Supremacism, Social Darwinism

If I were a globalist overlord looking at the US what would I think now?

By Meryl Nass | February 25, 2023

I have used the trick of trying to think like the enemy and it has been a successful strategy for me. So here are a few thoughts to help focus on what might come and what the other side might be up to, but what might also stand in their way.

I’d be thrilled that my psychological warfare worked so well on a huge chunk of people. At first, anyway. I’d be wondering if it would work again.

I’d be worried that at least half the population (mostly blue collar) is no longer completely brainwashed. They are silent, but they are not buying the narrative. Only 15% got that bivalent booster.

I would not give a d**m about nation states (except for destroying them and diluting their people and cultures) and I would have no allegiance to any jurisdiction.

I would be a bit nervous about what those other globalists are doing, messing with MY air, water and soil.

I’d be very mad that Fauci and his buds promised me a deadly pandemic and it didn’t really make the cut, and now it is so mild no one is frightened of it any more.

I’d be mad that the same crowd promised me a severe monkeypox pandemic, and that didn’t work out so well, either. I can’t really trust them to get me the types of pandemics I wanted, can I?

I’d be nervous about how the people will respond to the next one that Bill Gates promised would be coming soon. They might just go after us for creating it and unleashing it. How do Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos ever show their face in public? I don’t want to be unable to go wherever I please.

I’d be nervous about the fact the COVID shots started killing people off too soon—too many people have figured it out, and getting them to take another shot is not going to be easy. This could be a huge problem, since the plan seems to have entailed giving everyone ten shots.

The vaccine passport plan failed, since the vaccines didn’t protect and Americans won’t go for it now. While we may be able to install them in some European countries, the plan was to get everyone to pay for their own tracker and control system. Now people are starting to ditch their phones, or keep them in Faraday bags. And the population is getting wary of politicians and public health officials.

We could pull out all the stops and kill or maim the majority of the population, but when people understand what’s happening, and they have nothing left to lose by fighting, they fight back. And we don’t have enough police and armies on our side to control them yet. We don’t have robot armies yet, either.

Will we dare to keep destroying food storage and production facilities? Won’t we make a mistake and it could be traced back to us?

How much can we squeeze the public over energy before they take matters into their own hands?

Our hardware infrastructure, till it is up on satellites, is vulnerable. But once it’s up on satellites, how do we fix it when it breaks? What if we kill off all the competent tech guys, almost all of whom in the US and Israel took the shots?

Small cells (5G) are easy to knock down. Tractors can knock down towers. I can build underground, but I don’t want to have to live in an underground bunker.

We can sink economies everywhere, whenever we choose. But if we starve enough people, there will be too many people with nothing left to lose.

What happens when the people find out who we are?

No one better start using any nukes on MY planet.

What happens when the people decide the governments aren’t legitimate because of the vote scams, and they turn off the money spigot? Do you expect me to spend my own billions on this world takeover? Fuggedaboudit.

____________________________

Thanks to the commenter who identified this piece in Brownstone: Technocratic Dystopia Is Impossible by Robert Blumen. His thesis is that it is physically not possible for elites to produce the desired utopia/dystopia. He mentions various descriptors of the dystopia below. Worth a read of his whole piece.

The WEF – an infinite source of technocratic malapropisms – says that you will “own nothing” and be happy (the happiness perhaps will be a drug-induced state as Yuval Hariri suggests). Many independent researchers who have looked into the WEF’s plans have reported similar findings. For example – see James Corbett, Patrick Wood, Whitney Webb 2, Tessa Lena 2, Jay Dyer, and Catherine Austin Fitts.

Aaron Kheriaty, who says much the same in his book The New Abnormal, calls the oncoming system “communist capitalism.” Jeffrey Tucker calls it “techno-primitivism.”

February 26, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States | Leave a comment

Five Lessons from Three Years of Authoritarianism

By Seth Smith | Brownstone Institute | February 25, 2023

Three years ago few of us knew the impending storm that was brewing; one that would upend the very fabric of global democracy, destroy whole communities, businesses and families and cause a vast number of children and adolescents to become unmoored and disengage from society, among many other deleterious outcomes.

Perhaps most chilling of all has been the sinister turn in those three years of what was once seemingly a force for good, “public health;” which changed into a punitive and authoritarian entity that wilfully engages in iatrogenesis and the disenfranchisement of those skeptical of the medical-industrial complex through widespread and draconian vaccine mandates.

In retrospect, America in February of 2020 seems like a libertarian, innocent age compared to our current one. We did not live under the shadow of possible nuclear holocaust. Everyday life was devoid of the nanny-state elements of our current age. Many of us had gone through life never quite knowing what the destructive power of a government run amok looked like.

Now we know.

Not only do we once again live under the imminent threat of atomic annihilation, as our global “leaders” continue to play out a 21st-century version of Dr. Strangelove, but Covid offered an opportunity to further militarize and subordinate society. For let’s call lockdowns what they were: martial law.

Moreover, the government and the security state during the last few years has proved itself to be in the service of only a tiny sliver of shadowy and in some cases invisible elites and “experts” whose actions have, in America most especially, been held to little accountability. In the face of lockdowns, which happened to be the most universally undemocratic and destructive event of my lifetime, regular citizens were held in contempt and with little more agency than the serfs of the Middle Ages. Some of us were made completely irrelevant and “non-essential.”

Yet, amongst this wreckage and horror, many skeptical people, who once believed in benevolent leaders, have been freed from the flawed faith in “good” government. In this freedom lie several important lessons for how to move forward into a (hopefully) less totalitarian future.

Lesson #1: We need to hold the medical-industrial complex accountable.

My skepticism about the medical-industrial complex felt inchoate and somehow unfounded pre-Covid. Sure, I knew I’d be given a lecture at every doctor’s appointment about how I needed to schedule colonoscopies (in my early 40s!), buy new medicines, get blood work done, no questions about my holistic well-being, diet, etc. It didn’t matter which doctor I saw, they were all like that. There was always a feeling that these big buildings and office parks that housed the machinery of the medical industrial complex were, like consolidated public schools or prisons, quite anti-human. But I still . . . believed, more or less.

What the Covid mania revealed is that much of the medical-industrial complex, like the military-industrial complex, is part of a system of hierarchical relationships that only truly benefits those in power. The beneficiaries being Big Pharma, massive corporate health systems, wealthy physicians and even a security state/biodefense apparatus that sees vast swaths of the global population as dots on a chart to be manipulated, vaccinated and medicalized.

Even worse, iatrogenesis – the massive health harms caused by Covid medical interventions – generates unseemly and massive profits, again for a tiny segment of individuals with unfathomable power and wealth (Bill Gates is the prime example). This sinister complex relies on sickness, not health to make their profits. I believe this is one reason why Covid was so intensely medicalized and why we all became pawns of the vaccine industry, instead of public health pursuing more holistic attempts for better outcomes for people with Covid.

None of us has to take this lying down, though. Health consumers can take back their rights through the great work of organizations such as the Children’s Defense Fund and No College Mandates, two groups with writers affiliated with Brownstone Institute.

Lesson #2: The “real” American left is not MSNBC and has perhaps vanished entirely

The American liberal-left is a coalition that has deteriorated so far as to be unrecognizable, filled with purity tests, blind obedience to secret service agencies like the FBI, the CIA and shadow organizations in the military like DARPA, with authoritarian leaders who constantly virtue signal and who will censor and cancel those they do not agree with.

For many years, since the late Obama years particularly, I’ve felt more and more out of place within the cultural ideology of the American left, which has placed identity politics above economic fairness, and in many instances is entirely unrecognizable from the “left” of old.

Covid remains the demarcation point–when I and millions of others abandoned the movement entirely.

Nothing about being a cheerleader for lockdowns represented traditional leftist values. In fact, I would argue that the natural place for the American left was to viciously oppose lockdowns, because they so deleteriously affected the working class, working poor, and minorities. And yet the silence on the left in the mid-part of 2020, much to my horror, soon became derision and then full scale hatred toward those of us who proclaimed our opposition to lockdowns, even with reasoned analysis or proposals such as the Great Barrington Declaration.

That we were brutally censored and that all protestations ended up falling on deaf ears was such an alienating experience, many of us who at one time proclaimed to be “of the left” have abandoned the project entirely, and most especially the political party that was supposed to represent us in America, the Democrats. We have emerged politically homeless; some having even established alliances within the welcoming arms of the libertarian and conservative movements.

This begs the question that many of us have pondered: what is the political left now? And what has it always been?

It certainly does not resemble the George Orwell version, which had so much influence on me as a college student. The spirit of the left contained in “The Road to Wigan Pier,” for instance, feels like a world gone by, infused as it was with a healthy skepticism, admiration and reverence for the working classes, and the mutually supportive ideas of liberty and egalitarianism. Such humility and nuance have almost wholly disappeared from our current rendition of “leftism.”

Some of us have even wondered (and indeed Orwell pondered the same thing): does leftism, if unchecked, always loop into something horrendous, the inevitable conclusion not being utopia but the graveyards of Cheong Ek or tendentious, censorious authoritarianism?

Does dialectical materialism only go down one road in the end, and that toward Stalinism or fascism?

Yet, despite the loneliness of becoming a dissenter within one’s old political home, the complete destruction of what used to be “left” and in some instances “right” political spheres is in itself freeing. Many of us are carving out new political identities and in some cases new political parties and alliances are forming. This outcome will ultimately be very healthy for the future of democracy.

Lesson #3: We have proof that “experts” are often wrong.

A healthy skepticism of the “experts” and elites has always been a hallmark of American life, especially out here in the provinces where I reside. Yet, as Christopher Lasch pointed out in Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy – the last book he published and maybe most prescient – many American elites and professional “experts” have now completely abandoned their advisory roles to become de facto rulers in themselves, worshiped in almost a religious sense by a segment of completely secularized, well-to-do liberals. These elites, however, mostly hold contempt toward the working and middle class. This has been happening for quite some time (Lasch’s book was published in 1996).

