To say that RFK Jr. goes out of his way to avoid offending Jews would be an understatement. He presents himself as the world’s biggest friend of the Jewish people in general and the Jewish (supremacist) state of Israel in particular.
The first mainstream article that covered RFK’s presidential run with a positive spin was David Samuels’s piece in the Jewish magazine Tablet. But since then there hasn’t exactly been a groundswell of Kennedy support in the mainstream Jewish community. Aside from free-thinking outliers like Naomi Wolf and some of my radio guests (Josh Mitteldorf, Barry Kissin, Steve Brown, Ron Rattner) it seems that most of American Jewry, or at least its media wing, views RFK Jr.’s candidacy with trepidation.
That trepidation metamorphosed into hysterical denunciation last week, when the candidate’s off-the-record dinner-table remarks about ethnic-specific bioweapons and COVID-19 triggered the biggest two-minute anti-Semitism media hatefest since Kanye West went defcon 3. The New York Post broke the story with a lying headline: “RFK Jr. says COVID was ‘ethnically targeted’ to spare Jews.” What Kennedy actually said, in informal conversation, was:
COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately. COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese…We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact.”
The candidate could be fairly accused of hyperbole: The study he was citing did not indicate how disproportionally COVID affected different ethnicities, but only analyzed one genetic factor, which may or may not have had much real-world effect. But that study does say pretty much what RFK says it does. What it does not say, and what RFK Jr. did not say, is that COVID was a Jewish-Chinese bioweapon designed to kill white and black people.
But you wouldn’t know that from the media coverage. Nor would you know it from remarks of Congressional reps like Debbie Wasserman Schulz, who tried to censor Kennedy’s anti-censorship testimony, saying “Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly made despicable antisemitic and anti-Asian comments.”
The witch hunt, of course, was unsurprising. What was surprising was that RFK Jr. would say something that was begging to be misinterpreted as “anti-Semitic.” This is the guy, after all, who presents himself as the most pro-Jewish, pro-Israel candidate in the known universe. Why would he even bring up the “ethnic targeting” study, much less exaggerate it in such a way as to practically force the ADL and its friends to accuse him of blaming COVID on the Jews?
Some RFK supporters might wonder if their hero, like Trump before him, is playing 3D chess. Maybe RFK knows full well who really killed his father and uncle. In that case, his exaggerated philosemitic pro-Israel schtick would be a ruse. Like his father before him, who kept publicly quiet about the murder of his brother JFK in hopes of winning the presidency and undoing the coup, RFK Jr. could be blowing (pro-Zionist) smoke to camouflage the reality of his mission. Could he have deliberately provoked the hysterical attacks in order to garner free publicity and let the media and political establishment further discredit itself—the sort of thing that Trump has made a political career out of?
All things considered, the 3D chess scenario is unlikely. RFK is considerably smarter than Trump, but he is less manipulative. Unlike Trump, RFK is sincere. He is the what-you-see-is-what-you-get candidate. I don’t think he’s lying or being manipulative when he professes undying love for Israel, hatred for Nazi Germany, and concern about COVID affecting ethnicities differently in light of what we know about ethnic-specific bioweapon research.
But the question remains: Why is Kennedy so irrationally extremist in his support for Israel? And why did he intemperately exaggerate the COVID-ethnicity study in such a way as to invite attacks? Both his rabidly Likudnik Zionism and his ill-considered “anti-Semitic” bioweapon speculation seem, shall we say, immoderate, if not a little unhinged.
So let’s put RFK Jr. on Dr. Freud’s proverbial couch. Freud coined the term reaction formation: “a defense mechanism in which people express the opposite of their true feelings, sometimes to an exaggerated extent. For instance, a man who feels insecure about his masculinity might act overly aggressive. Or a woman with substance use disorder may extol the virtues of abstinence.” In many cases, the subjects are not even consciously aware of their true feelings. The peacenik who is so bellicose in his pacifism that he is always starting fights—I have known several—is generally unaware that his real motivation is not dedication to peace, but smoldering inner aggression. And then there are the greedy, ambitious, competitive, materialistic people who adopt leftist politics to conceal their real feelings about money and status. I’ve known more than a few of those too. And don’t get me started about the ranting anti-global-warming fanatics who seem to think their bloviations will save the world while your skepticism will destroy it, even as their excessively comfortable lifestyles emit far more carbon in week than you do in a month.
So reaction formations are quite common, and often a big driver of people’s political views. RFK Jr.’s grossly exaggerated, seemingly irrational pro-Israel extremism has all the hallmarks of a classic reaction formation. If such is the case, Kennedy would be hiding his repressed hostility to the Jewish state not only from others, but also from himself.
But why would Kennedy hate Israel, yet remain in deep denial of his real feelings? For the same reason that Hamlet hated his stepfather Claudius but couldn’t bring himself to act. Israel killed Kennedy’s father, just like Claudius killed Hamlet’s. But just as Hamlet grew up in Claudius’s household, vulnerable to Claudius’s despotic power, RFK Jr. grew up in post-Zionist-coup America, helpless and defenseless. Vulnerable people in the household of an abuser, especially children, have a tendency to engage in identification with the aggressor: “an unconscious mechanism in which an individual identifies with someone who poses a threat or with an opponent who cannot be mastered.” From RFK Jr.’s perspective, that would be the Zionists. He totally identifies with them, even with their most disgustingly vulgar mediocrities like Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and hyperbolically deems himself the biggest Zionist of all.
But What About the Blurt-Out?
If a reaction formation explains RFK’s ultra-Zionism, then what explains his COVID-targeted-to-spare-Jews blurt-out? Paging Dr. Freud again!
Actually, you don’t really need serious psychoanalytic chops to figure this one out. RFK’s repressed, unconscious hostility to Zionists, kept under wraps by his hyper-Zionist reaction formation, found a way of expressing itself. So although RFK was never consciously aware that what he was saying sounded a whole lot like “COVID was targeted to spare the Jews,” his unconscious mind was all-too-aware, and indeed put those equivocal words right into his mouth.
Like the classic Freudian slip, this kind of blurt-out scenario illustrates how the unconscious mind can occasionally short-circuit the conscious mind and speak unspeakable truths. Translation: “Outrageous Jewish anti-goy conspiracies are not always imaginary.” So the paranoid reaction of people like Debby Wasserman Schulz is not quite as crazy as it sounds: Debby’s unconscious is getting the gist of what Bobby’s unconscious is saying, and she doesn’t like it.
Intergenerational Trauma
The psychiatric symptoms on both sides stem from deeply-rooted intergenerational trauma. RFK Jr., of course, grew up with the trauma of his president-uncle’s dastardly murder in 1963, and his father’s equally dastardly murder (presumably by the same parties) in 1968. A modern-day Hamlet, he spent his formative years under tremendous social pressure to refrain from challenging his fathers’ and uncles’ murderers. We could also speculate about the Kennedy family’s roots in the holocausted earth of Ireland—the Irish have suffered real genocide and persecution to more than rival the Jews’ mostly-mythical suffering at the hands of alleged anti-Semites who supposedly hate them for no reason whatsoever—but let’s not go there, lest some of my less-enlightened readers start succumbing to Irish Holocaust denial.
