British and French invaders exit from Crimea in defeat
By Drago Bosnic | March 24, 2023
One of the most self-defeating and yet inexplicably persistent mistakes Russia’s enemies have been making for over a thousand years is underestimating it. Regardless of the direction the invasion was coming from, Moscow was able to prevail each time. Its ability to not just successfully defend itself, but also counterattack and reach the opponent’s heartland has been unmatched in modern history. And yet, the myth of Russia’s supposed perpetual decline and dilapidation is an incessant propaganda trope used by its enemies for centuries. None of it ever came true, despite all the grim predictions, which are still being parroted to this very day and are unlikely to go away any time soon, especially nowadays, when the political West needs to keep its populace under the illusion that Moscow is supposedly “losing”.
We often hear that Russia is no more than a regional power with an economy the size of Spain’s, a military budget that has been consistently smaller than the Saudi one, etc. And indeed, on paper, this may seem true. Taking into account nominal GDP as the only measure of success and power, one might fall into the trap of believing such statistics. However, the reality is quite different. All one needs to do is ask just a few logical questions. Could the Spanish economy ever withstand the sanctions imposed on Russia, let alone grow and outperform those enforcing them? Is the Spanish economy a key global supplier of vital commodities such as food, oil, natural gas, various types of heavy machinery, crucial chemical products (such as fertilizers), enriched uranium for nuclear power plants, etc?
And yet, perhaps the most “inexplicable” segment of Russia’s resilience is its military power, particularly the cost-effectiveness of its forces, both on a tactical and strategic level. In 2021, Russia officially spent $65 billion on defense. For comparison, NATO spent close to $1.2 trillion. If we add other key US vassals such as Japan, Australia and South Korea, that figure is close to $1.4 trillion, meaning that the political West spends approximately 22 times more than Russia. So, is “global” NATO 22 times more powerful than Russia? The notion is even more ludicrous if we take into account that Moscow actually outproduces NATO in terms of air defense missiles, artillery shells and other munitions, while also maintaining a strategic arsenal greater and more powerful than that of the political West, combined.
This is without considering Russia’s absolute dominance in key technologies such as hypersonic weapons, with no NATO/Western countries deploying a single operational missile of that type and with no prospects of doing so before 2025 (or beyond). There are other aspects such as Moscow being able to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously, including in Syria, another US/NATO invasion ever so euphemistically dubbed the “Syrian Civil War”, where the Pentagon keeps complaining that its forces there are essentially powerless to stop Russia. This discrepancy in official figures is even more pronounced in Ukraine, where the political West spent approximately $120 billion in little more than a year, which is nearly twice as much as Moscow’s entire annual military budget and approximately 25 times more than what Russia has allocated for the special military operation.
And yet, the Kiev regime forces are suffering staggering losses at a rate of nearly 9:1 in Russia’s favor. Worse yet, Russian forces have consistently been outnumbered 2:1 for over a year now, all the while conducting offensive operations in multiple directions simultaneously. It should also be noted that several former high-ranking US/NATO officers have pointed out that the Neo-Nazi junta forces would be among the top three NATO military powers had the Kiev regime been admitted into the belligerent alliance. Given their performance against the Russian military, while having a massive numerical advantage and NATO providing all the targeting data, as well as getting up to 25 times more funding than the Russian forces deployed on the frontlines, should we be surprised by the panic at the Pentagon?
John Kirby, Spokesman for the National Security Council and a former US admiral, was recently asked to comment on the Russian pilots being awarded medals for masterfully downing a US MQ-9 “Reaper” drone, to which he stated they were “idiots, at best”. However, when we compare the US handling of the so-called “balloon controversy”, things become a lot clearer. It took the Pentagon approximately a week to use the F-22 “Raptor”, its most expensive fighter jet, and shoot down weather balloons with missiles costing nearly $450,000 each. In addition, the F-22 is infamous for its flight hour of around $85,000, as well as costing approximately $350 million apiece. According to The Guardian, the price of one of its targets was a meager $12. Worse yet, it took at least two missiles for the “Raptor” to down one of the balloons it engaged.
If we were to compare this to Moscow’s interception of the US drone which took part in the Kiev regime’s attacks on Russian soldiers and civilians, the discrepancy becomes even more staggering. As previously mentioned, Russian pilots downed a US MQ-9 (the latest Block 5, costing over $32 million) without firing a single shot in an action that lasted no longer than 30 minutes. It should also be noted that the Su-27s they were flying cost approximately $15 million, with the flight hour being around $15,000. When considering those facts, Mr. Kirby should double-check the definition of the term “idiot” or maybe take a good look in the mirror, “at best”.
This also brings us to a rather amusing episode that happened in Serbia over two decades ago. Namely, two years after the (hopefully) final direct US/NATO attack (on this day 24 years ago) on Serbia at the end of nearly a decade-long aggression, a delegation from the Pentagon visited Belgrade, including the main Serbian aviation museum. During the tour that included showcasing downed American aircraft, a member of the US group arrogantly asked one of the Serbian officers how it felt fighting the most powerful military force in history, to which he replied: “I wouldn’t know. We never fought the Russians.” At the time it seemed like a jest that the Americans didn’t take too kindly. However, over 20 years later, the statement seems like anything but a joke.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
I recently read Lenin’s Tomb, David Remnick’s Pulitzer Prize winning 1993 account of the decay and political collapse of the Soviet Union, and one of the crucial points he emphasized was that Soviet history contained many important “Blank Spots,” deeply suppressed facts or incidents central to the true history of that unfortunate country.
Just as information suppressed by the Soviet authorities had once circulated freely in the West, topics totally banned from today’s Western media are openly discussed in other societies, which possess entirely different taboos.
A few months ago I was contacted by a host for Iranian broadcast television who had decided to feature interviews with a number of Western dissident thinkers, individuals whose controversial views had excluded them from American media outlets. Channel Four of the Iran Broadcasting Corporation is one of that country’s largest, having a potential audience of ten million, and I gladly spent four hours discussing a variety of my topics, while also suggesting a number of other figures who were also interviewed as well.
Thirty-odd segments featuring about a dozen different guests were ultimately recorded, and as they have been aired, they are also being released on a streaming website. About half are now available, including most of my own and those featuring E. Michael Jones, Nick Kollerstrom, Kevin Barrett, and Laurent Guyénot. For more convenient Western access, I had them video-captured and uploaded to a Rumble channel, realizing that many of the taboo topics would immediately trigger a purge on Youtube.
Those of my interviews already broadcast included discussions of the JFK Assassination, the 9/11 Attacks, and the Holocaust, and I was reasonably pleased with how they came out. I’m embedding these video segments below, followed in each case by some of the main articles I had previously published on those particular topics.
The Iraq War was spawned by a deadly combination of political depravity and media complicity. Unfortunately, on the twentieth anniversary of the war, both elements of that conspiracy are being whitewashed. Instead, politicians and their pundit accomplices are prattling as if the Iraq war was a well-intentioned mistake, not a crime against humanity.
