugenics with surface-level public relations efforts, it has not stopped family members of the infamous racist from achieving leadership positions at the institute. Emeritus professor of molecular genetics at the Galton Institute and one of its officers is none other than David. J Galton, whose work includes Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century. David Galton has written that the Human Genome Mapping Project, originally dreamt up by Galton’s former president Walter Bodmer, had “enormously increased . . . the scope for eugenics . . . because of the development of a very powerful technology for the manipulation of DNA.”

This new “wider definition of eugenics,” Galton has said, “would cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.” In expanding on this new definition, Galton is neutral as to “whether some methods should be made compulsory by the state, or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual.”

Who gets the safest vaccines?

Considering the degree to which the players and institutions behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine (including the lead developer) are tied and connected to institutions that have been instrumental in the rise and perpetuation of racial eugenics, it’s concerning that this particular vaccine is being portrayed by scientists and media alike as the COVID-19 vaccine for the poor and the Global South.

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine sells at a fraction of the cost of its COVID-19 vaccine competitors—running between 3 and 5 dollars per dose. Moderna and Pfizer cost 25 to 37 dollars and 20 dollars per dose, respectively. As CNN recently reported, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine will “be far easier to transport and distribute in developing countries than its rivals,” several of which require complicated and costly cold supply chains. When the Thomson Reuters Foundation asked several experts which COVID-19 vaccine could “reach the poorest soonest,” all declared a preference for the Oxford-AstraZeneca candidate.

There is also the added fact that a host of safety issues have come to surround the vaccine. Recently, on November 21, a forty-year-old participant in AstraZeneca’s clinical trial who lives in India sent a legal notice to the Serum Institute of India alleging that the vaccine caused him to develop acute neuroencephalopathy, or brain damage. In the notice, the participant said he “must be compensated, in the least, for all the sufferings that he and his family have undergone and are likely to undergo in the future.”

In response, the Serum Institute claimed the participant’s medical complications are unrelated to the vaccine trial and said it would take “legal action” against the brain-damaged participant for maligning the company’s reputation, seeking damages in excess of $13 million. “This is the first time I have ever heard of a sponsor threatening a trial participant,” Amar Jesani, editor of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, said of the incident. The Serum Institute has received at least $18.6 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and has a deal with AstraZeneca to manufacture a billion doses of the vaccine.

Other manufacturers chosen by Oxford-AstraZeneca to produce their vaccine are also no strangers to controversy. For instance, their manufacturing partner in China, Shenzhen Kangtai Biological Products, has been at the center of controversy for years, especially after 17 infants died from its Hepatitis B vaccine in 2013. The New York Times cited Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, as saying: “Imagine if a similar scandal is reported again in China… It’s not just going to undermine the confidence of the company manufacturing the vaccine, it’s also going to hurt the reputation of AstraZeneca itself and their vaccine, too.”

In another example, the manufacturing partner chosen to produce the vaccine in the US is the scandal-ridden company with ties to the 2001 anthrax attacks, Emergent Biosolutions. Emergent Biosolutions, previously known as BioPort, has a long track record of knowingly selling and marketing products that were never tested for safety and efficacy, including its anthrax vaccine BioThrax and its biodefense product Trobigard. The current head of quality control for Emergent Biosolutions’ lead manufacturing facility in the US has no expertise in pharmaceutical manufacturing and is instead a former high-ranking military intelligence official who operated in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.

The issues raised by their decision to partner with manufacturers with dark histories of product safety issues are compounded by the adverse reactions reported in the Oxford-AstraZeneca trials as well as the ways in which those trials have been conducted. In September, AstraZeneca was forced to pause its experimental COVID-19 vaccine trial after a woman in the UK developed a “suspected serious reaction” that the New York Times reported was consistent with transverse myelitis. TM is a neurological disorder characterized by inflammation of the spinal cord, a major element of the central nervous system. It often results in weakness of the limbs, problems emptying the bladder, and paralysis. Patients can become severely disabled, and there is currently no effective cure.

Concern over an association between TM and vaccines is well established. A review of published case studies in 2009 documented thirty-seven cases of TM associated with various vaccines, including hepatitis B, measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, among others in infants, children, and adults. The researchers in Israel noted, “The associations of different vaccines with a single autoimmune phenomenon allude to the idea that a common denominator of these vaccines, such as an adjuvant, might trigger this syndrome.” Even the New York Times article on the AstraZeneca trial pause notes past “speculation” that vaccines might be able to trigger TM.

In July, an Oxford-AstraZeneca trial participant developed symptoms of TM, and the vaccine trial was paused at that time. An “independent panel” ultimately concluded the illness was unrelated to the vaccine, and the trial continued. Yet, as Nikolai Petrovsky from Flinders University told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, these panels are typically made up of “biostatisticians and also medical representatives from the sponsor drug company running the trial.” Then, in October, a trial participant in Brazil died, though in that case, AstraZeneca suggested that the person was part of the control group and thus hadn’t received the COVID-19 vaccine.

According to Forbes, the AstraZeneca vaccine was ineffective at stopping the spread of coronavirus in their animal trials. All six monkeys injected with AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine became infected with the disease after being inoculated. All the monkeys were put to death, which means that it will remain unknown whether those monkeys would have suffered other adverse effects.

Another concern is that trial administrators gave the trial control group (for both human and animal trials) Pfizer’s Nimenrix, a meningitis vaccine, as opposed to a saline solution, which is regarded as the gold standard for controls because researchers can be sure the saline solution won’t cause any adverse reactions. Using Pfizer’s meningitis vaccine as the control placebo allows AstraZeneca to downplay any adverse reactions in its COVID-19 vaccine group by showing that the control group suffered adverse reactions as well. “The meningitis vaccine in the AstraZeneca trial is what I would call a ‘fauxcebo,’ a fake control whose real purpose is to disguise or hide injury in the vaccine group,” said Mary Holland, general counsel at Children’s Health Defense.

Eugenics under another name

Despite these safety concerns and clinical trial scandals, close to 160 countries have purchased the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, and now reports are suggesting that India, the country with the second largest population on Earth, is likely to approve this vaccine by next week.

As documented here, while the vaccine may be heralded as “vital for lower-income countries,” the Oxford-AstraZeneca project is no mere philanthropic pursuit. Not only is there a significant profit motive behind the vaccine, but its lead researcher’s connection to the British Eugenics Society adds another level of warranted scrutiny.