On Wasserman-Schulz’s side, the intergenerational trauma is apparently so horrific that it can only be cured by psychedelic drugs. In “Can We Cure Anti-Semitism with Molly?” the Jewish Daily Forward’s senior editor Rob Eshman opens with a question:
“If you learned that a single pill had led a neo-Nazi to renounce his hateful beliefs, would you:
Demand more research to find out if the pill really works
Ignore existing evidence and continue to outlaw the pill?
Eshman notes that Israel, the world’s MDMA capital, uses the “love drug” to treat PTSD. We may imagine that child-murdering IDF snipers like the “I shot 13 kids today” tweeter are gradually eased back into what passes for Israeli normalcy with the help of psychedelic sessions that rewire their brains for love (of fellow Zionist Jews at least) instead of drooling 24/7/365 hatred of Palestinian kids (“little snakes”) and the mothers who bear them.
But can MDMA cure Zionist Jewry of its 3000-year-old collective case of PTSD? To answer that question, we would need to know whether individual Jews really suffer the pain experienced by their persecuted ancestors. Scientists are working hard to convince us that they do.
An alternative explanation of why so many ultra-privileged Jews experience so much suffering from historical collective memories blames culture, not genetics. The film Defamation memorably shows Israeli children being horrifically traumatized by their elders, who drum it into their impressionable little heads that the goys all want to exterminate them.
And speaking of Jews traumatizing Jews, what about infant circumcision? Paging Dr. Bowlby!
Attachment studies have shown that very young children—babies, really—are extremely vulnerable to psychological trauma. A terrible experience at eight months of age or even earlier is likely to ruin your life in a way that a vastly worse experience at a later age might not. Traumatic experiences involving damage to the mother-child bond, in particular, seem to be responsible for much if not most of the world’s misery. (Moral: To form a happy and peaceful person, keep the baby in skin-to-skin contact with the mother, and breastfeed on demand, for the first two years of life, as many traditional cultures do.)
What you do NOT want to do is rip the baby out of the mother’s arms and inflict unspeakable torture by carving up the most sensitive part of its anatomy with a knife. This will wreck the mother-child bond due to the mother’s perceived betrayal of her child (and create overcompensation in the form of the Jewish mother syndrome) while forming an unconscious memory of a horrific attack by a terrifying outsider. Later in life, the child will be culturally conditioned to transfer its fear and loathing onto the imaginary figure of a new terrifying outsider: the evil goy who wants to kill us. It’s the perfect formula for creating a profoundly neurotic, powerfully ethnocentric group identity.
So to summarize: RFK Jr.’s dysfunctional relationship with Zionism—which stems from the willingness of traumatized Zionists like Ben Gurion to commit outrageous crimes in order to preserve the nuclear weapons they imagine they need to save their lives from the evil Jew-hating goys—is a complete mess. I doubt that even the best therapist, armed with all the MDMA in Israel, could effect a cure.
Because the COVID-19 vaccines load the body with the genetic code for the thrombogenic and lethal Wuhan Spike protein, those who take a vaccine are vulnerable to a catastrophe if they get infected with SARS-CoV-2 after recently taking one of the shots.
Nahab and coworkers from Emory analyzed a statewide database of COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Approximately 5 million adult Georgians received at least one COVID-19 vaccine between December 2020 and March 2022: 54% received BNT162b2, 41% received mRNA-1273, and 5% received Ad26.COV2.S. Those with concurrent COVID-19 infection within 21 days post-vaccination had an increased risk of ischemic (OR = 8.00, 95% CI: 4.18, 15.31) and hemorrhagic stroke (OR =5.23, 95% CI: 1.11, 24.64).
This analysis shows one of many great dangers present in rapid vaccine development and rollout without sufficient data safety and monitoring. Stroke is a devastating outcome and it appears that a large number of debilitating cases could have been avoided if the COVID-19 vaccines were taken off the market in January, 2021 for excess mortality. The patients in this study would have been spared stroke and disability.
These data highlight the need for Spike protein detoxification, in other words, methods to reduce the burden of Spike protein within the body. We have a widely anticipated manuscript in press featuring an ambulatory triple combination regimen of nattokinase, bromelain, and curcumin which works proteolytically clear Spike while providing a low level of thrombolysis and control over inflammation.
It is quite difficult to believe that the actuality included really did come from 2021, and was not compiled from footage from 1938. Nor is it (except for a short clip with John Hurt from the film 1984) from a film based on fiction. What I saw were not actors but politicians, public servants, broadcasters and the public. And yes, these people – Esther Rantzen, Iain Dale, Tony Blair, Edwina Currie, Boris Johnson, Nick Ferrari, Jonathan Van-Tam, Jeremy Vine and Andrew Neil – really did say and write these things.
What on earth made them so certain, so bombastically sure, so early on? What gave them the right to inflict fear on the nation? Such craven irresponsibility. In the age of ‘safetyism’, was there a risk assessment relating to the forcing of an untested chemical on people before they so firmly exhorted getting jabbed? One wonders if they took legal advice – what might happen if somebody issues a writ against LBC, the station Nick Ferrari broadcasts on, claiming damages for the death of a spouse courtesy of the jab, or against ITV – ‘My wife went to get the jab after Piers Morgan said she’d be a murderer and a social leper if she didn’t’?
Nothing will happen, because it was government policy, and because the courts are hobbled. We don’t know if these people genuinely believed in what they said, or whether they or their employers were in receipt of ‘sponsorship’ – either government or corporate – that demanded a certain line to take. What we do know for certain is that the government spent more than £800million on ‘advertising’ 2020-22, and that the Cabinet Office alone spent £586million in that period. An analysis published on TCW following a series of Freedom of Information requests found the government blitz totalled a billion pounds. Exactly how it was spent is set out in this article, one of the main beneficiaries being the media-buying company Manning Gottlieb, which managed 88 per cent of the government’s advertising spend. That the sum was several times more than the combined advertising spend of £196million by four major departments – Health, Education, Transport, Work & Pensions – should concern us all. Why was this very small arm of government able to spend such a colossal sum?
Whether paid or not Blair, Rantzen, Dale, Morgan, Ferrari and the rest engaged themselves to parrot a script prepared by an arm of our government, using their well-known personas to deliver a policy of fear while threatening the worst of sanctions against the non-compliant without any legal basis or democratic mandate. All done under emergency powers that were fraudulently invoked.
These characters dismissed our humanity, our individuality, our ability to reason for ourselves, and appointed themselves as infallible arbiters of scientific and societal matters. Anything that did not adopt their narrative was labelled ‘disinformation’. It mattered not if alternative views came from Nobel Prize-winning scientists and/or the most significant professors in various fields of medicine. Anything that the ‘commissar’ had not approved for broadcast was censored, scorned and condemned. It is still going on.
How the individuals involved have remained credible and accepted in our public discourse is both puzzling and worrying. How they can live with themselves is similarly baffling. They wilfully participated in frightening, threatening and discriminating against people, in at least some cases for money.
Will the ‘Covid Inquiry’ be touching upon this obscene behaviour?
I am left feeling buoyed by my own fortitude and powers of discernment in resisting it; but also pretty hollow at the thought that this filthy propaganda was prepared and broadcast in my country.
Propagandist Joseph Goebbels was (rightly or wrongly) credited with making famous the “Big Lie”. That of repeating a lie often enough until it is accepted as truth. Such is the case with the origins of Covid-19.
