Last year the UK Met Office was shown to be inventing long-term temperature data at 103 non-existent weather stations. It was claimed in a later risible ‘fact check’ that the data were estimated from nearby well-correlated neighbouring stations. Citizen super sleuth Ray Sanders issued a number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to learn the identity of these correlating sites but has been told that the information is not held by the Met Office. So the invented figures for the non-existent sites are supposedly provided by stations that the Met Office claims it cannot identify and are presumably not recorded in its copious computer storage and archive.
Mr Sanders is understandably unimpressed with the explanation that this vital identifying information is not retained, writing: “Is the general public just supposed to ‘believe’ the Met Office without any workings out evident. To me, and every single scientist who has ever lived, it is imperative to show the data used – ANYTHING LESS IS NOT VALID. No Verifiable Data Source = No Credibility = no better than Fiction.”
Until recently, the Met Office showed weather averages including temperature for over 300 stations stretching back at least 30 years. The data identified individual stations and single location coordinates, but when 103 were found not to exist the Met Office hastily rewrote the title of the database to suggest that the figures arose from a wider local area.
Following the change, Sanders sought FOI guidance about Scole, a temperature weather station in Norfolk that operated for only nine years between 1971 to 1980. Type in Scole on the new ‘location’ database and it is identified as one of five sites that are the “nearest climate stations to Scole”. Sixty years of average data are given including 10 years before Scole was actually established. This itself is odd since the Met Office justifies ‘estimating’ data for closed stations to preserve long usability of the data. It would appear a stretch to use this explanation to justify preserving 1960s data from a station that did not open until 1971. Sanders made a simple request and asked the Met Office to reveal the names of the weather stations used in compiling the climate average data for Scole from 1990 to 2020. If the Met Office was unable to supply the full list, he made it as easy as possible and asked for the name of the last station supplying data.
The astonishing claim that the Met Office was unable to help because the information was not held was followed by an explanation that “the specific stations used in regressive analysis each month are not an output from the process”. The unimpressed Sanders observes that the Met Office archives billions of numbers and data items but does not seem to keep a record of its workings out. “So they have no proof whatsoever of how their climate averages were compiled,” he observes.
Sanders also sought similar details about another ‘zombie’ site, namely, Manby in Lincolnshire. This actually closed for temperature readings in 1974 but again 60-year averages are currently available. Sanders was intrigued by this site since the CEDA archive that collects Met Office data showed it was still open, a claim also made in an earlier FOI disclosure by the state meteorologist. Again Manby is identified as the nearest climate station when its name is searched on the climate averages site. But the Met Office’s Weather Observations Website shows it is closed and Sanders notes the Met Office has since confirmed that to him. It has been 50 years since an actual temperature reading was taken at Manby but as with Scole the Met Office under a FOI request is unable to name any of the ‘well-correlated’ sites supposed providing data.
It is difficult to understand why the Met Office cannot answer a simple question seeking guidance on where temperature readings were taken. Presumably they would be obtained from the five nearest ‘stations’ identified when a location is entered into the climate averages database. But as the Daily Sceptic has reported in the past, there might be problems with this approach. Cawood in the West Riding of Yorkshire is a pristine class 1 site designated by the World Meteorological Organisation as providing an uncorrupted air temperature reading over a large surrounding area (nearly 80% of Met Office sites are in junk classes 4 and 5 with ‘uncertainties’ of 2C and 5C respectively). Cawood has good temperature recordings going back to 1959. But no rolling 30-year average for Cawood is provided. Instead, the Met Office flags data from five other sites, four of which don’t exist, with the fifth located 27 miles away at a 163 metres higher elevation. Even worse, the location of Norwich brings up five nearby stations, including Scole, none of which exist.
As the Daily Sceptic has noted in the past, the Met Office has only itself to blame for the often trenchant criticism it receives on social media about its temperature collecting operations. It does a fine job of forecasting weather, but activist elements in its operation have weaponised inaccurate temperature recordings to promote the politicised Net Zero fantasy.
