Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Whodunit?

By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt do War

By Doug E. Steil | Aletho News | October 7, 2022

With the mainstream crying Russia, which makes zero sense… (I have the keys to the taxi I’m driving, which pays my bills but to turn it off, I’ll blow it up also:

On 25 July 2022, Gazprom announced it will reduce gas flows to Germany to 20% of the maximum capacity, or 50% of the current throughput. The company shut down the pipeline for 10 days because of maintenance.

On 31 August 2022, Gazprom halted any gas delivery through Nord Stream 1 for three days, officially because of maintenance. On 2 September 2022, the company announced that natural gas supplies via the Nord Stream 1 pipeline would remain shut off indefinitely until the main gas turbine at the Portovaya compressor station near St Petersburg was fixed from an engine oil leak.

And the alternative mainstream crying USA, which makes more sense, but the plethora of memes and ease in which the ‘almost mainstream’ talks about this option… including the infamous ‘thank you USA’ tweet from the (Jewish) former Polish foreign minister, Sikorski, who then deleted it (after millions of views and re-tweets)… it all looks remarkably ‘black or white’; and this, as always, should be a red flag.

Who? How? Why? are the questions everyone is asking… but no one asked when?

So when did this happen?

On 26 September 2022, Danish and Swedish authorities reported a number of explosions at both Nord Stream lines (only string A in NS2): the resulting damage causing a series of gas leaks. The European Union considers the incident to be intentional sabotage.

Anything else occured on September 26, 2022?

Rosh Hashanah 2022 began in the evening of Sunday, September 25 and ended in the evening of Tuesday, September 27.

Ah… but what is Rosh Hashanah ?

Rosh HaShanah (Hebrew: רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, Rōʾš hašŠānā, lit. “head of the year”) is the Jewish New Year. The biblical name for this holiday is Yom Teruah (יוֹם תְּרוּעָה, Yōm Tərūʿā), literally “day of shouting or blasting.” It is the first of the Jewish High Holy Days (יָמִים נוֹרָאִים, Yāmīm NōrāʾīmDays of Awe”).

Literally day of shouting or BLASTING?

Who suffers most with Nordstream being blown up? Germany. Do a little google search for « germans to freeze this winter »…  there are thousands of articles… most written even before september…

Nordstream was a way for Germany to get gas direct from Russia, without paying expensive transit costs through Eastern European middlemen… Eastern European middlemen.

October 7, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

A history of US threats to use nuclear weapons

By David North | WSWS | October 5, 2022

The Biden administration and the media present Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons in response to military setbacks as an unprecedented break with long-established and hitherto unquestioned rules of international statecraft. This narrative is a lie.

In fact, the United States and other imperialist powers have not only considered on several critical occasions using nuclear weapons to reverse military defeats. They have directly threatened to drop atom bombs in order to extract concessions from their enemies.

There are the well-documented demands of General Douglas MacArthur for the dropping of nuclear bombs on China, President Eisenhower’s weighing of France’s request for the detonation of nuclear devices at Dien Bien Phu, and President Kennedy’s threats during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Far less known and even more serious were the use of nuclear threats by President Nixon against the USSR and Vietnam. Operation Giant Lance was initiated on October 27, 1969, according to Wikipedia, to force a settlement of the Vietnam War on terms favorable to the US.

According to Wikipedia, Nixon “authorized a squadron of 18 B-52 bombers to patrol the Arctic polar ice caps and escalate the nuclear threat … to coerce both the Soviet Union and North Vietnam to agree on favorable terms with the US, and conclusively end the Vietnam War.”

Nixon made use of what was referred to as the “madman” tactic to convince the Soviet Union that he was capable of ordering a nuclear strike. Another operation, related to Giant Lance, was “Duck Hook.”

Its purpose was to force North Vietnam, using the threat of a massive nuclear strike, to accept US terms for ending the war. Wikipedia states that Duck Hook called for the nuclear bombing of military targets throughout North Vietnam. This included “the saturation bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong, the bombing of dikes to destroy the food supply of much of the population of North Vietnam, air strikes against North Vietnam’s northeast line of communications as well as passes and bridges at the Chinese border …”

Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s criminal accomplice, told the president that the US had to be prepared to use nuclear weapons. In a memo to Nixon, Kissinger wrote: “To achieve its full effect on Hanoi’s thinking, the action must be brutal.”

Eventually, because of doubts about its strategic effectiveness and fear of a violent popular reaction, Duck Hook was not implemented. But Nixon continued to threaten Vietnam and the Soviet Union with nuclear war.

This history proves that 1) the claims that Putin is breaking a previously unquestioned taboo on the use of nuclear weapons are fraudulent; and 2) that the US, if confronted with the prospect of military defeat, would certainly resort to nuclear warfare.

Knowing that the US would use nuclear weapons if confronted with a desperate military situation, the Biden administration’s relentless efforts to push Putin into a corner and force capitulation are totally reckless.

October 7, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Population Control? Planned Parenthood Encourages Teens To Take Puberty Blockers

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | October 5, 2022

Why is Planned Parenthood so interested in trans identity politics when trans people are highly unlikely to have children (only 19%)? It’s just another sign that the trans agenda is far more about population reduction that is about personal rights.

A recently unearthed infomercial made by Planned Parenthood last year is marketed directly to teens and promotes puberty blockers as a means to disrupt natural body changes in order to make teens “feel more” like the gender they believe themselves to be psychologically.

In other words, they suggest confused teens fight against their own biology by taking pharmaceuticals which are known to potentially cause chemical castration as well as permanent damage to reproductive processes. This is medically proven to occur, but with leftist politics now poisoning the sciences over the past few years there is a growing narrative that claims puberty blockers are “safe and reversible.”

The claim relies on the use of “unknown quantities,” as there is very little data on the long term effects of puberty blockers in the MAJORITY of people who take them, and in some cases short term usage means POSSIBLE reversal and limited damage to fertility. Advocates for gender affirmation surgeries and hormone therapies will often say that there “is no proof” that puberty blockers are dangerous – This is because of limited studies and data, not because the chemicals and therapies have been proven safe.

In other words, gender activists argue that you can’t prove that puberty blockers are NOT safe for everyone. While this is medically disingenuous, it’s true that we have no idea what the negative consequences of widespread gender treatments will be 20 years from now. But why take the chance in the first place?

Why allow mentally underdeveloped children with impulsive tendencies to undergo potentially permanent and damaging medical procedures? Why let them destroy themselves in the future just to make them “feel better” today? In the meantime, the data that does exist shows risk of fertility damage depending on length of use.

Furthermore, the primary rationale for the use of puberty blockers and affirmation surgery is to improve the mental health of the individual patient. Yet, we can use the same conditions as the gender activists here by pointing out there there is little proof that such measures actually help the mental health of people with gender dysphoria.

Planned Parenthood from its very creation by elitist Margarate Sanger has made population control its primary mission.  As Sanger once stated:

“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children… The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

From “Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families

Sanger was an avid supporter of the “Baby Code” in 1934, which would have required married couples to get a permit in order to have a child, and the government would determine if the couple was “fit” to raise a child. Her contentions are recorded in her article “America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

The trans agenda along with puberty blockers and affirmation surgeries seem to be a natural extension of the population control goals of the founders of Planned Parenthood. Therefore, it’s not at all surprising that they would become so involved in the issue.


The Blaze

… On “The News & Why It Matters,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales blasted Planned Parenthood’s predatory new revenue source and revealed the ugly truth about these so-called “safe” medical “treatments.”