For three years Americans have been repeatedly reminded by mainstream press reports, as well as independent news websites and bloggers, that Covid originated in Wuhan, China. Over and over again we were told that “It was a lab leak in Wuhan!” or “Covid came from a bat sold at a wet market in Wuhan” or “The Chinese government grounded all flights but those to the United States, proof that the Chinese government created Covid” etc, etc. But if we follow the money trail and paper trail we can unravel the true history behind the origins of Covid-19. And if we do, we may arrive at only one conclusion. That Covid-19 was MADE IN AMERICA!
We begin by searching the patent records of the CDC and Big Pharma. Investigative reporting by Dr. David Martin, CEO of MCAM, an intangible assets underwriter company, turned up patent evidence showing that SARS CoV2 was not a manifestation in nature. It was manufactured as early as 2003 by the CDC. And the patent application for the mRNA countermeasure was submitted only three days later!
CDC’s patent application No. 7220852 was submitted on April 25, 2003.
Pharmaceutical Company Sanofi submitted its patent application for the mRNA countermeasure on April 28, 2003, patent No. 7151163, was submitted only three days later. How could that be unless there was collusion between the CDC and Sanofi? Dr. Martin described it as a RICO case of racketeering. Sanofi was later purchased by Pfizer and the mRNA was never approved because it didn’t meet the requirements of the US Patent Office.
Dr. Martin’s findings revealed that the flu virus never left even though CDC reported a 95% reduction in reported flu cases. What happened to the flu? According to Dr. Martin, “Influenza was a failed decades-long influenza mandate that was desperately promoted by governments around the world. But they failed to get a response similar to the response to SARS CoV2 they had hoped for. Which was to get everybody injected against the flu. So they said, “let’s change the pathogen”. They can do this again a thousand times now that populations have responded the way they were induced to respond. Call it flu Pandemic 2.0, but now we are on to them, said Dr. Martin.
In 2008, CDC’s SARS CoV2 patent 7220852 was approved. But Sanofi now Pfizer saw its patent for the mRNA turned down. This was also the year the DoD took an interest in the SARS virus as a potential bioweapon.
The paper trail of US funding for Gain-of-Function research into creating a bioweapon under DoD’s category of “COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION” begins almost 15 years ago.
If we look at the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Grants we find when the Department of Defense began issuing grants to ECO-HEALTH ALLIANCE. Eco-Health is owned by Veterinarian, Peter Daszik.
Peter Daszak and Eco-Health Alliance are intertwined with all the players involved in this crime. The DoD, NIH, Fauci’s NIAID, UNC-Chapel Hill, the Wuhan Lab et al. The gain-of-function development of Covid-19 as a bioweapon that went on for almost two decades has Peter Daszak and Anthony Fauci’s names all over it.
Grants Awarded by the Department of Defense to Eco-Health Alliance pertaining to research on Covid-19 bioweapon.
2013… 2014… 2015 Award id HDTRA113C0029 issued in the Amts of $1,371,611.00 $957,145.00 and $103,622.00
2015… 2016 Award id HDTRA115C0041 issued in the Amts of $2,217,037.00 and $2,262.641.00. Both of these payments came under CFDA No. 12.351. Scientific Research – Combating WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
2014… 2015… 2016… 2017… 2018 Award id HDTRA11410029 in the Amts of $992,699.00, $978,784.00, $970,536.00, $996,147.00 and $998,193.00.
2020 Award id HDTRA12010016 in the Amt of $4,912,818.00.
2017… 2018… 2019… 2020 Award id HDTRA11710064 in the Amts of $782,330.00, $2,203,917.00, $1,995,247.00, and $1,509,531.00.
2020 Award id HDTRA12010018 in the Amt of $4,995,106.00
Eco-Health also received grants from the Uniform Services University of the Health Sciences (DoD). This university laboratory is located in Melbourne, Florida under the direction of Dr. Christopher Broder who specializes in infectious diseases.
2020 Award ID HU00012010031 Amt. $1,360,002.00.
2020 Award id HDTRA12010029 Amt. $2,956.309.
Eco-Health was acting as if it were a de facto proprietary of the DoD. But Eco-Health also received millions from the Dept of Health and Human Services HHS, the National Institute of Health, and Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases NIAID. From 2008 to 2020 Peter Daszak’s Eco-Health Alliance received $11,862,575 from these three institutions.
The National Science Foundation also contributed to Eco-Health awarding approximately $1,794,179, between 2010 and 2014.
USAID, known for its proprietary relationship to the CIA, awarded Eco-Health two awards in 2013 and 2016. Both awards came under ID AID486A1300005. The first award was for $1,999,203.00 in 2013, and $499,944.00 in 2016.
DHS awarded $2.2 million to Eco-Health Alliance, id 70RSAT18CB0031001 from 2017 to 2019.
Peter Daszak partnered with Anthony Fauci to facilitate the development of the coronavirus and to an even greater degree the mRNA. Because that too was how the money would come from the government. In 2017 Daszak explained it to a medical science magazine this way, “We need to increase public understanding of the need for a medical countermeasure such as a pan coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process. That countermeasure turned out to be the mRNA that Pfizer and Moderna had been unsuccessfully working on for two decades. The mRNA for covid was never patented and for good reason. It too is a killer!
Coronaviruses are endemic among some animal populations like dogs or bats. Patents cannot be issued on a thing that is from nature. Only work involving synthetic research is allowed a patent. It makes all the stories we’ve heard out to be patently false. The coronavirus that became Covid-19 was laboriously manufactured in US laboratories. Most likely the finished product came from the lab on the campus of UNC-Chapel Hill. The gain-of-function research at UNC-Chapel Hill was under the direction of Ralph Baric. Remdesivir was also produced in Baric’s lab.
While Ralph Baric denies he created a supervirus, he believes such research is essential to the development of vaccines and other countermeasures against emerging viruses, a project he has been engaged in for more than 20 years. That work has made him the country’s foremost expert on coronaviruses, and his high-security UNC lab has been a center of the US response to the pandemic, testing numerous drug candidates for other labs that lack the biosafety clearance or the expertise. Yet that did little to quell questions about the role Baric’s research may have played in furthering scientists’ ability to modify coronaviruses in potentially dangerous ways. Such questions have dogged Baric since 2014, when he became the reluctant spokesperson for gain-of-function research after the NIH declared a moratorium on such experiments until their safety could be assessed, temporarily halting his work.
Baric said his work with the Wuhan lab was minimal. Records show that is not true. Work at his lab by Chinese researchers from Wuhan’s Institute of Virology began in 2016 and continued right up to 2020. Bats from China were brought to the UNC lab for use in gain-of-function research.
Gain-of-function research in which scientists engineer new properties into existing viruses took place in several US labs including Ralph Baric’s. But Baric refuses to call it gain-of-function. He released a statement clarifying that according to the NIH, the research in question did not qualify as gain-of-function.
Call it what he will, the DoD thought it important enough to provide Baric’s lab millions of tax dollars that would result in creating a bioweapon. But after the virus was released in Wuhan, all fingers pointed at China and the Wuhan virology lab. While in the United States, there was almost complete silence about what had been going on for two decades in US laboratories. Tens of millions were spent on coronavirus research in the US over the past two decades leaving a paper trail a mile long and a money trail even longer. It’s not hard to surmise that something important was being worked on. As it turns out it was a bioweapon.