For those encountering stories of eugenicists, it’s common to dismiss such activity as that of “conspiracy theories.” However, it’s undeniable that several prominent individuals and institutions that remain active today have clear ties to eugenicist thinking, which was not so taboo just a few decades ago. Unfortunately, this holds true for the individuals and institutions associated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, who, as demonstrated in this article, immerse themselves in studies of race science and population control – primarily in Africa while working closely with institutions that have direct and longstanding links to the worst of the Eugenics movement.

As this series has shown, there are many concerns regarding the points where race and the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the US and abroad intersect, both publicly and privately. Part I of this series raised questions about the policy-shaping role of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which suggested that the US government make COVID-19 vaccines available to ethnic minorities and the mentally challenged first. Part II explained how in order to allocate COVID-19 vaccines in the US, health agencies are using a program created by Palantir, a company with a record of helping the US agencies target ethnic minorities through immigration policy and racist policing.

Furthermore, there are plans in place to exercise what could reasonably be described as economic coercion to pressure people to “voluntarily” get vaccinated. Such coercion will be obviously be more effective on poor and working communities, meaning communities of color will be disproportionately affected as well.

Considering these facts, and the case for scrutinizing the safety of Oxford-AstraZeneca’s “affordable” vaccine option made above, any harm caused by vaccine allocation policy in the US and beyond is likely to disproportionately affect poor communities, especially communities of color.

As such, the public should take all vaccine rollout policy with a grain of salt, even when they come cloaked in language of inclusion, racial justice, and public health preservation. As the co-founder of the American Eugenics Society (later renamed “Society for the Study of Social Biology”) Frederick Osborn put it in 1968, “Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics.”

December 26, 2020 Posted by aletho | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | COVID-19 Vaccine, UK | 6 Comments

Utopia, Coming to a World Near You

Utopia 2013 (Kudos; Channel 4) — Created by Denis Kelly; Produced by Rebekah Wray-Rogers

By Patrick Corbett | OffGuardian | December 21, 2020

We’ve been told by the promoters of the pandemic, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, and others that it’s ushering in an opportunity for a Great Reset and that Covid 19 is the doorway to it.

Independent reporters like Cory Morningstar and Whitney Web have told a similar story without the glossy optimism.

The WEF has been running ads showing attractive young people having a great time and saying…

It’s 2030, I don’t own anything and I’ve never been happier.

They don’t go into just who will own everything but as they haven’t proposed eliminating capitalism it isn’t hard to guess.

According to the consortium of capitalists and their organizations such as the World Economic Forum, World Bank and even the UN we have a technocratic revolution led by AI, robotics and nanotechnology to look forward to. There will be a huge reduction in the need for workers. Scenarios are proposed which anticipate some form of UBI for the unfortunate masses.

From that majority position it looks like a very gray dystopian future. And maybe that’s what they want the people who are wise to the Covid deception to be thinking as the worst case scenario. Because there’s something far more sinister embedded within the Great Reset. And that is depopulation.

And by depopulation I mean on a grand scale; perhaps taking the planet’s roster of humans down to around a billion.

When I previously thought of this idea, the image that came to mind was of an horrific blood spattered massacre not unlike a scene from The Walking Dead. Now I don’t think they plan actual physical mayhem, although god knows they don’t shy away from that sort of thing .

I suspect they’ve come up with something diabolically clever and, as often is the case, it’s hiding in plain sight.

Are they planning on using their mandatory vaccines they’ve hyped so relentlessly to vaccinate virtually the entire world’s population? And will the vaccine be programmed to sterilize 60% or more of the women in the world? At this point I think most people would have to sit with that for a while, if not outright snort their coffee out their nose.

And I am not a lone nut in considering this or contemplating the possibility. Dr. Mike Yeadon and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg both warn that the Pfizer vaccine will likely impair our ability to procreate.

The vaccine* contains a spike protein… called syncytin-1, vital for the formation of human placenta in women. If the vaccine works so that we form an immune response AGAINST the spike protein, we are also training the female body to attack syncytin-1, which could lead to infertility in women of an unspecified duration.

* This link no longer takes you to the above quote as WordPress has since suspended Health and Money News for violation of “Terms of Service.”

Dr. Mike Yeadon and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg are not some fringe medics with pet theories forged in fevered imaginations.

Dr. Yeadon was former Head of Research and vice-president at Pfizer and Dr. Wodarg is an MD, PhD, epidemiologist, lung specialist and former Chairman of the Health Committee of the Council of Europe.

Professor Sir John Bell, top UK Covid advisor and member of SAGE, startled his interviewer when he said:

these vaccines are unlikely to completely sterilize a population… say 60-70%.

Of course they wouldn’t include their own billionaire class. They, along with the Royals, seem to be extremely fertile as well as long lived. And they would need a cohort of people to serve them, both in high level positions and low. Below them (in economic class) are their political operatives, presidents on down, professionals, scientists, and the few specialized workers they still need.

And vaccines being used for birth control is not a new idea. They have been studied for some time for their efficacy towards that goal.

Here’s a worrisome quote from an August 1994 article in the FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), (“highly cited and consistently ranks among the top biology journals” ):

The authors conclude that their “findings provide insights to possible endocrinological effects of an hCG 3CTP-based WHO promoted birth control vaccine on which a phase I clinical trial has already been completed” and that “might not reliably fulfil major expectations with respect to safety and efficacy?’ We submit that the authors provided only a repetition of old information and biased speculation, which could be damaging to progress in this field.

The article is defending the WHO against claims of some researchers about the safety of their birth control vaccine 26 years ago.

Just imagine how neat that is for their plans. While they have the majority of people terrified they vaccinate them. Then, as easily as they ramped up their Potemkin pandemic, they wind it down. People, the great mass anyway, are kept perpetually on the back foot by bizarre policy shifts always in the interest of biosafety, of course. The sterilization plan takes some time for people to catch on. When it becomes apparent there are far fewer children being born they will have a plan to explain it. It was the Cvd; it was something.

It was at this point in writing this I became aware of a streaming television series (late to the game I was here). UTOPIA. Great title, rhymes with Dystopia.

Spoiler alert: I am going to reveal plot lines and incidents in what I consider an extremely well done dramatic series. Whether it was created with a purpose or was just a product of the zeitgeist, I don’t know. It could easily be classified as “predictive.”

It was initially a 2 season series 2013/14 in the UK followed in 2018 by an American version produced by Amazon and released this past September on Amazon Prime (more below).

