Haven’t heard of The Great Convergence yet? Oh, it’s just the plan to merge biology with digital technology and redefine what it means to be human, that’s all. Today on the podcast James covers the biodigital convergence that is already being rolled out and what it means for the future of homo sapiens.
Before I get to the financial bonanza, I have to make a few comments about the COVID RNA vaccine itself.
This shot-in-the-arm gene treatment should be seen AS AN EXTENSION of genetic research into altering humans.
Because that’s what it is.
The field of gene research includes “creating better humans” and eugenics.
Eugenics involves what American Rockefeller and Nazi researchers were setting up: depopulation; population control; selecting out “superior genetic strains” for survival.
William Engdahl and Dr. Peter Breggin have done excellent historical analysis of the eugenics movement. [1] [1a] [1b] [2] [2a]
Another point: In recent articles, I’ve pointed out that ALL genetic research—beyond its motives—is also fraught with unintended ripple-effect consequences. Never believe that the targets and the consequences can be contained. [3] [4]
For example, the notion that the COVID shot will do nothing more than force cells of the body to produce one protein is absurd. It’s on the level of saying, “During rush hour, on the most crowded high-speed highway in the world, we can engineer a two-car crash that will only result in two minor fender-benders…” [4]
Both short and long-term effects of the COVID shot are unknown and unpredictable.
The perpetrators of the COVID RNA shot are criminally insane.
And with that… on to the MONEY.
Bring on the angels and trumpets. Bring on the cash.
A year ago I told you COVID vaccine-testing was rocketing ahead, because Bill Gates, the Rockefeller institute, NIH, the manufacturers, and Fauci saw the light at the end of the tunnel— [5]
The fake pandemic was their golden opportunity to win approval for the first RNA pharma product in history, and once that victory was achieved—
They would beat the drum for new RNA vaccines, WHICH ARE CHEAPER, EASIER, AND FASTER TO MANUFACTURE, AND FAR MORE PROFITABLE. [6]
They would hype new genetic treatments across the board—on the back of the fact that there is not a single genetic cure for any disease. But who cares about facts?
Now, as massive numbers of injuries and deaths from the COVID RNA vaccine pile up, Stephen Ubl, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), gushes: “… We’re really entering the golden era of medicine.” He goes on to sell blue-sky “RNA platforms” for reversing child blindness and MS. [7] [7a]
Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, bloviates about coming genetic cures for flu and cancer. [7b]
Biospace.com: “mRNA tech used in COVID vaccines could be used to cure HIV, cancer, and other diseases.” [8]
Nature/Biotechnology (“Messengers of hope,” 29 December 2020; 39, page 1 (2021)): “Emergency Use Authorizations for two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines represent a turning point in the pandemic. They also herald a new era for vaccinology.” [9]
Think of these hustlers as cartoon characters dancing on a sea of real blood and death created by the RNA COVID vaccines.
In case you’ve forgotten, Moderna, whose COVID shot is now firmly entrenched, had never brought a single product to market in its brief history, but with Fauci’s guidance, managed to snatch $500 million in US government funding to develop the vaccine. Moderna was committed to RNA technology; that was its ticket to fame and fortune. [10]
The landscape of fake promotion about genetic cures is basically a cover for extreme damage created by corporations and governments.
“Confidentially, the truth is, what we’re calling autism isn’t a disorder or a disease. It’s neurological INJURY caused by vaccines and other environmental toxins. But we SAY autism is genetic. We can keep raising money for research—if you want to call it that—and hide what’s really going on.”
Some of these researchers are true believers in the Gene Cult. They actually think the day will come when a person can strip naked and bathe in a pool of poisonous effluent pouring out of a factory pipe—and because that person has received a genetic treatment (like the RNA COVID vaxx), no harm will come to him.
Look for this to happen soon: it’ll be a child, a child with “a rare disorder.” Perhaps blindness. And now: the child can see. Breakthrough. Genetic treatment. Of course, the details of the published study will be somewhat murky. You know, “proprietary technology.”
And quite possibly, only four children in the world have this rare disorder. That means the genetic treatment is 25% effective—an unbelievable marvel.
“Was it RNA, Doctor? Is that what you injected?”
“Well, Lesley, I can’t take you and the 60 Minutes crew into the lab. It’s a high security facility. But yes, for your audience, I can reveal that we deployed the most up to date CRISPR gene-editing technology, and it worked exactly as we hoped it would…”
“Is the cure permanent?”
“Lesley, I remember something my mentor at NIH, Doctor Goldbrick Hogcrusher, told me a long time ago. In this world, we live one day at a time. Who can say what tomorrow brings? We count our blessings, and we move on…”
Behind the propaganda: money and population control.
“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future” — Klaus Schwab, WEF
Say it’s 2014 and you’ve had this idea for a technocratic Great Reset of the world economy for some time now, but it only works if the entire planet is rocked by a pandemic. How do you go about selling your idea?
If you are World Economic Forum (WEF) Founder Klaus Schwab, you attempt to sell your vision of a global Utopia via a Great Reset of the world order in three simple steps:
Announce your intention to revamp every aspect of society with global governance, and keep repeating that message
When your message isn’t getting through, simulate fake pandemic scenarios that show why the world needs a great reset
If the fake pandemic scenarios aren’t persuasive enough, wait a couple months for a real global crisis to occur, and repeat step one
It took Schwab and the Davos elite about six years to watch their great reset ideology grow from a tiny Swiss seed in 2014 to a European super-flower pollinating the entire globe in 2020.
The so-called “Great Reset” promises to build “a more secure, more equal, and more stable world” if everyone on the planet agrees to “act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”
But it wouldn’t have been possible to contemplate materializing such an all-encompassing plan for a new world order without a global crisis, be it manufactured or of unfortunate happenstance, that shocked society to its core.
“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval” — Clade X pandemic simulation (May, 2018)
So, in May, 2018, the WEF partnered with Johns Hopkins to simulate a fictitious pandemic — dubbed “Clade X” — to see how prepared the world be if ever faced with such a crisis.