After being released the bioweapon Covid-19 did in effect destabilize and depopulate nations, including our own. Therefore we must assume that it was the intent of those involved to use the bioweapon to achieve the same objective but for different reasons.
As governments were bum-rushed into locking down their people while spending billions on the mRNA jab, it served three purposes. It facilitated Big Pharma’s bank accounts with billions of profits from federal governments around the world purchasing the mRNA vaccine. Second, it gave license to federal and state governments to abort civil liberties and the US Constitution and enact population control without so much as declaring Martial Law. And thirdly, it satisfied private donors like the Bill and Melinda Gates and Rockefeller Bros Foundations, who each gave millions towards Covid-19’s development because it would contribute to depopulation.
The final chapter of this story hasn’t been written yet because those responsible for this crime against humanity haven’t been brought to justice. But for justice to prevail the population must demand it. If the true story behind this tragedy ever escapes the darkness of suppression, watch out!
In a move that defies all regulatory convention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for the use of Veklury® (remdesivir) in COVID-19 patients with severe renal impairment, including those on dialysis. With this approval, Veklury is now the first and only approved antiviral COVID-19 treatment that can be used across all stages of renal disease but has no efficacy data to support its administration.
The phase 3 REDPINE trial failed to recruit sufficient subjects to assess efficacy. Instead of properly rejecting the application, the FDA went ahead and approved the drug with insufficient safety and efficacy data. The drug has struggled in recent years as patients commonly decline the antiviral since the November, 2020, WHO warning against inpatient use. Remdesivir can cause both kidney injury and liver damage, thus with no mortality benefit, many believe it should not be used.
The FDA approval action defies logic and will be added to a long list of acts that will be considered malfeasance and will be up for review when the commissioner and agency is finally called to justice.
As studies have pointed to the potential for Pfizer’s COVID shot to down regulate recipient’s immune systems, we look at pneumonia through that lens and find possible evidence of a problem. Plus, a new case study may be the first to demonstrate ‘turbo cancer’ after a Pfizer booster in a mouse model.
A new unredacted email from Fauci sees the former NIAID head admitting to gain-of-function research in Wuhan. What about other biosafety labs around the world? The media is now in fear mode over a new tick-borne illness being called the ‘greatest public health threat.’ Does this have lab-tinkering fingerprints on it?
Ukraine’s drone attack on the Kerch Bridge was most likely planned by former British military intelligence agents who signed a contract with Kiev in 2022, the independent outlet Grayzone has reported citing leaked documents.
A “cabal of British military-intelligence freelancers” led by Chris Donnelly has worked with the Odessa office of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) since April last year, Grayzone said in a report published Wednesday evening. The outlet had published leaked documents proving their partnership in October 2022, after the first attack on the Crimean Bridge.
“A review of leaked files previously revealed by The Grayzone provides a solid basis for again blaming Donnelly’s cabal,” the outlet noted in reference to Monday’s drone attack that killed two civilians and orphaned a 14-year-old girl.
Donnelly is described as “a senior intelligence operative and former high ranking NATO advisor.” He is allegedly using a “transnational nexus” involving companies such as Prevail Partners and Thomas in Winslow, to manage “London’s contribution to the proxy war at arm’s length.”
The two companies signed a “technical support” agreement with the Odessa branch of the SBU in April 2022, according to Grayzone, which included the use of surveillance drones to “monitor coastline and Russian movement” and access to satellite imagery to assist military and black operations.
A “geospatial intelligence” specialist at Prevail provided the SBU with a presentation titled “Kerch Bridge info pack,” which laid out various plans to blow up the bridge built in 2018 to connect Crimea to the Krasnodar Region on the Russian mainland.
“One speculative plot involved detonating a vessel containing ammonia nitrate directly under the bridge,” according to Grayzone. The proposal “approvingly cited as an example to emulate” the August 2020 explosion in Beirut, which killed at least 214 people and devastated the Lebanese capital.
According to Grayzone, the British advisers have also provided Kiev with assistance in targeting alleged “Russian collaborators” in territories under Ukraine’s control. Anton Gerashchenko, an advisor to the Ukrainian Interior Ministry, boasted to Western media in October 2022 that intelligence services were “shooting them like pigs.”
Prior to my vaccine injury I’d had short-lived dalliances with The Fear. For instance when I found a lump in my breast I called my GP surgery and they arranged a same-day appointment. The GP I saw was very kind. He confirmed that I did indeed have a lump, that he would refer me for an urgent appointment, and that I would be seen very quickly, so to try not to worry. He took it very seriously and I felt safe that the NHS would do whatever was needed to help me.
After a few nerve-racking days of waiting, my referral came through for the same week and I had a scan, and was told during my appointment that the lump was a cyst. Phew!
In the weird twilight zone between finding the lump and being told it was benign, the fear of dying reared its ugly head, but it was only for a short window, so I managed to keep it at bay by focusing on the next step in the reassuringly proactive clinical pathway.
Since my vaccine injury, fear of dying has become a more regular feature of my life. It’s always waiting in the wings, ready to pounce when I go downhill, or new research shows more information about the havoc that the spike protein can wreak, or I have terrifying symptoms (the heart symptoms are particularly frightening and I have thought I was a goner more than once).
I can’t hold the fear at bay for a short time until I get test results, like when I found the lump, because there are no tests to alleviate my fears. There is no ‘two-week wait’; in fact there is no clinical pathway for vaccine injury. There are no specialists keen to support me to get to the bottom of my complex multi-system issues (more than 50 symptoms) and find a way to cure me; there is no one and nothing to reassure me that it will be ok.
The medical safety net of our health service that has caught me so many times throughout my life is not in place now that I am vaccine-injured.
My experience has been the opposite of feeling safe. I have been gaslit, lied to, shouted at abusively. Some people don’t believe/acknowledge that vaccine injury is a phenomenon. And the caring specialists are limited in how much they can help because it’s novel: the research and equipment are not in place yet for them to test, diagnose and treat me. I’ve lost trust in medication, after all Big Pharma is the reason I got injured, and their unwillingness to acknowledge vaccine injury is the reason we’ve suffered so much abuse and continue to struggle to get help. There is no one, and nothing, in place to catch me when I fall.
So in this abyss that is being vaccine-injured, I’ve learned to co-exist with the fear. Instead of keeping it at bay, whenever I am strong enough, I face up to it. I have written letters to my husband and son, updated my will, and told my closest friends that I love them. I joined a wonderful group of other vaccine-injured, and I research ways to help myself. I acknowledge that we all die some time, and I allow myself to be scared. I’ve learned that I’m not scared for me, even though I love my life, especially the people; I am scared for my son who needs his mum.
I also feel angry. For the way we have been knowingly abandoned to fend for ourselves, and for the abuse we receive from both the pro- and anti-vaxxers (we don’t please either camp! Anti think we’re covidiots and pro think we’re liars, and both can be quick to tell us!)
But also, when I’m not too foggy, I try to take more notice, to feel more, to cherish and be grateful more, to be kinder, to appreciate the few wonderful specialists who care to do what little they can to understand our issues more, to empathise with other injured, to recognise the kind souls who empathise with us, and I now see the world in colours and detail that I never saw before. It has also helped me to realise what really matters to me; put things in perspective. On the better days, I can see these things as a gift; at these times the fear doesn’t have control of me.