“The reason that I find this [commercial] to be particularly infuriating is because I know the truth about these puberty blockers,” Sara said. “I know the truth about this gender-affirming care, and all of these medications, and all of these things with potential side effects, and potentially irreversible effects that are not discussed within the medical community. The ‘trusted adult’ that they mention [in the video], the doctors, the nurses, none of those people actually tell you the real truth about what can happen.”

Sara then played a heartbreaking video clip of a “detransitioned” woman who suffers from borderline personality disorder but was misled to believe that a gender transition was the “cure” for her very difficult mental illness.

“I just took the cure that was handed to me. I was told that I was being given a cure, and I wouldn’t want to kill myself any more. Um, and it wasn’t true,” the woman sobs. “I lost my voice. I lost my chest. I don’t know if I’m going to be able to have kids. I feel like no one wants to date me or love me because I’m ruined.”

“Difficult to watch? Yes. Absolutely necessary to watch? Yes,” Sara stated. “Because this is the real truth about what the medical community is doing to all of these confused or mentally ill kids, and teens, and adults. And they don’t want to talk about it, but we will.”

Watch the video clip to catch the conversation or find full episodes of “The News & Why It Matters” here. Can’t watch? Download the podcast here.

October 6, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Putin and Clausewitz

Politics By Other Means

By Big Serge | October 5, 2022

With the sole possible exception of the great Sun Tzu and his “Art of War”, no military theorist has had such an enduring philosophical impact as the Prussian General Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz. A participant in the Napoleonic Wars, Clausewitz in his later years dedicated himself to the work that would become his iconic achievement – a dense tome titled simply “Vom Kriege” – On War. The book is a meditation on both military strategy and the socio-political phenomenon of war, which is heavily laced with philosophical rumination. Though On War has had an enduring and indelible impact on the study of military arts, the book itself is at times a rather difficult thing to read – a fact that stems from the great tragedy that Clausewitz was never actually able to finish it. He died in 1831 at the age of only 51 with his manuscript in an unedited disorder; and it fell upon his wife to attempt to organize and publish his papers.

Clausewitz, more than anything, is famous for his aphorisms – “Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult” – and his vocabulary of war, which includes terms such as “friction” and “culmination.” Among all his eminently quotable passages, however, one is perhaps the most famous: his claim that “War is a mere continuation of politics by other means.”

It is on this claim that I wish to fixate for the moment, but first, it may be worthwhile to read the entirety of Clausewitz’s passage on the subject:

“War is the mere continuation of politics by other means. We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.”

On War, Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 24

Once we cut through Clausewitz’s dense and verbose style, the claim here is relatively simple: war-making always exists in reference to some greater political goal, and it exists on the political spectrum. Politics lies at every point along the axis: war is begun in response to some political need, it is maintained and continued as an act of political will, and it ultimately hopes to achieve political aims. War cannot be separated from politics – indeed, it is the political aspect that makes it war. We may even go further and state that war in the absence of the political superstructure ceases to be war, and instead becomes raw, animalistic violence. It is the political dimension that makes war recognizably distinct from other forms of violence.

Let us contemplate Russia’s war-making in Ukraine in these terms.

Putin the Bureaucrat

It is often the case that the most consequential men in the world are poorly understood in their time – power enshrouds and distorts the great man. This was certainly the case of Stalin and Mao, and it is equally true of both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Putin in particular is viewed in the west as a Hitlerian demagogue who rules with extrajudicial terror and militarism. This could hardly be farther from the truth.

Almost every aspect of the western caricature of Putin is deeply misguided – though this recent profile by Sean McMeekin comes much closer than most. To begin with, Putin is not a demagogue – he is not a naturally charismatic man, and though he has over time greatly improved his skills as a retail politician, and he is capable of giving impactful speeches when needed, he is not someone who relishes the podium. Unlike Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or even – God forbid – Adolf Hitler, Putin is simply not a natural crowd pleaser. In Russia itself, his imagine is that of a fairly boring but level headed career political servant, rather than a charismatic populist. His enduring popularity in Russia is far more linked to his stabilization of the Russian economy and pension system than it is to pictures of him riding a horse shirtless.

Trust the plan, even when the plan is slow moving and boring

Furthermore, Putin – contrary to the view that he wields unlimited extralegal authority – is rather a stickler for proceduralism. Russia’s government structure expressly empowers a very strong presidency (this was an absolute necessity in the wake of total state collapse in the early 1990’s), but within these parameters Putin is not viewed as a particularly exciting personality prone to radical or explosive decision making. Western critics may claim that there is no ruleof law in Russia, but at the very least, Putin governs by law, with bureaucratic mechanisms and procedures forming the superstructure within which he acts.

This was made vividly apparent in recent days. With Ukraine advancing on multiple fronts, a fresh cycle of doom and triumph was set in motion: pro-Ukrainian figures exult in the apparent collapse of the Russian army, while many in the Russian camp bemoan leadership which they conclude must be criminally incompetent. With all of this underway on the military side, Putin has calmly ushered the annexation process through its legal mechanisms – first holding referendums, then signing treaties on entry in the Russian Federation with the four former Ukrainian oblasts, which were then sent to the State Duma for ratification, followed by the Federation Council, followed again by signature and verification by Putin. As Ukraine throws its summer accumulations into the fight, Putin appears to be mired in paperwork and procedure. The treaties were even reviewed by the Russian constitutional court, and deadlines were set to end the Ukrainian hryvnia as legal tender and replace it with the ruble.

This is a strange spectacle. Putin is plodding his way through the boring legalities of annexation, seemingly deaf to the chorus which is shouting at him that his war is on the verge of total failure. The implacable calm radiating – at least publicly – from the Kremlin seems at odds with events at the front.

So, what really is going on here? Is Putin truly so detached from events on the ground that he is unaware that his army is being defeated? Is he planning to use nuclear weapons in a fit of rage? Or could this be, as Clausewitz says, the mere continuation of politics by other means?

Expeditionary War

Of all the phantasmagorical claims that have been made about the Russo-Ukrainian War, few are as difficult to believe as the claim that Russia intended to conquer Ukraine with fewer than 200,000 men. Indeed, a central truth of the war that observers simply must come to grasps with is the fact that the Russian army has been badly outnumbered from day one, despite Russia having an enormous demographic advantage over Ukraine itself. On paper, Russia has committed an expeditionary force of less than 200,000 men, though of course that full amount has not been on the frontline in active combat lately.

The light force deployment is related to Russia’s rather unique service model, which has combined “contract soldiers” – the professional core of the army – with a reservist pool that is generated with an annual conscription wave. Russia consequentially has a two-tiered military model, with a world class professional ready force and a large pool of reserve cadres that can be dipped into, augmented with auxiliary forces like BARS (volunteers), Chechens, and LNR-DNR militia.

This two-tiered, mixed service model reflects, in some ways, the geostrategic schizophrenia that plagued post-Soviet Russia. Russia is an enormous country with potentially colossal, continent spanning security commitments, which inherited a Soviet legacy of mass. No country has ever demonstrated a capacity for wartime mobilization on a scale to match the USSR. The transition from a Soviet mobilization scheme to a smaller, leaner, professional ready force was part and parcel of Russia’s neoliberal austerity regime throughout much of the Putin years.

It is important to understand that military mobilization, as such, is also a form of political mobilization. The ready contract force required a fairly low level of political consensus and buy-in from the bulk of the Russian population. This Russian contract force can still accomplish a great deal, militarily speaking – it can destroy Ukrainian military installations, wreak havoc with artillery, bash its way into urban agglomerations in the Donbas, and destroy much of Ukraine’s indiginous war-making potential. It cannot, however, wage a multi-year continental war against an enemy which outnumbers it by at least four to one, and which is sustained with intelligence, command and control, and material which are beyond its immediate reach – especially if the rules of engagement prevent it from striking the enemy’s vital arteries.