A little over a year later, the WEF once again teamed-up with Johns Hopkins, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to stage another pandemic exercise called Event 201 in October, 2019.
Both simulations concluded that the world wasn’t prepared for a global pandemic.
And a few short months following the conclusion of Event 201, which specifically simulated a coronavirus outbreak, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared that the coronavirus had reached pandemic status on March 11, 2020.
“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
Since then, just about every scenario covered in the Clade X and Event 201 simulations has come into play, including:
Governments implementing lockdowns worldwide
The collapse of many industries
Growing mistrust between governments and citizens
A greater adoption of biometric surveillance technologies
Social media censorship in the name of combating misinformation
The desire to flood communication channels with “authoritative” sources
A global lack of personal protective equipment
The breakdown of international supply chains
Mass unemployment
Rioting in the streets
And a whole lot more!
After the nightmare scenarios had fully materialized by mid-2020, the WEF founder declared “now is the time for a “Great Reset”.
Was it excellent forecasting, planning, and modeling on the part of the WEF and partners that Clade X and Event 201 turned out to be so prophetic, or was there something more to it?
Timeline
Below is a condensed timeline of events that tracks the Great Reset agenda that went from just a “hope” in 2014 to a globalist ideology touted by royalty, the media, and heads of state the world-over in 2020.
2014-2017: Klaus Schwab calls for Great Reset and WEF repeats message
Ahead of the 2014 WEF meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Schwab announced that he hoped the WEF would push the reset button on the global economy.
The WEF would go on to repeat that message for years.
Between 2014 and 2017, the WEF called to reshape, restart, reboot, and reset the global order every single year, each aimed at solving various “crises.”
2014: WEF publishes meeting agenda entitled “The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics and Business.”
2016: WEF holds panel called “How to reboot the global economy.”
2017: WEF publishes article saying “Our world needs a reset in how we operate.”
Then in 2018, the Davos elites turned their heads towards simulating fake pandemic scenarios to see how prepared the world would be in the face of a different crisis.
2018-2019: WEF, Johns Hopkins & Gates Foundation simulate fake pandemics
On May 15, 2018, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted the “Clade X” pandemic exercise in partnership with the WEF.
The Clade X exercise included mock video footage of actors giving scripted news reports about a fake pandemic scenario (video below).
The Clade X event also included discussion panels with real policymakers who assessed that governments and industry were not adequately prepared for the fictitious global pandemic.
“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval,” according to a WEF report on Clade X.
“There are major unmet global vulnerabilities and international system challenges posed by pandemics that will require new robust forms of public-private cooperation to address” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
Then on October 18, 2019, in partnership with Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WEF ran Event 201.
During the scenario, the entire global economy was shaken, there were riots on the streets, and high-tech surveillance measures were needed to “stop the spread.”
Two fake pandemics were simulated in the two years leading up to the real coronavirus crisis.
“Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security issued a public statement on January 24, 2020, explicitly addressing that Event 201 wasn’t meant to predict the future.
“To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise. For the scenario, we modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic, but we explicitly stated that it was not a prediction. Instead, the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic.”
Intentional or not, Event 201 “highlighted” the “fictional” challenges of a pandemic, along with recommendations that go hand-in-hand with the great reset agenda that has set up camp in the nefarious “new normal.”
“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
Together, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation submitted seven recommendations for governments, international organizations, and global business to follow in the event of a pandemic.
The Event 201 recommendations call for greater collaboration between the public and private sectors while emphasizing the importance of establishing partnerships with un-elected, global institutions such as the WHO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Air Transport Organization, to carry out a centralized response.
One of the recommendations calls for governments to partner with social media companies and news organization to censor content and control the flow of information.
“Media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
According to the report, “Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation.
“National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages.
“For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology.”
Sound familiar?
Throughout 2020, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been censoring, suppressing, and flagging any coronavirus-related information that goes against WHO recommendations as a matter of policy, just as Event 201 had recommended.
2020: WEF declares ‘Now is the time for a Great Reset’
After calling for a great reset in 2014, the Davos crowd repeated the same ideology for a few more years before pivoting towards simulating faux pandemic scenarios.
A few months after the WEF established that nobody was prepared to deal with a coronavirus pandemic, the WHO declared there was a coronavirus pandemic.
All of a sudden! the great reset narrative that the WEF had been nurturing for six years, found a place to pitch its tent in the “new normal” camp.
“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future,” Schwab declared on June 3, 2020.
And that’s where we’re at today.
The Davos elites said they wanted a global reset of the economy many years ago
They role-played what would happen if a pandemic were to occur
And now they’re saying that the great reset ideology is the solution to the pandemic, and it must be enacted quickly
The great reset is a means to an end.
Next on the agenda is a complete makeover of society under a technocratic regime of un-elected bureaucrats who want to dictate how the world is run from the top down, leveraging invasive technologies to track and trace your every move while censoring and silencing anyone who dares not comply.
Biden’s energy secretary used the Colonial Pipeline hack to tell everyone to ditch their gas-guzzlers for electric cars. The average price of an electric vehicle is $55,600. She has no idea what life is like for working Americans.
“Let them eat cake,” A phrase infamously attributed to the doomed queen of France, Marie Antoinette, when she was told the peasants had no bread, has become synonymous with out of touch elites. It illustrates the detachment of someone of great status and wealth when they speak ignorantly about the lives of the average man, for they have no comprehension of their struggle.
But in 2021, we aren’t talking about bread, we are talking about gasoline. Following a fuel shortage brought on by the Colonial Pipeline being hacked, Biden’s energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, made a bit of a faux pas.
Asked about what Americans should do as lines grew ever longer at gas stations, Madame Granholm said: “Yeah, I mean, we obviously are ‘all in’ on making sure that we meet the president’s goals of getting to 100% clean electricity by 2035 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. And, you know, if you drive an electric car, this would not be affecting you, clearly.”