In the days after 9/11, when pollsters asked Americans who they thought had carried out the 9/11 attacks, only 3 percent of respondents suggested Iraq or Saddam Hussein as culprits. But President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney worked ceaselessly to convince Americans that Saddam was the 9/11 culprit. Official propaganda trumpeting the Saddam/al-Qaeda link was the linchpin for exploiting 9/11 to justify war. A February 2003 poll found that 72 percent of Americans believed that Saddam was “personally involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shortly before the March 2003 invasion, almost half of all Americans believed that “most” or “some” of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Only 17 percent of respondents knew that none of the hijackers was Iraqi.
In his official notification of invasion sent to Congress (in lieu of a declaration of war) on March 18, 2003, Bush declared that he was attacking Iraq “to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” Bush tied Saddam to 9/11 even though confidential briefings he received informed him that no evidence of any link had been found. Three years after the war started, Bush publicly admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
On March 17, 2003, Bush also justified invading Iraq by invoking UN resolutions purportedly authorizing the U.S. “to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.” In a speech giving Saddam 48 hours to abdicate power, Bush declared, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” In the weeks and months after the fall of Baghdad, Bush repeatedly asserted that U.S. forces had discovered WMDs or that Saddam had weapons programs. “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,” Bush declared to journalists on May 29, 2003. Five weeks later, he again claimed vindication because “we found a biological lab” in a truck trailer. However, CIA investigators concluded that the trailer had nothing to do with an Iraqi WMD program. False claims by the Bush administration on Saddam seeking uranium in Niger sparked an uproar and leaks seeking to destroy the former ambassador who exposed the sham.
In June 2003, Bush repeatedly denounced “revisionist historians” who kept asking about the missing WMDs. In a November 12, 2003 interview with the BBC’s David Frost, Bush declared that he had sent a team to Iraq “to find the weapons or the intent of weapons.” Bush did not reveal how he defined “the intent of weapons.” The following month, Bush told ABC News that the war was justified because there was “the possibility that [Saddam] could acquire weapons.” In January 2004, David Kay—the man Bush chose to head the search for WMDs in Iraq—testified to Congress that “we were almost all wrong,” as far as Iraq possessing WMDs. Kay’s testimony demolished one of the prime pretexts for the war.
Bush responded by portraying the lack of evidence as proof of his courage. On February 8, 2004, Bush justified invading Iraq because Saddam “had the ability to make weapons at the very minimum.” This is like justifying a violent no-knock raid on someone’s house because they could have purchased gunpowder and tin cans.
In a March 2, 2004 speech to Homeland Security Department employees, Bush offered a new justification for invading Iraq: “America will not allow terrorists and outlaw regimes to threaten our Nation and the world with the world’s most dangerous technologies.” The mere suspicion that a nation might have “dangerous technologies” justified devastating their land.
But what did George W. Bush really think? That mystery was solved a few weeks later at the annual Washington dinner for the Radio and Television Correspondents Association.Bush performed a skit featuring slides showing him crawling around the Oval Office peeking behind curtains. Bush quipped to the poohbah attendees: “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere…Nope, no weapons over there… Maybe under here?” The crowd loved it and TheWashington Post headlined its report on the evening: “George Bush, Entertainer in Chief.” Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher, labeled the performance and the press’s reaction that night as “one of the most shameful episodes in the recent history of the American media and presidency.”By the time of Bush’s performance, hundreds of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians had already been killed.
Most of the media had embedded themselves for the Iraq war long before that dinner. The Washington Post buried pre-war articles questioning the Bush team’s shams on Iraq; their award-winning Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks complained, “There was an attitude among editors: ‘Look, we’re going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?’” Instead, before the war started, the Post ran 27 editorials in favor of invasion and 140 front-page articles supporting the Bush administration’s case for attacking Saddam. PBS’s Bill Moyers noted that “of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news, from September 2002 until February 2003, almost all the stories could be traced back to sources from the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department.” Jim Lehrer, the host of government-subsidized PBS Newshour, explained his timidity in 2004: “It would have been difficult to have had debates [about invading Iraq]… you’d have had to have gone against the grain.” Lehrer’s admission did not disgrace him since groveling to officialdom is the job description for Washington journalists.
In his 1971 opinion on the Pentagon Papers case, Justice Hugo Black declared that a free press has “the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.” But during the Iraq War, most of the media preferred to trumpet official lies instead of exposing them.
A 2005 American University survey of hundreds of journalists who covered Iraq concluded: “Many media outlets have self-censored their reporting on the conflict in Iraq because of concern about public reaction to graphic images and details about the war.” Individual journalists commented:
“In general, coverage downplayed civilian casualties and promoted a pro-U.S. viewpoint. No U.S. media show abuses by U.S. military carried out on regular basis.”
“Friendly fire incidents were to show only injured Americans, and no reference made to possible mistakes involving civilians.”
“The real damage of the war on the civilian population was uniformly omitted.”
The media sugarcoated the war and almost always refused to publish photos incriminating the U.S. military. TheWashington Post received a leak of thousands of pages of confidential records on the 2005 massacre at Haditha, including stunning photos taken immediately after Marines killed 24 civilians (mostly women and children). Though the Post headlined its exclusive story, “Marines’ Photos Provide Graphic Evidence inHadithaProbe,” the article noted that “Post editors decided that most of theimages are too graphic to publish.” The Post suppressed the evidence at the same time it continued deferentially reporting official denials that U.S. troops committed atrocities.
In 2007, two Apache helicopters targeted a group of men in Baghdad with 30 mm. cannons and killed kill up to 18 people. Video from the helicopter revealed one helicopter crew “laughing at some of the casualties, all of whom were civilians, including two Reuters journalists.” “Light ’em all up. Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards,” one guy on the recording declared. Army Corporal Chelsea Manning leaked the video to Wikileaks, which disclosed it in 2010. Wikileaks declared on Twitter: “Washington Post had Collateral Murder video for over a year but DID NOT RELEASE IT to the public.” Wikileaks also disclosed thousands of official documents exposing U.S. war crimes and abuses, tacitly damning American media outlets that chose to ignore or shroud atrocities.
In 2007, Fox News talk show host Bill O’Reilly declared that at the beginning of the war in Iraq, “everybody in the country [was] behind it, except the kooks.” The “kooks” included UN weapons inspectors, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and many foreign governments. The “kook” label was also attached to Antiwar.com, The American Conservative, Counterpunch, the Future of Freedom Foundation, and an array of individual journalists who often found closed doors to their submissions.Likewise, the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of protestors who took to the streets of American cities to oppose the war were redefined into a laughingstock.
In his rush to war, President Bush showed boundless bad faith—followed by boundless righteousness after his lies were exposed. By the summer of 2008, only 22 percent of Americans approved of Bush and 41 percent said he was the “worst president ever.” But the same media outlets that championed the Iraq War helped resurrect Bush’s public image a decade later. Bush was exalted like the second coming of George Washington for his slams against the Trump administration. By early 2018,a poll showed that 61 percent of Americans approved of Bush, and his support among Democrats quintupled, from 11 percent in early 2009 to 54 percent now. The key to Bush’s rehabilitation was burying his Iraq War record in the Memory Hole.
The media played the same trick to expunge its own tawdry Iraq record. Four years ago, the Washington Post spent a king’s ransom to produce and run a Super Bowl ad on its “Democracy Dies in the Darkness” motto. At that time, the Post was whipping up RussiaGate hysteria and reaping torrents of new subscribers. The Super Bowl ad, a paean to reporters, declared, “When we go off to war… knowing keeps us free.”