More force deployment is needed. Russia must transcend the neoliberal austerity army. It has the material capacity to mobilize the needed forces – it has many millions in its reservist pool, enormous inventories of equipment, and indigenous production capacity undergirded by the natural resources and production potential of the Eurasian bloc that has closed ranks around it. But remember – military mobilization is also political mobilization.

The Soviet Union was able to mobilize tens of millions of young men to blunt, swamp, and eventually annihilate the German land army because it wielded two powerful political instruments. The first was the awesome and far reaching power of the Communist Party, with its ubiquitous organs. The second was the truth – German invaders had come with genocidal intent (Hitler at one point mused that Siberia could be turned into a Slav reservation for the survivors, which could be bombed periodically to remind them who was in charge).

Putin lacks a coercive organ as powerful as the Communist Party, which had both astonishing material power and a compelling ideology which promised to bring about an accelerated path to non-capitalist modernity. Indeed, no country today has a political apparatus like that splendid communist machine, save perhaps China and North Korea. So, in the absence of a direct lever to create political – and hence military – mobilization, Russia must find an alternative route to creating a political consensus to wage a higher form of war.

This has now been accomplished, courtesy of western Russophobia and Ukraine’s penchant for violence. A subtle, but profound transformation of the Russian socio-political body is underway.

Creating Consensus

Putin and those around him conceived of the Russo-Ukrainian War in existential terms from the very beginning. It is unlikely, however, that most Russians understood this. Instead, they likely viewed the war the same way Americans viewed the war in Iraq and Ukraine – as a justified military enterprise that was nevertheless merely a technocratic task for the professional military; hardly a matter of life and death for the nation. I highly doubt that any American ever believed that the fate of the nation hinged on the war in Afghanistan (Americans have not fought an existential war since 1865), and judging by the recruitment crisis plaguing the American military, it does not seem like anyone perceives a genuine foreign existential threat.

What has happened in the months since February 24 is rather remarkable. The existential war for the Russian nation has been incarnated and made real for Russian citizens. Sanctions and anti-Russian propaganda – demonizing the entire nation as “orcs” – has rallied even initially skeptical Russians behind the war, and Putin’s approval rating has soared. A core western assumption, that Russians would turn on the government, has reversed. Videos showing the torture of Russian POWs by frothing Ukrainians, of Ukrainian soldiers calling Russian mothers to mockingly tell them their sons are dead, of Russian children killed by shelling in Donetsk, have served to validate Putin’s implicit claim that Ukraine is a demon possessed state that must be exorcised with high explosives. Amidst all of this – helpfully, from the perspective of Alexander Dugin and his neophytes – American pseudo-intellectual “Blue Checks” have publicly drooled over the prospect of “decolonizing and demilitarizing” Russia, which plainly entails the dismemberment of the Russian state and the partitioning of its territory. The government of Ukraine (in now deleted tweets) publicly claimed that Russians are prone to barbarism because they are a mongrel race with Asiatic blood mixing.

Simultaneously, Putin has moved towards – and ultimately achieved – his project of formal annexation of Ukraine’s old eastern rim. This has also legally transformed the war into an existential struggle. Further Ukrainian advances in the east are now, in the eyes of the Russian state, an assault on sovereign Russian territory and an attempt to destroy the integrity of the Russian state. Recent polling shows that a supermajority of Russians support defending these new territories at any cost.

All domains now align. Putin and company conceived of this war from the beginning as an existential struggle for Russia, to eject an anti-Russian puppet state from its doorstep and defeat a hostile incursion into Russian civilizational space. Public opinion is now increasingly in agreement with this (surveys show that Russian distrust of NATO and “western values” have skyrocketed), and the legal framework post-annexation recognizes this as well. The ideological, political, and legal domains are now united in the view that Russia is fighting for its very existence in Ukraine. The unification of the technical, ideological, political, and legal dimensions was, just moments ago, described by the head of Russia’s communist party, Gennady Zyuganov:

“So, the President signed decrees on the admission of the DPR, LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions into Russia. Bridges are burned . What was clear from the moral and statist points of view has now become a legal fact: on our land there is an enemy, he kills and maims the citizens of Russia. The country demands the most decisive action to protect compatriots. Time does not wait.”

A political consensus for higher mobilization and greater intensity has been achieved. Now all that remains is the implementation of this consensus in the material world of fist and boot, bullet and shell, blood and iron.

A Brief History of Military Force Generation

One of the peculiarities of European history is the truly shocking extent to which the Romans were far ahead of their time in the sphere of military mobilization. Rome conquered the world largely because it had a truly exceptional mobilization capacity, for centuries consistently generating high levels of mass military participation from the male population of Italy. Caesar brought more than 60,000 men to the Battle of Alesia when he conquered Gaul – a force generation that would not be matched for centuries in the post-Roman world.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, state capacity in Europe deteriorated rapidly. Royal authority in both France and Germany was curtailed as the aristocracy and urban authorities grew in power. Despite the stereotype of despotic monarchy, political power in the middle ages was highly fragmented, and taxation and mobilization were highly localized. The Roman capacity to mobilize large armies that were centrally controlled and financed was lost, and warfare became the domain of a narrow fighting class – the petty gentry, or knights.

Consequentially, medieval European armies were shockingly small. At pivotal English-French battles like Agincourt and Crecy, English armies numbered less than 10,000, and the French no more than 30,000. The world historical Battle of Hastings – which sealed the Norman conquest of Britain – pitted two armies of fewer than 10,000 men against each other. The Battle of Grunwald – in which a Polish-Lithuanian coalition defeated the Teutonic Knights – was one of the largest battles in Medieval Europe and still featured two armies that numbered at most 30,000.

European mobilization powers and state capacity were shockingly low in this era compared to other states around the world. Chinese armies routinely numbered in the low hundreds of thousands, and the Mongols, even with significantly lower bureaucratic sophistication, could field 80,000 men.

The situation began to shift radically as intensified military competition – in particular the savage 30 years’ war – forced European states to at last begin a shift back towards centralized state capacity. The model of military mobilization shifted at last from the servitor system – where a small, self-funded military class provided military service – to the fiscal military state, where armies were raised, funded, directed, and sustained through the fiscal-bureaucratic systems of centralized governments.

Through the early modern period, military service models acquired a unique admixture of conscription, professional service, and the servitor system. The aristocracy continued to provide military service in the emerging officer corps, while conscription and impressment were used to fill out the ranks. Notably, however, conscripts were inducted into very long terms of service. This reflected the political needs of monarchy in the age of absolutism. The army was not a forum for popular political participation in the regime – it was an instrument for the regime to defend itself from both foreign enemies and peasant jacqueries. Therefore, conscripts were not rotated back into society. It was necessary to turn the army into a distinct social class with some element of remoteness from the population at large – this was a professional military institution that served as an internal bulwark of the regime.

The rise of nationalistic regimes and mass politics allowed the scale of armies to increase much further. Governments in the late 19th century now had less to fear from their own populations than did the absolute monarchies of the past – this changed the nature of military service and at last returned Europe to the system that the Romans had in millennia past. Military service was now a form of mass political participation – this allowed for conscripts to be called up, trained, and rotated back into society – the reserve cadre system that characterized armies in both of the world wars.

In sum, the cycle of military mobilization systems in Europe is a mirror of the political system. Armies were very small during the era where there was little to no mass political participation with the regime. Rome fielded large armies because there was significant political buy-in and a cohesive identity in the form of Roman citizenship. This allowed Rome to generate high military participation, even in the Republican era where the Roman state was very small and bureaucratically sparse. Medieval Europe had fragmented political authority and an extremely low sense of cohesive political identity, and consequently its armies were shockingly small. Armies began to grow in size again as the sense of national identity and participation grew, and it is no coincidence that the largest war in history – the Nazi-Soviet War – was fought between two regimes that had totalizing ideologies that generated an extremely high level of political participation.