The most egregious recent example of this worship and the power of the 21st century technocrat is embodied by the former Director of NIAID, Anthony Fauci, who was the public face of the disastrous Covid response for nearly three full years. The myopic reverence for this man is dangerous on many levels, but it also showcases a grave weakness of modern humanity; many of us will give up even the most basic freedoms because we blindly trust a technocratic “savior” who just may have all the wrong data or simply be a mendacious, cunning bureaucrat.

Yet, before Covid many of us, including myself, trusted unelected bureaucrats like Fauci far too often with little questioning of their motives. Lockdowns showed their hand and tipped the balance toward egregious authoritarianism. Unelected administrative-state actors should not have any ability to create policy by fiat, and groups such as the NCLA are fighting many of the unconstitutional edicts pushed forward by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH as part of the Covid response.

Lesson #4: The technology that was supposed to lessen inequality actually increases societal rifts.

The modern worship of technology has created an undemocratic information ecosystem rife with inequity, which helped smooth the way for authoritarian and coercive lockdown policies. In fact, with the aforementioned DARPA heavily involved in the Covid response and Big Tech gaining nearly unfettered power during the pandemic, technology’s tentacles are lodged in every classroom, courthouse and boardroom across the country. It seems likely that the architecture for future lockdowns is now firmly in place.

We should never, at any moment moving forward, accept this as our future. The Western world imitated China’s brutal, authoritarian lockdowns because digital technology facilitated it. These policies would have been impossible as little as 25 years ago.

And in the end it was all a sham.

Millions still had to keep the sewers clear, emergency services running, the lights on and our grocery stores stocked. Working class people, many of whom were rightly skeptical of the Covid vaccine, and who subsequently lost their jobs because of the illegal vaccine mandates, were completely ignored by the laptop class who were able to work from home. In the midst of receiving endless curbside deliveries, virtue signaling on social media about “anti-vaxxers,” and sidelining those who actually had to leave their homes and work for a living, Big Tech only fueled the culture wars and ultimately hurt the working class.

Lesson #5: The most meaningful things are still the most meaningful things.

If we cannot trust the experts, the government, the global order, or technology, who can we trust? This is perhaps the most important question of all, and one that has been asked from time immemorial. In intense readings of Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction work during this strange and awful time, especially Patriotism and Government and The Kingdom of God is Within You, I’ve come to realize that in the very act of trusting monolithic institutions or the state in general, we are looking for all the wrong answers and even perhaps asking the wrong questions.

For, like all of the material world, institutions are fallible and crumble. The right questions are much larger and far more personal, and the answers are immutable and have been there forever.

Outside the bounds of our fallible institutions, the most important answers to nearly every question are to be found in authentic feelings of love and belonging. Love for your family, or the little plot of land and house that you own, or the tiny farming community that you live in, the church you belong to, or the group of kind-hearted and supportive friends and writers, like those who have found one another in Brownstone Institute and other grassroots communities.

Faceless federal institutions and their representatives do not deserve our love, nor in most cases do they deserve even admiration or respect. They are the products of very flawed, uncaring systems and are ultimately artificial creations of a flawed humankind.

Despite the anguish and pain we have all felt–and the divisions the last three years of authoritarianism have created–don’t let the elites and their petty politics divide your friendships and family. Love is still the ultimate answer.

Seth Smith is an avid outdoorsman and public librarian based in Missouri.

February 25, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights | Leave a comment

Green Energy: Greatest Wealth Transfer to the Rich in History

By Steve Goreham | MasterResource | February 21, 2023

We are in the midst of history’s greatest wealth transfer. Government subsidized wind systems, solar arrays, and electric vehicles overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy members of society and rich nations. The poor and middle class pay for green energy programs with higher taxes and higher electricity and energy costs. Developing nations suffer environmental damage to deliver mined materials needed for renewables in rich nations.

Since 2000, the world has spent more than $5 trillion on green energy. More than 300,000 wind turbines have been erected, millions of solar arrays were installed, more than 25 million electric vehicles (EVs) have been sold, hundreds of thousands of acres of forest were cut down to produce biomass fuel, and about three percent of agricultural land is now used to produce biofuel for vehicles. The world spends about $1 trillion per year on green energy. Government subsidies run about $200 billion annually, with more than $1 trillion in subsidies spent over the last 20 years.

World leaders obsess over the need for a renewable energy transition to save the planet from human-caused global warming. Governments deliver an endless river of cash to promote adoption of green energy. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided $370 billion in subsidies and loans for renewables and EVs. But renewable subsidies and mandates overwhelmingly favor the rich members of society at the expense of the poor.

Wind systems receive production tax credits, property tax exemptions, and sometimes receive payments even when not generating electricity. Landowners receive as much as $8,000 per turbine each year from leases for wind systems on their land. Lease income can be quite high for a landowner with many turbines. In England, ordinary taxpayers pay hundreds of millions of pounds per year in taxes that are funneled as subsidies to wind companies and wealthy land owners.

In the US, 39 states currently have net metering laws. Net metering provides a credit for electricity generated by rooftop solar systems that is fed back into the grid. Solar generators typically get credits at the retail electricity rate, about 14 cents per kilowatt-hour. This is a subsidized rate, which is more than double the roughly five cents per kilowatt-hour earned by power plants. Apartment residents and homeowners that cannot afford to install rooftop solar pay higher electricity bills to subsidize homes that receive net metering credits. Rooftop solar owners also receive federal and state tax incentives, another wealth transfer from ordinary citizens.

US federal subsidies of up to $7,500 for each electric car purchased, along with additional state subsidies, directly benefit EV buyers. The average price of an EV in the US last year was $66,000, which is out of reach for most drivers. A 2021 University of Chicago study found that California EV owners only drive 5,300 miles per year, less than half the mileage for a typical car. Most electric cars in the US are second cars for the rich.

A mid-size electric car needs a battery that weighs about a 1,000 pounds to provide acceptable driving range. Because of battery weight, EVs tend to be about 50 percent heavier than gasoline cars, which causes increased road damage. But EVs don’t pay the road tax included in the price of every gallon of gasoline. EVs should pay higher road taxes than traditional cars, but today this cost is borne by everyday gasoline car drivers.

Renewable systems require huge amounts of special metals. Electric car batteries need cobalt, nickel, and lithium to achieve high energy density and performance. Magnets in wind turbines require rare earth metals, such as neodymium and dysprosium. Large quantities of copper are essential for EV engines, batteries, wind and solar arrays, and electricity transmission systems to connect to remote wind and solar sites. According to the International Energy Agency, an EV requires about six times the special metals of a gasoline or diesel car. A wind array requires more than ten times the metals of a natural gas power plant on a delivered-electricity basis. The majority of these metals are mined in developing countries.

Almost 70 percent of cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Indonesia produces more than 30 percent of the world’s nickel. Chile produces 28 percent of the copper. China produces 60 percent of the rare earth metals. These nations struggle with serious air and water pollution from mining operations. Workers in mines also suffer from poor working conditions and the use of forced labor and child labor practices. But apparently no cost is too great so that rich people in developed nations can drive a Tesla.

To top it off, the European Union recently approved a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The CBAM will tax goods coming from poor nations which aren’t manufactured using low-carbon processes. CBAM revenues will be a great source of funds for Europe’s green energy programs that benefit the wealthy.

In January, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Washington proposed a wealth tax on billionaires. It’s interesting to note that all seven of these states mandate and heavily subsidize wind and solar arrays and electric vehicles, which transfer wealth from poor and middle-class residents to those same billionaires.

February 23, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Economics, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | European Union, UK, United States | Leave a comment

Monbiot: We Must End Our Dependence On Farming

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | February 20, 2023

We must end our dependence on eating.

Why does anybody treat this nutter seriously?

Perhaps before he makes a fool of himself next time, he might like to check what the UN’s Food & Agriculture Organisation have to say on the matter:

ABOUT 60 PERCENT of the world’s pasture land (about 2.2 million km²), just less than half the world’s usable surface is covered by grazing systems. Distributed between arid, semi arid and sub humid, humid, temperate and tropical highlands zones, this supports about 360 million cattle (half of which are in the humid savannas), and over 600 million sheep and goats, mostly in the arid rangelands. The distribution of livestock over the different ecological zones is provided in Annex Table 2.

Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world’s production of beef and about 30 percent of the world’s production of sheep and goat meat. For an estimated 100 million people in arid areas, and probably a similar number in other zones, grazing livestock is the only possible source of livelihood.

Environmental challenges

Grazing can be visualized as beautiful cows in lush pastures in north-western Europe or New Zealand-livestock in harmony with nature. Indeed, livestock can improve soil and vegetation cover and plant and animal biodiversity, as described in this chapter’s case studies of widely different conditions in Kenya, the western United States and Guinea. By removing biomass, which otherwise might provide the fuel for bush fires, by controlling shrub growth and by dispersing seeds through their hoofs and manure, grazing animals can improve plant species composition. In addition, trampling can stimulate grass tillering, improve seed germination and break-up hard soil crusts.

However, many people associate grazing animals with overgrazing, soil degradation and deforestation. To them livestock keeping in arid regions of the tropics provokes images of clouds of dust, bleached cow skeletons and an advancing desert. The two most quoted sources are the Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (Oldeman et al., 1991), which estimates that 680 million hectares of rangeland have become degraded since 1945, and Dregne et al., (1991) who argue that 73 percent of the world’s 4.5 billion hectares of rangeland is moderately or severely degraded. In humid areas, livestock are associated with ranch encroachment and deforestation of tropical rainforests and competition with wildlife.