But kowtowing leaves people dead. Twenty years after the start of the Iraq War, President Biden is dragging America deeper into a foreign conflict that could spiral into World War III. Most of the mainstream media is again parroting whatever the U.S. government or its foreign lackeys say about the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Lies are political weapons of mass destruction, obliterating all limits on government power. The Iraq War should have taught Americans not to trust presidents or pundits who seek to unleash mass carnage. But don’t trust the Washington elite to ever learn or admit that lesson.
The radioactive substance that contaminated Serbian soil during NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 is still killing people, Dr. Zorka Vukmirovic, former scientific advisor at the Institute of Physics in Belgrade, told Sputnik, commenting on London’s plans to supply Ukraine with depleted uranium shells.
As one of the most glaring examples of the terrible consequences, she pointed to the depleted uranium bombing of a telecommunications station near Vranje in Serbia’s south in the spring of 1999 and the repercussions for the workers who had cleaned up the area around the destroyed facility. Seven of them have already died of cancer, and the eighth is suffering from cancer as well.
“It is a well-known fact that NATO has admitted to having dropped 10 tons of depleted uranium ammunition on the territory of Serbia. It was important to show where these munitions were used. A map was made in consultation with our army, which concluded that it was 15 tons of depleted uranium. The map was supplemented with some locations, and the map turned out to be far larger than NATO was trying to present,” Vukmirovic specified.
According to Dr. Vukmirovic, it is crucial to find places where pollution is still present because that is where people live, grow food and use water.
“The worst consequence is that all the dumped uranium, which gets into the groundwater with the rain, can endanger drinking water. Most of the known sites are along the border with Albania, and most of these sites belong to the Drin River. So it flows into the Adriatic Sea,” the expert said.
Vukmirovic points out that it is essential to clean up contaminated soil and properly dispose of waste throughout Serbia so that everyone can have healthy children.
“If this is not done, there is a great danger. Otherwise, the soil will remain contaminated for billions of years. Another problem is the solubility of uranium in contact with water. Rain dissolves this waste and sends it deeper into the groundwater, which is the source of drinking water,” she noted.
No Accurate Data on Illnesses
Sputnik’s source regrets that the exact number of people who came down with cancer as a result of the attacks with depleted uranium shells is unknown. No one has systematically collected such data.
According to the Institute of Public Health of Serbia, by 2014, 35,319 people nationwide were sick with cancer and 20,806 people had died. That’s more than 5,000 cases per million people, 2.8 times the global average.
In 2016, 22,004 people died, 60.8% more than in 1991.
With an annual mortality increase of 2.8%, Serbia has become the world’s leader in cancer deaths. In the US, for example, which has left the Serbs with tons of depleted uranium, these rates have been falling. During that time, the incidence rate there dropped by 0.6% and the mortality rate by 1.6%.
In a previous article, we described the concept of survivor bias in studies that claimed better outcomes for covid vaccinated women in pregnancy: since the greatest risk to babies occur early in pregnancy, the babies of women who are vaccinated during pregnancy must already have survived the riskiest period.
In fact, a similar survivor bias more generally affects mortality rates for the vaccinated. If you see a study claiming much higher mortality rates of the ‘never vaccinated’ versus the ‘ever vaccinated’ you need to be sure it’s not just a statistical illusion due to survivor bias. This (7 minute) video provides an animated explanation:
The video shows this particular bias is avoided by using ‘person years in each vaccination category’ rather than people in each category. So a person who first gets vaccinated 6 months into a one year study and lives until the end of the year will be counted as 6 months never vaccinated and 6 months ever vaccinated.
The example is, of course, extremely simplified. Ideally, to calculate the correct number of person years in each category we need to know, for each person in the study, the exact date of each vaccination. And we also need to take account of the varying infection rate at different time intervals. That’s because the survivor bias is further exaggerated if (as was the case in most Western nations for the covid vaccines) the initial vaccine roll-out happened during the winter – meaning that fatality rates would inevitably fall anyway as more people were vaccinated. So, irrespective of the vaccine, more deaths were occuring at a time when more people were unvaccinated. Most of those classified as vaccinated would therefore already have survived the initial death peak when first vaccinated.
The ONS attempt to avoid survivor bias, but most reporting organisations and published studies do not
The ONS data on deaths by covid vaccine status uses person years to avoid this kind of survivor bias (although there are other biases not avoided in the ONS data as explained here). However, most studies and reports comparing mortality rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated (whether it is for covid deaths or all-cause deaths) fail to make the adjustment and are therefore overestimating the mortality rate of the unvaccinated while underestimating the mortality rate of the vaccinated.
Death rates are calculated as the number of deaths in each group, divided by the total number of people in this group. This is given per 100,000 people.
So, all of the graphs shown there, such as this one for the USA, are subject to survival bias (one of the tell-tale signs of survivor bias is that the overestimation of the unvaccinated mortality rate will be highest during the time when large numbers of people are still being vaccinated and lowest during periods when there are few new vaccinations):
The regular CDC reports such as this most recent one not only fail to adjust for survivor bias but fail to mention this among the many listed limitations of their analysis. Since, as our simple video example shows, survivor bias makes it inevitable that a placebo vaccine can be shown to reduce mortality and will do so the more jabs you have. Therefore, it is unsurprising that these reports all have to assert the following to keep up the illusion:
All persons should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination
Survival bias is just one of the many biases and flaws that have led to massively exaggerated claims of vaccine efficacy and safety
As we have explained several times before there are many biases and flaws in the way covid data is collected and analysed which (curiously) all favour exaggerated claims of vaccine efficacy and safety:
Tucker Carlson accused the NSA of spying on his personal communications when he tried to schedule an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. I can corroborate his story.
On March 10, Fox News host Tucker Carlson told the Full Send podcast that the US government “broke into [his] text messages” in the summer of 2021, just months before the launch of Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Carlson claimed the spying occurred as he was planning a trip to Russia, where he hoped to record a conversation with the country’s president. According to Carlson, he learned of the surveillance after a US government source arranged to meet him in Washington and proceeded to share information with him that only someone with access to his private, personal text messages could have known.
“This person’s like… ‘Are you planning a trip to go see Putin?’ This was the summer before the war started. And I was like, ‘how would you know that? I haven’t told anybody,’” Carlson recalled.
“I was intimidated,” he added. “I’m embarrassed to admit, but I was completely freaked out by it.”
Carlson’s interview with Full Send did not represent the first time he spoke publicly about the NSA’s surveillance of his private communications. On June 28, 2021, Carlson opened his primetime Fox News show with a monologue accusing the Biden Administration of spying on his team, disclosing that an NSA whistleblower had contacted him and “repeated back to us information about a story that we are working on that could have only come directly from my texts and emails.” At the time, he did not disclose specific details about the story in question.
“The NSA captured that information without our knowledge, and did it for political reasons,” the Tucker Carlson Tonight host declared, asserting his source informed him that the Biden Administration planned to “leak” his private texts “in an attempt to take this show off the air.”
Carlson’s colleagues at Fox proceeded to studiously ignore his allegations, while other mainstream news outlets appeared to mock the host for going public with the information. When anonymous NSA officials announced that an internal agency review found “no evidence” to support Carlson’s claims the following month, the corporate press took them at their word.