According to Yahoo Finance, Jennifer Granholm’s net worth is a million dollars. Not super-rich, but still significantly more than most Americans could ever hope to have in the bank. Given that she has served as governor of Michigan, it won’t surprise anyone that she has a healthy checking account. So talking down to normal Americans about how if they would only get with the program and buy a nice, clean electric car suggests not only sanctimony, but also that she is completely ignorant of how much electric vehicles cost.
The Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of electric cars ranges all over the place. But the current average cost for an electric car is around $55,000; admittedly, that average is brought up by how expensive certain Tesla models are. If you look at the MSRP of lower range electric vehicles like the Chevrolet Bolt, the Nissan Leaf, or the Hyundai Kona, it averages around $33,000. The price isn’t absurd for a new vehicle, but gas-powered vehicles are still likely to be larger and have better mileage than electric alternatives. Because of this, more families will still opt for good old fashioned internal combustion when buying a new car.
There is also the fact that many Americans won’t be inclined to buy new vehicles at the moment. Thanks to lockdowns and the pandemic, many have found themselves without jobs or having to tighten their belts, so a trip to the local garage might not be that high on their agenda. On top which, this is still a free country and some people will always prefer the growl of a Mustang to the whoosh of a Tesla, and they shouldn’t be punished for making that choice.
Telling people to go and buy electric because of a temporary gas shortage is preposterous. It makes no more sense than it would to have told Tesla-driving Texans to rush out and buy F150s in February when a cold snap knocked out large chunks of the state’s electricity supply.
Jennifer Granholm clearly doesn’t really care whether or not her statements were ignorant. The Biden administration’s approach to energy has been one ‘let them eat cake’ moment after another. The entire administration comes across like a bunch of oligarchs constantly talking down to the little people on how their lives should be led, completely unaware of how difficult those lives are.
I say, have Secretary Granholm work a customer service job on a customer service representative’s pay for a month, and then she can tell us whether or not we should all be driving electric.
Californians pay for some of the most expensive electricity in the United States. They also live in one of the greenest states, at least from an energy perspective. California is only going to get greener. Meanwhile, electricity bills are expected to continue their rise. Some deny there is a link between the two.
The facts show otherwise.
A paper by the California Public Utilities Commission released earlier this year identified the state’s plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by adopting more renewable energy as one big factor for bigger utility bills and expectations for further increases in electricity rates in the coming years.
The report said that while the state’s plans to reduce emissions will negatively affect electricity bills, a concerted switch to what the authors call “all electric homes and electric vehicles” could lead to a substantial drop in monthly bills. However, this would require a large upfront investment, which would be impossible to shoulder by medium- and lower-income households.
“In the absence of subsidies and low-cost financing options, this could create equity concerns for low- to moderate-income households and exacerbate existing disparities in electricity affordability,” the report said.
But funding such a hypothetical move to “all electric homes and electric vehicles” is only part of the problem. Another part, ironically, is distributed energy systems.
A March report in CalMatters summarized the reasons for Californians’ high electricity bills as follows: first, the size and geography of the state make the fixed costs associated with the maintenance of its grid higher than in most other states; second, households with rooftop solar installations don’t pay for these fixed costs even if they use the grid. And all this is deepening the divide between wealthy and not-so-wealthy Californians, making electricity increasingly less affordable for the latter.
Distributed solar installations appear to be only affordable for the wealthier citizens of the state. They can afford the upfront costs and then benefit from lower electricity bills, according to one of the authors of a UC Berkeley’s Haas Business School study that CalMatters cited in its report.
Solar power is regularly touted as cheaper and cheaper, even exceeding the affordability of fossil fuels. The truth, however, is that the cost declines that have been celebrated by renewable power lobbies only concern the PV panels. Granted, any cost decline in solar is good news, but what most reports forget to mention is that it’s not just panels that make solar farms or even rooftop installations.
Besides panels, solar power installations also involve other components—whose costs are not falling—and there is the cost of installation. Taken together, all these make up a rather hefty sum, which explains why it is wealthy Californians who are the ones taking advantage of the state’s programs aimed at encouraging the adoption of low-carbon energy sources. They are also the ones reaping the benefits at the expense of poorer Californians.
California has something called a net energy metering (NEM) program that basically pays owners of solar installations for feeding electricity into the grid. An analysis of the system between 2017 and 2019, Utility Dive reported recently, shows that the costs of the program stood at $9.46 billion while the benefits stood at $7.96 billion. Another study of the program, focusing on customer bills, found that the benefits of the program came in at $7.58 billion while costs were as high as $20.58 billion and much of that was shouldered by the people who couldn’t afford to buy a rooftop solar installation. … Full article
… I am interested in asking why so many people can’t accept that radical evil is real. Is that a right-wing question? Of course not. It’s a human question that has been asked down through the ages.
I do think we are today in the grip of radical evil, demonic forces. The refusal to see and accept this is not new. As the eminent theologian, David Ray Griffin, has argued, the American Empire, with its quest for world domination and its long and ongoing slaughters at home and abroad, is clearly demonic; it is driven by the forces of death symbolized by Satan.
I have spent many years trying to understand why so many good people have refused to see and accept this and have needed to ply a middle course over many decades. The safe path. Believing in the benevolence of their rulers. When I say radical evil, I mean it in the deepest spiritual sense. A religious sense, if you prefer. But by religious I don’t mean institutional religions since so many of the institutional religions are complicit in the evil.
It has long been easy for Americans to accept the demonic nature of foreign leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. Easy, also, to accept the government’s attribution of such names as the “new Hitler” to any foreign leader it wishes to kill and overthrow. But to consider their own political leaders as demonic is near impossible.
So let me begin with a few reminders.
The U.S. destruction of Iraq and the mass killings of Iraqis under George W. Bush beginning in 2003. Many will say it was illegal, unjust, carried out under false pretenses, etc. But who will say it was pure evil?
Who will say that Barack Obama’s annihilation of Libya was radical evil?