Prolonged heavy grazing undoubtedly contributes to the disappearance of palatable species and the subsequent dominance by other, less palatable, herbaceous plants or bushes. Such loss of plant and, in consequence, animal biodiversity can require a long regenerative cycle (30 years in savannas, 100 years in rainforests). Excessive livestock grazing also causes soil compaction and erosion, decreased soil fertility and water infiltration, and a loss in organic matter content and water storage capacity. On the other hand, total absence of grazing also reduces biodiversity because a thick canopy of shrubs and trees develops which intercepts light and moisture and results in overprotected plant communities which are susceptible to natural disasters.

The environmental challenge is thus to identify the policies, institutions and technologies which will enhance the positive and mitigate the negative effects of grazing. Environmental challenges, issues and options differ significantly according to climate and land capabilities. Livestock-environment interactions are therefore described separately for the arid, semi-arid and sub-humid, humid rainforest, and temperate and tropical highlands grazing systems respectively. As will be seen, that differentiation is particularly important for the arid eco-systems. As aridity increases, so does variability of rainfall, to the extent that the periodicity of rain becomes the single most important factor affecting the state of the natural resource base. Classical concepts of vegetation succession and climax vegetation do not apply in such environments and new concepts are required.

https://www.fao.org/3/X5303E/x5303e05.htm

Forget climate change and all the other things that Monbiot rambles on about. His only real concern, as he makes clear at the end of his rant, is that farming takes up too much land, which he thinks should be rewilded.

And he is evidently happy to condemn billions to starvation to do it.

February 21, 2023 Posted by aletho | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

Face masks – Medical Protection, or Badge of Obedience?

By Martin Hanson | OffGuardian | February 15, 2023

I don’t normally watch TVNZ’s Seven Sharp, but on 5^th October 2021 we were told that an immunologist would be on the programme to debunk certain ‘Covid myths’.

One such ‘myth’ was the belief that natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity. In response, clinical immunologist Dr. Maia Brewerton said that natural immunity to Covid-19 is not as good as the vaccine.

No evidence was given. Just an assertion.

As an ex-science teacher, I found Dr Brewerton’s statement to be unsatisfactory, for the following simple reason: the vaccine can only generate antibodies to a single viral antigen (the ‘spike’ protein), whereas the whole virus particle reportedly contains 29 proteins, which can therefore evoke the production of a correspondingly greater diversity of antibodies.

So, if the part of the viral RNA that codes for the spike protein RNA undergoes a mutation, the vaccine-induced antibody may be unable to bind to the mutant antigen, but with natural immunity there will a range of ‘back-up’ antibodies that can bind to the other proteins of the virus.

I wrote to Dr. Brewerton to make this point, asking her if she could provide evidence for her Seven Sharp statement.

I received no reply.

This was particularly disappointing because we had repeatedly been urged by the authorities to ‘accept the science’.

One might think that such a single experience may not be particularly significant; Dr. Brewerton might be snowed under with work. But soon after Dr. Brewerton’s appearance, Stuff invited readers to submit questions on Covid, so I sent a similar question to the one I had asked of Dr. Brewerton.

Again, I received no reply.

I was beginning to sense that the authorities might not be too keen to take their own advice to ‘go with the science’, since the very essence of science is examination and questioning of evidence.

This feeling was solidified in August 2022, when I came across a paper co-authored by Professor Michael Baker, an epidemiologist at the University of Otago, who has been one of chief advocates for the wearing of masks during Covid-19. The paper was titled “The Covid-19 experience in Aotearoa New Zealand and other comparable high-income jurisdictions and implications for managing the next pandemic phase”.

In the article I could find no evidence supporting the efficacy of masks in the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’, so I wrote to Prof. Baker, saying that I had looked for, but had failed to find, any research evidence supporting the efficacy of mask wearing and hoped that he might be able to provide it.

Again, I received no reply.

An essential element in science is the challenging of established ideas in robust, untrammelled debate, in an environment that encourages questioning. Without such openness, science can be misused by powerful interests as a means of disguising misinformation as information.

In the complete absence of evidence-based debate in the media, I was forced to go elsewhere to find out what’s going on. One such source is Ian Miller’s “Unmasked: The Global Failure of Mask Mandates”. Using data from North America, Europe, and parts of South America, and county level in the U.S., Miller presents a compelling case that masks have failed their most significant test – to significantly reduce transmission of Covid. Indeed, it’s clear that masks have no health utility at all, but are an emblem of obedience to power.

In March 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the U.S. Government’s chief medical expert was interviewed on 60 Minutes, and he unequivocally expressed his opinion on masks:

There’s no reason to be walking around with masks.. . . . .when you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

Until his recent retirement, Dr. Fauci has spent his half-century-career as the US Government’s chief medical expert, whose calm, avuncular charm inspired confidence in millions, so his word on the airwaves carried a lot of weight.

Though his was the most familiar voice, organisations such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) prior to Covid, had expressed similar reservations on the utility of masks.

In February 2020, the CDC issued a document called “Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza – United States, 2017”. It drew on the findings of nearly 200 research articles published over the years 1990 and 2006, and was specifically concerned with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI’s) by which people could protect themselves in the event of an epidemic.

The NPI’s the CDC document described for influenza pandemics included voluntary home quarantine of exposed household members and use of face masks in community settings when ill (emphasis added). There was no recommendation that masks should be used by healthy people in the general population.

The CDC was not the only prominent public health body to update its pandemic planning. In 2019 the WHO produced a document “Non-pharmaceutical Public Health Measures for Mitigating the Risk and Impact of Epidemic and Pandemic Influenza”. The first comment on the available evidence was hardly justification for subsequent compulsory masking in public places [emphasis added]:

The evidence base on the effectiveness of NPIs in community settings is limited, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for most interventions. There have been a number of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that personal protective measures such as hand hygiene and face masks have, at best, a small effect on influenza transmission …”

And in the United Kingdom’s Department of Health issued a guidebook titled “UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011” which, in point 4.15, said [emphasis added]:

Although there is a perception that the wearing of facemasks by the public in the community and household setting may be beneficial, there is in fact very little evidence of widespread benefit from their use in this setting. Facemasks must be worn correctly, changed frequently, removed properly, disposed of safely and used in combination with good respiratory, hand, and home hygiene behaviour in order for them to achieve the intended benefit. Research also shows that compliance with these recommended behaviours when wearing facemasks for prolonged periods reduces over time.”

It’s clear, then, that pre-Covid, public health authorities were unconvinced of the utility of mask-wearing by the general public. So, one is entitled to wonder why, soon after the WHO announced that Covid-19 had pandemic status, governments in North America, Europe, and Australasia began to ‘encourage’ people to wear masks in indoor public places. This was achieved by a combination of legislation and publicly expressed statements by ‘experts’.

In some cases the language was hyperbolic, verging on blood-curdling. In an interview on Newshub in July 2022 Prof. Michael Baker said:

“If you go out when you have this infection and infect your friends and family…you are going to kill some people – just like drinking and driving. We need a massive shift in thinking,”

In my e-mail to Prof. Baker, I had mentioned that I had been unable to find any evidence to support enforced wearing of masks in indoor public places. Since then I have come across two research papers, the most recent showing an investigation into the effects of masking by Beny Spira, Associate Professor of Infectious Disease at the University of São Paulo in the Journal Cureus, Journal of Medical Science.

The research, titled Correlation Between Mask Compliance and COVID-19 Outcomes in Europe, and published April 19, 2022, analysed the correlation between mask usage against morbidity and mortality rates in the 2020-2021 winter in Europe.

Data from 35 European countries on morbidity, mortality, and mask usage during a six-month period were analysed. They found that countries with high levels of mask compliance did not perform better than those with low mask usage. On the contrary, there was a positive (though not strong) correlation between mask usage and mortality, suggesting that mask use was associated with slightly greater risk of death.

Of course, correlation does not prove causation, but these results are, or should be, cause for reflection by the authorities. But it seems not.

Whereas the Beny Spira study was retrospective, studying possible effects of mask-wearing in whole populations, a prospective study follows the fate of samples of volunteers, some of whom wore masks and others who did not.

A particularly important study by scientists at the University of Copenhagen during April and May 2020 was published in the academic journal Annals of Internal Medicine. It cast doubt on policies that force healthy individuals to wear face coverings in hopes of limiting the spread of COVID-19. The New York Times reported that…

“Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial.”

The experiment involved over 6,000 participants who had tested negative for Covid-19 immediately prior to the experiment. Half the participants were given surgical masks and asked to wear them at all times in public places; the other, control half, were instructed to not wear masks. After a month, participants were tested for Covid-19 and for antibodies against the virus.

The Times reported that of the 4,860 participants who finished the experiment, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant.

Dr. Henning Bundgaard, lead author of the experiment and a physician at the University of Copenhagen, told the Times the results of his research were clear.

“Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask,” Bundgaard said. “Not a lot.”

Surprisingly, or perhaps (in view of what follows) unsurprisingly, the most elite medical journals – The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association – all refused to publish the paper.

Though the study’s researchers have been reticent about their results, some have hinted that it was their conclusions rather than their methodology that lay behind the rejections. Christian Torp-Pedersen, professor and chief physician at the research department at North Zealand Hospital, told Denmark’s Berlingske Daily:

We can’t start discussing what they are dissatisfied with. For if so, we must also explain what the study showed. And we do not want to discuss this until it has been published.”

When asked when the study would be published, one of its researchers, Thomas Benfield, Professor of infectious disease at the University of Copenhagen replied:

As soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper.”

In their paper, the Danish scientists described their findings as ‘inconclusive’, yet it seemed that their failure to produce evidence to support the official narrative was enough for the most élite journals to refuse to publish it.