That brings us to today. In the 21st century, with its interconnectedness and crushing availability of both information and misinformation, the process of generating mass political – and hence military – participation is much more nuanced. No country wields a totalizing utopian vision, and it is inarguable that the sense of national cohesion is significantly lower now than it was one hundred years ago.

Putin, very simply, could not have conducted a large scale mobilization at the onset of the war. He possessed neither a coercive mechanism nor the manifest threat to generate mass political support. Few Russians would have believed that there was some existential threat lurking in the shadow – they needed to be shown, and the west has not disappointed. Likewise, few Russians would likely have supported the obliteration of Ukrainian infrastructure and urban utilities in the opening days of the war. But now, the only vocal criticism of Putin within Russia is on the side of further escalation. The problem with Putin, from the Russian perspective, is that he has not gone far enough. In other words – mass politics have already moved ahead of the government, making mobilization and escalation politically trivial. Above all, we must remember that Clausewitz’s maxim remains true. The military situation is merely a subset of the political situation, and military mobilization is also political mobilization – a manifestation of society’s political participation in the state.

Time and Space

Ukraine’s offensive phase continues on multiple fronts. They are pushing into northern Lugansk, and after weeks of banging their heads against a wall in Kherson, they have finally made territorial progress. Yet, just today, Putin said that it is necessary to conduct medical examinations of the children in the newly admitted oblasts and rebuild school playgrounds. What is going on? Is he totally detached from events at the front?

There are really only two ways to interpret what is happening. One is the western spin: the Russian army is defeated and depleted and is being driven from the field. Putin is deranged, his commanders are incompetent, and Russia’s only card left to play is to throw drunk, untrained conscripts into the meat grinder.

The other is the interpretation that I have advocated, that Russia is massing for a winter escalation and offensive, and is currently engaged in a calculated trade wherein they give up space in exchange for time and Ukrainian casualties. Russia continues to retreat where positions are either operationally compromised or faced with overwhelming Ukrainian numbers, but they are very careful to extract forces out of operational danger. In Lyman, where Ukraine threatened to encircle the garrison, Russia committed mobile reserves to unblock the village and secure the withdrawal of the garrison. Ukraine’s “encirclement” evaporated, and the Ukrainian interior ministry was bizarrely compelled to tweet (and then delete) video of destroyed civilian vehicles as “proof” that the Russian forces had been annihilated.

Russia will likely continue to pull back over the coming weeks, withdrawing units intact under their artillery and air umbrella, grinding down Ukrainian heavy equipment stocks and wearing away their manpower. Meanwhile, new equipment continues to congregate in Belgorod, Zaporizhia, and Crimea. My expectation remains the same: episodic Russian withdrawal until the front stabilizes roughly at the end of October, followed by an operational pause until the ground freezes, followed by escalation and a winter offensive by Russia once they have finished amassing sufficient units.

There is an eerie calm radiating from the Kremlin. Mobilization is underway – 200,000 men are currently undergoing refresher training at ranges around Russia. Trainloads of military equipment continue to flood across the Kerch bridge, but Ukraine’s offensive plods on with no Russian reinforcements to be seen at the front. The disconnect between the Kremlin’s stoicism and the deterioration of the front are striking. Perhaps Putin and the entire Russian general staff really are criminally incompetent – perhaps the Russian reserves really are nothing but a bunch of drunks. Perhaps there is no plan.

Or perhaps, Russia’s sons will answer the call of the motherland again, as they did in 1709, in 1812, and in 1941.

As the wolves once more prowl at the door, the old bear rises again to fight.

October 5, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

Sliding doors

The publication of Prozac Nation was a societal inflection point that ushered in multiple pharmacological disasters

By Toby Rogers | October 5, 2022

I. The Promise

In the late 1980s/early 1990s my parents spent a small fortune to send me to what was, at the time, the top-ranked small liberal arts college in the country. While the Ivies train up the future ruling class, small private liberal arts colleges offered something far more alluring.

Hanging in the air at these small private colleges was a promise that went something like this: the social sciences, particularly psychology and sociology, have figured things out. If we just follow their wise teachings, we will emerge in a utopian society where there is depth and meaning, people are decent and real with each other, differences are worked out (through “I” statements and “position switching” amongst other tools), and above all people are happy.

I imagine it began with Freud and Jung, accelerated with Foucault and Butler, but it was also present in the pragmatic psychologists including Barry Schwartz and the later happiness researchers.

The promise co-opted the central notion of many 20th century revolutions — that a new man and new woman were being born from the ashes of the old system and that we would find better ways of relating to each other than any society heretofore.

This promise was EVERYWHERE — from the new student orientation to the mandatory date rape prevention workshops to resident advisor trainings to student clubs and late-night conversations in the common areas of the dorms. A better world was possible and we were the ones to usher it in. The promise was going to radiate out to the rest of society like a pebble dropped into a pond.

It’s heartbreaking to reflect on this now because: 1.) the promise was never fulfilled (perhaps because it was always just a fantasy); and, 2.) to the extent that this vision soldiers on in some form it has taken an incredibly dark turn and now resembles fascism more than anything else.


II. An inflection point

Elizabeth Wurtzel was a fierce talent. Yes, she went to Harvard but she was the embodiment of the promise. A third wave feminist, she was unabashed in her celebration of sexuality and pleasure. As a writer she was a sorceress — able to pull magic, truth, and wisdom out of thin air.

Ms. Wurtzel popularized the Pain & Suffering Memoir genre with the publication of her book Prozac Nation in 1994. The book was raw, confessional, and witty. It felt like she had discovered capital T Truth. She went inside, as the psychologists (and Buddhists) had trained us to do, explored her emotional pain with all of its searing intensity, and redeemed it by giving it meaning. Ms. Wurtzel modeled how to be vulnerable, ironic, and strong. By the end of the book she was our friend and shrink. She had gone through the dark night of the soul and had come out on the other side, victorious.

I loved Prozac Nation and I’m devastated by what has transpired since.


III. The misuse of a once-in-a-generation talent

There was always a strange sleight of hand involved in Prozac Nation. In spite of the extraordinary psychological heavy lifting for over three hundred pages — the remedy in the end was a magic little pill.

In retrospect, Elizabeth Wurtzel and all of us got played by the most corrupt industry in the history of the world.

The success of Prozac Nation was not an accident. For a while, the book was everywhere — on magazine covers, on all of the chatty morning shows, and in doctors’ waiting rooms. It was part of a wave of books including Listening to Prozac that assured the public that the scientists have it figured out and this magic little pill will make all of your troubles go away. I am almost certain that behind the scenes Pharma spent millions of dollars to promote this book and turn Ms. Wurtzel into a household name.

With the success of Prozac Nation an entire generation abandoned the century-long promise of the social sciences and said, “just write me that script doc.”

The tragedy of Elizabeth Wurtzel is that Pharma took a spectacularly talented thinker and writer and used her to betray her whole generation. The end result has been the gradual enslavement of Generation X (and the rest of society) to the cartel.


IV. The demise of Elizabeth Wurtzel

Things did not turn out well for Ms. Wurtzel. Her next book was Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women. Apparently, the Prozac had stopped working so she resorted to snorting upwards of 40 crushed Ritalin tablets a day — and when that didn’t work she turned to cocaine. That led to rehab and another memoir — this time about dealing with addiction (More, Now, Again: A Memoir of Addiction). By this point she had lost the plot to her own story. She managed a brief reset by going to Yale Law School (always the best) and working for super lawyer David Boies for a few years. At 47 she developed breast cancer and she wrote about that in her trademark style. At 52 she was dead from leptomeningeal cancer.