Who will say the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Tokyo and so many Japanese cities that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was radical evil?
Who will say the U.S. war against Syria is demonic evil?
Who will say the killing of millions of Vietnamese was radical evil?
Who will say the insider attacks of September 11, 2001 were demonic evil?
Who will say slavery, the genocide of native people, the secret medical experiments on the vulnerable, the CIA mind control experiments, the coups engineered throughout the world resulting in the mass murder of millions – who will say these are evil in the deepest sense?
Who will say the U.S. security state’s assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, Jr., Robert Kennedy, Fred Hampton, et al. were radical evil?
Who will say the trillions spent on nuclear weapons and the willingness to use them to annihilate the human race is not the ultimate in radical evil?
This list could extend down the page endlessly. Only someone devoid of all historical sense could conclude that the U.S. has not been in the grip of demonic forces for a long time.
If you can do addition, you will find the totals staggering. They are overwhelming in their implications.
But to accept this history as radically evil in intent and not just in its consequences are two different things. I think so many find it so hard to admit that their leaders have intentionally done and do demonic deeds for two reasons. First, to do so implicates those who have supported these people or have not opposed them. It means they have accepted such radical evil and bear responsibility. It elicits feelings of guilt. Secondly, to believe that one’s own leaders are evil is next to impossible for many to accept because it suggests that the rational façade of society is a cover for sinister forces and that they live in a society of lies so vast they the best option is to make believe it just isn’t so. Even when one can accept that evil deeds were committed in the past, even some perhaps intentionally, the tendency is to say “that was then, but things are different now.” Grasping the present when you are in it is not only difficult but often disturbing for it involves us.
So if I am correct and most Americans cannot accept that their leaders have intentionally done radically evil things, then it follows that to even consider questioning the intentions of the authorities regarding the current corona crisis needs to be self-censored. Additionally, as we all know, the authorities have undertaken a vast censorship operation so people cannot hear dissenting voices of those who have now been officially branded as domestic terrorists. The self-censorship and the official work in tandem.
There is so much information available that shows that the authorities at the World Health Organization, the CDC, The World Economic Forum, Big Pharma, governments throughout the world, etc. have gamed this crisis beforehand, have manipulated the numbers, lied, have conducted a massive fear propaganda campaign via their media mouthpieces, have imposed devastating lockdowns that have further enriched the wealthiest and economically and psychologically devasted vast numbers, etc. Little research is needed to see this, to understand that Big Pharma is, as Dr. Peter Gøtzsche documented eight years ago in Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, a world-wide criminal enterprise. It takes but a few minutes to see that the pharmaceutical companies who have been given emergency authorization for these untested experimental non-vaccine “vaccines” have paid out billions of dollars to settle criminal and civil allegations.
It is an open secret that the WHO, the Gates Foundation, the WEF led by Klaus Schwab, and an interlocking international group of conspirators have plans for what they call The Great Reset, a strategy to use the COVID-19 crisis to push their agenda to create a world of cyborgs living in cyberspace where artificial intelligence replaces people and human biology is wedded to technology under the control of the elites. They have made it very clear that there are too many people on this planet and billions must die. Details are readily available of this open conspiracy to create a transhuman world.
Is this not radical evil? Demonic?
Let me end with an analogy. There is another organized crime outfit that can only be called demonic – The Central Intelligence Agency. One of its legendary officers was James Jesus Angleton, chief of Counterintelligence from 1954 until 1975. He was a close associate of Allen Dulles, the longest serving director of the CIA. Both men were deeply involved in many evil deeds, including bringing Nazi doctors and scientists into the U.S. to do the CIA’s dirty work, including mind control, bioweapons research, etc. The stuff they did for Hitler. As reported by David Talbot in The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government, when the staunch Catholic Angleton was on his deathbed, he gave an interviews to visiting journalists, including Joseph Trento. He confessed:
He had not been serving God, after all, when he followed Allen Dulles. He had been on a satanic quest….’Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars,’ he told Trento in an emotionless voice. ‘The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted…. Outside this duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and loved being in it.’ He invoked the names of the high eminences who had run the CIA in his day – Dulles, Helms, Wisner. These men were ‘the grand masters,’ he said. ‘If you were in a room with them, you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.’ Angleton took another slow sip from his steaming cup. ‘I guess I will see them there soon.’
Until we recognize the demonic nature of the hell we are now in, we too will be lost. We are fighting for our lives and the spiritual salvation of the world. Do not succumb to the siren songs of these fathers of lies.
Plans have emerged to commission a £190 million tribute to Prince Philip in the shape of a new royal yacht, funded by the UK taxpayer. But the days of gaudy luxuries built for the royal family have to be consigned to the past.
Britain’s elite are transfixed by class, but are simultaneously utterly classless.
The country is reeling from a shambolic Covid-19 performance by the authorities and bungled Brexit negotiations. Northern Ireland is witnessing scenes reminiscent of The Troubles, as police are firebombed and attacked.
Prince Philip’s death came amid all of this and has further polarised the population. The BBC has received a record number of complaints for its wall-to-wall coverage, to the extent it has had to create a dedicated online portal.
With all this going on, it seems incredible that plans are afoot to commission a new royal yacht in Prince Philip’s name. Members of Parliament and government ministers feel it’s an apt way to spend £190 million.
Tory MP Craig MacKinlay, who has been co-ordinating the plans, said, “The towering figure that was the Duke of Edinburgh deserves a permanent tribute to his support for the country, the Commonwealth and the Queen.”
An ocean-going memorial is felt to be appropriate because Prince Philip was a naval officer and adored the former royal yacht Britannia, which he is reported to have travelled 70,000 miles on.
Supporters have also briefed that it could also be tied to the Queen’s 70-year platinum jubilee anniversary next year.
According to royal-supporting newspaper the Daily Telegraph, it was no secret that Philip wanted a replacement after Britannia was retired in 1997. He’s recounted as asking a fellow member of the Royal Thames Yacht Club about what sort of vessel he had and when he replied he couldn’t afford one, the Duke responded, “And neither, it seems, can we.”