Anyone who was cynical enough to suspect that discouragement of open debate was not confined to these journals would have found support for this ‘conspiratorial’ view from two leading Oxford University academics, Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine, and Dr Tom Jefferson, a Clinical epidemiologist and Senior Associate Tutor, when they published an article in the Spectator magazine on Nov 19, 2020. The article was titled: ‘Landmark Danish study shows face masks have no significant effect.’

In quoting the Danish findings, Heneghan and Jefferson added: “As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small.”

But then Facebook warned that the article was ‘false information’ claiming that it had been ‘checked by independent fact-checkers’

An angry Prof Heneghan told 70,000 followers on Twitter: ‘I’m aware of this happening to others – what has happened to academic freedom and freedom of speech? There is nothing in this article that is false.’

Such attempts to shut down views contrary to the official narrative should come as no surprise, especially in light of recent revelations about what amounts to ‘public-private censorship’ of free speech.

The revelations began soon after billionaire Elon Musk bought Twitter, in which he pledged to release internal documents that would reveal how the previous owners of Twitter had suppressed free speech. The files were released for examination by two independent journalists, Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss. In an interview on Fox News, Taibbi said:

I think the major revelation of the Twitter files so far is that we’ve discovered an elaborate bureaucracy of what you might call public-private censorship. Basically, companies like Twitter have a system by which they receive ten tens of thousands of requests for action on various accounts, typically through the DHS [Department of Home Security] and FBI, but these requests were coming from basically every agency in the government. We’ve seen them from the HHS, from the Treasury, from the DOD [Department of Defence], even from the CIA, and they will send basically long lists of accounts in Excel spreadsheet files and ask for action on those accounts. And in many cases, Twitter is complying.”

So it’s not too much of a stretch to think that governments have been using Twitter to stifle public dissent over masks.

And it’s not just censorship that’s been the only tool in the box; even more has been the deliberate stoking up of fear, as Laura Dodsworth explains in an introduction to her book A State of Fear. In an introductory article to her book she gives some examples of things to be afraid of. A small sample:

Being tall: “People over 6ft have double the risk of coronavirus, study suggests” (DailyTelegraph 28 July 2020)
Being bald: “Bad news for baldies as new US study finds they’re 40% more at risk of coronavirus. New research has found a strange link between male baldness and the severity of the virus showing men without hair are more likely to end up in hospital.” (Daily Star, July 23, 2020).
Owning a dog and taking home supermarket deliveries: “Dog-owners face 78% higher risk of catching Covid-19 – and home grocery deliveries DOUBLE the risk, study finds.” (Mailonline 17 November 2020).
Being male: “Is testicle pain potentially a sign of Covid? 49-year-old Turkish man who had no other symptoms is diagnosed with the virus” (Mailonline 18 November 2020) and
Erectile dysfunction: “COVID-19 could cause erectile dysfunction in patients who have recovered from the virus, doctor warns” (Daily Mail, Dec 6, 2020)
Your toes: “Coronavirus: People who contract COVID may develop red and swollen toes which turn purple, say scientists” (Sky News UK 29 October, 2020

Taken individually, these might be amusing, but together, they are part of “a panoply of doom-mongering headlines”.

No doubt some will say that Dodsworth is a ‘conspiracy theorist’, but her allegations are confirmed by UK Government publications. On 22^nd March 2020, SPI-B, the behavioural science sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), published a document titled “Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures”, advocating the use of applied psychology to influence social behaviour. Though the focus of the document was on social distancing rather than masks, the intention to use fear is clear:

“The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat.”

Moreover, Option 2 of Appendix B recommends using the media “to increase sense of personal threat” [emphasis added].

The cynical use of behavioural psychology to manipulate the attitudes and behaviour of populations has not been restricted to the U.K.; it’s been international. Here in New Zealand, in the early days of the pandemic, Jacinda Ardern’s use of the phrase ‘team of 5 million’ was a masterstroke.

But while this might have worked with a fearful, apathetic, naïve, and gullible public, masks and lockdown rules were flouted by some of our leaders in New Zealand, who didn’t see the need for such petty restrictions.

Chief among these was Siouxsie Wiles, the 2021 Kiwibank New Zealander of the Year, and a key adviser to Jacinda Ardern. On Sept 18, 2021 Radio New Zealand’s Nine to Noon interviewed her.

“Now that we know Covid-19 is airborne, stay away from people who aren’t in your bubble. With new knowledge that Covid-19 is airborne, that’s no longer something safe to do. Please don’t go out and chat with a friend while you are out. Don’t hang around and have a chat, connect in other ways. We’ve got phones, we’ve got Skype, we’ve got Zoom…we need to physically disconnect for a little while,” she said.

“Stay away from people.”

The trouble is, Wiles wasn’t following her own advice. On September 3, 2021, while Auckland was still in Level Four lockdown, she was observed “hanging around and having a chat” with a journalist at Judges Bay, Parnell.

Even more damning, the whole episode was recorded on video, in which Wiles was shown sitting in close proximity to the journalist, and neither was wearing a mask, in clear breach of her own and the government’s advice and mandates.

And on 7 September 2021, RNZ, Wiles said that wearing a mask at Level Two is advisable:

It depends on where the wind is blowing you could have a gust of wind that if someone infected blows it to you or if you were infected blows it to someone else… For the good of everybody, wearing a mask when you’re out of your home is a good idea.”

As independent journalist Cameron Slater pointed out: “If her advice is to wear a mask at Level Two, presumably it would apply doubly at Level Four.” And
“Siouxsie Wiles lives in Freemans Bay, and in order to get to Judges Bay would require a trip in excess of 5km one way and 5km back again. This is in contravention of Level Four regulations that require you to ‘stay local’”.

Slater reported that when the Prime Minister was approached for comment about why it was acceptable for one of her key science advisers to be seen breaking lockdown rules, while Police are busy harassing shoppers, no reply had been received.

In a healthy democracy, the media would be speaking truth to power, so why were the media silent on Wiles’ flouting of the rules? Slater explained why the BFD made it public:

The simple reason is that we are not part of the Prime Minister’s Team of $55 million [a reference to the NZ government fund to rescue “grassroots public interest journalism”, which many see as a form of government control]. This story was given to 1News journalist Benedict Collins. After sitting on the story for five days he informed my source that they had spiked the story. The reason given was that it wasn’t a politician so there was no public interest in the story. Make no mistake, this story was suppressed by an editor at 1News.”

The Wiles case is one of many. The one garnering the most international odium was the 2021 G7 Summit in Carbis Bay, Cornwall, U.K. Among the leaders attending were President Joe Biden, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Photographs taken of the President and First Lady, the Queen, President Trudeau and Prince Charles show them clearly in breach of the ‘two metre’ social distancing rule, and neither is any of them wearing masks, and some show them with arms on each other’s shoulders.

Cynical comments referred to their ‘hypocrisy’ – ‘do as I say, not as I do’, and so on, but their behaviour goes deeper than that.

For one thing, the elite clearly didn’t believe there was any medical need for such social measures, implying that the real purpose was the enforcement of obedience.

Moreover, in making no attempt to conceal their flouting of their own rules, they were showing ostentatious contempt for us, the proles.

In the greater scheme of things, Covid-19 is but one ‘dot’ of many in the picture. While many can cope with the individual ‘dots’, joining them together to see the whole picture is, for some, just too much.

One thing that can make it easier is the fact that it’s nothing new. Over 2300 years ago the Greek philosopher Plato dealt with the problem of how hierarchical societies ensure that people did not think ‘incorrectly’ using his Allegory of the Cave, described in his Republic. The allegory takes the form of an imaginary conversation between Socrates and his pupil, Glaucon.

Socrates asks Glaucon to imagine people living in a huge cave that is only open to the outside world with difficulty. Most of the people in the cave are prisoners since early childhood. They are chained to the wall, facing the back of the cave, unable to move so they cannot turn their heads to see a fire behind them. Between the prisoners and the fire is a low wall, behind which is a path along which non-prisoners carry puppets and other objects that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The shadows playing on the wall are all the prisoners can see; unable to see the fire, the prisoners believe the shadows to be real.

The central message of Plato’s allegory is that the human-created shadows are the political doctrine of a nation state. Although that was over two millennia ago, the cave allegory is more relevant than ever today. Industrial society is living in a state of deep ignorance, in which ‘reality’ is created by powerful agencies and their ‘puppeteer’ stenographers, the media.

Nearly a century ago, Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, implied that we are being manipulated by the clever use of psychology. Bernays is widely regarded as the ‘father’ of public relations, the polite term for the manipulation of public opinion. In his 1928 book Propaganda he wrote:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country… it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons… who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world. This is merely a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organised.

38 years later, Harvard history professor Carroll Quigley published an extraordinary 1300-page book Tragedy and Hope, and in 2016 Joseph Plummer published a condensed 200 page version, Tragedy and Hope 101.

Quigley reveals that real political power operates in secret, over which ‘democratic’ elections have little or no influence. He shows that secret, powerful networks of individuals are behind world events, and that “representative government” is a fraud.

Plummer summarises the situation:

Real power is unelected. Politicians change, but the power structure does not. The Network operates behind the scenes, for its own benefit, without ever consulting those who are affected by its decisions.
The Network is composed of individuals who prefer anonymity. They are “satisfied to possess the reality rather than the appearance of power.” This approach of secretly exercising power is common throughout history because it protects the conspirators from the consequences of their actions.
A primary tactic for directing public opinion and ‘government’ policy is to place willing servants in leadership positions of trusted institutions (media, universities, government, foundations, etc.). If there is ever a major backlash against a given policy, the servant can be replaced. This leaves both the institution and the individuals who actually direct its power unharmed.
Historically, those who establish sophisticated systems of domination are not only highly intelligent; they are supremely deceptive and ruthless. They completely ignore the ethical barriers that govern a normal human being’s behavior. They do not believe that the moral and legislative laws, which others are expected to abide by, apply to them. This gives them an enormous advantage over the masses that cannot easily imagine their mind-set.
Advances in technology have enabled modern rulers to dominate larger and larger areas of the globe. As a result, the substance of national sovereignty has already been destroyed, and whatever remains of its shell is being dismantled as quickly as possible. The new system they’re building (which they themselves refer to as a New World Order), will trade the existing illusion of democratically directed government for their long-sought, “expert-directed,” authoritarian technocracy.