The plot of both is the same in its essence. A thumbnail off the top of my head: A plucky band of misfits who share an obsession with a graphic novel entitled Utopia discover that a sequel has been produced and they set out to find it. But it seems some very deep state type forces also want it and will maim, kill and steal to get it.

Utopia 2020 (Endemol Shine North America, Kudos, Trallume Productions, Picrow, Amazon Studios; Prime Video) Created by Gillian Flynn; Produced by Huey M. Park

The novel was apparently the work of a somewhat unhinged genius who saw the world as far too populous and wanted to do something about it. The resulting dramas were (imo) very well done, compelling, fast paced frightening with obligatory plot twists and denouements. It was first shown on Channel 4 in the UK. The plot in broad strokes was that a frightening flu pandemic — the Russian flu — is let loose on the world resulting in widespread panic. (Starting to sound familiar?)

In the Amazon version: A mysterious “Mr. Rabbit” (billionaire?) has let loose a deadly pandemic which kills children with a case fatality rate Dr. Fauci would envy. And the billionaire owner of a pharmaceutical company (played by John Cusak) has a vaccine which offers a cure. Pretty soon the population is marching in the streets demanding to get the vaccine. Our ragtag gang of heroes deduces that the vaccine is meant to kill and maim people. That is until the character played by John Cusack tells them that the beauty of the vaccine is that it is not designed to kill, only to sterilize people.

He says (paraphrasing) “Imagine a world of only a billion people. Plenty to go around for everybody and they’ll be free to screw up as much as they want without destroying the planet.”

He is not a ranter like Hitler or even Klaus Schwab, he’s more like, well … Bill Gates. Only John Cusack doesn’t quite reach the level of creepy that Gates is able to convey.

In the UK version there is an oblique reference to the Georgia Guidestones at one point where one of the characters says that the optimal population of the world is 500 million, roughly 7% of what it is now. And another character says that they didn’t need to have a deadly pandemic, only one that people believed was one, to frighten them into taking a vaccine.

In 2014 HBO planned an American version of Utopia but dropped it over budget concerns. Amazon picked it up in 2018 and the American version starring John Cusak was released just months ago, September 2020. The American version keeps the same basic plot and in the beginning is almost identical to it’s British sire. It does diverge somewhere past the mid-point although the core of the plot remains.

Amazon Prime has now cancelled the series although the first season is still online as apparently is the UK version seasons 1 and 2.

Some of the press are saying it was cancelled because it…

failed to connect with an audience.

That is pure bullshit. It was a hit.

The very liberal online magazine, SLATE, vehemently argues that Utopia should never have been shown so they must be at least happy that it was cancelled. I would wager from their point of view far too many people already saw it. SLATE : said:

the results [ of broadcasting Utopia] are catastrophic —

Really? Are we not capable of discerning fiction and reality and if fiction is reality don’t we need to know that too?

This is what SLATE has to say is the problem with showing Utopia (my emphasis, bold and italics):

We are in the middle of an actual pandemic, a staggering number of Americans sincerely believe that that pandemic is a politically motivated hoax, and an equally staggering number believed vaccines were harmful years before COVID-19 emerged. It’s not the filmmakers’ fault we’re in this mess; it’s not their fault so much of the public is superstitious and gullible; and it won’t be their fault if Utopia gives some dumbass the confidence they need to quit wearing a mask and infect and kill you or the people you care about.

It will probably not be a revelation to you that SLATE is totally on board with the Covid narrative and thinks we who aren’t are dumbasses, superstitious, gullible and, without masks, loaded guns ready to kill people.

But even with the hyperbole above SLATE isn’t finished, they have to bring President Trump in via the back door, ie. QAnon (bold emphasis mine):

Even if everyone who sees Utopia is capable of distinguishing fact from fantasy — and that’s vanishingly unlikely in a nation that is sending QAnon followers to Congress — it’s impossible to enjoy a story where the heroes convince themselves that shadowy forces have manufactured a phony pandemic to trick people into taking a dangerous vaccine when those exact beliefs are helping to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Although it’s interesting to speculate, I don’t think it’s vitally important to know the intention of a drama that, sans the action movie veneer, is playing out in real time as we speak.

Leaving fiction aside for the time being, I am one of those “staggering numbers” who believe the novel coronavirus pandemic to be a gross exaggeration and was deployed as a controlled demolition of our lives as we have been living them.

So the question is do they plan a Great Reset of the current population (to 1804’s 1 billion) as well as all of their modern 4th Industrial Revolution wet dreams?

I’m seriously contemplating the prospect that, just as portrayed in Utopia, the vaccine they are clearly desperate for us to take — or else why would they need to force us — will not actually kill people. Or at least that will not be its principal target. It will be to sterilize us.

If that is the case it is genocide on a scale never seen before. Cusak in his role presents it as a benign solution to the intractability of overpopulation. But family is the beating heart of most of our lives. To rob people of the chance to create their own families is to take everything. It will make zombies of the people left.

But, of course, the people left will be too weak and demoralized to do much of anything. They may be offered distractions to live out their years, which will no doubt be shortened by those very same vaccines and the withholding of healthcare. But throughout there will be very little actual state killing. Just the drip drip turning into a tide of unborn children until their Utopia arrives: the world cleansed of the useless eaters. Billionaires can then enjoy their Neverland Ranch of a planet without those unwashed crowds of homo sapiens stinking the place up.

Do I think this is what they’re planning? I don’t know for sure but it’s my primary suspicion. It all fits once you can get your mind around the immense evil of it. They have never had much use for us. Railroad magnate Jay Gould famously said, “I can hire half the working class to kill the other half.”

His musing bespeaks a horrific fantasy of elimination.

We, the working class, were at best only to be tolerated for what use we could be to them. Now that we’re no longer that, it’s sayonara.

There’s one thing that puzzles me greatly though and that’s the role of China and Russia. The Great Reset seems to be run out of Klaus Schwab’s Fuhrer Bunker at the WEF and we can be certain that the globalist billionaire class, aka the ruling class Americans, Europeans and that gang of suckhole countries, the rest of The Five Eyes, are all on board.

Russia and China both seem to be getting along without the need of population reduction. And why would they mind if the West crashes their population? It would actually seem to be a benefit to them, unless the West is planning to be the Sparta of the future. And conversely wouldn’t the prospect of depopulation of their people just seem like an attempt to dupe them? I mean why would Russia and China go along with it when it would probably be seen as an attempt by the West to weaken them?