(Photo credit: Dan Callister/Shutterstock)

In all of her brilliant writing, Ms. Wurtzel never criticized the white coats nor their pharmaceutical handlers in spite of the myriad ways that they failed her. Ms. Wurtzel blamed the BRCA gene mutation for her breast cancer and praised the heroic doctors and scientists who identified it and treated it (with a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgery).

The BRCA gene mutation very well could be the cause of her death. But there is another explanation that is also plausible — one that is not allowed in the mainstream media. Prozac is a fluoride compound (fluoxetine). Fluoxetine is 18.5% fluoride by weight.

Fluoride is toxic. Ms. Wurtzel’s miracle pill was actually depositing poison into her bone marrow, brain, thyroid gland, lymph nodes, fatty tissue, and vital organs, day after day, year after year.

It never cured her depression — any gains were short-lived and supplemented by drugs and alcohol.

The entire story of Prozac Nation was based a toxic and deadly lie.


V. The legacy of Prozac Nation

Things did not turn out well for the rest of us either.

Psychiatrist David Healy figured out the scam early on and went to great lengths to alert others with books including Let Them Eat Prozac (2002) and Pharmageddon (2004). He was later joined by Peter Gøtzsche (Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime, 2017) and many others.

But it took 30 years before the mainstream media admitted what was knowable on the first day — these products do not work as advertised. Even the usually reliable Pharma mouthpiece, The Guardian, was recently forced to admit that the entire theory of the case in connection with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors was just glorified marketing copy:

The study in Molecular Psychiatry on which that article is based is (here). If you click through to read The Guardian article you’ll see defenders of the status quo at the end explaining that ‘it works even though there is no evidence that it works.’ Sound familiar?

By this point, about 1 in 5 American women and 1 in 10 men are on these drugs. They are given to pregnant women even though they are linked with autism (see literature review in my thesis). People are on them for decades in spite of no safety studies on long term use. They create dependency and once started, it is very difficult to stop.

It was not a foregone conclusion that Prozac would take off in the United States. German regulators (who actually examined the underlying data) rejected it and it was only approved in Sweden through outright bribery. But FDA regulators were primed to look the other way. In the meantime, Ms. Wurtzel made mental illness and these magic fluoride capsules sexy and cool. One can see how this set the stage for normalizing the other mass poisoning events that followed.

The adoption of SSRIs followed a pattern. Pharma pushed them, the FDA blessed them based on shoddy studies, the media and trusted messengers promoted them, and society gobbled up that snake oil like candy. Anyone who questioned the grift was shunned.

There was just too much money to be made for anyone to do the right thing. Once the pattern was set, more pharmacological disasters soon followed.

Next we were told that opioids, including OxyContin®, were not addictive. Once again the FDA blessed them based on shoddy data, the media promoted them, and society took these pills in massive quantities. On average, every year the U.S. now loses more Americans to opioids than died in combat in the entire (decade-long) Vietnam War.

Now it is happening yet again with Safe & Effective™️ Covid-19 shots that disable and kill at an astonishing rate. There is just so much money to be made from poisoning society that Pharma (+ the media and the political system that they own) cannot resist.

And millions of people who once believed in the promise of a better society are now mindless zombies who just want more pills, more injections, and more drugs to cure the human condition. But even that’s not enough — they want a society where Pharma idolatry is enshrined in law and everyone is forced to obey (setting up Pharma totalitarianism is basically the entire purpose of the California Democratic Party at this point).


VI. Sliding doors: imagine if Elizabeth Wurtzel had chosen differently

Hindsight is 20/20 and Ms. Wurtzel is not here to defend herself. But she was so incredibly talented. One can imagine a world where she might have chosen differently. Imagine if she had said, now wait, hang on, you’re telling me that several millennia of philosophy and a century of psychology are nonsense and that these drug dealers can solve the human condition with fluoride? That seems far-fetched.

One can imagine a world where Ms. Wurtzel used her fierce intellect to actually read the junk science clinical trials and study the FDA sham regulatory process instead of just surfing the zeitgeist. Any amount of honest due diligence would have quickly raised extraordinary doubts.

But the promise of magic pills was irresistible — for Ms. Wurtzel, society, and the drug dealers in white coats who stood to gain billions of dollars.

I want to be clear that it is not the responsibility of a 26 year old creative writer to save civilization. There should have been some adults in the room at her publisher (Houghton Mifflin) or the FDA who could have tapped the brakes on the rush to promote a fluoride compound as some sort of miracle cure. Ms. Wurtzel was uniquely influential but there were hundreds of thousands of others who also made ethically questionable choices in connection with this product. Furthermore, Ms. Wurtzel’s impulsiveness suggests that she may have already had some neurological damage, perhaps from the 10 to 13 shots that were common for Generation X. So perhaps she physically could not have chosen otherwise.

On the other hand, warrior mamas and Covid critical thinkers perform proper due diligence every day. As a result we are attacked by the mainstream media, hunted by the cartel, censored by the Stasi, and blacklisted by corporations and government. I guess if Elizabeth Wurtzel had chosen otherwise we never would have heard of her and they would have promoted someone else to fill that trusted spokesmodel role.

Here’s what I cannot figure out. Was the promise (that I began this article with) always a lie? Is the human condition such that we are always at the mercy of primitive instinct? Conservative Presbyterians believe in the doctrine of “total depravity” — that human beings are always flawed and fallen and the best we can hope for is divine grace that cannot be earned. Are they right?

I confess that I still believe in the promise (even though the last two years have shown me mountains of evidence that it’s not possible). I want to believe in a world where people are decent to each other, where we can find better ways to relate to each other that reduce strife and provide meaning and connection. It’s a far cry better than the alternative — magic pills & injections that are actually deadly, promoted by an entire society built on lies.

October 5, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 2 Comments

Remembering Tim Ball

Corbett • 10/03/2022

Today on the program James celebrates the life and work of Dr. Tim Ball, a man who devoted his retirement years to fighting the good fight against the agents of the climate scam and the green enslavement agenda. His fearless truth-telling in the face of so much adversity serves as an example to us all.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Substack or Download the mp4

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

DOCUMENTATION

Documentation – Interview 006 Dr. Tim Ball
Time Reference: 00:00
Description: Interview #006 from the archives was my first conversation with Dr. Tim Ball
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – Timothy Francis Ball Obituary
Time Reference: 04:18
Description: RIP Dr. Tim Ball (1938-2022)
Link To: Generalist Journal
Documentation – Flashback: Climategate (2009)
Time Reference: 12:40
Description: A visualization of Episode 110a of The Corbett Report podcast from November 2009.
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – Climategate Exposes the Alarmist Machine
Time Reference: 12:48
Description: A dissection of the “alarmist machine” myth by recourse to my experience meeting Dr. Ball.
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed
Time Reference: 17:53
Description: A podcast on how the IPCC sausage is made (featuring an interview with Dr. Ball discussing how commissions of inquiry can become cover-ups.
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – Climategate: The Backstory
Time Reference: 27:33
Description: Prescient video on the CRU released by The Corbett Report just weeks before the Climategate story broke.
Link To: Odysee
Documentation – Droughts, Cloud Seeding and The Coming Water Wars
Time Reference: 39:05
Description: A recent James Corbett editorial on the question of weather modification, geoengineering, and the increasing importance of water in the realm of geopolitics.
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – Corbett Report Radio 078 – Peak Water and Agenda 21 with Dr. Tim Ball
Time Reference: 31:25
Description: In 2012, Dr. Ball appeared on Corbett Report Radio to debunk the next environmental alarmist scare: water scarcity.
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – Generalist Journal
Time Reference: 44:08
Description: Dr. Ball’s home page (still being maintained and updated by the Ball family).
Link To: generalistjournal.com
Documentation – Ball’s Bearing by Mark Steyn
Time Reference: 46:20
Description: Mark Steyn’s summary of Dr. Ball’s legal saga with Michael Mann.
Link To: Steyn Online
Documentation – Please Donate Towards Dr. Tim Ball’s Funeral Expenses
Time Reference: 52:06
Description: A fundraiser HAS been set up to help Dr. Ball’s widow, Marty, cover the funeral expenses. Please donate if you are able.
Link To: Watts Up With That?
Documentation – Tim Ball – The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
Time Reference: 39:41
Description: Dr. Tim Ball delivers a lecture, answers questions, and calls out the Malthusian, anti-human, globalist ideology of the alarmists as he discusses The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science in 2014.
Link To: YouTube