The big issue with this whole plan is that it’s expected to be funded by taxpayers. Ordinary people will see their hard-earned contributions splurged on an extravagance to take hugely privileged people – whose income already depends on the taxpayer – to foreign climes.
An unnamed government minister was also quoted as saying that “it could also be a flagship for reinvigorated British shipbuilding.” But that is tone-deaf.
The problem Britain’s manufacturing industry constantly faces is that other countries can produce things more affordably and efficiently. Taking money that belongs to the public to place a giant order is a false stimulus and will reinvigorate nothing.
Another ham-fisted attempt to convince doubters about the worthiness of the project is the notion that it could double as a hospital ship or training vessel. But if we need either of those, wouldn’t it be far better to build them for that sole purpose?
Besides, it’s very hard to see how the luxury the royals are used to dovetails with a floating hospital. Should we commission a royal jumbo jet which doubles as a school? Or what about a new royal train that also operates as an art college?
The tacky attempts to sell the proposed new yacht as potentially beneficial to the public only serve to demonstrate how deluded the British establishment is.
Some of them actually believe the ordinary person would be gullible enough to think a royal yacht is of tangible benefit. It’s like an episode from a cringeworthy mockumentary; you can imagine them holed up in grand state building confidently saying “they’ll love it.”
None of the royal family has yet to comment on the plans, which is generally interpreted as a nod of approval. They rarely say anything unless it’s to correct a perceived wrong, which is why they maintained radio silence, aside from a few lines of no substance, despite the bombshell revelations of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
The British state has no grasp of reality. The days of blindly using the country as its own piggybank unhindered is over. Voters can’t stop the yacht being built, but they can rise up and protest, unlike previous generations. The torrent of complaints to the BBC is proof of that.
The deference to the Queen and her family is gone, and a lot of it is their own doing.
Recently, after a year of lockdown, it was announced Buckingham Palace could not open up as normal this summer, but due to the tough times, people would be able to visit its gardens.
However, instead of offering free or even discounted entry as a gesture to boost morale, the palace are insisting on charging £16.50 for adults and £9 for kids.
And the thinking behind the new yacht is the same: let us do something for us, but pretend it’s about you and you can pay for it. Even the practicalities make no sense. It would seemingly be used by Prince Charles, Prince William and their families. But what will them bobbing about in the Bay of Biscay do for anyone apart from offering the House of Windsor’s finest an enjoyable, lavish holiday?
No death is a good thing and everyone is entitled to respect. But the Duke of Edinburgh’s passing has to be seen as the end of an era. It should offer a chance to look forward and reshape things.
This idea of a new £190 million royal yacht is an abomination and any decent, democratic society would discount it immediately. Britain’s food banks have seen record numbers of visits. Tens of thousands have lost their jobs due to the pandemic and its aftershocks. So, let’s send this hare-brained scheme off to where it belongs – into the distant sunset, never to be seen again…
Chris Sweeney is an author and columnist who has written for newspapers such as The Times, Daily Express, The Sun and Daily Record, along with several international-selling magazines.
It’s easy to laugh when middle-class greenies write about their eco-anxiety, under headlines like ‘Can you drink milk and stay ethical?’, but there’s a deadly serious side to this that threatens to curtail our freedoms.
The world of the eco-warrior is a gloomy one indeed. Just as the rest of us are starting to enjoy the first loosening of government-imposed lockdown and pondering the post-Covid-19 world, they, while drinking their barista-quality oat milk lattes, are preoccupied with highly moral dilemmas most of us don’t have the time or money to think about.
What follows is not made up, but is a shortened version of Guardian columnist Emma Beddington’s moral dilemmas facing the post-Covid-19 world.
While anxious to minimise her part in transforming the Earth “into a flaming wasteland,” she has a major dilemma with milk, well, multiple problems. Why? Because milk is apparently, “bad news for the planet: three times worse in greenhouse emission terms than any plant milk.” (We’ll come back to the moronic concept of ‘plant milk’ below). But her dilemma is that while knowing this for “ages” she has pretended it is not. And why? “Because tea is horrible with oat milk.” Who would have thought? (We’ll come back to this equally moronic concept below too).
According to Beddington, the horror of this complex dilemma is earth-shattering, or scorching, depending on where you place your carbon footprint. Her solution is to seek out what she terms “the least bad dairy”: she gets her milk from “cows fed on seaweed, which reduces bovine belching.” Apparently, research has recently found this can cut methane emissions by up to 82%.
But before you can breathe a sigh of relief (while perhaps pondering whether feeding cows seaweed does not constitute abuse and animal cruelty), it gets even worse. Her ‘good’ dairy comes in plastic bottles, not glass ones, which makes it bad. Because her household finishes two pints of seaweed milk precisely six days after the weekly delivery, ordering another two-pint bottle, would mean “most of it would end up down the sink” – obviously a no-no for sustainability. So, her instinct is to hold out. But this results in an even greater moral dilemma because it means imposing her “eco-guilt” on her younger son, who, bless him, “has the smallest carbon footprint of any of us, and just wants milk on his cereal.” The result? She ends up buying a pint of “Bad Milk from the corner shop.” (The horror!).
At the very least, this suggests her son has something she lacks: namely, the ability to recognise that Bad Milk tastes good while Good Milk is, in her own words, “horrible.”
But who would have thought that living ethically was so complex and difficult? Milk is just the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg. Every consumer decision is laden with moral dilemmas: how to shop without contributing to “flat-pack landfill waste.” What’s the point in recycling “like a demon, sorting, flattening, rinsing and parsing the council’s opaque and inadequate recycling policy” when no-one “will take plastic takeaway boxes” (an admission that Beddington and her fellow eco-warriors have spent lockdown dealing with their eco-dilemmas while eating takeaway food delivered by people who, in all likelihood, are relying on food banks for their survival, not struggling with the pros and cons of seaweed-fed bovines).