However I have a sneaking feeling that the Great Reset gang missed something somewhere that is going to backfire on them. I honestly have no idea except that when they destroy what it means to be human in the way that we are and they aren’t, they will have destroyed their own humanity and the result will be a painful implosion of their own selfhood. But maybe that’s just wishful thinking. And if they get that far there won’t be anything left of us either.

Imagine the dinosaurs lived for hundreds of millions of years. We know that because in our great hubris we studied them learning more than we know about ourselves. In comparison our time here will have been a very brief but spectacular strut across the stage.

Patrick Corbett is a retired writer, producer, director and editor who’s worked for every major network in Canada and the US except for Fox. His journalistic credits include Dateline NBC, CTV’s W-5 and the CTV documentary unit where he wrote and directed ‘Children’s Hospital’, the first Canadian production to be nominated for an International Emmy. You can follow Patrick on Twitter.

December 21, 2020 Posted by aletho | Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Slate magazine | 6 Comments

Spain officially ends FORCED sterilization of people with mental disabilities – a practice still LEGAL in many US states

RT | December 18, 2020

The Spanish government will no longer sterilize disabled people against their will. Despite the fact that eugenics is generally considered a thing of the past, forced sterilization is still permitted in multiple US states.

The Spanish government officially ended the forced sterilization of disabled people on Thursday, publishing new legislation in an official newsletter. According to the newsletter, “In the last decade, more than a thousand forced sterilizations have been practiced in Spain, most of them on women.”

“The end to this practice…brings an end to one of the most detrimental human rights violations allowed under Spanish law,” the Spanish Committee of Representatives of Persons with Disabilities (CERMI) in a statement on Thursday.

But while the Spanish government’s newsletter described the now-illegal practice as a “serious anomaly in human rights terms,” one might be disturbed to find out that involuntary sterilization is still permitted in some US states.

At the turn of the 20th century, eugenics was a popular idea in the US among the progressives of the time. Corporate foundations like the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation funded the growing eugenics movement, and in 1906, breakfast cereal baron John Harvey Kellogg co-founded the Race Betterment Foundation in Michigan to take the movement’s ideas mainstream.

A year later, Indiana passed the world’s first sterilization law, with 31 states following suit. A controversial Supreme Court ruling in the case of Buck v. Bell in 1927 upheld a Virginia statute allowing the forced sterilization of those considered “unfit” to reproduce, and from then until the mid-1970s, more than 60,000 people in the US were involuntarily sterilized.

The practice is still legal in many states. The 1927 decision has never been overturned, and at least eight states still have involuntary sterilization laws on their books. These include California, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington. In the District of Columbia, a 2007 appeals court decision held that a doctor may sterilize a patient if he or she deems it in the “best interest of the patient.”

More than a century after the passage of the first sterilization law in Indiana, the legality of the practice has led to some shocking cases of abuse. In just one women’s prison in central California, 1,400 inmates were sterilized between 1997 and 2013. Where prison sterilization is not mandatory, it is often presented to inmates under duress. In Tennessee in 2017, a judge offered inmates 30 days off their jail sentences if they consented to free vasectomies or long-acting birth-control implants. A bipartisan bill outlawed the practice a year later.

December 18, 2020 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Human rights, Rockefeller Foundation, United States | Leave a comment

When the elderly and frail die after receiving the COVID vaccine

By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | December 16, 2020

CNN has the story. And it’s quite a story: “Why vaccinate our most frail? Odd vote out shows the dilemma”, December 4. [1]

“The vote to recommend long-term care residents be among the first to receive Covid-19 vaccinations was not unanimous.”

“Out of a panel of 14 CDC vaccine advisers, a lone doctor said no.”

“’Odd woman out, I guess,’ Dr. Helen ‘Keipp’ Talbot, of Vanderbilt University, told her colleagues. ‘I still struggle with this. This was not an easy vote’.”

“Talbot was worried about whether the vaccine would even work in such frail, vulnerable patients. Even more, she worried about how it might look if the vaccine failed in that group, or how it would affect public perception if residents died soon after getting the vaccine.”

“The Covid-19 vaccines have not been tested in the frail elderly, many of whom are residents of long-term care facilities.”

Let’s stop here for a moment. First, we learn that the clinical trials of the COVID vaccine have not used the frail and elderly as volunteers. Therefore, there is NO evidence that the vaccine is safe or effective in that very large group. If this doesn’t give the frail and elderly and their families pause for thought, nothing will.

Second, Dr. Talbot is worried about “public perception,” when the elderly die right after getting the vaccination.

Well, what would YOU think if your mother died the day after she received the COVID shot?

The CNN article gets worse. Read on. Next up is a comment from Dr. Kelly Moore, “associate director of the Immunization Action Coalition, which is supporting frontline workers who will administer Covid-19 vaccinations.”

“’Since they [the COVID vaccines] haven’t been studied in people in those [elderly] populations, we don’t know how well the vaccine will work for them. We know that most vaccines don’t work nearly as well in a frail elderly person as they would in someone who is fit and vigorous, even if they happen to be the same age,’ Moore said.”

Again—zero evidence the COVID vaccines work in elderly and frail populations. Most vaccines don’t “work nearly as well.”

CNN: “When shots begin to go into arms of [nursing home and long-term care facility] residents, Moore said Americans need to understand that deaths may occur that won’t necessarily have anything to do with the vaccine.”

“’We would not at all be surprised to see, coincidentally, vaccination happening and then having someone pass away a short time after they receive a vaccine, not because it has anything to do with the vaccination but just because that’s the place where people at the end of their lives reside,’ Moore said.”

“’One of the things we want to make sure people understand is that they should not be unnecessarily alarmed if there are reports, once we start vaccinating, of someone or multiple people dying within a day or two of their vaccination who are residents of a long-term care facility. That would be something we would expect, as a normal occurrence, because people die frequently in nursing homes’.”

Right. Don’t be alarmed.

Don’t worry if people who are doing reasonably well suddenly die right after getting the COVID shot. It’s just a coincidence.

Their long-term health conditions just happened to kick in a day or two after vaccination. Nothing to wonder about.

Don’t kick up a fuss if it’s YOUR father or mother who died. Stay calm. You can be sure the doctors will let you know if your mother died from the vaccine. Of course they will.

Even though the vaccine has never been tested on the elderly and frail, the doctors know whether a death occurred from the vaccination or from other causes. And they’ll tell the truth. They always do.