October 5, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Covid vaccines: I just want to understand why, Dame June

By Gillian Dymond | TCW Defending Freedom | October 4, 2022

It is now nearly 11 months since Gillian Dymond started asking Dame June Raine, head of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), to explain what the organisation is doing to investigate the deaths and injuries occurring shortly after Covid-19 vaccination, and this open letter is her latest attempt to get an answer. You can read previous instalments in the saga herehereherehere and here. 

Dear June Raine,

You have not replied to any of the previous letters I have written you regarding the nationwide rollout of novel medications against SARS-CoV-2. I suppose I should simply accept your confident public assertion that these injections are, indeed, ‘safe and effective’: but how can I, when this is contradicted by so many disturbing post-injection reactions among my friends and family? So please excuse me for writing to you again. I am writing because I want to understand. I want to understand why you are doing this. I want to understand why you think it is right to enable the mass prescription of pharmaceutical products whose short-term testing was questionable, and whose medium- and long-term effects are entirely unknown.

You enjoyed an Oxford education, and I want to understand why, with your academic training, you are choosing to ignore the caveats of numerous high-quality experts by giving these injections your blessing. My own experience of university was that an essay which failed to take a balanced overview of any question would receive short shrift. Why, my tutor would ask, had I not considered this or that other important fact or perspective, this or that other authority, before drawing my conclusions?

You are a doctor, and I want to understand why you continue to authorise the emergency use of inadequately tested medications despite the availability of successful protocols involving the early use of tried-and-trusted treatments. I want to understand why, after the emergence of viable alternatives to the novel injections in the summer of 2020, well before any ‘vaccine’ came on to the market, you chose to risk violating the basic requirement of the Hippocratic Oath, ‘First do no harm’, by blacklisting these safe and effective treatments and advocating ‘emergency’ use of the questionable and the unknown.

Of course, both as an academic and as a doctor, you have done no more than fall into line with the vast majority of your peers. From your point of view, it would certainly have been a bad career move to announce that the new pharmaceuticals produced at such speed and such expense had proved to be unnecessary. For ordinary doctors, things were even worse: they faced disgrace and expulsion from their profession if they failed to jab as required. As for academics, even those unblinkered by ideology kept their heads down and played along with censorship of their few dissenting colleagues, on pain of jeopardising valuable funding. Only those who had already retired, secure in an unblemished record and a reliable income, had nothing but comparatively harmless attacks on their reputations to fear when they questioned the ‘settled science’ – indeed, the very idea of ‘settled science’.  No wonder the institutions dishonoured by so much mindless kow-towing to the state-sponsored authorities who ordered them to betray their raison d’être have fallen into widespread contempt! How is it possible to respect an academic who acquiesces in censorship? How is it possible to respect doctors who fail to ensure informed consent prior to the injection of a potentially dangerous substance, or who refuse to see their unmasked patients face to face?

But, June, you are not just an academic and a doctor; you are not even just a civil servant; like me, you are a mother: and it is as a mother, above all, that I cannot understand why you have authorised the rollout of these inadequately-tested concoctions to children as young as five; children who stand in far greater danger from the injections than from the illness itself. How do you reconcile the fact that nobody has the least idea of the long-term effects of these treatments with your insistence that they are ‘safe’? How can you be sure that the risks are outweighed by the benefits, when the benefits are proving ever more debatable and the risks of long-term, potentially devastating, injury are unknown? Your own children must be well into adulthood, but would you really have advised your pregnant daughter or daughter-in-law to be injected? Perhaps you have young grandchildren. If so, have you urged them to roll up their little sleeves and be jabbed, without any qualms regarding their future health and reproductive ability?

Perhaps you are, indeed, as enthusiastic about the alleged life-saving qualities of the new medications in your private life as you are in public: in which case, given the mounting evidence against them, I sincerely wish to understand why. What do you know that is sufficient to countermand the indications of the Yellow Card scheme and justify the accumulating tragedies of those suffering serious adverse effects? Presumably you have really convinced yourself that the computer models (rubbish in, rubbish out?) are right, and that your emergency authorisation of the novel injections has saved billions of lives. If so, I would like you to help me understand why.

This issue does, after all, have wider ramifications. It is not a one-off. You have made it clear that the current roll-out is merely a precedent to similar population-wide prescriptions of mRNA medications to similar population-wide prescriptions of mRNA medications, and that the MHRA is busy ‘transforming’ itself into an enabler, rather than a regulator, of new medicines. At the very least the public deserve to be made aware that your agency is now working with the pharmaceutical industry to speed the entry of new drugs on to the market within 100 days of any proclaimed ‘emergency’, using the public as guinea pigs in ‘real-time’ testing.  Since very few of us watch MHRA board meetings, and no mention is made of such a transformation in the highly selective news bulletins fed to the public by the mainstream media, this strange departure from the precautionary principle is, like the long-term effects of the medications which will be ‘offered’ to us, largely unknown. If it were better publicised, the public might well insist that the MHRA take its place openly as an ancillary of the drug manufacturers, and demand that a genuine regulatory body, working on the time-honoured principles of long-term testing and ‘First do no harm’, take its place.

It seems to me that your transformation into an ‘enabling agency’, on the back of the ‘pandemic’, is a transformation for the worse, to the point of being a threat to the lives and health of the population. Covid-19 was struck off Public Health England’s list of high consequence infectious diseases on February 19, 2020, even before the first lockdown. Off-label remedies were speedily found to treat the illness successfully. The ‘pandemic’ existed only because it was redefined as such by the WHO and industriously promoted and kept alive by government misinformation. I want to understand why you, an intelligent woman, so easily accepted this misinformation; I want to understand why you chose to abandon academic rigour and the provisions of the Hippocratic Oath when no  emergency required you to do any such thing; and I want to understand why you are proposing to repeat this recklessness in relation to a steady stream of future products.

Please enlighten me.

Yours sincerely,

Gillian Dymond

Footnote: The now monthly (formerly weekly) Yellow Card report is a week overdue from the well-funded (by drug manufacturers, the World Health Organisation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as the Department of Health and Social Care) and well-staffed MHRA.

October 4, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

The End of Doctors’ Freedom to Ignore What the Government and Pharmaceutical Industry Says Should Worry Us All

BY DR FRANK MERCY | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | OCTOBER 4, 2022

On October 11th a Bill is to be presented to the Queensland Parliament which would impose draconian limits on what doctors can say to their patients. If passed, doctors will no longer be able to express their opinion or use their experience, training and education, if that opinion goes against what the Government health bureaucrats determine to be in the general interests of the public.

The National Law originally came into being after the Commonwealth, States and Territories all entered into an intergovernmental agreement in 2008. By that agreement it was established the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the National Law) would first become legislation passed by the Queensland parliament (s.6.3), which the other States and Territories would then mirror and pass via each of their parliaments (s.6.4), The same intergovernmental agreement established the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council (s.7.1) charged with overseeing the National Law.