Amidst the NSA’s denials, however, a report surfaced that seemed to directly support Carlson’s narrative. On July 7, an Axios “scoop” cited unnamed US officials accusing the Fox host of “talking to U.S.-based Kremlin intermediaries about setting up an interview with Vladimir Putin shortly before [he] accused the National Security Agency of spying on him.”
Though the government officials who planted that story remain anonymous, I can confirm the identity of at least one of the “US-based Kremlin intermediaries” in question.
It was me. They lied.
In April 2021, Tucker Carlson told me that he was trying to book an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but that he kept running into roadblocks. Though Tucker knew I previously worked as an anchor and correspondent for the Russian government-funded news channel RT America in Washington DC, he was not asking for my assistance. In fact, I do not believe he even considered that I could help him book the interview in any way.
Regardless, I attempted to assist Tucker’s pursuit of the interview through a senior Russian government contact. Ironically, the contact had not been established through my time at RT America, but my work as a correspondent for The Grayzone, the online outlet that has employed me since early 2019. The Grayzone is fully independent and not connected to Russia or any other government, financially or otherwise.
In July 2019, I traveled to Caracas, Venezuela, to cover a high-level diplomatic meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement. While in Caracas, I met Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergey Ryabkov and interviewed him for The Grayzone’s YouTube channel. (Many of the predictions Ryabkov made, including that the US dollar would soon lose its significance in the global economy, are currently playing out as a direct result of US and European sanctions levied in response to the Ukraine war).
Having found his insights on international relations extremely relevant to my coverage of the emerging multi-polar world, I maintained occasional contact with Ryabkov over email in the months following our discussion. When Tucker told me that he was hoping to arrange an interview with Putin, I offered to connect him with Ryabkov.
I had met Tucker in July 2018, when we both covered President Trump’s highly anticipated summit with his Russian counterpart in Helsinki, Finland. Though Tucker had been dispatched to the Finnish capital for an interview with Trump, I personally always believed that a far more interesting conversation would have resulted from an exchange between him and Putin (who was instead left to have a predictably hostile, largely forgettable encounter with Chris Wallace, then of Fox, now at CNN).
When Tucker expressed his desire to interview Putin three years later, I volunteered to put him in contact with Ryabkov by email so they could discuss his plan to visit Russia. I expected to write a basic introductory email, receive a standard “thank you” from both parties, and let Tucker’s team manage communication from there.
Both Tucker and Ryabkov replied to my initial message within hours. Yet their digital exchange took an inexplicable turn.
On the evening of April 16, 2021, I sent a brief email introducing Ryabkov to Tucker. Tucker responded within minutes, informing Ryabkov that he planned to record shows in Russia in the summer of that year. Just over five hours later, Ryabkov replied that he would be happy to talk with Tucker and proposed time slots for a phone call the following week.
I assumed my role was done. Yet on April 20, I received a follow-up email from Ryabkov.
“Strangely, I can not send my message of interest to talk to Mr.Carlson directly to him. I tried it twice with no success,” the diplomat informed me, before asking me to relay his message.
At the time, I did not think much of the issue. I thought that perhaps Tucker’s email service, which was different than mine, had sent the note to spam, or that I had mistyped an email address. In retrospect, however, I should have been suspicious. Both Tucker and Ryabkov had received and replied to my initial message, meaning their respective addresses were typed correctly in the thread. And Ryabkov’s email to Tucker wasn’t going to spam – it was failing to deliver altogether.
The digital communication error between Ryabkov and Tucker was not a one-off event. Weeks later, on May 25, I received a message from Ryabkov’s team explaining that Tucker had failed to reply to a yet another email. They kindly requested I ask Tucker if he had received their message. Once again, he had not.
Roughly one month later, Tucker informed me that a source inside the NSA had contacted him to warn that the US government had caught wind of his effort to interview Putin by spying on his electronic communications. Tucker went public with the story on June 28. As summarized above, virtually every single mainstream reporter, including those at Fox, trusted the denials of the US government rather than rally behind one of their own.
There are three points I must emphasize here. One: it is completely normal and routine for journalists to maintain contact with high-level government sources, domestic or otherwise. Two: it is also normal and routine for journalists to share those connections with trusted colleagues and friends. Three: at the time, I genuinely believed that a Tucker-Putin interview would have moved us closer to peace. Instead, we are currently positioned on the brink of nuclear war.
Oh, and the obligatory fourth point: I am absolutely not a Kremlin operative or “intermediary.” I have no relationship with the Kremlin, and I have not accepted financial support from any state or state-sponsored organization since my departure from RT America in December 2018. Even then, my “relationship” with the Russian government was completely transparent. Would anyone suggest that US or British citizens employed by Al Jazeera, for example, are representatives of the Emir of Qatar? I worked for RT America because they gave me an opportunity to cover the actions of my own country at home and abroad from a perspective that domestic, corporate-run networks would have never allowed. When that reality changed (paradoxically thanks to US, not Russian, government interference), I walked out — but that’s a story for another day.
In truth, even my “Russian” forename is simply a product of the fact that my Indian-American father and American mother could not agree on anything else to call me. So why did US government sources characterize me as a Kremlin intermediary? Do they have any evidence to formally accuse me of being such? Or did they simply dump that information on an unquestioning Axios reporter without even offering them my name?
The answer to the second question is of course, no. The answer to the third: probably. As for the first? Clues can be found in the more recent effort to tarnish Tucker’s reputation through legal machinations and the selective leaking of his private text messages.
Target: Tucker
In March 2021, Dominion Voting Systems filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News on the basis that it incurred financial damages as a result of the network’s coverage of the 2020 Presidential Election. Though Tucker is not named in the suit, last year a judge allowed Dominion to seize the Fox host’s private text messages. Within months, the contents of Carlson’s personal texts had made their way to the pages of the Washington Post.
Curiously, coverage of Carlson’s private messages has so far focused on a single comment he made about former President Trump — not Dominion Voting Systems. Earlier this month, mainstream outlets seized on a January 2021 text the Fox host sent one of his producers in which he claimed to “passionately” hate the former president. The story represented an obvious attempt to drive a wedge between Carlson and Trump just before the the 2024 presidential election season officially heats up.
Whether such tactics will succeed in undermining Carlson and Trump’s relationship is a question only they can answer. It is worth noting, however, that Carlson consistently attempted to reorient Trump toward his “America First” agenda throughout the latter’s time in the White House, using his show to offer principled critiques of the former president’s decision to bomb Syria, escalate regime change operations against Venezuela, and assassinate Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani. In June of 2019, Carlson personally persuaded Trump to reject the advice of his national security team and elect not to retaliate against Iran over its decision to shoot down a US drone that had violated its sovereign airspace. The Fox host’s actions not only averted a deadly US military strike on Iran, but a potential regional war.
For anyone who values peace and diplomatic engagement over military conflict, Carlson’s influence over Trump — and the US public, for that matter — must be regarded as positive. Perhaps that is why the press, including his colleagues at Fox, have refused to publicly denounce the US government’s selective targeting of Tucker. After all, aside from a handful of Fox News hosts who have attempted to cop his anti-interventionist style, the mainstream media are in virtual lockstep when it comes to inciting continued US involvement in the Ukraine conflict.