But for the virtual signalling eco-middle class every choice is bad and carries a heavy burden. The weight of having to balance “one harm against another” is causing them mental health problems. So, what is her solution? Well, she says, “as in so much of life…I just want someone authoritative to tell me what to do.”
This is where eco-anxiety ceases to be a source of comedic brilliance and where virtue signalling becomes a serious political issue.
What Beddington and the Guardian are advocating, in reality, is that we should all succumb to the dictatorship of experts – but only the experts that accept misanthropic eco-anxiety, not those who might question it.
The concepts they use, like ‘plant milk’ already indicate the type of conformity they expect and demand. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘milk’ as “a whitish fluid, rich in fat and protein, secreted by the mammary glands of female mammals (including humans) for the nourishment of their young, and taken from cows, sheep, etc., as an article of the human diet.” As such, it reflects human ingenuity and how mankind has transformed nature to meet human ends. This is precisely what nonsensical misnomers like ‘oat milk’ seek to undermine.
The assault on language is just the thin edge of the wedge. ‘Tell me what to do’ is the political rallying cry of the middle class. They have really loved Covid-19 and the lockdown that was imposed by the state on the word of politically unaccountable experts who apparently knew what’s best for the rest of us. And they’re expert at that.
The moral complexity of eco-anxiety, expressed so comically by Beddington, should not lull us into a false sense of security. As bonkers as it is, it serves to strengthen the idea of the need for expert diktat.
This has been the message of the high priest of environmentalism, Greta Thunberg, throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. She has not tired from drawing out the lessons that acting on the advice of scientists “should be applied to the climate crisis.”
As we move haltingly towards freedom in the post-Covid-19 era, eco-anxiety is set to fill the authoritarian expert gap that will follow. The battle over the next global emergency – the environment – will make the Covid-19 battle for debate, contestation and anti-state authoritarianism look like a walk in the park.
But it is not all bleak. As one reader, ‘Donercard’, humorously referring to the ‘Ian Rush Accrington Stanley’ milk advert by the Milk Marketing Board in the 1980s, puts it: “You (Beddington) can drink milk and be ethical but you will never play for Accrington Stanley.”
The cadence is increasing of jurisdictions introducing, normalizing and expanding laws allowing doctors to help people commit suicide.
Is this purely in the service of relieving unbearable physical or mental suffering? Or do other factors predominate?
I used to believe the former, but my recent re-examination of the issue suggests the latter is more likely.
On March 17, 2021, Bill C-7 came into effect across Canada. The new law significantly increases the proportion of the population eligible to undergo physician-assisted death (PAD). C-7 expands PAD eligibility to, for example, people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.
On March 18, Spain passed federal legislation that for the first time allows PAD there; it goes into effect in June.
The same thing has happened in New Zealand: the federal ‘End of Life Choice Act’ goes into effect in November.
And on April 8 the French federal parliament debated whether to make euthanasia the law of their land. The majority of the parliamentarians favour legalizing euthanasia. However, the law was not passed because there wasn’t enough time for them to go through the thousands of amendments proposed by legislators who oppose PAD.
(Other terms for the act of doctors helping people commit suicide include physician-assisted suicide, voluntary assisted suicide and medical assistance in dying. And the difference between euthanasia and PAD is the latter requires patients to request it.)
Other countries, such as the UK, are similar to France: active euthanasia is illegal but most residents and physicians approve of it. Therefore in these countries many physicians perform euthanasia without being punished and there is a considerable push to legalize it.
Holland and Belgium were the first countries to decriminalize euthanasia and PAD, bringing their laws into effect in 2002. In Luxembourg a similar assisted-death law came into effect in 2009.
All three countries allow people to undergo PAD if they have a serious medical condition, disability or psychiatric disorder, whether their death is imminent or not.
For the last few years years Holland has been moving towards voting on legalizing PAD for people 75 years of age or older who are ‘tired of life.’ And there has been a steady and very significant increase in the overall number of people undergoing PAD in Holland and Belgium.
PAD currently can also be legally performed in five other countries, either across the whole country or in parts of it: Canada, the US, Australia, Germany and Switzerland.
In the U.S. each state can decide whether PAD is permitted there. So far, eight states plus Washington, D.C. have legalized it. Similarly, in Australia it’s a state issue; so far the state of Victoria has brought into effect a law allowing PAD and on July 1 the state of Western Australia will follow suit.
In Canada PAD was first legalized federally in 2016. Now Bill C-7 expands PAD by, among other measures:
no longer requiring a 10-day ‘reflection’ period between the time a person whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable consents to PAD and when they receive it;
allowing people who have a very serious illness or disability but whose natural death is not imminent to access PAD as long as they meet certain conditions (previously, PAD was only allowed in people whose natural death was reasonably foreseeable);
allowing PAD for people who have previously requested it, been found eligible to receive it and their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable but they’ve lost the capacity to consent; and,
starting in 2023, allowing PAD for people who have a mental illness alone, and no other underlying medical conditions or disabilities.
The government and mass media largely paint all of this asgiving more people more right to choose how and when they end their lives.
Pro-PAD groups and opinion leaders refer to it in positive terms such as ‘right to die’ and ‘death with dignity.’
Other institutions have an overt pro-PAD position; among these is the Hastings Center in the US.
And additional influential groups and organizations — Wikipedia, for example — have a more subtle but definitely detectable pro-PAD slant in the information they provide to the public about PAD.
Most of the individuals and groups that oppose PAD do so on religious grounds.
But there are at least three facts that most people don’t know about physician-assisted death.
One
Expanding PAD is a serious potential threat to people with disabilities, dementia and Alzheimer’s.
That’s because what the vast majority of these people want and need is good care and services – but those services are becoming very hard to access, particularly in this era of Covid.
Most countries’ PAD laws require health-care providers to inform people of available services for relieving their suffering as alternatives to PAD and to offer referrals to professionals who can provide these services. But those laws don’t also require that the services be made accessible to all of these people, via increased government funding.