My son recently told me he’s scared I’m going to die from my injury – he asked me outright. I was honest as always. I said ‘Everyone dies at some point; some know for a long time that they’re ill, and some die suddenly. I don’t know when that time will be for me, but I can promise you that I am doing absolutely everything I can to get better, and I always will, so I can be with you as long as possible (he’s young enough to still want to be with his mum lol). And while we are together let’s always try to make the best of it, have the most fun we can!’
Take that, The Fear.
For anyone similarly affected, the support group UK CV Family https://www.ukcvfamily.org/about works hard to help and be a voice for the Covid Vaccine injured
The Biden administration has suspended federal funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) after the lab failed to provide documents about safety and security measures, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo (unavailable on the agency’s website) obtained by Bloomberg News.
The leaked correspondence also revealed that Fauci colluded with the authors of “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” (“Proximal Origin”), a scientific article that concluded SARS-CoV-2 was “not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
An HHS spokesperson told CNN the suspension of funding “aims to ensure that WIV does not receive another dollar of federal funding. … The move was undertaken due to WIV’s failure to provide documentation on WIV’s research requested by NIH related to concerns that WIV violated NIH’s biosafety protocols.”
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender, “The Biden administration appears to be grandstanding and is not sincere about shutting down dangerous bat coronavirus research.”
For example, in November 2021, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which operates under the NIH, released a grant to Peter Daszak, Ph.D., and the EcoHealth Alliance to conduct bat coronavirus research in conjunction with Duke University in Singapore.
“Daszak is part of a bio-pharmaceutical complex and aspires to develop a portfolio of bat coronavirus strains as potential biological threats paired with countermeasures including vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and therapeutics,” McCullough said. “The biological threat and defense industry funded by U.S. agencies is very dangerous and putting the world at risk for another pandemic.”
Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., a longtime critic of gain-of-function research, said the Biden administration’s decision “is a step forward toward acknowledging that COVID-19 likely originated from U.S.-funded gain-of-function research at WIV and toward taking steps toward preventing a future lab-generated pandemic.”
However, he said, the step is still “insufficient.”
“EcoHealth Alliance, WIV’s collaborator and contractor and funding cut-out for the reckless research that likely caused COVID-19, receives more than $58 million in U.S. government grants and contracts,” Ebright said. “But the Biden administration did not suspend EcoHealth from receiving government funding or recommend EcoHealth for disbarment from receiving government funding.”
Ebright also criticized the Biden administration for failing to hold Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins accountable for funding gain-of-function research at WIV in violation of a federal moratorium (2014-2106) and in violation of the requirement for HHS-level risk-benefit assessment in 2017-2019 — and then “lying about it.”
According to Ebright, Biden “did not move forward, even an inch, toward banning gain-of-function research and strengthening U.S. government oversight of biosafety [and] biosecurity.”
Fauci’s NIAID was NIH’s top issuer of grants to Wuhan lab
According to Bloomberg News, the WIV received more than $1.4 million in federal awards, including through subgrants from the NIH, since 2014. This included $826,277 to the WIV for controversial bat coronavirus research by the NIAID, which until December 2022, was led by Fauci.
NIH records showed an FBI “inquiry” into this work and concern on the part of NIAID about gain-of-function research at the WIV in 2016.
NIH records also include an email from the vice director of the WIV asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for the decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert and professor of international law at the University of Illinois who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender :
“The Wuhan BSL4 [biosafety level-4 lab] is China’s Fort Detrick. No agency of the United States government should have been funding any activity there for any reason.
“This is a classic Nixonian limited hangout by the Biden administration. COVID-19 is an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain-of-function properties that leaked out of the Wuhan BSL4 that was developed in cooperation with the University of North Carolina BSL3.”
“That project should have never been funded by NIAID, NIH, and USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development] in the first place,” Boyle said, adding that “there should be no cooperation” between U.S. government agencies, scientific and educational institutions, companies and nationals with “Chinese biowarriors at the Wuhan BSL4.”
Such alliances would only serve to provide China “with even more deadly instruments of biological warfare than COVID-19,” such as a “gain-of-function/MERS [Middle East Respiratory Syndrome] bioweapon with an over 33% lethality rate.”
Children’s Health Defense founder and Chairman on Leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has written a book on the U.S. government’s role in funding and concealing evidence of gain-of-function research at the WIV. “The Wuhan Cover-Up: How US Health Officials Conspired with the Chinese Military to Hide the Origins of COVID-19,” is now available for pre-order.
In 2000, Mohammed Yousef Hamoud – one of the most wanted ‘terrorists’ in the United States – was arrested while living in Charlotte, North Carolina, based on allegations that he sent a $3,500 check to the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah, an allegation for which no actual evidence was presented.
Based on testimony from a single questionable witness, an American prosecutor accused Hamoud of leading a Hezbollah cell in Charlotte, and declared him to be one of the most dangerous ‘terrorists’ in the world.
The prosecutor, Ken Bell, who acknowledged that a successful prosecution of Hamoud would be the “case of a lifetime” for advancing his own career, successfully garnered a sentence of 155 years in prison for Hamoud. The jury voted to convict Hamoud amid the anti-Muslim bigotry and paranoia that swept through the United States following the September 11 attacks.
Years later, the sentence was reduced to 30 years, and Hamoud was finally released 3 years early and allowed to return to his family and friends in Lebanon.
Now 49, Hamoud was forced to spend more than half his life in prison without cause. But defying all odds, he obtained degrees in business management and psychology while also studying law to provide advice to his fellow inmates.
Below is an interview conducted by The Cradle with Mohammed Yousef Hamoud, after he was released from a US maximum security prison two months ago from serving a 27-year sentence on charges of providing “material support” to a terrorist organization. The interview took place at his brother’s home in the southern Lebanese town of Srebbine, originally Hamoud’s hometown.
The Cradle: As you were growing up in Lebanon, what were your political views?
Hamoud: Just like everyone growing up here, I was with the resistance and against occupation. I was pro-liberation and against poverty, and mainly the people with those views were Hezbollah, so I was supporting Hezbollah basically.
The Cradle: You said in a previous interview that you were the first Muslim to be convicted in the United States following the September 11 attacks. Do you feel this influenced the sentence that was issued against you?
Hamoud: Absolutely. I was the first Muslim after September 11 to go to trial. And I was the first Muslim in United States history to be tried under the law [passed in 1996] regarding providing material support [to a terrorist group]. Prior to me there was no blueprint on how to prosecute someone under that law. I was the first one, and the judge acknowledged those two things in his decision when he released me.
The Cradle: Of all the charges leveled against you, do you maintain your innocence against all of them?
Hamoud: No, actually. I did admit in court that from 1996 to 1998, I did sell cigarettes, and I did not pay the federal taxes during those years. And I did not fight those charges in court. I said am guilty of those, but as I said, the federal government acknowledged if it wasn’t for [the charges regarding] Hezbollah, I wouldn’t be there. The government was misinformed apparently, because [even though] the prosecutor had given a press conference announcing that he had arrested a Hezbollah cell in North Carolina, and I was its leader, years later, he did not find a single piece of evidence to show I sent money to Hezbollah.