Tucker is by far the most popular US media figure to consistently denounce Washington’s escalations in the Ukraine battle, articulate the looming reality of World War III, and sound the alarm over the threat of global nuclear war. As if such positions did not threaten powerful forces enough already, last December he even dedicated a lengthy show open to investigating the murder of President John F. Kennedy, revealing a source with “direct knowledge” of classified information told him the CIA did in fact have a hand in the assassination.
Though the campaign to cancel Tucker is largely framed in terms of the culture wars and partisan debate over the events of January 6, it is substantially driven by neoconservative interventionists seeking to muzzle the pro-war Uniparty’s single greatest foe. If the Dominion lawsuit succeeds in bankrupting Fox, or even casting Tucker as the network’s scapegoat, it will have succeeded in punishing the media’s pre-eminent opponent of the escalating Ukraine proxy war.
Which brings us back to the question: why did US government sources characterize me as a “Kremlin intermediary” while feeding a “journalist” information about Tucker’s private texts back in July 2021? The answer is simple: US officials weaponized my mere existence, through innuendo, in order to suggest Tucker was involved with Kremlin agents. By undermining his credibility, they aimed to invalidate his character and by extension, his anti-war positions.
Beyond the financial threat it poses to Fox, the Dominion suit similarly aims to discredit Tucker. And politics aside, it poses a major threat to the First Amendment.
What does the fact that a corporation can sue a media organization over critical coverage, allege financial damage, and gain access to a journalist’s private texts say about a society that claims to value a free press? If Dominion is able to target a company as powerful as Fox in such a manner, what does that mean for those of us who challenge corporate and government interests in independent media? Why aren’t more journalists asking these questions?
And finally, if the Fox-obsessed Beltway press corps is truly so concerned with holding journalists accountable for “knowingly lying” to the public, there is no shortage of willful deceptions to reckon with. After all, this week marks 20 years since the launch of the US military campaign in Iraq, a catastrophic war that was directly enabled by lies its greatest cheerleaders in the press still repeat to this day.
Anya Parampil is a journalist based in Washington, DC. She has produced and reported several documentaries, including on-the-ground reports from the Korean peninsula, Palestine, Venezuela, and Honduras.
Dr. Robert Malone describes mRNA ‘vaccines’ as the entry point for transhumanism and the suite of technologies that can modify humans through directed biological and mechanical genetic mutations.
It was decided years ago to lie to global citizens about the end-game use of gene-editing nanotechnologies and the convergence of the digital world with the human body. Biotechnology is quite literally the science of turning technology into new life forms and turning natural life forms into new technologies.
mRNA ‘Vaccines’ are the Gateway to Transhumanism, per Dr. Malone
In a recent interview with Glenn Beck, Dr. Robert Malone describes mRNA ‘vaccines’ as the entry point for the suite of technologies that can modify humans through forced biological and mechanical genetic mutations. This is also known as transhumanism or Directed Evolution.
“Transhumanism is the technology suite, I Think, is the best way to put it, around the idea of the both mechanical and biological modification of humans. The RNA (mRNA)vaccines as an entry point (to transhumanism).” – Dr. Robert Malone
During the interview, Dr. Malone explains how the mRNA (RNA) ‘vaccines’ are the ‘ethical entry’ point to transhumanism. Dr. Malone describes transhumanism as the suite of nanotechnologies used to force or direct the the evolution of humans with non-human DNA and inorganic material (such as metallic-based electromagnetic molecules).
mRNA Technology, Transhumanism, and the Destruction of Humanity
Let’s be honest, the outcome of the use of mRNA technology in humans can only result in the destruction of the human body (severe disease or death) as part of the process of creating hybrid humanoid bodies that can integrate with the digital realm.
Transcript of Part of Dr. Malone’s Interview with Glenn Beck:
Doctor Robert Malone: It’s not a conspiracy,transhumanism.They talk about the RNA vaccines as an entry point, just kind of opening that space ethically and otherwise. So, that’s part of the push for why these particular products (mRNA vaccines), is it relates to that transhumanism agenda.
Glenn Beck: Explain for anybody who doesn’t know, transhumanism, explain it break it down?
Doctor Robert Malone: So, transhumanism is the technology suite, I think, is the best way to put it, around the idea of the both mechanical and biological modification of humans.
So there you have it. mRNA technology was invented for and being used to destroy humanity and create a new hybrid humanoid species.
If Humans are NOT Being Destroyed with mRNA, Why is Elon Musk Predicting We Will Be Replaced with Humanoids (Biodigital Humans)?
As Dr. Malone stated in the interview, transhumanism is both the biological and mechanical modifications of humans using mRNA vaccines as an entry point. The creation of a biodigital humanoid species (transhumanis) is not a conspiracy and Dr. Malone’s mRNA ‘vaccine’ technology is the entry point, per Dr. Malone’s own words!
In a recent Yahoo! Finance article, Elon Musk says that humanoids will eventually outnumber humans (homo sapiens) resulting in devastating economic impact.
“I think we might exceed a one-to-one ratio of humanoid robots to humans. It’s not even clear what an economy is at that point.” – Elon Musk
Here’s another question, if humans are in charge of manufacturing humanoid robots, how on earth would humanoids outnumber 7.5 billion humans? Why would we intentionally create a global threat to humanity and our economy by manufacturing our human replacements?
Hint: The Humanoids are not being made in a factory.
One of the following 3 scenarios have to be true for Elon Musk’s humanoid replacement of humans to be true.
Humans are being exterminated to reduce the 1/1 humanoid replacement ratio down from 7.5 billion to something more manageable.
Humans are being converted into humanoids using mRNA technology and biosynthesis to produce hybrid biodigital cells inside of humans (transhumanism), (as Dr. Malone explains in his interview with Glenn Beck).
1 and 2 are both true and we all need to call mRNA technology a bioweapon.
Experimentation on Innocent Children and Adults with Gene-Editing Nanotech Under the Guise of ‘mRNA Vaccines’ is NOT Ethical
I hate to break it to the inventors of mRNA ‘vaccine’ technologies, including Dr. Malone, who believe that when they are falsely representing gene-editing nanotechnologies that are being used for the purposes of forcibly directing the evolution of humans to merge with digital technologies and express DNA from insects and reptiles, this is not ethical. mRNA ‘vaccines’ are grossly unethical, demonic in nature, and an act of global biowarfare.
mRNA ‘vaccine’ technology research, development, and now deployment on the global civilian population is for the purposes of biowarfare. mRNA technology has no clinically proven benefit to prevent infection, disease, or death. If you don’t believe me, the Russian Military Chief of Nuclear and Biowarfare, Lieutenant General Krillilov, cites my work and affirms that the mRNA vaccines are, by definition, agents of biowarfare per 18 USC 175.
Words Influence the Way We Think
Dr. Malone has embarked on a 2 -year campaign to persuade us to call this evil invention something good, like a vaccine or therapy. Words influence the way we think. The last thing the inventors of transhumanistic mRNA nanotechnologies want us to do is to accurately identify mRNA technology as a bioweapon. If we were successful in calling mRNA what it is, a bioweapon, people would then be able to think clearly about how evil and devastatingly harmful mRNA technology is and articulate the crimes that have been committed against them.