And there already have been documentedcases of people with disabilities being pressured to undergo PAD.
That’s why many disability advocates oppose expansion of PAD.
Catherine Frazee, a professor at Ryerson University in Toronto and a leading disability advocate, gave powerful testimony to the Canadian parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’s Bill C-7 hearing in November 2020.
She told hearing attendees that the Quebec Superior Court’s 2019 decision allowing disabled Quebec resident Jean Truchon to undergo assisted death even though his death was not reasonably foreseeable – which the Canadian federal government used as a springboard to create Bill C-7 — does not in fact translate into the need to make it easier for disabled people to kill themselves.
Frazee said that, rather, “the deprivations of institutional life that choked out his [Truchon’s] will to live [and resultant request for PAD] were not an inevitable consequence of disability.”
Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, has voiced a similar sentiment.
“This bill has got to be stopped, or it will end the life of people. It will end the life of way too many people with disabilities who feel they have no other options,” she’s quoted as saying in a February 8, 2021,Canadian Press article.
In Holland, ever since its PAD law went into effect in 2002, the country has allowed assisted killing of children — in cases where they’re considered to be incurably ill — of as young as 12. And the Dutch government is now considering following Belgium’s lead and lowering that minimum age to as young as one.
This expansion wouldn’t involve a change in federal law in Holland. Instead, it would be done via changes to the ‘Groningen protocol.’ This set of guidelines was created in 2004 for the killing of newborns and infants with very serious illnesses or deformities such as spina bifida.
Three
There is significantcontroversy about allowing assisted suicide for people who have a psychiatric disorder alone and no other conditions.
Currently only Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg permit this, as part of their original assisted-death laws.
Under Bill C-7, Canada will allow it in 2023.
The Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) released a position statement last year saying it “did and does not take a position on the legality or morality of MAiD [medical assistance in dying] as this is a decision reflecting current Canadian ethical, cultural and moral views.”
This prompted two former CPA presidents to post an open letter to Canadian psychiatrists highlighting that the CPA did not engage its membership in a consultation process before releasing its position statement.
The two past presidents asked the CPA to “revisit the Statement by temporarily withdrawing it, to allow for a proper engagement process and development of evidence-based recommendations to inform any future Position Statement on MAiD.”
The CPA did not do this.
The American Psychiatric Association released its PAD position statement in 2016. It states, in whole: “The American Psychiatric Association, in concert with the American Medical Association’s position on medical euthanasia, holds that a psychiatrist should not prescribe or administer any intervention to a non-terminally ill person for the purpose of causing death.”
The American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics states, in part, that “Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life.”
It certainly makes one wonder why the public isn’t given all of this information.
Instead, the rush to expand access to PAD around the world in the name of humaneness is holding sway.
After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca
The stage is set, the plan is in place, and the people are still asleep. The realization that this state has declared war on the American people is unknown to most, and when the killing reaches high levels, the sheep will be told it is due to a mutated virus variant, and it is their fault for not being injected quickly enough with a poisonous ‘vaccine’ administered by this same criminal state.
Make no mistake about it; you are the enemy of the state in this war against mankind. This manufactured pandemic began with lies, and was perpetuated by mass propaganda; so much so as to cause extreme fear and panic out of thin air.
This is what real domestic terrorism looks like, and it is being executed by the United States government under the control of its masters in banking, finance, and corporate America; those at the top of the pyramid of power that make up the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and all the major players in science, technology, the mainstream media, medicine, and the pharmaceutical industry.
This long-planned plot to depopulate the earth and take total control over all of us could be considered ingenious but for the fact that it is pure evil.
What has been foretold and what is coming is what I would refer to as crisis management terrorism. There will be (and has already been) one fake crisis after another, all claimed to be so important and deadly as to cause the government to step in to control all aspects of human life through law, mandates, and lockdowns, with enforcement implemented at every level from the executive branch of federal government down to state and local health administrators.
This will be in essence, a total and saturated form of enforcement with little if any ability of escape. This is by design of course, so that regardless of location or isolation, all will be subject to the propaganda and the long reach of peer pressure and tyranny.
The end game sought by these totalitarian monsters is to inject each and every American with this experimental, mind-altering, body changing, genetic reshaping, and deadly operating system falsely being called a Covid ‘vaccine.’ It is not a vaccine at all, but a control and depopulation tool purposely designed to cause extreme sickness and death. These adverse responses caused by these toxic injections will not be correctly blamed on the shot, but will instead be used to claim that mutated variant expressions of the non-existent Covid-19 strain are the culprit.
This will allow for more fear and panic in order to set up more demand for ‘vaccination.’ These never-ending crises will cause a much higher percentage of Americans to voluntarily seek out and take this virulent injection, and this will of course lead to an unending array of critical dilemmas, just as the state desires.
But it will not end there, as many will still not voluntarily take this toxic poison. The next phase, which is now in the works, will be to require proof of ‘vaccination’ in order to gain access to normal life functions. Currently, this is being called immunity or vaccine passports, and in New York it is already required to enter many venues, and is expanding quickly. Eventually, these passports as they are called, will be required for buying food, going into businesses, attending concerts or performances, banking, and other everyday necessities.
In other words, it could become in the near future impossible to do anything without proof of vaccine. But so-called proof is not the desired outcome, it is only a means to an end, and that end is to vaccinate every single human. Once all are vaccinated, total control will have been achieved, and depopulation by vaccination murder can continue without resistance.
While much of the country is partially opening up, this is only the dangling of a carrot for the very short term before the next planned crisis emerges. Each crisis will bring more closures, lockdowns, stricter rules, and vastly more elevated enforcement. All of this has been telegraphed far in advance, and none of this should be a surprise to anyone, but alas, it seems as if very few have been or are now paying attention. We live in a society that fails to see what is right before their eyes, and intentionally hides from the truth.