This disturbing reality contradicts everything our governments, education and media instil in us from cradle to grave, so it is inevitable that such ideas will be dismissed as the ravings of a crazy ‘conspiracy theorist’.

The trouble is, far from being a conspiracy nutter, Quigley was a distinguished member of the Ivy League; a pre-eminent historian who taught at Princeton and Harvard universities and an adviser to the American Defense Department and US Navy.

So how did Quigley arrive at this ‘secret knowledge’? Plummer explains:

Carroll Quigley was a well-connected and well-credentialed member of Ivy League society. Based on his own words, and his training as a historian, it appears that he was chosen by members of a secret network to write the real history of their rise to power. However, as Quigley later realized, these individuals did not expect or intend for him to publish their secrets for the rest of the world to see. Shortly after publishing Tragedy and Hope in 1966, “the Network” apparently made its displeasure known to Quigley’s publisher, and the book he’d spent twenty years writing was pulled from the market.”

Much of the above will be very disturbing to neophytes, so much so that many will throw up their hands and reject it out of hand. To such doubters, I would ask them to explain the facts I’ve presented in any other way.

Martin Hanson is a retired biology teacher living on New Zealand’s South Island. He was born and educated in the UK, where he received a degree in zoology from the University of Manchester.

February 15, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Human rights, North Zealand | Leave a comment

Jeffrey Epstein: A Jewish Individual?

Review of “One Nation under Blackmail”

The Occidental Observer | February 5, 2023

One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union between Intelligence and Organized Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 1 & 2)
Whitney Webb
Trine Day, 2022

“Far from being an anomaly, Epstein was one of several men who, over the past century, have engaged in sexual blackmail activities designed to obtain damaging information (i.e., “intelligence”) on powerful individuals with the goal of controlling their activities and securing their compliance.”[1]

Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Ghislaine Maxwell is locked away in prison, and the thought-makers of our world seem keen to let the more explosive parts of the scandal dissipate from the public consciousness. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, Epstein and Maxwell were little more than well-connected socialites who ran a sex-trafficking ring for the rich and the powerful, and the focus has shifted instead to the criminal and civil cases seeking to achieve redress for the victims of sexual abuse.

On occasion some newspaper articles will mention the hidden cameras littered across Epstein’s properties, others the reams of CDs and hard drives found within them during the FBI raids. Altogether missing from the Netflix documentaries (Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich [2020] and Ghislaine Maxwell: Filthy Rich [2022]) or the articles that spend their time narrowly focusing on the links between Epstein and Bill Gates, is the acknowledgement of the true nature of Epstein himself and the ultimate purpose of this sex-trafficking of minors — a sexual blackmail operation.

Not everyone is cowardly enough to let these controversial aspects lie untouched, as the newly released two-volume book One Nation Under Blackmail by independent reporter Whitney Webb seeks to blow wide open this media-enforced blackout. Utilizing primarily open-source information (that is, publicly accessible information such as books, newspapers articles and government reports),[2] Webb’s book delves into the life and times of Jeffrey Epstein and his deep ties to Jewish billionaires and Israeli intelligence. The intersection of sexual politics with Jewish power has long since been of interest to this writer, and the case of Jeffrey Epstein is easily one of the most damning instances, as evident by the large amount of popular interest in the story. A selection of other books on the Epstein/Maxwell case has appeared in bookshops over the past two years, but a cursory glance through their pages and at their appendices, where the words ‘Israel,’ ‘Jewish,’ and ‘Zionism’ are conspicuously lacking, shows you how surface-level they are in comparison to Webb’s book.

As Webb details extensively throughout the first volume, using sexual blackmail[3] to achieve political ends is far from being an Epstein innovation; it is almost certainly a tactic he learned from others in the murky world where crime meets intelligence. Nor is it something exclusive to Jews. But one can’t help but notice a consistent ethnic pattern in the known major perpetrators of this sort of behavior in Western countries. I have previously written about the Australian variety, where Jewish underworld figure Abe Saffron acquired compromising pictures of prominent Australians (more often than not with underage prostitutes) and leveraged this for his own nefarious ends. Webb (in Chapter 2: Booze and Blackmail) outlines in detail the blackmail operations ran by mob-linked figures Lewis Rosenstiel and Roy Cohn from a bugged suite at the Plaza Hotel in New York. Other non-Jews that Webb identifies as running parallel schemes, such as Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi or Craig Spence, were likewise deeply enmeshed in the same circles (Khashoggi in fact worked for Israeli intelligence).

Ultimately what is most frightening about the Epstein case, and what makes it stands out from the rest, is the sophistication of the operation, the high profile of the targets—from sitting US presidents to senior members of the British Royal Family—and the extraordinary lengths gone to in order to protect Epstein and avoid the true nature of his activities being exposed. It was as if there was something important at the heart of it all, something worthy of being protected by those in power, with lots at stake lest it be brought into public view. On a number of occasions Webb points to the underreported comments attributed to Alex Acosta, the attorney who gave Epstein his infamous plea deal in 2007, who allegedly told the Trump White House transition team that he backed off upon being told that Epstein “belonged to intelligence.”[4] At every stage where Epstein came under scrutiny, from his first legal conviction, to his second arrest and the questionable circumstances of his death, and even in the post-mortem coverage of his indiscretions, forces seemingly moved in the background to obscure and obfuscate, to clean up the mess and avoid as much detail be allowed to come to light as possible.

Like many books published by small dissident publishers with limited resources, both volumes would have been improved with editing for a more streamlined narrative, as neither makes for easy reading. Without a familiarity with the major events and actors described throughout each densely-packed chapter, the connections and the significance of the interactions between people are sometimes difficult to comprehend. Webb’s sources are conveniently compiled in endnotes at the conclusion of each chapter, and she uncovers a level of detail that makes it a worthy resource for your bookshelf that you will inevitably return to when trying to remember a name or make sense of a connection. Nevertheless, as this review concludes, the book falls short of providing a satisfying answer to the questions that readers of The Occidental Observer would go into it having, and shies away from responding to the most glaring aspects of the Epstein case of all.

ONE NATION UNDER BLACKMAIL

The central thesis of the book is that there has historically between a connection between organized crime and intelligence agencies in America, where the two are in some cases so intensely interwoven in their activities that it is difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. This thesis, Webb claims, allows us to understand the nature of Jeffrey Epstein and his mysterious life, and that Epstein is one of many such nefarious actors who have operated on the margins of legitimacy. Volume 1 begins in the first half of the twentieth century, where Webb argues that the first connection between intelligence and organised crime was forged in America during the midst of World War II, in an undertaking known as Operation Underworld. This collaboration, specifically between the National Crime Syndicate (an alliance between the Italian and Jewish mobs) and the forerunners of the modern intelligence apparatus, came out of a sort of national security necessity that reaped geo-political dividends and continued after 1945 and into the Cold War.

Though intriguing, many of the chapters of Volume 1 deal with events and personalities of more limited relevance to the main Epstein blackmail story, covering the web of intrigue and scandal surrounding things such as Watergate, the BCCI, the China Lobby, and more obscure events like Billygate and Koreagate. Those chapters dealing with the spiritual forebears of Jeffrey Epstein are the ones that provide the most context and are the most enlightening to read. Webb presents a wealth of information about the history of the Jewish mob and other powerful Jewish figures during the middle years of the twentieth century, when wider Jewish political and cultural influence was beginning to solidify within America and the West. The cast of Jewish characters implicated in major American criminal, financial and political scandals, especially those with a direct line of descent to the Epstein blackmail operation, is staggering: the Bronfman family, Roy Cohn, Bruce Rappaport, Meyer Lanksy, Lewis Rosenstiel, Marc Rich, Max Fisher, Edmond Safra, and Robert Maxwell.

In Chapter 3, “Organised Crime and the State of Israel,” Webb underscores that much of the support given to the Zionist paramilitary groups that operated prior to the foundation of Israel—in the form of smuggled arms and funding—came from criminal networks. Canadian-Jewish liquor barons the Bronfman family, who participated in bootlegging during prohibition, financed the purchase of weapons for Haganah troops. Other Jewish mob figures with Zionist sympathies donated large sums and aided the Zionist cause during Israel’s formative years. This criminal collusion was, in Israel’s case, ongoing throughout its history and was “baked in at the very foundations of, not only its intelligence services, but the origins of the state itself.”[5]

Chapter 9, “High Tech Treason,” introduces us to Robert Maxwell, British media mogul and Israel’s Superspy, another figure of importance in Epstein’s younger years, who jumped almost seamlessly between the roles of organized crime associate and intelligence agent. Webb explores Maxwell’s involvement with the Eastern Bloc mob, including when he lobbied Israel to grant Semion Mogilevich an Israeli passport, allowing him access to the US financial system, and the PROMIS scandal, whereby Maxwell helped Israeli intelligence sell bugged computer software to governments and corporations around the world.