I will not call mRNA technology a ‘vaccine’ or ‘gene-editing therapy’. Vaccines and medical therapies are supposed to be used for the good of humanity. mRNA technology is a demonically-inspired bioweapon that is being used for the destruction of God’s greatest creation, humanity.
TRUTH WINS
Be wise. Be well. Challenge the lies and false narratives.
I’ve grown increasingly frustrated about the way debate is controlled around the topic of origins of the alleged novel virus, SARS-CoV-2, and I have come to disbelieve it’s ever been in circulation, causing massive scale illness and death. Concerningly, almost no one will entertain this possibility, despite the fact that molecular biology is the easiest discipline in which to cheat. That’s because you really cannot do it without computers, and sequencing requires complex algorithms and, importantly, assumptions. Tweaking algorithms and assumptions, you can hugely alter the conclusions.
This raises the question of why there is such an emphasis on the media storm around Fauci, Wuhan and a possible lab escape. After all, the ‘perpetrators’ have significant control over the media. There’s no independent journalism at present. It is not as though they need to embarrass the establishment. I put it to readers that they’ve chosen to do so.
So who do I mean by ‘they’ and ‘the perpetrators? There are a number of candidates competing for this position, with their drug company accomplices, several of whom are named in Paula Jardine’s excellent five-part series for TCW, Anatomy of the sinister Covid project. High on the list is the ‘enabling’ World Economic Forum and their many political acolytes including Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Aderne.
But that doesn’t answer the question why are they focusing on the genesis of the virus. In my view, they are doing their darnedest to make sure you regard this event exactly as they want you to. Specifically, that there was a novel virus.
I’m not alone in believing that myself at the beginning of the ‘pandemic’, but over time I’ve seen sufficient evidence to cast strong doubt on that idea. Additionally, when considered as part of a global coup d’état, I have put myself in the position of the most senior, hidden perpetrators. In a Q&A, they would learn that the effect of a released novel pathogen couldn’t be predicted accurately. It might burn out rapidly. Or it might turn out to be quite a lot more lethal than they’d expected, demolishing advanced civilisations. Those top decision-makers would, I submit, conclude that this natural risk is intolerable to them. They crave total control, and the wide range of possible outcomes from a deliberate release militates against this plan of action: ‘No, we’re not going to do this. Come back with a plan with very much reduced uncertainty on outcomes.’
The alternative I think they’ve used is to add one more lie to the tall stack of lies which has surrounded this entire affair. This lie is that there has ever been in circulation a novel respiratory virus which, crucially, caused massive-scale illness and deaths. In fact, there hasn’t.
Instead, we have been told there was this frightening, novel pathogen and ramped up the stress-inducing fear porn to 11, and held it there. This fits with cheating about genetic sequences, PCR test protocols (probes, primers, amplification and annealing conditions, cycles), ignoring contaminating genetic materials from not only human and claimed viral sources, but also bacterial and fungal sources. Why for example did they need to insert the sampling sticks right into our sinuses? Was it to maximise non-human genetic sequences?
Notice the soft evidence that our political and cultural leaders, including the late Queen, were happy to meet and greet one another without testing, masking or social distancing. They had no fear. In the scenario above, a few people would have known there was no new hazard in their environment. If there really was a lethal pathogen stalking the land, I don’t believe they’d have had the courage or the need to act nonchalantly and risk exposure to the virus.
Most convincingly for me is the US all-cause mortality (ACM) data by state, sex, age and date of occurrence, as analysed by Denis Rancourt and colleagues. The pattern of increased ACM is inconsistent with the presence of a novel respiratory virus as the main cause.
If I’m correct that there was no novel virus, what a genius move it was to pretend there was! Now they want you only to consider how this ‘killer virus’ got into the human population. Was it a natural emergence (you know, a wild bat bit a pangolin and this ended up being sold at a wet market in Wuhan) or was it hubristically created by a Chinese researcher, enabled along the way by a researcher at the University of North Carolina funded by Fauci, together making an end run around a presidential pause on such work? Then there’s the question as to whether the arrival of the virus in the general public was down to carelessness and a lab leak, or did someone deliberately spread it?
I also need to point out that the perpetrators have hermetic control of the mass media via a Big Tech and government stranglehold documented in part here, here and here. That’s why they’ve found it so easy to censor people like me. If a story appears on multiple TV networks, it’s because they’re either OK with it or it has been actively planted. It won’t be genuine. They never tell the truth. I don’t think they’ve told the truth since this coup began and probably much earlier. Most so-called journalists have lost sight of what truth ever was. I believe that the perpetrators (who could be all or any of Gates, Fauci, Farrar, Vallance, CEPI, EcoHealth Alliance, DARPA and numerous others) planted the controversy about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 because a little embarrassment of the establishment was a small price to persuade most of us that there surely must be a novel virus when there isn’t. (And they have got away with it to date.)
I have colleagues who do not believe what we’ve been told (i.e. that a virus has been experimentally constructed) is even possible technologically. I don’t have the background to assess that idea. But the rest hangs together for me in a way that no other explanation does.
To this point, an ex-pharmaceutical industry executive Sasha Latypova, speaking with Robert F Kennedy Jr on his podcast of last Thursday, March 16, describes the extensive evidence of the contracts and relationships that were in place before the Covid era. Contracts were signed for billions of dollars in February 2020. Not only would the required production never happen (from a standing start, to sign such a large commitment is ridiculous) but it cannot be done. She estimated that approximately one kilogram of DNA was required. There isn’t that much medicinal grade DNA on the planet at any one time. That’s because it’s hard to do, very expensive, wholly bespoke and difficult to store for long periods. Also, the amounts of any specific DNA sequence required and held in store by commercial suppliers would be milligrams or perhaps grams at a stretch. So it was always completely unfeasible, regardless of how much money was thrown at the problem, to have accomplished what they claim to have done in a short time.
Consequently, no other conclusion is supported by the facts than that it’s a huge crime, extensively planned. In itself, that rules out a natural emergence of a pathogen, unless divine providence occurred. Logically we’re left with a leak or, as I argue, a lie plus a PsyOp. The former may or may not be possible, but what isn’t arguable is that something like this could be done and would be likely to run smoothly, with a real pathogen. Almost any outcome but the one presumably wanted is likely if a pathogen is released. I can reach no other conclusion than that it’s fake.
In closing, I’m not saying people weren’t sick or that they didn’t die in huge numbers. I’m arguing only about the causes of illnesses and deaths. People were made sick and some killed by all the pre-existing causes, amplified by fear, resulting in immunosuppression and then a host of revolting actions. Note even the official overlap of signs & symptoms of ‘Covid-19’ and existing illnesses. Notably, they chopped antibiotic prescriptions in the US by 50 per cent during 2020. They ensured large numbers of frail elderly people were mechanically ventilated, a procedure which, in such subjects, is close to contraindicated. Some were administered remdesivir, which is a poison for the kidneys. In care homes, they were given midazolam and morphine, respiratory depressant drugs which in combination are all but contraindicated in patients with breathing difficulties. If used, close monitoring is required, most usually automated alarm systems attached to vital cardiorespiratory monitoring, including fingertip monitoring for blood gases. That didn’t happen in care homes.