The doctors quoted in this CNN article are obviously worried about people dying as a result of the vaccine. They know it’s going to happen. They’re thinking out loud about what they can do to stem the tide of public outrage—particularly from the families of those who die.

The best idea they can come up with is: “these people die anyway.”

I remind readers that, for months, I’ve been reporting on the huge percentage of all so-called COVID deaths that have been occurring among the elderly in nursing homes, in long-term care facilities, in hospitals, in their homes. [2]

These people were already suffering from multiple long-term serious health conditions. On top of that, they had been treated for years with an array of toxic medical drugs.

And then, they’re absolutely terrified when they receive a diagnosis of COVID. Then they’re isolated, cut off from family and friends.

And they give up and die.

NO VIRUS IS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THESE DEATHS.

This is forced premature killing of old people. It’s murder by COVID diagnosis and isolation. [2]

And now, these people will receive an experimental RNA vaccine, whose effects include auto-immune reactions; the body basically attacks itself. [3]

More killing.

And doctors advising the CDC are telling us not to be alarmed.

The deaths are just routine.

Lots and lots of doctors who know what’s going on are thinking, “What if all this comes back on ME?”

Well, it IS coming back on you, Doctors.

You’re killers in white coats who are supposed to be saving lives.

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/09/pfizer-covid-vaccine-nhs-extreme-allergy-sufferers-regulators-reaction

[2] https://www.denverpost.com/2020/12/09/pfizer-covid-vaccine-allergic-reactions/

[3] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/01/26/vaccine-for-the-china-virus-the-planet-is-the-guinea-pig-for-a-vast-experiment/

December 16, 2020 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Covid-19 | Leave a comment

When Do We Start Coming out of the Covid-19 Mass Hysteria?

By Michael Fumento | American Institute for Economic Research | December 13, 2020

Men . . . go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” So wrote Scottish journalist Charles Mackay in his 1841 book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, which for good reason to this day remains in print.

The Covid-19 hysteria, scientifically called mass psychogenic illness, that began in March has yet to peak. And if some have it their way it will continue indefinitely, merely going, in medical terminology, from epidemic to endemic. That is, it will never fully go away no matter what. We apparently finally have some medicines that work with countless more being tested, doctors have gotten better at applying treatments, vaccines are being administered in what is by far record time, and yet the media and public health community onslaught shows absolutely no sign of abating.

We have heard White House Covid-19 task force member Dr. Deborah Birx claim “This is not just the worst public health event. This is the worst event that this country will face, not just from a public health side.” Oy! This even as we’re now hearing the mainstream media, led by cult figure Dr. Anthony Fauci, say that the vaccinations now being rolled out don’t mean the masks can come off. Start with the second first.

There are any number of cute memes asking in some manner, “If masks work, why do we need social distancing? If social distancing works, why do we need masks?” Well, it’s called a layered defense (with no pun intended regarding the use of masks or those people you see wearing two at once.) Cars are filled with a vast number of safety devices and roads have also been made safer in myriad ways, but it doesn’t mean they all don’t work in their own manner. So whatever arguments there are against masks (such as that they don’t stop aerosolized virus) aren’t necessarily negated because social distancing is still encouraged or mandated.

But we are left wondering, “Then when do masks come off? When do the other measures end if it’s independent of vaccinations?”

Remember that originally lockdowns and masking were supposed to be extremely temporary, as little as 15 days, to “flatten the curve.” And it was supposed to be a one-time flattening. But it didn’t work out that way. Once the original goal was achieved, the posts were moved. And nobody told us to where. It’s like literal goalposts; if not the zero-yard line then any other goal is arbitrary.

Except. For. One. That’s total elimination of the disease. That may be close to impossible and incredibly expensive to even try, but like eliminating all carbon emissions in a decade it is a goal.

The problem, of course, is that we’ve never eliminated an airborne virus by quarantining healthy people and there’s no scientific breakthrough that has made that any more possible now than it’s ever been. For example, the masks virtually everyone is using, even first-liners, are no better than what some people used during the Spanish flu a century ago. Social distancing dividers at various businesses and schools are just like the sneeze guards at the local buffet. Contact tracing with use of mobile devices has been hailed as a savior of sorts, and perhaps can be of help, albeit at the expense of invading privacy. At least it’s targeted, right? Well, no. It seems to be of limited efficacy without distancing.

So again, when do masks get to come off? Can we ever return to pre-Covid life? Or is the answer contained in the term “New Normal?” That is at least until Covid-19 is eliminated, which took 25 years with a smallpox vaccine. (By the way, the polio eradication program has a target date of 2005.) That’s not a typo. And now it’s being threatened by a shift of resources to, you guessed it, Covid-19.

When is it okay to sit next to another human being or be touched again without being guilt-tripped – or fined and jailed? It doesn’t seem an unreasonable query, but nobody at the press conferences dazzled by the glow of Fauci’s halo ever thinks to ask.

As for Birx’s claim, repeated by CDC director Robert Redfield, she’s either off her rocker or simply lying. There’s no third option. In 1918-19, the so-called Spanish Flu swept through the world killing, adjusted to today’s population, 325 to 430 million. These people died of the flu, not with. And, notes the CDC, in direct contrast with coronavirus, “The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic.”

At the same time the world was suffering the torment of WWI (perhaps 20 million deaths), not to mention the horrific smallpox, and vastly higher rates than today of malaria, yellow fever, Dengue, measles, mumps, rubella and a host of other lethal diseases against which there weren’t even treatments. Remember that President Calvin Coolidge’s son died of infection from a blister in 1924. No antibiotics.

As for Time’s “Worst Year Ever” cover, perhaps it’s a matter of perspective, as exemplified in the satirical term “First World Problem.” Which to a great extent is what Covid-19 is. Consider that all those comorbidities tied to higher mortality are related to the cultures of advanced societies – essentially bad diet, sedentary lifestyles, and simply living longer. Covid-19 this year could represent “a loss of less than 1/1,000th of the population’s remaining years to live,” according to one published analysis. Imagine throwing a brick into an Olympic-sized pool and trying to measure a rise in the waterline.

Meanwhile about 2.2 million children alone die each and every year in poorer countries from diarrhea, according to the CDC. That’s last year, this year, and next year as well. (Assuming coronavirus doesn’t drain anti-diarrheal efforts – which apparently it is. No Covid-19 shibboleth is more disingenuous than “All lives matter.” Perhaps, but obviously some lives matter more than most.