When MI6 attempted to recruit Maxwell for the service, it concluded, after conducting an extensive background check, that Maxwell was a “Zionist—loyal only to Israel.”[6]

Chapter 10, “Government by Blackmail: The Dark Secrets of the Reagan Era,” brings Volume 1 to a close, where many of the cast of disreputable characters revealed in earlier chapters come home to roost during the Reagan administration and the Iran-Contra scandal. The familiar figure of Roy Cohn appears again as a “political fixer” for the Reagan campaign, but Webb notes that Reagan’s intimacy with powerful Jewish figures with organised crime links goes all the way back to the very start of his career, with his mentor Lew Wasserman, the long-time president of Hollywood’s MCA, Inc. and “arguably the most powerful and influential Hollywood titan in the four decades after World War II,” acting as a political patron.

JEFFREY’S SHIKSES

Volume 1 sets the stage for Volume 2, where the interwoven networks of people introduced come together to contextualize the world that Epstein sprang from. Webb covers the underreported early years of Epstein’s financial career in the 1970s and 1980s, which are filled with just as much criminal intrigue as his later years as sex criminal, including his role as a “financial bounty hunter” allegedly working for Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi. His years as an investment banker at Bear Sterns, where he was seemingly brought directly into the company by Alan Greenberg,[7] sat for many years under a cloud of suspicion that he participated in an insider trading scheme carried out by the Bronfman-owned company Seagram. Epstein’s involvement with Steven Hoffenberg in what was at the time the largest uncovered Ponzi scheme in American financial history, Towers Financial Corporation, is yet another fascinating detail largely ignored elsewhere.

How and when Epstein was inducted into the world of intelligence cannot be accurately deduced, but Webb offers a number of potential scenarios, relating to his proximity to people such as Maxwell and Khashoggi. Elsewhere she points to the direct relationship Epstein seemingly had with the highest levels of the Israeli government. Former Israeli Prime Minister and military intelligence figure Ehud Barak, another close Epstein associate, claimed that he was first introduced to Epstein by none other than Shimon Peres.[8] Webb pins the beginning of the sexual blackmail scheme to some point in the early 1990s, around the time Ghislaine Maxwell latched onto Epstein following the death of her father.

Chapter 18, “Predators” deals with the nuts and bolts of the operation, exploring in detail the various methods both Epstein and Maxwell used to recruit and procure girls. Sometimes it was through friendships with the owners of modelling companies, other times it was as simple as Maxwell approaching a girl on the street and recruiting them for “massages.” Even literally purchasing underage Slavic girls from Eastern Europe was apparently a possibility for Epstein.[9] Their relationship with Les Wexner (Epstein was Wexner’s long-time money manager) also proved fruitful, using their connection with the popular Victoria’s Secret fashion chain—a brand owned by Wexner—to pose as recruiters.

Webb first came to my attention when she conducted an interview with Maria Farmer, considered the earliest Epstein victim to report him to the authorities. The interview is long, upwards of three hours, but well worth a listen, especially when Farmer begins to discuss how she was treated by the powerful Jewish figures surrounding Epstein:

I don’t know any White supremacists, but I know a lot of Jewish supremacists… They made it very clear that I was a servant [to them] because I was White.[10]

Farmer may be unfamiliar with the word shikse, but it perfectly describes how Epstein and Maxwell considered these young gentile girls ensnared in their net of abuse. The supposed “trope” of the Jewish man lusting after the shikse finds in Epstein yet another real-life example, with underage blonde girls being his victim of choice when satisfying his own urges. Former Ghislaine Maxwell friend Christina Oxenberg, quoted in the book from an at-the-time anonymous source, relayed a conversation she once had with Maxwell about who these women were that she was “recruiting.” Maxwell reportedly dismissed them with ease: “They’re nothing, these girls. They are trash.”[11]

On the other side of the operation was of course the hidden cameras and the recording equipment. The presence of these hidden cameras in Epstein’s properties is independently confirmed by a number of eyewitnesses, court documents and early newspaper articles that detail this curious addition to Epstein’s properties, and the existence of the CDs and hard drives to store the footage is a matter of public record, including from the latest FBI raid of Epstein’s New York mansion in 2019:

Per photographs taken at the time of the raid, hard drives were found inside a safe forced open by the FBI and numerous large black binders were found in a closet that contain “CDs, carefully categorized in plastic slipcovers and thumbnails with photos on them.” When shown in court, the “homemade labels” were redacted, as judge Alison Nathan had ruled that they contained “identifying information for third parties.” Did that information involve only the names of underage girls, the names of blackmail victims, or both?[12]

The FBI conveniently lacked the warrant to seize these items, and upon returning four days later with the correct warrant, the CDs and hard drives were gone. They were later handed over by Epstein’s lawyer, but having not had the chance to view what was on them, we can only assume that this was more than enough time to delete any incriminating files.

Epstein schmoozing with elites. Left, from left: Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, Steven Pinker, and Larry Summers, presumably at Harvard. Right: with Ghislaine and Bill Clinton

Much has been made of the relationship that existed between Epstein and Donald Trump before they allegedly fell out with each other in 2004 over a property dispute in Palm Beach, Florida, but as Webb exposes in Chapter 16, “Crooked Campaigns,” Epstein and Maxwell had a far more politically intimate relationship with President Bill Clinton that coincided with his time in office and his early post-presidency years. Epstein visited the Clinton White House 17 times, and was apparently a prominent figure in the formation of the Clinton Global Initiative, which saw Clinton as a regular passenger on Epstein’s infamous plane, the “Lolita Express.” Webb refers to other attempts of sexual blackmail against Clinton, including in 1998 when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apparently threatened Clinton with tape recordings Israel had obtained proving outright that he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, using them to pressure Clinton to pardon Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard.[13] It seems the Clinton White House, which was seeking a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, was of key interest.

Chapter 21, “From PROMIS to Palantir: The Future of Blackmail,” finishes off Volume 2 with the chilling insight that perhaps one of the reasons Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation collapsed was because it was allowed to collapse — it had become outdated and irrelevant. The advent of the permanent internet connection has brought about opportunities for far more widespread and even more intimate forms of blackmail, instead conducted and collected via electronic means. A technological panopticon whereby the cameras once placed by Epstein throughout his properties are instead now placed by big tech and social media companies in our own homes, omnipresent in our lives. After his 2008 conviction, both Epstein and Maxwell seemed to be shifting away from sexual blackmail and were making inroads in Silicon Valley and mixing with data-harvesting IT companies. Epstein’s previous ties with higher-ups at Microsoft and his financial support for John Brockman’s Edge Foundation gave him an in with plenty of big tech leaders, and he had re-branded himself as a tech investor, starting a company focused on collecting genetic data. Ghislaine’s siblings in the Maxwell family also have pedigree in the tech industry going back to the 1990s. As noted by Webb, “in a world where blackmail is overwhelmingly electronic, people like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell become liabilities to be silenced, rather than assets to protect.”[14]

WHO, WHAT AND WHY?

Upon finishing Volume 2, I found that many of the questions raised by Webb still remained open. Who or what is “the system” that enabled Epstein and protected him from justice? If so many people knew, why was there such an institutional resistance to speak out about Epstein? And the most important question of all: what was the goal behind collecting this sexual blackmail? Why were Epstein and his benefactors trying to control these victims? Unfortunately, Webb’s book does not provide a satisfying conclusion.

Webb does not shy away from pointing the finger at Israel or from discussing wider Zionist motivations and groups like B’nai B’rith. However, she stops frustratingly short of the obvious conclusions. Granted the reluctance is one that all those knowledgeable on the Jewish question are familiar with, and perhaps she simply avoids the discussion for the sake of keeping her book on Amazon and appealing to a wider audience, rather than have it be relegated to the ADL’s banned book department. But for an answer to the questions most readers are likely after, we are given nothing more than a few measly sentences concluding that the Epstein operation was instigated by Israeli intelligence and that those in the “power structure” and “the system” — the same people that made Epstein untouchable — have now strengthened their stranglehold over America. Ultimately, readers are given the impression that this blackmail was collected as control merely for the sake of control, power merely for the sake of power, without a deeper underpinning goal.

Upon being challenged during an interview by Jewish podcaster Adam Sosnick on the obvious Jewish identity of the key players, Webb retreats to the safe position: By referring to Israeli intelligence or Jewish criminals, one is not referring to all Jewish people, and one cannot conflate the Epstein network or powerful billionaire Zionists with the whole Jewish community, or ascribe any wider group motive to them. Sosnick also exhorts the listener to avoid speaking of groups and instead only of individuals, lest it breed hate.[15]

One is of course allowed to speak of the Chinese or Catholics or Russians in general terms and in a political sense as behaving out a sense of group identity and a sense of group interests, and it is sophistry to claim that the speaker is referring to every single Catholic in the world or every single Russian in the world. Regardless of which sociological theory of power you ascribe to, what is clearly being referred to is the organized community, the power structure that represents the wider in-group and operates towards a unique ingroup goal. In the case of the Russians, this is currently Putin and the Russian state apparatus, supplemented by the Russian military, media and business elite that do not dissent from achieving Russian strategic interests as determined by the state apparatus. For Catholics, it is the Vatican and the international network of dioceses, bolstered by the Catholic Universities, think tanks and charities. People are not forced to declare “not all Catholics” when dealing with the allegations of a cover-up of child sexual abuse within the church.

When one speaks of the Jews, it stands to reason that the same scenario should apply. That is, it quite reasonably refers to the organized Jewish community, including organizations like the ADL; the powerful figures in Israel and in the diaspora, as well as the religious and intellectual leaders, the business figures and the lobbying groups. Sure there are dissenters and outsiders, and of course there is internal debate and a difference of opinion on the best means for meeting its goals, but the organized Jewish community exists just the same, and remains firm in its fundamental goal of ensuring the security and survival of the Jewish people and the state of Israel.