I believe the main reason for the lies about the novel virus is a desire for total predictability and control, with the clearly articulated intention of transforming society; beginning by dismantling the financial system through lockdowns and furlough, while the immediate practical goal of lockdown was to provide the causus belli for injecting as many people as possible with materials designed not to induce immunity, but to demand repeat inoculation, to cause injury and death, and to control freedom of movement. I’m sure they’re pretty content with getting at least one needle into 6,000,000,000 people.
Note that though an estimated 10-15 million have been killed with poisonous ‘vaccines’, these are the but first of many mRNA injections to come. The indications are that ways to force you to accept ten more have been anticipated, because that’s the number of doses your government has agreed to purchase. Purchasing what? Well, it’s already been mooted that all existing vaccines are to be reformatted as mRNA types. If this happens, I don’t believe anyone injected ten more times is likely to escape death or severe, life-limiting illnesses. Inducing your body to manufacture non-self proteins will axiomatically induce an autoimmune attack by your own body. Your disease will be related to where the injected dose goes and of course the consistency of that injected product. They’ve been horribly erratic so far. It’s not certain they ever could have been made and launched if they had been subject to the usual quality requirements and not granted ’emergency use’ authorisations. Of course, as we now know, the regulators played an important role beyond lying for the US military, the organisation which made the original orders for ‘vaccines’, and set all the contractual conditions for companies such as Moderna and Pfizer.
The chickens are coming home to roost right now in the banking system.
As I always say, I cannot know much for sure. I don’t have a copy of the script of this, the greatest crime in history. But, whatever Covid actually is, I don’t believe that what was called influenza disappeared conveniently in early 2020. It’s another lie. It’s what they do. It’s all they do.
To those who sense that all is not well but are unwilling to make the psychological leap to the diabolical world I believe we’re now living in, I point out the asymmetry of risk. If you follow the official narrative and I’m right, you and your children will lose all your freedoms and probably your lives. If you believe what I’m saying and I’m wrong, you’ll be laughed at. These options aren’t faintly balanced. A rational actor should cease believing what we’re being told. It’s not a safe position, keeping your counsel and your head down. It’s the most dangerous thing you could do.
Today, the Arizona Senate narrowly passed the Defend the Guard Act, a bill to require the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a big step toward restoring the founders’ framework for a state-federal balance under the Constitution.
Sen. Wendy Rogers (R) and three fellow Republicans introduced Senate Bill 1367 (SB1367) on January 31. Titled the Defend the Guard Act, the legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Arizona National Guard into “active duty combat” unless specific constitutional requirements are met:
The United States Congress passes an official declaration of war or takes an official action pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 15, United States Constitution, that calls on the National Guard to expressly execute the laws of the union, repel an invasion or suppress an insurrection.
“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:
Participation in an armed conflict;
Performance of a hazardous service in a foreign state; or
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war.
“Official declaration of war” is defined as “an official declaration of war made by the United States Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.”
Last month, the Senate Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee approved the Arizona Defend the Guard Act by a vote of 4-3. On March 6, the Senate Rules committee also passed SB1367 by a 4-3 vote. Today, the full Senate approved SB1367 by a vote of 16-13-1.
In Practice
National Guard troops have played significant roles in all modern overseas conflicts, with over 650,000 deployed since 2001. Military.comreports that “Guard and Reserve units made up about 45 percent of the total force sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and received about 18.4 percent of the casualties.” More specifically, Arizona National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries.
Since none of these missions have been accompanied by a Constitutional declaration of war, nor were they in pursuance of any of the three conditions set forth in Article 1 Sec. 8, the Defend the Guard Act would have prohibited those deployments.
Background
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” Through the Dick Act of 1903, Congress organized the militia into today’s National Guard, limiting the part of the militia that could be called into federal service rather than the “entire body of people,” which makes up the totality of the “militia.” Thus, today’s National Guard is governed by the “militia clauses” of the Constitution, and this view is confirmed by the National Guard itself.
Clause 15 delegates to Congress the power to provide for “calling forth the militia” in three situations only: 1) to execute the laws of the union, 2) to suppress insurrections, and 3) to repel invasions.
During state ratifying conventions, proponents of the Constitution, including James Madison and Edmund Randolph, repeatedly assured the people that this power to call forth the militia into federal service would be limited to those very specific situations, and not for general purposes, like helping victims of a disease outbreak or engaging in “kinetic military actions.”
Returning to the Constitution
The founding generation was careful to ensure the president wouldn’t have the power to drag the United States into endless wars. James Madison made this clear in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.
Congress has abrogated its responsibility and allowed the president to exercise almost complete discretion when it comes to war. The passage of Defend the Guard legislation would pressure Congress to do its constitutional duty.
West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.
“For decades, the power of war has long been abused by this supreme executive, and unfortunately our men and women in uniform have been sent off into harm’s way over and over,” he said. “If the U.S. Congress is unwilling to reclaim its constitutional obligation, then the states themselves must act to correct the erosion of constitutional law.”
Passage of Defend the Guard would also force the federal government to only use the Guard for the three expressly-delegated purposes in the Constitution, and at other times to remain where the Guard belongs, at home, supporting and protecting their home state.
While getting this bill passed won’t be easy and will face fierce opposition from the establishment, it certainly is, as Daniel Webster once noted, “one of the reasons state governments even exist.”
Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Oklahoma Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”
What’s Next
SB1367 will now move to the House for further consideration. It will first need to pass through the committee process before the full Chamber can concur. Residents of Arizona are strongly urged to contact their state representative to firmly request that they support the bill (locate contact info here).
MOSCOW – The Commission on the biological program in Ukraine has come to the conclusion that the United States is ready to produce and use biological weapons outside its territory, Deputy Speaker of the Federation Council (upper chamber of the Russian parliament) Konstantin Kosachev said on Wednesday.
“Based on all that has been said, our commission comes to the conclusion… the United States supports and develops the ability to create components of biological weapons, and, if necessary, to produce and use them outside the national territory,” Kosachev said during a meeting of the commission.
The US violates almost all the provisions of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), Kosachev said.
“The Commission comes to the conclusion that by their actions in the field of global biological security, the United States violates almost all the fundamental provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction,” Kosachev said.
This is the second in a series tracing the history of population control through to present day depopulation ambitions and intent. You can read Part 1 here.
Henry Kissinger, one of the most influential politicians of the last 50 years, who said ‘the elderly are useless eaters’, considered the idea of using food to control the population. In his 1974 ‘National Security Study Memorandum 200’ he outlined a number of countries of strategic importance for the US that he claimed had problems with population growth that might give them more economic and military strength. He advocated birth control programmes for those countries and suggested that if they did not do this willingly, withdrawing food aid to them may act as an incentive to make them comply.
Using food as a weapon is not just an idea. Russia did it in Turkestan in 1917, where they took control of food production and distribution, resulting in starvation and a drastic reduction in the indigenous population. The US and Canadian governments slaughtered the buffalo population to starve the indigenous people into submission.
Now there is concern among many including economists, Wall Street veterans, farmers and citizen groups that controlling the food supply is once more being implemented to control and reduce the population. The FBI have warned that there are cyber-attacks designed to shut down farms.