What we clearly have is a pandemic of self-absorption, part and parcel to mass psychogenic illness. At some point hopefully we will feel the shame of the Salem witch hunters and all those who aided and abetted them, those in the courts who squirmed and screamed every time a suspect witch was questioned. Maybe we’ll shun the current panic-mongers, as those people were later shunned. But for now it’s full-bore hysteria. And there’s no end in sight. It’s more for that reason that, indeed, 2020 has been a very bad year.

Michael Fumento is a lawyer, author, and journalist who has been writing on epidemic hysterias for 35 years. His Website is http://www.fumento.com.

December 13, 2020 Posted by aletho | Progressive Hypocrite, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Covid-19, United States | 1 Comment

The Sixth Carbon Budget

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | December 10, 2020

The Committee on Climate Change, the quango headed up by our old friend John Gummer, has just published its latest cunning plan to bankrupt the UK. The Sixth Carbon Budget lays out how we should meet our decarbonisation targets, with specific emphasis on the period 2032-2037.

For the first time they have included estimates of what all of this might cost us in the 2030s. Dressed up in percentages of GDP, talk of green jobs and claims of the economic growth it will all spawn, the CCC have attempted to obscure how much we are all actually going to have to fork out.

They reckon that their plan will involve spending around £50bn annually by 2030, which equates to nearly £2000 for every home in the country. But, as we shall see, even that figure is based on some highly optimistic (some would argue unrealistically so) assumptions.

They say that the £50bn could be marginally offset by savings on electric cars. But it turns out that these are based on a combination of Enron style accounting, and absurdly fanciful assumptions about falling prices of electric cars.

There is, of course, much jam promised tomorrow, or more precisely 2050, when half of us will be dead. But it’s not what might happen in thirty years time that matters to people, it’s the here and now.

But what will all of this mean to the man in the street?

As we already know, the sale of conventional petrol and diesel cars will be banned from 2030. According to the CCC, Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) currently cost a third more than conventional cars, typically a premium of £6400.

However, the CCC grandly assume that by 2030 BEVs will cost no more; all of this on the basis that the cost of BEV batteries will drop by two thirds in the next ten years, for which there is not the slightest evidence. Of course, if BEVs do become a lot cheaper, drivers will be queuing up to buy them, and the government won’t need to ban conventional cars!

The CCC also dishonestly include something called “carbon costs” in their running costs for petrol/diesel cars, which amounts to £200 a year per car, or £7bn for the country as a whole. There is, of course, no such a thing as a “cost of carbon”, which is included only to make low carbon alternatives appear more competitive.

When these factors, along with doubts about the second hand value of BEVs, are taken into account, most of the CCC’s fictional savings disappear. All the more significant, because those drivers who are forced to use public chargers are already finding their cars to be dearer than petrol ones to run.

We then come to heating our homes, with proposals that sales of gas boilers are banned by 2033. For most homes this will mean replacement with air source heat pumps, which typically cost around £10,000 to install and require thousands more to be spent on insulation if they are to work effectively.

Quite where ordinary families are expected to get this money from is not explained! To make matters worse, because electricity costs five times as much as natural gas in terms of energy, householders will find that their heating bills double as well.

And if we choose to carry on using our old gas boilers? Simples – we will have a stonking carbon tax added to our gas bills instead.

Not only are we expected to pay thousands out to meet carbon targets, but we are also told we must eat a third less red meat and dairy produce, drive our cars less and take fewer flights. Not that we will be able to afford any of these pleasures after the CCC have done with us.

Eating less meat and dairy will of course cause great damage to British farming, as well as pushing up food bills for poorer families.

And how will we actually power all of these new electric cars and heat pumps? By 2035, we will need nearly twice as much electricity as now, two thirds of which will be coming from wind and solar power, according to the CCC. This is four times the amount of power they generate now.

And when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine? We will have to fall back on gas power stations, with the proviso that they can capture and store the carbon dioxide produced, even though nowhere in the world has managed to do this at scale.

Central to the case for wind power, is that the cost of offshore wind has fallen so much that it is now competitive. However, independent experts, who have looked at the published accounts of companies building these wind farms, maintain that these so-called falling costs are illusory, and that the real costs could be triple those of conventional power generators. If they are right, this would add another £20bn a year to the CCC’s plan.

No longer are these plans decades in the future. Within the space of a very few years, people will begin to experience the financial pain inflicted on them by these proposals, if they are allowed to go ahead.

And all for what?

The UK only accounts for 1% of global emissions, so whatever we do will have no effect at all on the climate. Meanwhile, despite COVID, this year China has continued to build new coal power stations, increasing its generating capacity by 3%. In the last two year’s the rise in China’s emissions of carbon dioxide has exceeded our total emissions.

December 12, 2020 Posted by aletho | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Human rights, UK | Leave a comment

Pope Francis plans to ‘fix’ global capitalism – with the help of the Rothschilds, Rockerfellers and Mastercard

By Robert Bridge | RT | December 11, 2020

The Vatican has said it will partner with Fortune 500 companies to address various economic grievances, including inequality and environmental degradation. But is it really incumbent upon the Bishop of Rome to virtue-signal?

Anyone entertaining hopes that planet Earth might escape the insanity of 2020 without any more mind-blowing stories may wish to fasten their seatbelts for a hard landing.

At a time when a global pandemic has swept away millions of jobs, and transformed a handful of global capitalists from ‘merely wealthy’ to fantastically wealthy overnight, Pope Francis has decided to take sides in this epic battle. Any hunches what side that might be? Hint: much like the Vatican, it is immensely wealthy, influential, and acts like a government unto itself.

Yes, you guessed it. Instead of the poor and destitute – you know, ‘the meek who shall inherit the earth’ rigmarole – taking their rightful place alongside the Pope to fight against globalization on steroids, the Vatican has announced it will form a “historic partnership” with big business, known as the Council for Inclusive Capitalism. You can’t make this stuff up. And make no mistake: this is no mere talk shop, but rather a vast undertaking that involves “more than $10.5 trillion in assets under management, companies with over $2.1 trillion of market capitalization, and 200 million workers in more than 163 countries.”

“Capitalism has created enormous global prosperity, but it has also left too many people behind, led to the degradation of our planet, and is not widely trusted in society,” said Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Founder of the Council and Managing Partner of Inclusive Capital Partners. “This council will follow the warning from Pope Francis to listen to ‘the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor’ and answer society’s demands for a more equitable and sustainable model of growth.”