Herein lies the problem for Webb and the reason behind the demand to treat Epstein as a mere “Jewish individual.” The network of powerful Jewish figures and institutions chronicled throughout Webb’s book is a network that is intimately connected to Jeffrey Epstein or to his blackmail operation: Robert Maxwell, the Pritzker Family, Larry Summers and Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Barak and Israeli intelligence, the world’s wealthiest Jewish families that formed the Mega Group (the Bronfman, Lauder and Wexner families). The list goes on and on. These are not powerless fringe figures or outsiders who are scorned by Jewish leaders or the wider Jewish community. They are the leaders of the organized Jewish community, some of whom practically direct Jewish-American cultural, political and even religious life. To remove them from the equation of power would be the equivalent of removing half of the highest-ranking members of the Vatican from the Catholic Church or leading members of the Chinese Communist Party from the Chinese state.

Using the phrase “the Jews” cuts the Gordian Knot at the heart of Webb’s attempt to understand Epstein, whom he was working for, and how he so effortlessly moved among the elite strata of society, why it was covered up, who stood to benefit from this blackmail operation, and what its ultimate aim was. With those two words, all the jumbled euphemisms of “elites” and “Zionists” melt away, and the confusing mix of organized crime and intelligence, legitimate and illegitimate enterprises seemingly working in unison with each other starts to become intelligible. The ease with which Epstein and Maxwell abused and then dismissed these young girls as mere “trash” makes more sense when you know the meaning behind the word shikse (an unclean abomination). The reason for the legal cover-up and the inhibition of the mainstream media to run the story, even when they have no direct connection to the Epstein network, is obvious when you know who the proprietors of most mainstream American media outlets are, and with whom both cultural and institutional power in the US now lies. All this interwoven association is merely two sides of the same coin—a system constructed to ensure the security of Israel and the survival of the Jewish people. To talk openly about Epstein’s true activities is to talk openly about the nature of Jewish power, and for that reason alone most will not do so, for fear of the Jews. In all, Webb has picked up the puzzle pieces and assembled them neatly on the board, but she refuses to take that final step back and honestly contemplate the picture she has pieced together.

What are we to make of the institutional silence and protection, and the dishonest shifting of the narrative to a mere sex-trafficking ring? What can you conclude from the attempt to declare anyone who dares point out the clear ethnic goal at the heart of this vile sexual blackmail operation an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist? The only reasonable conclusion is that Epstein functioned with the support and backing of Jewry’s most powerful figures, and that the organised Jewish community is willing to conceal a criminal conspiracy of frightening proportions if it serves to benefit the Jews or would otherwise negatively affect them (by creating more anti-Jewish sentiment) if the American public knew the truth.

Had Epstein’s personal indiscretions not become too big to ignore and had it not all unravelled so spectacularly due to the pressure of the #MeToo movement, would Epstein also have been buried in honor like Robert Maxwell, with Israeli Prime Ministers and dignitaries lining up to give a tearful goodbye to yet another faithful servant to the Jewish people? If he had been released early from a prison sentence, would he also have been welcomed back to Israel with open arms like Jonathon Pollard? Epstein had already once been professionally rehabilitated by Jews after his first conviction, there’s no reason why it couldn’t have happened again.

Notes

[1] Webb, W 2022, One Nation Under Blackmail: The sordid union between Intelligence and Organised Crime that gave rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 1), Trine Day, Oregon USA, p.IX.

[2] Webb does on occasion rely on interviews she conducted with figures close to the Epstein story such as Ari Ben-Menashe and Maria Farmer.

[3] As distinct from simply bribing someone with sex with a consulting adult, or honey pots traps, a tactic as old as time—think Samson and Delilah or modern versions such as the honeypot trap that captured Mordechai Vanunu.

[4] Vicki Ward, “Jeffrey Epstein’s Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight,” The Daily Beast (August 19, 2019). https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epsteins-sick-story-played-out-for-years-in-plain-sight

[5] Webb, Op. Cit., p.93.

[6] Webb, Op. Cit., p.382.

[7] Webb, W 2022, One Nation Under Blackmail: The sordid union between Intelligence and Organised Crime that gave rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 2), Trine Day, Oregon USA, p.6.

[8] Tarnopolsky, N 2019, ‘Ehud Barak: I Visited Epstein’s Island But Never Met Any Girls’, The Daily Beast, July 15, retrieved from: https://www.thedailybeast.com/israels-ehud-barak-i-visited-epsteins-island-but-never-met-any-girls

[9] Webb, Volume 2, Op. Cit., p.266-267.

[10] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtD02MeZU4o from 1:31 or so

[11] Webb, Volume 2, Op. Cit., p.276

[12] Ibid., p.58.

[13] Stoil, R. S 2014, ‘Netanyahu said to have offered Lewinsky tapes for Pollard’, The Times of Israel, July 23, retrieved from: https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-said-to-have-offered-lewinsky-tapes-for-pollard/

[14] Webb, Vol 2, Op. Cit., p.373.

[15] PBD Podcast 2020, The TRUTH About Jeffrey Epstein w/ Whitney Webb, Episode 198, retrieved from: https://youtu.be/GVVHWVoZ4kU?t=5978

February 6, 2023 Posted by aletho | Book Review, Corruption, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Bill Clinton, Clinton Global Initiative, FBI, Israel, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

Germany years away from replacing Russian gas – official

RT | January 23, 2023

Germany is a long way from fully substituting Russian pipeline gas supplies with liquefied natural gas (LNG), estimates by the country’s Economy Ministry show.

According to a document published on the Bundestag website, Germany imported 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Russian natural gas in 2021. The document also shows that Germany’s new Floating Storage and Regasification Units (FSRUs), which are currently being installed in a number of ports to allow the import of LNG, may reach a similar capacity no sooner than in 2026.

By 2030, those capacities are projected to increase to 76.5 bcm, or about 80% of total German gas consumption in 2021. However, the ministry notes that even once the terminals go online, the global LNG market may not have enough capacity to cover additional demand, which could push these dates further.

The ministry notes that the country’s gas storage facilities are currently well-filled, and there is no immediate danger of gas shortages. However, it acknowledges that once the stores run dry later this year and the time comes to refill them for the next heating season, Germany may face shortages. According to calculations by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Germany faces a supply gap of around 30 bcm of gas this year, and the FRSUs are projected to produce less than half of this volume by the end of 2023.

“The truth is, there won’t be enough in the next three to four years of LNG production capacity in the world to meet the growing demand. So the unspoken strategy is that Germany will continue to pay crazy prices and other, less rich countries go empty-handed,” Christian Leye, a Bundestag Left Party representative told Bloomberg.

Germany did manage to reduce its dependence on Russian energy last year by importing LNG through European neighbors and boosting pipeline gas flows from Norway and the Netherlands. However, its gas storages were filled over the summer, when Russian gas still flowed directly to the country. Another problem is the cost of LNG imports, which is estimated to be four times more expensive than Russian pipeline deliveries. Germany may also face supply constraints if the Netherlands goes through with recently announced plans to shut down the Groningen gas field, the region’s largest gas deposit.

January 23, 2023 Posted by aletho | Economics, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | European Union, Germany | Leave a comment

The Davos establishment reveals whom it truly fears

By Rachel Marsden | RT | January 22, 2023

The World Economic Forum at Davos used to be THE place to see and be seen, but the idea of the richest and most influential people in the world hobnobbing around a common agenda for the world has lost its luster as the policies peddled by its attendees spark increased skepticism among average citizens.

Forum founder Klaus Schwab, the de facto frontman of the organization, has cranked out one distasteful hit after another in recent years. He has spoken of how the organization “penetrates the cabinets” of governments in its recruitment efforts. He coined the term “The Great Reset,” about which he published a book just a few months into the Covid-19 pandemic in July 2020, advocating that the pandemic be used as inspiration to “reimagine our world” at a time when much of the globe was locked down on orders of their governments – many members of which were Davos regulars. There was little appetite to turn lockdowns into a permanent lifestyle change, but here was Klaus promoting the benefits of burying the old life – all under the pretext of an event that the WEF had already wargamed in October 2019 in New York, just ahead of the crisis, in an exercise called “Event 201.” “The exercise will bring together business, government, security and public health leaders to address a hypothetical global pandemic scenario,” the WEF announced at the time. It’s all just a bit too creepy.

It’s the constant effort of top-down global coordination around murky financial interests laundered through the Davos agenda that irks the common person. The fact that just a single leader of a G7 country attended this year’s event speaks volumes about how poorly it’s now viewed. The premier of the western Canadian province of Alberta, Danielle Smith, said of the WEF after her cabinet’s swearing-in ceremony last October: “I find it distasteful when billionaires brag about how much control they have over political leaders. That is offensive… the people who should be directing government are the people who vote for them. Quite frankly, until that organization stops bragging about how much control they have over political leaders, I have no interest in being involved with them.”

Those invited to preach at the altar during the high mass of globalism this year seemed to know exactly what kind of sermon the crowd wanted to hear. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was apparently the only G7 leader who thought it would be a good look to be seen hanging out with the unelected masters of the planet while Westerners – and Europeans in particular – grapple with the high cost of their governments’ policies in their daily lives. Scholz doubled down on the same green dreams that put Germany’s economy in peril with no viable backup plan once the European Union had effectively cut off Russian energy through sanctions. “Most importantly, our transformation toward a climate-neutral economy, the fundamental task of our century, is currently taking on an entirely new dynamic. Not in spite of but because of the Russian war, and the resulting pressure on us Europeans to change. Whether you are a business leader or a climate activist, a security policy specialist or an investor, it is now crystal clear to each and every one of us that the future belongs solely to renewables. For cost reasons, for environmental reasons, for security reasons, and because in the long run, renewables promise the best returns,” Scholz said in his address. Meanwhile, Germany is firing its coal power plants back up and reconsidering its nuclear power phase-out. How about worrying about how German industry is going to function in the next year when green initiatives, such as hydrogen imports from Portugal and Norway, aren’t set to even get off the ground until at least 2030? Scholz used his time at the podium at Davos to greenwash the economic uncertainties that Germany faces as a result of the EU’s energy sanctions on Russia. In other words, green hopes and dreams took center stage in this pitch to global investors, thus providing a convenient distraction from the more worrisome current realities.