Once passed into law by the Queensland parliament, all the other States and Territories are required to create virtually identical Bills and submit to their parliaments to be made law, thereby effecting the same amendments to the National Law of their State or Territory (s.13.4).

Australian doctors will be bound to follow Government policy regardless of countervailing evidence, which means that Government health bureaucrats will determine how doctors should approach treatment recommendations for their patients.

The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 proposes changes which would give the Queensland Health Ombudsman, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Medical Board of Australia unprecedented powers to sanction doctors for expressing their professional opinion based on their assessment of the best available science.

This amendment to the Bill is clearly designed to destroy our healthcare system. A patient visits their doctor for an ‘opinion’, which will be obliterated by the act. Healthcare is nuanced, almost every day I ‘violate’ textbook recommendations because patients do not conform to idealised representations, each has unique features. Those deviations come down to experience, which is the patient’s and doctor’s most powerful asset.

Medicine will cease to evolve. It will become fossilised in the Covid Ice Age. Minor indiscretions like prescribing antibiotics when the indications are blurred could be subject to disciplinary action. Guidelines are contradictory so it would be almost impossible to practise medicine without contravening dictates. Most disease classification is already antiquated with diagnostic definitions set down sometimes 100 years ago or more. This legislation would lead to disastrous consequences for all Australians.

The aim of the Act must be to pave the way for multi-corporate management of healthcare. With 96% of the revenue of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which is responsible for approving all pharmaceutical products including vaccines, coming from the pharmaceutical industry, the potential for conflicts of interest is self-evident. Therapeutic interventions will become legislated in the interests of big pharma. mRNA vaccines could be delivered unopposed on ‘conscience’ grounds, including to children. The cargo in the mRNA vaccines can be changed at will without going through full regulatory approval. By the time our children turn five, they would be comprehensively ‘protected’ by the ‘Pharma Ring of Protection’, vaccinated against everything from diabetes to in-growing toenails, all without the constraints of clinical opinion.

In the absence of a functioning healthcare system, individuals will be encouraged by authorities to seek their healthcare online from approved ‘trusted sources’. Doctors will become demonised as pariahs, depicted as being left behind in the high tech era. We will doubtless be receiving a concoction of ‘junk food’ medicine upsold with pharma fries. For every thought, action and movement there will be a pharmaceutical solution, requirement even. Your mere existence will demand so, for the safety of others.

This obscene piece of legislation paves the way to an Orwellian nightmare, with consequences that go far beyond healthcare, to the very core of our humanity. It’s the desecration of our rights to autonomous existence, it’s the Monty Python boot trampling in the face of every individual Australian. Our children will be stamped, sealed and delivered from birth, with profit potential identified and catalogued.

For the Australian citizen this is our Stalingrad. Defeat here will open the field to unlimited human resources for oppressive forces that can never be turned back. We must oppose this with all our resolve.

‘Frank Mercy’ is a pseudonym for a doctor with a clinical practice who also holds an appointment at an Australian university.

October 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 3 Comments

The Morning After

By CJ Hopkins | Consent Factory, Inc. | October 3, 2022

This is the weirdest part of the PSYOP. It’s like the morning after an office party on which you wake up almost terminally hungover to hazy memories of having performed a Tequila-fuelled blowjob on Bob in Accounting in what was either the 9th Floor Reception Area or possibly the downstairs lobby of your building while someone vaguely resembling that smirking kid in the Mail Room filmed it on his phone.

Yes, it’s the Morning After … that revolting regurgitant chorus you’re hearing is the sound of millions of Covidian Cultists down on their knees in their gender-neutral bathrooms praying to the Porcelain God.

It has been quite a trip these last two and a half years, but the orgy of fear and hatred is over, the mass hysteria is wearing off, and the reality of the damage they have done is beginning to become undeniable.

Countless thousands of people have been killed, seriously injured, and permanently disabled, victims of experimental “vaccines” they did not need but were coerced into taking. Societies have been torn apart, economies crippled, institutions discredited, democratic precepts like the rule of law and constitutional rights made mockeries of themselves, friends and families turned against each other, and so on, and the dust hasn’t even settled yet. It will take many years to assess the damage … or, rather, to recontextualize, rationalize, deny, and memory-hole the damage (while simultaneously “normalizing” the fascistic biosecurity dystopia the damage made it possible to implement).

This process is now well underway. As I’m sure you’ve noticed over the past several months, governments, global health authorities, the corporate and state media, the culture industry, and other key components of “The New Normal Reich” have been quietly phasing out their “Covid restrictions,” rewriting “The Science,” rewriting history (i.e., the science and history they had previously rewritten), executing limited hangouts, and otherwise transitioning the masses out of “emergency” mode and into the New Normal.

In other words, everything is going to plan.

You can’t keep people whipped up into a state of full-blown hysteria indefinitely. When you’re radically destabilizing and restructuring a society, you hit them hard with the Shock-and-Awe for a few weeks, or months (or years in this case), and then you gently ease them into the new “reality.” Which, after being systematically terrorized, gaslighted, threatened, and otherwise tormented for however long you did that to them, they’ll be grateful for anything resembling “normality,” no matter how fascistic it turns out to be.

You have to be delicate executing this phase, in which the vast majority of the masses, having forced themselves to believe whatever you needed them to believe during the Shock-and-Awe phase, have to force themselves to believe they never believed whatever you needed them to believe then, and believe whatever you need them to believe now, which typically completely contradicts whatever they had previously forced themselves to believe (and actually, literally, believed) in a desperate attempt to keep you happy, so that maybe you would eventually stop beating on them, and relentlessly gaslighting and terrorizing them.

Now, a lot people seem to be having trouble understanding or accepting this fact, i.e., the fact that human beings are capable of forcing themselves to believe whatever they need to believe in order to survive or remain in good standing with “normal” society (or whatever social body they are members of and depend on to meet their basic needs). Not pretend to believe, literally believe, the way that religious converts believe, the way we believe whatever we believe today that we didn’t believe ten years ago.

I must say, I find it rather baffling, people’s lack of understanding and acceptance of this fact, as this capability is a fundamental human attribute that has been documented, over and over, throughout the course of human history. It is not some “theory” I just made up. It is how we maintain social cohesion. It is how we socialize our children. It is how armies and university departments work. It is a basic part of how social bodies function; conformity is rewarded and non-conformity is punished. There’s nothing new about this phenomenon. People have been conforming to new official “realities” and making themselves believe whatever they have to believe to survive within them for approximately five thousand years.

It is, however, a rare occasion when we are able to observe the process this clearly. It usually takes place more or less invisibly within the context of normal everyday life. It is only during sudden radical shifts from one “reality” to another “reality” that we can watch people force themselves to believe whatever they perceive they need to believe, or are instructed by their rulers to believe, in order to survive and thrive in society (e.g., cult indoctrinations, religious conversions, the outbreak of war, physical torture, or in the wake of political revolutions).

This is what we’ve been watching since March 2020, not mass hypnosis, or mass formation psychosis, but the masses forcing themselves to believe whatever they sensed they needed to believe (or were instructed by the authorities to believe) in order to remain parts of “normal” society and not be demonized by their governments and the media, ostracized by their friends and family, fired from their jobs, segregated, censored, beaten and arrested by the police, and otherwise punished for non-conformity as a new “reality” was manufactured and imposed on societies throughout the world.

And now their “reality” is changing again, or “The Science is evolving,” or whatever, and the absurdities they forced themselves to believe are being exposed as … well, as absurdities, and their fanatical and often fascistic behavior, as it turns out, was based on absolutely nothing.