It is claimed by powerful groups like the UK’s Climate Change Committee and the International Panel on Climate Change, and the governments they influence, that the main factor exacerbating the so-called ‘climate crisis’ is CO2. In reality, CO2 is essential to all life. If CO2 levels are drastically reduced, plant life, which requires CO2 for photosynthesis, will be reduced and therefore the whole food chain will be affected. In fact a recent report claims that pursuing Net Zero could lead to half the world suffering from starvation.
Is this why so many governments in the world are intent on achieving Net Zero?
In addition to the fake ‘climate crisis’, we now have the fake ‘nitrogen crisis’. Nitrogen is one of the main elements of commercial fertilisers and is an essential nutrient for plant growth but at excessive amounts can be a pollutant and, according to the climate crisis zealots, can cause global warming. The EU’s Integrated Nutrient Action Plan aims to reduce nitrogen fertiliser by 20 per cent. The UN want to reduce all nitrogen ‘waste’ by 50 per cent by 2030. Some of the people targeted by the plan to reduce fertiliser usage are the Dutch farmers. The tyrannical government in the Netherlands plans to compulsorily purchase up to 3,000 farms in order to reduce nitrogen emissions and to cut cattle numbers by 50 per cent. As the Netherlands is the biggest food exporter in Europe, it won’t affect only the Dutch but have a devastating impact on the food supply for the rest of Europe.
But is there actually a nitrogen crisis? Just like the so-called climate crisis, the evidence is ambiguous at best but the statistics are manipulated by those in power to suit their own ends. It’s not as if they aren’t aware of the consequences of drastically reducing the use of commercial fertiliser: they only have to look at Sri Lanka. Food prices rose by 80 per cent and there were massive shortages resulting in thousands of desperate people laying siege to the president’s palace and the president having to flee the country.
Analysing current events, is it all just due to a set of unrelated circumstances that there appears to be a threat to the availability and cost of our food, or is there something more disturbing going on?
It may be worth noting that as farmland is being forcibly sequestered from farmers, Bill Gates is now the single biggest owner of farmland in the US. As the elite are trying to reduce meat consumption, Gates has investments in synthetic meat. As the US suffered severe baby formula shortages, Gates had invested in artificially produced breast milk. It would certainly appear that the elite are determined to monopolise and therefore control the food supply.
Other events suggest a planned assault on the food supply. In the US, since 2021, 96 facilities involved in food production have been damaged or had their poultry or livestock destroyed. The destruction of food processing plants is not limited to the US. In the UK fires have broken out at facilities in Ealing, Gillingham, Bury St Edmunds, Bradford, Stoke-on-Trent, Harlow and Kilkeel, Northern Ireland. In fact, it appears to be a global phenomenon.
In addition, we have the UK and other governments ordering the slaughtering of millions of poultry due to alleged outbreaks of bird flu. Supposedly there have been 174 outbreaks of bird flu in the UK since October 2022. They are diagnosed using PCR tests that we know from the Covid era are totally unreliable. On the subject of Covid, the world’s government-imposed lockdowns also had a negative and totally foreseeable impact on the food supply chains.
Recently, UK supermarkets suffered from shortages of an ever-expanding list of fresh fruit and vegetables. The media initially tried blaming it on adverse weather in Spain and Morocco from where we import the produce. However, other reports have suggested it is also because UK farmers, who grow their produce in greenhouses, can’t afford to heat them because of the high cost of fuel. It’s interesting, therefore, that the government has been giving farmers lump sum payments to leave farming altogether and to give up their land so it can no longer be used for agricultural purposes – thereby reducing the amount of land available for food production – when they could have been offering more financial help to farmers and food producers to increase our food security.
We must also ask why the energy costs are so high. Contrary to the mainstream media blaming it and everything else on the war in Ukraine, it is because of the government’s obsession with Net Zero. They have been drastically reducing our coal production and planning to close all coal-fired electricity plants by October 2024, and no longer encouraging any investment in fossil fuels. Instead, we are relying ever more on the totally unreliable renewables sector.
Our coal production dropped by 44 per cent between the third quarter of 2021 and the third quarter of 2022 but our imports increased by 34 per cent. So the government are deliberately reducing our own coal supplies to reach Net Zero targets whilst importing more to make up the shortfall, making a mockery of their environmental claims while ensuring the British public pay more for their energy. For the same period, gas exports increased by 369 per cent: why wasn’t this used domestically instead to reduce the soaring energy bills everyone, included, food producers, faced last year? Moreover, our electricity exports increased by 771 per cent and yet we were being warned of potential blackouts, and electricity bills for both businesses and households were exorbitant.
The cost of energy is inextricably linked to the price of food as high energy costs for the farmers and transporters equals high food prices and now shortages. At this point it is worth highlighting another quote form Henry Kissinger: ‘Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.’
The question must be: are all these events that are negatively impacting the food supply being orchestrated? A recent paper published by Leeds University may be enlightening. It is entitled ‘Rationing and Climate Change Mitigation’. The authors suggest that rationing of both food and fuel would be helpful to prevent climate change. They praise how successful rationing was during the war and believe it would be a great idea to re-introduce it. They admit that the public are unlikely to go along with this idea if they think resources are plentiful, so what do they suggest? If there is no scarcity of resources then the illusion of scarcity of something else must be created. To this end they claim there is a scarcity of carbon sinks. So we won’t be permitted to use all our resources, not because they are not plentiful, but because our planet cannot absorb the carbon produced by humans utilising them.
The authors realise that the public will need to be re-educated to believe in this fake scarcity: ‘Rationing in this context may require a public information campaign to help people to recognise the scarcity of carbon sinks, to make it clear that we would not be introducing rationing-in-the-face-of-abundance.’
They will also need to make us feel guilty: ‘Second, this may also need to be supported by moral argument – highlighting the moral imperative to consider future generations or at least the current younger generations.’
It sounds suspiciously like the behavioural psychology from the Covid era. This time, though, instead of making us believe that we must comply with restrictions in case we kill granny, they want us to believe that carbon dioxide will kill everyone and if we don’t comply, we will kill young people.
Of course, their plan would be made a lot easier if the government created a real scarcity, which is what they go on to suggest. They want the government to close all coal mines, stop all oil exploration and severely restrict any sale of fossil fuels. They admit that this will cause scarcity and it will be a problem initially. To overcome this, they suggest the government resort to the usual propaganda about saving the lives of future generations and eventually the gullible public will buy it.
They also advocate deliberately creating food shortages: ‘In addition to stricter regulations on fossil fuels, regulation could also target other areas. For example, carbon-intensive farming methods and factory-farmed livestock could be banned – which would clearly have impacts on food supplies.’
Does this not sound more like our current reality than a mere suggestion for the future?
In Part 3 we will examine how vaccines are causing fertility issues.
By Robert Parry | Consortium News | October 3, 2010
Last week’s grotesque revelation about American public health doctors infecting nearly 700 Guatemalans with venereal disease to test penicillin from 1946-48 marked just the start of the U.S. government’s post-World War II abuse of that Central American country.
Indeed, as troubling as the VD experiments were, U.S. administrations from Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan would do much worse, treating Guatemala as a test tube for Cold War counterinsurgency experiments that led to the slaughter of some 200,000 people, including genocide against Mayan Indian tribes. … 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 