But he wasn’t about to back off and lose his career because they spent millions of dollars [on prosecuting me]. So, they got this guy named Said Harb [to testify against me]. This guy had a lot of incentive to lie. He was facing decades of time in prison, and the government knew he was desperate to bring his family to the United States. He spent tens of thousands of dollars to bring his family and his dream was about to be fulfilled. So when they gave him that offer to testify against me, Said was the happiest person on earth, you know? So, he was granted his freedom, and he brought 12 members of his family to the United States using American taxpayers’ money.
The Cradle: Did you know Said Harb before he testified against you?
Hamoud: I did. He was one of the [Lebanese] guys who used to live in Charlotte, and from time to time, we used to meet and play soccer together, but he was not my good friend, which is how the government portrayed him. In fact, from 1999 to 2000, as he also admitted to the FBI, he said he was not associating with us. Said’s life went in a completely different direction than my life, and we barely saw each other. I was building my gas station and going to college, and he was doing whatever he was doing for his home, so from 1998 to 1999, we did not see each other much.
The Cradle: Do you feel that where you are from, and your religion, was a factor during your trial?
Hamoud: Definitely. At the time, most of the American people did not know the difference between Muslims. They did not know the difference between Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda. To them, my name is Mohammad, and I am from the Middle East [West Asia], so I’ve got to be a follower of Bin Laden.
And the prosecutor did a great job insinuating to the jury, although indirectly, that I was guilty. The way he structured security in the court, and the way he brought me from the jail to the court, no one could think of me as an innocent person. The government was spending millions of dollars in security. I was transported along with my brother in a motorcade, in an armored truck. The area around the court was like a battlefield. Marshalls [federal police] were everywhere.
To terrify the jury, they were taking them to a secret place, taking them secretly to the court, and giving them numbers. So, if you are a juror in the court, would you think that person is innocent if the government is doing all of this? They closed off downtown streets just because of my case. They put extra metal detectors in the courthouse just because of my case, just to scare and terrify the people and make them think that I was a really serious [dangerous] guy.
The Cradle: At one point you were considered one of the most wanted ‘terrorists’ in the United States.
Hamoud: Yes, that’s the way one of the magazines, Reader’s Digest, described me, as one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists. Before going through this ordeal, my impression of the American media was it was the most honest in the world. But I found out it’s fake, I mean some stuff they exaggerated so much just to portray me as a real terrorist who deserved to spend his entire life in prison.
The Cradle: While the media was writing this way about you, did they ever approach you and try to speak with you directly?
Hamoud: No, they were just reporting from the government’s perspective. The only one that approached me was Fox News, but the prison would not allow them to come. So my voice was never heard in the American media.
The Cradle: You said that the only piece of evidence they had against you was that you sent $1,300 to the office of Sayyed Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, who is known as the spiritual mentor of Hezbollah. (Fadlallah was a spiritual mentor of millions of Shia around the world, not to Hezbollah members, who generally follow the guidance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei). You say that money was for your family?
I did send that check in 1995, but at the time, it was not illegal to send money to Sayyed Fadlallah. But I was convicted for allegedly sending a check for $3,500 to Hezbollah in 1999. You would imagine a check in 1999 would be much easier to find. Because that guy who said I sent $3,500 to Hezbollah, he said I sent an official check. So here is the irony, why would they find a check in 1995 to Sayyid Fadlallah, but they would not find a $3,500 check in 1999? The answer is very simple, because that check did not exist. The government subpoenaed all my bank documents, all my credit cards, everything. They had thousands and thousands of documents and they could not find this check and yet I was convicted for that check.
Its very interesting what the judge in the 1st District appellate court said in that regard. He said Said Harb was the sole witness against me on that count, and Said Harb was described throughout the trial as a manipulator and a liar who would do anything for his own interest. Those are not my words, those are the words of Judge Gregory of the appellate court. Yes, I was given 155 years based on one person’s word. No evidence, no checks, nothing whatsoever.
The Cradle: So why do you think they targeted you?
Hamoud: That’s interesting. Look, I came from Lebanon during the war, and I never hid my feeling towards Hezbollah and the Islamic resistance in Lebanon. And as I mentioned earlier, I really did believe there was freedom in the United States. So I was more active in speaking about the resistance. I was born in Bourj al-Barajneh, and I grew up there, so all my friends and people I interacted with were from that area and were pro-resistance. But I spoke about it more than anyone else, and I ended up with those charges.
The Cradle: You were sentenced to 155 years in prison. When you heard that sentence, what went through your mind?
Hamoud: The first thing that came to my mind was my mother, because she really struggled so much and cried so much so that she could have me in a peaceful place [away from the war in Lebanon]. And now I was thinking, “Look what happened to me. I left the war, I left everything to live in peace, and now I’m going to spend the rest of my life in prison.” But God always gave me hope in my heart, and that kept me alive.
The Cradle: So, how old were you when you were sentenced?
Hamoud: I was arrested when I was 26, so I was sentenced when I was 28.
The Cradle: Today, you are 49, so you spent half of your life in prison. Where were you held?
Hamoud: I went through several prisons but spent most of the time at a prison called CMU (Communication Management Unit), which was built specifically for people who were convicted of things perceived as dealing with national security. CMU breaks basically every single rule that the United States claims to uphold. It has all the violations that no one would imagine a prison in the United States would have. There is no recreation yard. We were limited with phone calls, unlike other prisons that gave 500 minutes. We had only 2 calls a week. We had to preschedule them, and if for any reason the prison got locked down, we were not allowed to make them. Mainly there was nothing to do at that place except to sit down and wait for your time.
The Cradle: You are Shia Muslim, and they put you with Al-Qaeda members [who view the Shia as their enemies]. Did you ever protest this decision?
Hamoud: Of course. And that is the hypocrisy of the system. They would not put two rival gangs in the same prison, let alone in the same unit, because they know they’re going to harm each other. Yet they did not care about my safety, they did not care about my life. They put me with people who they know view killing Shia as permissible and sometimes as their duty. So, they [prison authorities] did not care. I protested that, I filed petitions complaining that they were putting my life in jeopardy with people that perceive me as an enemy. I was afraid if Hezbollah killed an ISIS leader, those people would retaliate and kill me. And what’s important too, one ISIS guy killed an older prisoner and tried to cut off his head. He tried to do what ISIS does on the TV, but the guards saw what was happening before he finished with the head and they took him.
The Cradle: How were you treated by prison authorities and the guards?
Hamoud: They claim they treat people the same and they don’t care about peoples’ charges, but in reality, of course, they are human, and they were told I was a terrorist, so they looked at me like a terrorist and some of them would try to not give me my rights. For example, I had a medical skin condition, and they did not treat me for three years, and so I feel I was tortured. I complained to officials all the way to Washington, and nobody cared.
The Cradle: How did the other prisoners treat you? Since you were being treated in the media as one of the world’s most dangerous men?
Hamoud: Well, thanks to the fabricated media in the United States, which portrayed me as a dangerous person that is well connected, that gave me respect from the prisoners because no one tried to mess with me, and they were scared of me. With the guards, it depended on the guards. Some of them gave me respect, knowing what my charges were, while some of them hated Muslims, and they would try to annoy me, feeling it was their duty.
The Cradle: You were released about two months ago. When did you find out you were going to be released?
Hamoud: When the judge granted a hearing after we filed for a compassionate release based on the disparity between my sentence and the sentences of defendants who had a similar situation to mine. I was optimistic that something good was going to come because usually, the judge always ruled against me, but for the judge to now grant me a hearing was something special, so I was waiting for it.