In other words, in an apparent act of divine intervention, the Rothschild family (whose wealth is estimated at $20 billion, although nobody really knows for sure), together with other famous brand names of globalization, such as the Rockefellers and Mastercard, will now take up the standard for the world’s downtrodden. Who will be the first one to hold their breath?

I tried to contain my skepticism, I really did, until I read a bit deeper into this contract between the Catholic Church and corporate power. Any guesses as to who will ensure the corporate chieftains live up to their end of the bargain?

Known as the Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism – I kid you not – these 27 devout and morally outstanding individuals all hail from the golden one percent. Let’s call them the Pope’s 27 billionaire disciples. Really outstanding people, such as President of the Rockefeller Foundation Rajiv Shah, CEO of Mastercard Ajay Banga, and CEO of Salesforce Marc Benioff, will now behave like Good Samaritans, carrying out the will of the Holy See around a ravaged, lockdown-wearied planet. And here is the catch: there is not a single Vatican cardinal or even a deacon on the list of Guardians. So, who will guard over the guardians? Yes, the corporate elite themselves! They must have read Donald Trump’s ‘The Art of the Deal’.

My initial skepticism shot into overdrive when it became clear what acts of charity the council would promote: “The Guardians will hold themselves accountable, committing to a list of intended actions involving environmental, social and governance matters,” Forbes reported. “The Guardians … have said they plan to hire and promote more women, increase diversity hires, commit to clean energy by purchasing 100% renewable electricity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions…” Yada, yada, yada.

Forgive me, Father, but that sounds an awful lot like the controversial progressive platform being touted by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris that has divided the United States down the middle. In other words, this unholy marriage has already alienated at least one half of the US population, who fear a Biden presidency will herald in an age of socialism in America. Meanwhile, it is hardly reassuring that these profit-driven individuals will be allowed to “hold themselves accountable” to take on unspecified “social and governance matters” and “other initiatives,” whatever those happen to be.

The reason for suspicion should be obvious. Aside from the absurdity of letting profit-driven corporations play guardian over themselves, we are now living in a time when these out-of-control behemoths are no longer content to just hawk their products to consumers; they have taken a serious stand on cultural and political issues, which many people find unacceptable yet must bear silently with a smile.

Using their profits from consumer spending, corporations such as Coca-Cola can run an extremely controversial Sprite advertisement campaign, for example, that promotes a transgender lifestyle and that will be seen by millions of impressionable children. Or how about Gillette’s massively disappointing (and disliked) commercial that took issue with so-called ‘toxic masculinity.’ Are these the “other initiatives” that corporations will be forcing on an unsuspecting public with the stamp of papal authority? Personally, I’ve never heard Pope Francis speak out against these extremely provocative ideas.

Perhaps even more worrying is that many companies, compelled to prove they are taking a stand on behalf of the latest cause célèbre, have enthusiastically jumped aboard the Black Lives Matter juggernaut, which critics – of which there is no shortage, even among the black American population – say works to the disadvantage of other races, not least white Americans, who have become the bane of Western civilization overnight.

Is this the sort of ‘equality’ big business will be promoting with the quiet blessing of the Vatican? In their woke bid to become more ‘equal and diverse,’ will corporations begin to promote particular groups of people at the expense of others? After all, the Trump administration was just forced to take executive action against ‘critical race theory’ inside the government, while academia is now rampant with lectures teaching the evils of the ignoble white man. Are we on the precipice of a new age of racism in the United States and elsewhere, where the historic tables are turned with the help of corporate America?

Although Pope Francis may have the best intentions at heart in promoting this sort of dialogue between the Vatican and the corporate world, unless there is real involvement by the Church to rein in corporate power, it will become a wasted opportunity in very short order.

The Council for Inclusive Capitalism is nothing more and nothing less than a cynical PR stunt for corporate power that allows their controversial initiatives, heavily steeped in the rapacious accumulation of profit, as well as the promotion of dangerous ‘woke’ values, to win the seal of approval from one of the most powerful religious authorities on the planet.

Such a program really amounts to an act of mindless virtue-signaling from the Catholic Church, which has fallen out of favor of late, and a cheap opportunity for the corporate world to conceal its behavior behind the shroud of morality and saintliness. It would have been far more effective and symbolic had Pope Francis committed himself to a contract with the people, with his true followers, in the fight against corporate power. Instead, he made a pact with the devil.

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream. @Robert_Bridge

December 12, 2020 Posted by aletho | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | 1 Comment

Rich People & Journalists Made Exempt From Having to Enter COVID Quarantine

“High value business travellers” won’t have to self-isolate

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | December 3, 2020

Journalists and rich people defined as “high value business travellers” will be made exempt from having to enter a 2 week COVID quarantine when they return to the UK under new rules announced by the government.

“From 4am on Saturday, people in a number of categories will no longer have to self-isolate upon returning to England, even if they are travelling from a country not on the travel corridors list,” reports Sky News.

Those categories include journalists, “high value business travellers,” performing arts professionals and wealthy sports stars.

Under current rules, anyone returning from a country not on the UK’s “travel corridor” list has to self-isolate at home for 14 days or face escalating fines.

Public Health England said the new measures will not raise the risk of domestic transmission of coronavirus.

The rule change is being pitched as a way to help boost the economy, but many responded by framing it as a classic example of elitist privilege.

“We are being governed by absolute fools, clowns and charlatans. If I’m rich enough to afford Business Class I’m immune to Covid?” asked one Twitter user.

“Ah! One rule for “us” and another for all the “little people”. Shrewd move just when trust and social cohesion is needed,” remarked another.

“What a load of rubbish. You mean those well off don’t need to follow “quarantine measures,” said another.

“There will be some big businesses that are able to take advantage of it,” said Paul Charles, chief executive of travel consultancy The PC Agency, underscoring once again how the rules favor large transnational corporations while small businesses continue to go bust.

December 6, 2020 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | UK | 2 Comments

« Previous Entries

MISINFORMATION MATTERS

For more videos go to the Aletho News – Video Category

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

How Government and Media Are Prepping America for a Failed 2020 Election

By Whitney Webb | MintPress News | January 28, 2020

As World War II drew to a close in Europe, British philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote that “neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.”

Though numerous examples in the post-World War II era have proven Russell’s point, perhaps one of the best examples was the U.S. public’s willingness to swallow lie after lie about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq due to the climate of fear that followed the September 11 attacks. Those lies, propagated by dubious intelligence, government officials and a compliant media, resulted in catastrophes – large and small, both abroad and at home.