This behavior is indicative of a captured people, in what has now become a population of fools ready for their own enslavement. But this is more than enslavement, as the controllers not only want to lord over all of humanity, but they want to eliminate by vaccination murder a huge percentage of it as well. At this point, the people are making this easy to achieve.
This ‘vaccine’ and all the new ‘vaccines’ coming, due to what will be referred to as mutant variants, are killers. No one knows exactly what all the detrimental side effects will be, no one knows exactly how many deaths will occur due to this poison, but it has now become obvious that many adverse effects, many side effects, and much death seem imminent. Those perpetrating this fraud desire democide and world depopulation, and now they have the perfect weapon to accomplish their mission of death and destruction, and that weapon is called the ‘Covid’ vaccine.
With the elimination of huge numbers of people, and the implementation of mass control, every agenda sought by the powerful can be accomplished, from overpopulation, economic collapse, monetary restructuring, gun control, “climate change,” and with this comes what is being described as the “Great Reset.”
From the standpoint of tyrants, premeditated mass murder has its advantages, especially in this new advanced technological world. The only question was how to accomplish this plan without awakening a sleeping giant. The answer of course was to invent a fake killer virus with but one stated cure, that being a ‘vaccine’ that would become the real killer. What a diabolical plot, in that the people would actually kill themselves, and voluntarily for the most part, albeit with the help of their own elected government. This is now a nation prepared to commit mass suicide by injection, with the ‘hope’ of becoming free, safe, and maskless. Irony at this level is astounding to say the least, but it could only be possible in a society that has become dependent on rule, been fully indoctrinated, intellectually castrated, and gullible beyond recognition. Get used to it; this is the new America.
Presenting blood curdling communists, greedy capitalists, brutalism, moral relativism and espionage as expressions of Jewishness is considered anti-Semitic when a Gentile does it, but the newly reopened Museum of Jewish People in Israel sees the above as inspiring expressions of Jewish racial identity.
AUN, the museum’s acronym in Hebrew, recently invested $100 million dollars into tripling the size of its exhibits. The Israeli government sees the institution as a time capsule of 4,000 years of Jewish achievement, an endeavor it believes will strengthen the racial identity of both Israelis and visiting diaspora Jews.
One of its permanent exhibits is called “Heroes – Trailblazers of the Jewish People.” Some of the figures celebrated in the exhibit are standard fare for a national heritage museum, such as famous entertainers, Israel’s early founders, poets, prophets and scientists.
But there are also many historical figures that are lauded by Jews that are known for little more than their brutality, deception, and socially corrosive effect in Western nations.
Leon Trotsky, listed by AUN as a heroic Jew, was a prominent cutthroat in the Bolshevik revolution. Many of the barbaric practices credited to Joseph Stalin, such as putting political opponents in the gulags, were pioneered by Trotsky.
In 1918, Trotsky drew up a plan to use POW camps that were housing foreign soldiers released under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to imprison intellectuals, clergy and political figures (including on the left) that did not support the Soviet government. By 1919, the “gulags” were officially opened and loaded with dissidents.
Other Soviet policies that provoke universal disgust, such as killing the family members of dissidents and deserters, were started by Trotsky according to the Jewish Virtual Library itself.
Historians differ on the exact death toll under Trotsky’s “Red Terror,” but estimates are in the millions. That curators at the museum meant to represent Jewish people are proud of this suggests that they have a radically different moral system than European Christians.
Even more mind boggling is the exhibit’s inclusion of Schmuel Azar and Moshe Marzouk as Jewish “trailblazers.”
Azar and Marzouk were part of a Mossad sleeper cell in Egypt that in 1954 sought to murder American and European civilians in multiple terrorist attacks that they would frame Muslims for. The goal was to spark a civil war in Egypt and isolate the country’s Arab nationalist leader Gamal Nasser internationally.
The Egyptian government foiled the plot and put Azar and Marzouk to death. The incident, known as the “Lavon Affair,” was an embarassing moment for the state of Israel, yet the two terrorists are commemorated as national martyrs today.
There are numerous spies spanning the ages and conflicts on the list. Many of the men and women glorified were operating as traitors in their host nations.
Bankers known for their evil and greed, such as Mayer Rothschild and 19th century global drug kingpin David Sassoon are taught to Jewish children as their people’s heroes.
Frank Gehry, the most famous brutalist architect to ever live, is featured despite broad hatred of his awful buildings. Claude Levi Strauss, who invented the idea of “Othering” that Israel doesn’t apply to itself, is named. Jacques Derrida, Sigmund Freud, Milton Friedman, Betty Friedan, Mark Rothko and scores of others whose ideas — instituted by the Jewish community’s enormous financial and institutional power in liberal plutocracies — have done significant harm to humanity and Western civilization are also present.
While Jewish “heroes” in the West preached suicidal levels of tolerance, the AUN sees no contradiction in including them beside Ovadia Yosef on the list of Jews to emulate. Rabbi Yosef, who was so bigoted even the Anti-Defamation League had to pretend to distance themselves from him, was known for his genocidal hatred of all non-Jews. The Sephardic leader famously said in 2010, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel” and “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created,” among other hateful words during his long career as a prominent Jewish spiritual leader.
Tying Jews to Bolshevism or the Rothschilds or Talmudic teachings about killing and enslaving Gentiles are perceived by speech regulators in America and Europe as crass and even criminal anti-Jewish canards. But the fact that an anti-Semite could’ve easily compiled the “heroes” exhibit at the Museum of Jewish People shows that hate speech laws and pathologizing of political opponents are nothing more than a tactic to keep historical truths Jews embrace out of the hands and minds of those they want to control.
A recently declassified CIA document prepared in 1983, and released on 20 January 2017, shows that the United States had at the time encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Syria, which would have led to a vicious conflict between the two countries, thus draining their resources.
The report, which was then prepared by CIA officer Graham Fuller, indicates that the US tried adamantly to convince Saddam to attack Syria under any pretense available, in order to get the two most powerful countries in the Arab East to destroy each other, turning their attention away from the Arab-Israeli conflict. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 