I was in the recreation yard working out when the case manager called me. When she told me I had to go to her office, I immediately knew I would get good news, and indeed it was. She told me to pack my stuff because I would be leaving. That was November 30, 2022. I then went to immigration detention for almost six months before finally coming home to Lebanon.
The Cradle: Do you think your release was politically motivated? Recently the US and Iran have been involved in nuclear talks and have discussed prisoner releases.
Hamoud: It has nothing to do with politics. The judge only reduced my sentence by three years because I have time for good conduct. It has nothing to do with politics, it was a judge’s opinion after all those years, he decided to do the right thing. If you look at the judge’s decision when he released me compared to the one he issued when he gave me 30 years, you would think he is speaking about two totally different people. When he ordered my release, he described me as a peaceful person, versus the last time I went to see him, he said I should spend more time in prison because I am still dangerous to US national security.
The Cradle: While you were in prison, were you approached with offers to reduce your sentence in exchange for something?
Hamoud: Before my trial, I was approached, but the prosecutor insisted I had to give him names of Hezbollah operatives in the United States. I told him I don’t know anyone. Either he did not believe me, or he did not want to believe me. My lawyer told me, “Look, he will never give you a settlement or a good plea deal unless you give him a name, because he wants to show the media that he got something.” I told my lawyer, “I left Lebanon when I was 18, do you really believe Hezbollah is going to trust me with information about the United States?” So, the prosecutor sent me a message through my attorney that if I don’t have anything for him, I will never see the streets again. And that was his word, and he tried hard to make that happen in the trial.
The Cradle: If today, someone you know tells you they want to emigrate to the United States, what would you tell them?
Hamoud: I would tell them, if you want to go there, don’t imagine you are living in freedom. Imagine yourself in a country that persecutes people. So, if you go there, just behave. Yes, you have the freedom to go with girls and party, but when it comes to politics and your religion, you’re going to be under surveillance just because of your belief, especially if you are Muslim.
The Cradle: During the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, how were you following it?
Hamoud: I was reading the newspaper and following events on CNN. Of course, it was a very hard time because all of my family live in Beirut, and Israel was bombing everywhere. So, I was in a very bad situation, trying to make phone calls, and the calls were very expensive, each minute cost a dollar, but I got through it.
The Cradle: What are your plans now?
Hamoud: I am working now on my memoir, which I’m almost finished with. Hopefully, I’ll be able to publish it soon in English. After that I’ll see, I haven’t decided what to do.
The Cradle: Are you with Hezbollah now?
Hamoud: I am still not a member of Hezbollah, but as I said, I do support Hezbollah. These are basically my people, you know. I would love to support Hezbollah with everything that I could because, as I said you know, I believe in their cause, I believe they are heroes. They liberated my country. If it wasn’t for them, we probably couldn’t have this interview because ISIS or Israel would be here [in Lebanon].
The Cradle: While you were in prison, how was your family? Did Hezbollah ever approach them since you were in jail for allegedly being connected to them?
Hamoud: As far as I know, Hezbollah declared from the first day that I was not a member, just like I did. When I first left Lebanon, Hezbollah did not know I was leaving. Because I felt embarrassed to leave Lebanon when people who were my age were going to support my country and defend my country. So I felt like I was betraying everything I believed in. But I was in a tough situation because, on the one hand, my mother was crying all the time and wanted me to be away from Lebanon, and on the other hand, I believed in my cause and that I should defend my country. In the end, I said I can go to the United States. I can support the poor and orphans, I can support my people instead of carrying arms.
The Cradle: So you believed you could support the cause by sending money home? Because this is common among emigrants.
Hamoud: I do not believe that Hezbollah needs my $100, because, according to the CIA, Hezbollah receives over $500 million dollars a year. So to me, I would just send it to my mom, and just tell her, to give it to people who are around you, who are poor or orphans, to anyone who needs it, but not to Hezbollah.
Finally, I would like to mention my attorney, because after all those years in prison, I saw two faces of the justice system. One face was presented by the prosecutor, Ken Bell, who did everything to make a name for himself at the expense of me and my family, despite claiming to be seeking justice, because, as a prosecutor, he’s supposed to seek justice, not just convictions. He didn’t care about everything he swore to uphold, he just cared about getting a conviction so he could destroy my life and make a name for himself.
And another face I saw presented in the United States justice system was of a person named Jim McLaughlin, who represented me through all those years and who helped me with everything I needed, and treated me very kindly. He volunteered to work on my case, and we keep in touch still. He is one of the great American people. So now, when I think about the United States, I like to think about Jim McLaughlin, not Ken Bell, the person who oppressed me and prosecuted me just because he could.
“Today’s threat to our national security is not a matter of military weapons alone. We know of new methods of attack. The Trojan Horse. The Fifth Column that betrays a nation unprepared for treachery.”
Such were the remarks from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s fireside chat on May 26, 1940. Roosevelt’s sentiments captured and propagated a growing sense of fear and paranoia that the United States was entering a covert war with a hostile foreign power. These sentiments, coupled with the steps taken by the United States government to fight them, are strikingly similar to those of today. With Vladimir Putin as a stand-in for Hitler and MAGA for the alleged rising presence of domestic fascism, supporters of the foreign policy status quo are mobilizing a version of history to frame current dissent as beyond the pale and to justify their extraordinary steps to curtail it.
As they had during the Great War, the United States government and American interventionists preceded official entry into World War II with a concerted effort to convince Americans of the need to aid the Allies. This push to move foreign policy opinion accompanied a growing panic concerning domestic extremism, particularly on the Right, in what historian Leo Ribuffo called “the Brown Scare.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was among the institutions that perpetuated the scare and constricted American foreign policy opinion. During the height of the “Great Debate” concerning American entry into the Second World War, the White House used the FBI as a means to surveil and gather political intelligence. The FBI’s authority to conduct these operations stemmed from a 1936 directive in which FDR formally granted the bureau the power to monitor “subversive activities,” primarily the presence of explicitly illiberal organizations like the German American Bund. The fear of domestic extremism, coupled with the domestic security demands of the Second World War, proved a boon to the FBI and the career of its director, J. Edgar Hoover. From 1933 through the end of World War II, the FBI’s budget grew 16-fold and its number of agents rose from 266 to around 5,000. With the outbreak of war in Europe, and the ensuing foreign policy debate in the United States, the FBI’s writ to monitor “subversive” organizations was extended to noninterventionist groups, chiefly, the America First Committee (AFC).
To achieve its mission to monitor the AFC and its leadership, principally Charles Lindbergh, the FBI employed its usual litany of odious and often extralegal collection techniques, including wiretaps, break-ins, and bugging. The entirety of the FBI’s surveillance campaign against the AFC was done without a criminal predicate, and was, therefore, illegal. In addition to the FBI’s assortment of black-bag techniques, the bureau also attended AFC meetings, gathered their materials, and collected public and often derogatory information on members and leadership. Among the information collected during the FBI’s campaign was some of the non-interventionist Senator Gerald Nye’s correspondence, collected incidentally during an illegal wiretap in the execution of another and eventually unfounded investigation. Knowledge gathered by the FBI, either fair or foul, revealed nothing legally actionable but did provide the Roosevelt administration and its allies in Congress with information it would not have otherwise obtained.