Today, an analogous narrative is being crafted by many of the same players – both in media and government – yet it has avoided scrutiny, even from independent media.

Over the past several months and with a renewed zeal in just the last few weeks, anonymous intelligence officials, dubious “experts” and establishment media outlets have crafted a narrative about the coming “chaos” of the 2020 election, months before it takes place. Per that narrative, certain state actors will use specific technologies to target the “American mind” in order to undermine the coming presidential election. The narrative holds that those efforts will be so successful that the U.S. will never recover as a democracy.

Though these anonymous government sources and their stenographers have already named the countries who will be responsible and the technologies they will use, they also admit that no evidence yet exists to back up these claims, meaning they are — at best — pure speculation. … continue

Aletho News Original Content

Three Mile Island, Global Warming and the CIA

By Aletho News | January 9, 2012

There appears to be something about launching bombs or missiles from afar onto cities and people that appeals to American military and political leaders. In part it has to do with a conscious desire to not risk American lives in ground combat. And in part, perhaps not entirely conscious, it has to do with not wishing to look upon the gory remains of the victims, allowing American GIs and TV viewers at home to cling to their warm fuzzy feelings about themselves, their government, and their marvelous “family values”. Washington officials are careful to distinguish between the explosives the US drops from the sky and “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD), which only the officially-designated enemies (ODE) are depraved enough to use. The US government speaks sternly of WMD, defining them as nuclear, chemical and biological in nature, and “indiscriminate” (meaning their use can’t be limited to military objectives), as opposed to the likes of American “precision” cruise missiles. This is indeed a shaky semantic leg to stand on, given the well-known extremely extensive damage to non-military targets, including numerous residences, schools and hospitals, even from American “smart” bombs, in almost all of the bombings listed below.

Moreover, Washington does not apply the term “weapons of mass destruction” to other weapons the US has regularly used, such as depleted uranium and cluster bombs, which can be, and often are, highly indiscriminate. … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Join 2,395 other followers

Email Address:
Visits Since December 2009
- 4,214,032 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

January 2021

M T W T F S S

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Dec
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Militarism Nuclear Power Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags

9/11 Afghanistan Africa AIPAC al-Qaeda Argentina Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Bolivia Brazil Canada Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Colombia Covid-19 Da’esh Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem John Kerry Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Press TV Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank Yemen Zionism

January 2021
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Aletho News
- Groundbreaking Study Explains ‘Preexisting Immunity’ to Covid-19 Among Some Populations January 23, 2021
- Cheerleading Trump’s Upcoming Sham Senate Trial January 23, 2021
- President Biden’s New Administration, Old Aggression January 23, 2021
- Biden’s Long History of Abusing Power January 23, 2021
- Pakistanis hold massive rally against ties with Israel January 23, 2021
- MISINFORMATION MATTERS January 23, 2021
- Biden Instructs Intelligence Agencies to Study Reports of ‘Russian Hackers’, US Soldier Bounties January 23, 2021
- Why Donald Trump Had to Go January 23, 2021
- Nurses in Coffey County refuse to give COVID-19 vaccine January 22, 2021
- Halfway through this winter of Covid, overall mortality is around normal for this time of year. Something doesn’t add up January 22, 2021
- MICHAEL MCFAUL’S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE POLICY PROPOSALS January 22, 2021
- Alexei Navalny & Russia Baiting: Biden Brings Back Business as Usual January 22, 2021
- FBI laments that deplatforming of ‘extremists’ makes it harder to spy on Americans January 22, 2021
- Blacks Committed 73% of Mass Shootings In 2020. Many Cases Remain Unsolved. Where Is the FBI? January 22, 2021
- Israel floods farmlands with rainwater in eastern Gaza January 22, 2021
- German opposition MPs bash Merkel government over refusal to disclose information on Navalny case January 22, 2021
- In non-binding resolution, EU parliament calls for new anti-Russia sanctions to stop Nord Stream 2 over Navalny’s arrest January 22, 2021
- Hezbollah: Terrorist Bombings Suspiciously Return to Iraq after Official and Public Calls for Withdrawal of US Occupation Troops January 21, 2021
If Americans Knew
- UN reports on human rights abuses in Israel-Palestine, Jan.5-18 2021 January 23, 2021
- Israeli harassment of Palestinian Bedouin village won’t let up January 22, 2021
- Human rights org B’Tselem defies Israeli orders to stop teaching about apartheid January 21, 2021
Not A Lot Of People Know That
- What Controversy, Mr Harrabin? January 23, 2021
- National Grid Hails New Interconnector Bringing Coal Power From France! January 23, 2021
- The IR absorptive characteristics of “greenhouse” gases– Addendum -David Coe January 22, 2021
Sebastian Rushworth M.D.
- New perks for patrons January 19, 2021
- Is ivermectin effective against covid? January 17, 2021
More Links
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

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.

	michael on Cheerleading Trump’s Upcoming…
	roberthstiver on Biden’s Long History of Abusin…
	roberthstiver on Biden’s Long History of Abusin…
	michael on Biden’s Long History of Abusin…
	Leland Roth on President Biden’s New Administ…
	Leland Roth on Why Donald Trump Had to G…
	Leland Roth on Why Donald Trump Had to G…
	Alt28 on Why Donald Trump Had to G…
	Leland Roth on Why Donald Trump Had to G…
	Leland Roth on Why Donald Trump Had to G…
	Alt28 on Why Donald Trump Had to G…
	Alt28 on Why Donald Trump Had to G…

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Professor Sarah Gilbert at Oxford, Photo by John Cairns

Professor Adrian Hill at the Jenner Institute, Photo by John Cairns

Vaccitech’s homepage showing company co-founders Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert. From vaccitech.co.uk

The Wellcome Genome Campus, which houses the Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, is located on the grounds of Hixton Hall, in Cambridgeshire, England.

A poster published by the Eugenics Society-Galton Institute in the 1930S, from the Wellcome Library

Utopia 2013 (Kudos; Channel 4) — Created by Denis Kelly; Produced by Rebekah Wray-Rogers

Utopia 2020 (Endemol Shine North America, Kudos, Trallume Productions, Picrow, Amazon Studios; Prime Video) Created by Gillian Flynn; Produced by Huey M. Park

Featured Video

From the Archives

By Whitney Webb | MintPress News | January 28, 2020

Aletho News Original Content

By Aletho News | January 9, 2012

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Recent Comments

More Links

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info