Greenwashing was joined at Davos by the pitching of anti-democratic initiatives via concern trolling. During a panel discussion dedicated to “disrupting distrust” – which really should have been called “How can we get people to better swallow our nonsense?” – Richard Edelman, the CEO of the eponymous global communications firm, blamed the derailments on right-wingers. “My hypothesis on that is that right-wing groups have done a really good job of disenfranchising NGOs. They’ve challenged the funding sources. They’ve associated you with Bill Gates and George Soros. They’ve said that you’re world people, as opposed to what you are, which is local,” Edelman lamented, ignoring the fact that they wouldn’t have needed to fly their private jets to a “local” event. What he’s really attacking are dissidents, many of whom just happen to be populists and right-leaning. And no doubt the fact that they’re digging into the special interests laundered through many NGOs makes the job of PR pros such as Edelman more challenging.

“Edelman is a despicable human being – his job is literally being a professional liar!” Tweeted billionaire Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, whose controversial purchase of the social media platform and subsequent reversal of its heavy-handed censorship policies haven’t exactly endeared him to the Davos crowd. Mocking Schwab’s call to “master the future” in the opening keynote, Musk tweeted, “’Master the Future’ doesn’t sound ominous at all … How is WEF/Davos even a thing? Are they trying to be the boss of Earth!?” Musk then took a Twitter poll that found that 86% of 2.4 million respondents answered ‘no’ to the question of whether the WEF should “control the world.”

A WEF spokesman said that Musk hasn’t been invited to the gathering since 2015. Musk confirmed his lack of interest in attending: “My reason for declining the Davos invitation was not because I thought they were engaged in diabolical scheming, but because it sounded boring af lol.”

Boring, indeed – in the same way that a cult meeting where everyone nods their heads in agreement is a snooze fest. The last time things were even remotely interesting at Davos was when former US President Donald Trump showed up and rejected the Davos mantra of climate change doom. “The message represents a sharp departure from the official playbook at the World Economic Forum, where this year’s theme is ‘Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World’,” wrote CNN in January 2020.

Who asked them, though? These elites represent no one’s interests but their own, which are economic and are for the benefit of their shareholders – hence the forum’s name. If the average citizen is now waking up to the fact that anything coming out of Davos should be scrutinized through that lens, then it can only be a good thing for freedom, democracy, and national sovereignty.

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.

January 22, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Olaf Scholz, WEF | Leave a comment

Large yachts of the super-rich spared from EU’s new CO2 tax

Free West Media | January 21, 2023

BRUSSELS – CO2 emissions are becoming more and more expensive – a consequence of EU emissions trading. Since 2005, it has been extended to more and more branches of industry. In the future it will also apply to shipping. But there are exceptions: rich yacht owners still do not have to buy CO2 certificates.

Since 2005, some large industrial companies have had to buy certificates for their CO2 emissions. This is a result of the EU’s emissions trading system, which has been gradually expanded since then. Since 2012, for example, airline companies have also had to obtain certificates for intra-European flights.

The system is to be expanded again, the EU decided at the end of 2022. In future, road traffic and buildings will also be included. Many are celebrating the decision to expand emissions trading to include shipping as a major breakthrough. But there are some curious exceptions.

From 2024, only large passenger and cargo ships over 5000 gross register tons will be affected. Owners or renters of lavish yachts can rest easy: they will benefit from an exemption rule in CO2 emissions trading. This was announced by the EU Commission when asked by the German broadcaster NDR.

In other words, no billionaire has to buy CO2 rights for his huge ship, no matter how much he uses it.

The emissions from yachts are enormous as they consume huge amounts of fuel, from “350 liters, 500 liters or even more than 1000 liters of diesel per hour”, reported the Tagesschau.

Some NGOs blasted the new regulation: “Super-rich yacht owners cause more pollution on a summer’s day than the majority of people do in their entire lifetime, but politicians continue to let them get away with it.” The 1500 larger yachts in Europe emit around 725 tons of CO2 per year on average.

January 21, 2023 Posted by aletho | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Progressive Hypocrite, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | European Union | Leave a comment

‘Globalization Has Died and Davos 2023 Was Its Funeral Ceremony’

Sputnik – 21.01.2023

The World Economic Forum’s annual meeting took place in Davos on January 16-20, 2023. International observers sat down with Sputnik to formulate the main message of the gathering in a nutshell.

“This year’s forum featured the new state of the world: divided, resentful, and grim,” Gal Luft, director of the Washington-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, told Sputnik. “Davos has become the dressing room of the West and is more divorced than ever from the rest. It no longer represents the real concerns of most of the world’s population. Its obsession with climate change, social justice, gender and other forms of wokeness has made it a laughing stock and target of disdain for most of the world.”

The World Economic Forum (WEF), an international non-governmental and lobbying organization, was founded in January 1971 by German economist Klaus Schwab. Initially the entity was called “European Management Forum”; it changed its name to the World Economic Forum in 1987.

Bringing together business executives, thought leaders, and prominent politicians, the forum sought to become a global platform to spearhead the ideas of globalization and solve pressing economic and political dilemmas. However, some Western commentators observed that the forum quickly morphed into a technocratic globalist elitist club which sought to dictate rules for the rest of the world.

“Globalization was based on the premise of broad acceptance of global institutions, norms and rules, as well as reasonably free flow of goods, money and information,” Luft said. “Each one of those has been compromised over the past few years, first with the US-China decoupling and second with the war in Europe. Instead, we have global bifurcation into two camps – the collective West plus honorary members and all the others – and the emergence of new institutions, alliances, financial instruments, trade blocs and priority sets.”

“There is no return to the post-WWII system. In addition, we are seeing massive repudiation of some of the institutions and individuals who have been most associated with globalization: the media, Davos, entertainment industry etc. De-globalization can also be seen along cultural fault lines. Western ideas, ethics, and ‘values’ are rejected by billions who see them as dangerous and destabilizing,” the US scholar continued.

Russia’s Independence Doesn’t Fit in Davosian ‘Ideal World’

The necessity to “defeat” Russia became a leitmotif of the gathering, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz declaring that to end the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the Russian special operation “must fail.” The chancellor called for stepping up military aid for Ukraine, but fell short of confirming that Berlin would send its Leopard 2 main battle tanks to Kiev, something that the Ukrainian regime, Poland, Finland, and the UK are urging him to do.

For his part, Harvard Professor Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), urged the West not only to step up anti-Russia sanctions, but to create conditions for “regime change” inside Russia.

“The forum in Davos is a congress of adherents of globalism,” Konstantin Babkin, president of the Rosagromash Association and co-chair of Moscow Economic Forum (MEF), told Sputnik. “These people would like to see a unified world where global corporations rule, dominating even the official state structures. What is happening in Ukraine contradicts their ideas of an ideal world. Many multinational corporations had to leave Russia. So, [Russia] has fallen out of the control of these Western corporations. This contradicts their ideas about the ideal state of affairs.”

While the Davos participants insisted that it is necessary to support Ukraine and to make sure that Russia obeys the rules established by the West, it appears that many countries have tired of this bellicose rhetoric, according to Babkin.

‘Biodiversity’ in Economy & Politics Instead of Global Unification

The Western-centric globalized world order is falling apart at the seams, with other countries adopting a non-aligned status and implementing their own scenarios of development in terms of their financial policies, foreign trade, and tax policies, according to Babkin. The Russian scholar argues that re-industrialization and strengthening of national economies could ensure the world’s stability and diversity of models.

“It would be nice to have different models, different states, different peoples, different cultures,” the Russian scholar said, drawing parallels with natural biodiversity. “[There will be] Iranian model, Indian model, Chinese model, Western model, and rejection of globalism. I think this is a good thing, and Russia needs to develop its own economy. I can also advise Iran, and China, and other large states, and state associations (…) I think the world that Davos is promoting is so unstable.”

Remarkably, major developing nations, including Russia and China, “have shunned the forum and inspired others to do the same,” said Luft, calling these countries a “resistance bloc.”

“In the years to come, with the inevitable departure of Klaus Schwab from the scene, the forum will lose its relevancy and will become just another exclusive overpriced Swiss club with entry ticket of $250,000,” Luft said. “It has already become a symbol of elitism and arrogance, representing the garden as opposed to the jungle, to use Josep Borrell’s terminology, and a platform to advance Western priorities.”

Babkin echoed Luft by saying that even though the Davos forum is likely to continue bringing together Western executives and politicians, it has ceased being a truly international platform and will never become what some call “the world’s government.”

“Globalization the way we know it has died and Davos 2023 was its funeral ceremony,” Luft concluded.

January 21, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | China, Human rights, Iran, Russia, WEF | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Your Enslavement Begins in Gaza: The ‘Board of Peace’

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

The US: The Century of Lost Wars

By James Petras | Global Research | September 12, 2018

Introduction

Despite having the biggest military budget in the world, five times larger than the next six countries, the largest number of military bases – over 180 – in the world and the most expensive military industrial complex, the US has failed to win a single war in the 21st century.

In this paper we will enumerate the wars and proceed to analyze why, despite the powerful material basis for wars, it has led to failures. … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,403 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,391,112 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

February 2026

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

« Jan
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 Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism 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 al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland 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 WHO Yemen Zionism

February 2026
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

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
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.

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Epstein schmoozing with elites. Left, from left: Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, Steven Pinker, and Larry Summers, presumably at Harvard. Right: with Ghislaine and Bill Clinton

Featured Video

From the Archives

By James Petras | Global Research | September 12, 2018

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info