Throughout 1941, FBI headquarters and field offices received reports from private citizens in which they offered up gossip, commentary, and concerns about the America First Committee, its members, and its activities. Letters to J. Edgar Hoover and other government officials, located within the FBI files on the AFC, revealed that numerous Americans voluntarily participated in the FBI’s domestic surveillance and legitimately believed that non-interventionism presented an existential threat to the nation and advocated for authoritarian measures to address the presence of the alleged internal threat.
In a letter addressed to President Roosevelt, one such correspondent from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania wrote, “I therefore implore you, or have someone In Washington, try to break this rotten [America First Committee]” and added that “a Democracy should not permit traitors to go on and on and on causing more disunion.” Similarly-minded individuals who wrote to the FBI saw the AFC as an enemy within and opined on possible solutions to this “fifth column.” One concerned citizen floated the idea of sending AFC’s leadership “to concentration camps, or some place [sic] where they could do no more harm.” In a letter dated from June 10, 1941, a full seven months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, another correspondent agreed with such sentiment. Its author complained that the FBI was unwilling to find all the “subversive individuals,” i.e., antiwar activists, and “round them all up.” Not content with mere extrajudicial imprisonment, still, another writer to the FBI lamented that America was too lenient with the America Firsters to do what other countries, “big or small,” do with their “traitors,” and put them “against the wall.”
While other correspondents with the FBI were considerably less authoritarian in their desires, they willfully offered up information to the bureau. These voluntary assets delivered the names and addresses of AFC members, forwarded AFC materials, circulated anti-AFC propaganda, and provided their assessments of individuals’ motivations and assumed links to Nazi Germany. These citizen spies made note of America Firsters’ views on FDR, his foreign policy, the location of new chapters, speculated on the presence of draft-dodgers within these chapters, and the ethnic makeup and presence of foreign accents at AFC events.
Correspondents also ratted out their neighbors and coworkers to the FBI, treating membership in the AFC akin to membership in a spy ring. One correspondent from Staten Island was appalled that AFC members showed disdain for FDR and his foreign policy. They noted that “a woman with a decided [sic] German accent” made the galling suggestion that FDR “should be impeached [underlined in original].” They went on to note that they were stunned into silence and dared not defend the honor of the president as they were “spotted” by “3 tough men.” Implicit within this correspondent’s letter, as with others, was the view that merely disagreeing with the president was worthy of suspicion.
The information citizens gave amounted to little more than gossip, generating more paperwork than leads. Despite the FBI’s failure, these acts of surveillance, including writing the FBI, matched with the official writ of the bureau and the often-glowing responses from government officials helped to sustain fear among the American populace. Correspondents, be they regular people or members of Congress, sought and received validation for their paranoia and thereby sustained a domestic panic that curtailed legitimate foreign policy debate; as historians Douglas M. Charles and John P. Rossi wrote, the FBI’s efforts, even if indirectly, “successfully defined the parameter of what was permissible in public debate and cautioned those who would oppose government policy.” Combined with those of the British government and (nominally) private actors, the FBI’s energies successfully collapsed the Overton Window. They created a useable (and mythic) history that has served the foreign policy consensus for decades.
Despite the FBI’s best efforts, their agents found no evidence of illegal activity or overseas connections, or unlawful funding activity within the America First Committee. From the perspective of the White House, the FBI’s efforts, at best, provided them with political information that gave it an edge in public debate. The FBI’s collection also served as a means of distributing information on AFC and other non-interventionists to friendly members of Congress. Despite failing to create a legal mechanism to silence the America Firsters, the FBI’s surveillance campaign succeeded in one area; it helped to sustain an environment of fear that successfully branded non-interventionism as a subversive activity worthy of opprobrium and suspicion.
The United States did not look over the brink into the chasm of domestic fascism in the waning days of American neutrality, and moral considerations of entering the war aside, the United States was never under military or covert threat from the Nazi regime. Nor did their avatars within the German American Bund, or its fellow travelers like the Silver Shirts—however odious their presence—constitute a threat to the American republic. However, the United States took its first giant steps into imperium overseas, and it implemented a form of soft authoritarianism within its borders that lasted long after the end of the Second World War.
The federal government repurposed the powers, personnel, and legal techniques granted to the FBI during World War II against left-wing targets. The postwar growth of the security state, coupled with the normalization of corporatism (banally referred to as “private-public partnerships”) and an aggressive overseas foreign policy, bear many of the characteristics of the dreaded F word. Yet an AFC member with controversial views of FDR did not implement these transformations to American society. These changes were wrought by the federal government, bolstered by the opinions of the redacted correspondents who longed to imprison or execute their political opponents, all in the name of fighting fascism.
Yet, the image of the AFC as an inherently subversive organization has resurfaced in recent years. Despite the dispositive findings of the FBI and decades of scholarship from credentialed academics, the Brown Scare has returned to (liberal) American consciousness. Recent academic work like Susan Dunn’s 1940, Bradley W. Hart’s Hitler’s American Friends, Sarah Churchwell’s Behold America as well as Rachel Maddow’s pop history podcast Ultra, and the novel and HBO miniseries The Plot Against America have all resurrected the Brown Scare and view American non-interventionism as a subversive activity, one either essentially embedded within, or suspiciously adjacent to American fascism.
With the postwar American order under strain overseas and losing legitimacy within the minds of a growing number of Americans, consensus tastemakers have remobilized the image of America, teetering on the edge of fascist tyranny in the late 1930s to buttress policy objectives in a post-2016 world. In doing so, they not only repackage a long-debunked version of the past, but they obscure the civil rights abuses of yesteryear to legitimatize government efforts to censor speech or undermine associations deemed threatening to the regime in the present. As in the past, supporters of current American foreign policy, either earnestly or cynically, compare their domestic opponents to agents of outside hostile actors. Meanwhile, the federal government, yet again, has inserted itself into the domestic foreign policy debate, monitored antiwar activists, and allegedly suppressed online speech on behalf of a foreign power.
History is repeating, just not in the manner portrayed in the pages of TheNew York Times or on the programming of MSNBC.
Former Ukrainian government official and diplomat Andrii Telizhenko joins Aaron Maté to discuss how, in his view, powerful US figures including Joe Biden have used Ukraine for personal corruption and the geopolitical aim of bleeding Russia — all to the detriment of Ukrainians.
Telizhenko worked for the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office in Kyiv before moving to Ukraine’s US Embassy in 2015. He went on to work for Blue Star Strategies, a Democrat-run lobbying firm that represented Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company that appointed Biden’s son Hunter to a lucrative board seat.
Telizhenko, who cooperated with Rudy Giuliani’s effort to dig up information about the Bidens’ alleged corruption in Ukraine, has been sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for “having directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign influence in a United States election.”
Guest: Andrii Telizhenko. Political consultant who was previously a Ukrainian government official and diplomat.
By GARETH PORTER | CounterPunch | February 27, 2013
“Going to Tehran” arguably represents the most important work on the subject of U.S.-Iran relations to be published thus far.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett tackle not only U.S. policy toward Iran but the broader context of Middle East policy with a systematic analytical perspective informed by personal experience, as well as very extensive documentation.
More importantly, however, their exposé required a degree of courage that may be unparalleled in the writing of former U.S. national security officials about issues on which they worked. They have chosen not just to criticise U.S. policy toward Iran but to analyse that policy as a problem of U.S. hegemony. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 