Many of them couldn’t care less, as their behavior was never “based” on anything other than going along with the herd, and so they have simply transitioned from fanatically hating “the Unvaccinated” to fanatically hating “the Russians,” and fanatically supporting Ukrainian neo-Nazis, and fanatically doing whatever else the GloboCap puppets on their televisions instruct them to fanatically do. However, a significant number of them have retained enough of their critical faculties that being yanked back and forth from “reality” to “reality” is causing them to experience mild cognitive dissonance, and confusion, and shame, or borderline psychosis.

Believe it or not, my heart goes out to them … these formerly fanatical Covidian Cultists that wanted me segregated from society, and silenced, and locked up in an internment camp. I cannot make it easier for them by pretending they didn’t do what they did (and in too many cases are still actively doing), or pretending they were hypnotized, or in some other altered state of consciousness, while they did what they did for the past two and half years, but just imagine how they must be feeling now that the party is finally over and the brutal morning after has arrived.

Imagine realizing at this late stage of things that everything you believed, thought, and said, the incalculable harm you have done to people, and to society, was never about a pandemic, but was always about conditioning the masses to respond to fear, coercion, and control like some global Pavlovian behavioral experiment.

Or just take it from actress Jennifer Gibson …

And now comes the really nauseating part, the part where the New Normal authorities admit that they “overreacted,” and that “mistakes were made,” and that they deeply regret having needlessly murdered and seriously injured God knows how many people, and psychologically crippled countless children, and accidentally totally destabilized and restructured the entire global economy, and explain in a lengthy piece in The New Yorker how they’re sorry, but they were drunk at the time, and swear they will never do it again.

You remember this part from 2004 after the invasion and occupation of Iraq when the photos of Abu Ghraib were published, and the American masses who had been hooting and hollering and waving American flags around, and calling people “ragheads” and “sand niggers,” and so on, had to stare themselves and their war crimes in the face.

You recall how the Americans dealt with their shame. That’s right, they reelected George Bush and carried on murdering and torturing Iraqis, and Afghans, and assorted other brown people, and hooting and hollering “we’re number one,” and waving American flags around, because in for a penny, in for a pound.

You see, another fundamental human attribute (in addition to our ability to force ourselves to believe whatever we need to believe in order to survive and thrive in society) is that we don’t tend to deal with shame very well. We tend to repress it and react aggressively to anyone who tries to force us to face it. If you don’t believe me, ask anyone you know who has been (or still is) in an abusive relationship. Ask them how their abuser reacts when they try to get them to take responsibility for their abusive behavior.

I can’t tell you exactly what’s going to happen over the coming months, but I told you back in January that there was going to be wailing and gnashing of teeth, and wailing and gnashing of teeth there has been, and there is certainly going to be a lot more of it … and probably not just wailing and gnashing.

This is just the dawn of the Morning After. I have a feeling we ain’t seen nothing yet.

October 4, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | 2 Comments

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Ukraine

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | October 4, 2022

As many people are beginning to realize but would rather not think about, the United States and Russia are moving perilously close to nuclear war. Russian President Putin has now openly pledged to defend Russian territory with “all the forces and means at our disposal.” U.S. President Biden has responded that Russia will suffer “catastrophic consequences” if it resorts to the use of nuclear weapons.

As Putin has correctly pointed out, it is the U.S. government that has established the precedent for the wartime use of nuclear weapons. That, of course, was the U.S. atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.

Let’s review the justification that U.S. officials cite for targeting those two cities with nuclear bombs.

U.S. officials, as well as many of their supporters in the mainstream press, have long maintained that the U.S. government was justified in nuking those two cities because, they say, it shortened the war. In the process, they say that the bombings saved thousands of American men whose lives would have been lost if it had become necessary to invade Japan.

That, however, is an invalid legal and moral justification for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After all, it’s a war crime for soldiers to target civilians in wartime. That’s precisely what U.S. officials did with their atomic bombing of those two cities. There is no difference between, say, what Lt. William Calley did in Vietnam when he killed innocent civilians and what U.S. officials did to the people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Moreover, soldiers die in war. That’s the nature of war. To target women, children, seniors, and other civilians as a way to save soldiers from dying in an invasion is totally illegitimate.

It is important to note that to this day U.S. officials and their acolytes in the mainstream press continue to defend their atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki based on that particular justification — that it shortened the war and, in the process, saved the lives of U.S. soldiers.

Given such, how can Biden threaten “catastrophic consequences” on Russia if Russia employs nuclear weapons in its war with Ukraine? What if Russia says that it is using nukes to shorten the war and thereby save the lives of Russian soldiers? In other words, what if Russia uses the exact same justification for using nuclear weapons in wartime that the U.S. used — and continues to use — for its use of nuclear weapons in Japan? What does Biden say: that we can do it but you can’t?

In fact, what if Russia, unlike the United States, limits its use of nuclear weapons to enemy troops rather than on innocent civilians? What does Biden say then — that the U.S. has the authority to nuke whoever it wants, including innocent civilians, but that Russia has no legitimate authority to use nuclear weapons against enemy troops?

Who would have ever thought that the war crime that President Truman committed in World War II would come back to haunt the United States some 75 years later? It might not do any good at this point, but among the best things Biden could do at this point is to openly and publicly acknowledge that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in fact, war crimes and then issue a genuine and contrite apology.

With its use of its old Cold War dinosaur NATO to provoke the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Pentagon bears responsibility for moving America and Russia perilously close to nuclear war, even if it happens by miscalculation or accident. The best thing President Biden could do at this point (in addition to apologizing for the U.S. war crimes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) would be to immediately stop furnishing weaponry and other support to Ukraine, withdraw from NATO, bring all U.S. troops stationed overseas home and discharge them into the private sector, and abandon all foreign military bases, especially those in Eastern Europe and Western Europe.

In other words, the U.S. government should leave the world alone. It has done enough damage already, including moving America and the rest of the world perilously close to a nuclear holocaust.

October 4, 2022 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | 2 Comments

Belgrade Says Kiev Silent on NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia While Calling to Sanction Russia

Samizdat – 04.10.2022

Kiev has never demanded that sanctions be imposed or a trial be held for those involved in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, but at the same time demands punishment for Russia for its military operation in Ukraine, Serbian Interior Minister Aleksandar Vulin said on Tuesday.

Earlier in October, Ukrainian Ambassador Volodymyr Tolkach told the N1 broadcaster that Kiev didn’t understand Belgrade’s position on sanctions against Russia and urged Serbia to join the Western policy regarding Moscow.

“Dozens of Serbian boys and girls were killed during the NATO bombing. I cannot recall Ukraine’s demand that a special meeting of the UN Security Council be held or sanctions be imposed on the aggressor against Serbia. It is not too late for Ukraine and all countries demanding trial for crimes in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, to demand a trial of the murderers of Serbian children during the NATO aggression,” Vulin was quoted as saying by the Serbian Interior Ministry.

In addition, the official recalled Russia’s principled and consistent support for Serbia’s territorial integrity.

“Russia will never change its position on the false ‘state’ of Kosovo. And no statement or step by Russian officials is aimed at the opposite, just as no statement or step by EU or US officials is aimed at withdrawing the recognition of [the independence of] Kosovo or respecting Serbia’s territorial integrity,” Vulin said.

On February 24, Russia began a military operation in Ukraine responding to calls for help from the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. Western countries responded by imposing comprehensive sanctions against Moscow while also ramping up their military and financial support for Kiev. Serbia is among the countries maintaining a neutral position on the issue and not joining most restrictions on Moscow despite growing pressure from Brussels and Washington.

October 4, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

EUTHANASIA’S SLIPPERY SLOPE

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | October 3, 2022

October 4, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 1 Comment