Recently, the chief scientist at the Met Office, Professor Stephen Belcher, called for Net Zero “to stabilise the climate” claiming he saw “more extreme weather” in the Met Office’s observations. In the UK, he suggested that between 2014-2023 the number of days recording 28C had doubled, while those over 30C had tripled compared to 1961-1990. A more extreme weather trend is not something that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has seen, while observations about more recent hot days might ring truer if they were not based on the increasingly urban heat-ravaged Met Office databases.
And Ray Sanders’s take? “We are regularly told in the mainstream media, particularly the BBC, that we are entering an existential ‘climate emergency’, so how is it nobody wants to discuss the obviously fictional data that is being manipulated to support this ‘argument’?”
Crippling brain injuries used to be a well recognized complication of vaccination. What changed?
A Midwestern Doctor | The Forgotten Side of Medicine | May 10, 2025
From birth, we are taught that vaccines were one of the most remarkable discoveries in history, and were so safe and effective that many now unimaginable plagues vanished with few to no side effects occurring in the process. In truth, give or take every part of that mythology is false and because it has never been dispelled, remarkably similar vaccine disasters occur every few decades.
Much of this results from the fact that it is very difficult to make safe vaccines due to both how they work and how they are produced. As such, the best “solution” which could be found to this problem was to insist in lockstep that vaccines were safe and erase any memory that vaccine disasters had in fact occurred, thereby making it possible to gaslight anyone who was severely injured by a vaccine and claim their injury was just anecdotal or a product of anti-vaccine hysteria.
For example, recently I discussed how vaccines cause autism, and focused on a central argument used to debunk the link between the two—that the only reason people believe vaccines cause autism is because a disgraced British doctor published a fraudulent 1998 study claiming they did and then made everyone start hallucinating that vaccine injuries were occurring.
This mythology however, ignores that brain injuries were a longstanding problem of vaccination. For example, this 1982 NBC news program revealed that many parents were having children develop “post-pertussis encephalopathy” after taking the DPT vaccine, that most doctors refused to report this, and that:
Medical knowledge about severe reactions to the whooping cough vaccine goes back to the early 1930s. Report after report has been published in medical journals since then. In 1948, two American doctors reported on case histories of many children who had been brain damaged or died from DPT vaccines in Boston. The following year, another doctor surveyed pediatricians across the country and found still more. Those studies have been forgotten.
While off on my jollies in the sun we spent time chatting to one of the barmen who came from a place we knew and he used to work in our favourite hotel in the World so we had a few good chats over the weeks as we were one of the few couples not glued to our mobile phones or tablets and actually tried to speak to people.
We found a few others like us and also got a few to put their mobiles down now and again at times.
Anyway a waiter from one of the restaurants came out to the bar for drinks. We had had a few chats with him in the restaurant he worked in when it was quiet so knew him a bit better than the other passengers did I think.
He was sniffing a bit and said he thinks he was coming down with something so we told him to get some cheap tea tree oil at the next port and sprinkle it over the carpet in his cabin and/or put some on cotton wool and put in the A/C vent topping it up every few days. It kills the bacteria and viruses that breed in the A/C ducts plus smells nice in the room. Taught this trick by an old Australian paramedic at work for keeping A/C borne outbreaks of the cold at bay.
Anyway he didn’t know what it was so as no supervisors were around he whipped out his mobile and we spelt it out for him so he knew what to buy. The barman also gets his mobile out to have a look at what we were on about.
They finish and both put their mobiles in their front pockets.
I must have shuddered or flinched or something as they said “What”?”
Conversation then went something like this:
Me: don’t you want kids?
Them: what do you mean?
Me: haven’t you heard about the big drop in sperm counts in men over the past 10 years?
Them: yes, we have that problem in xxxx and xxxx (both countries on different continents)
Me: think it has anything to do with having a mobile phone or a laptop computer next to your balls emitting EMFs that affect and kill sperm by any chance?
Them: really? EMFs do that?
I nod.
Me: if you must have them leave them under the bar is best but if you must carry them put in a back pocket or even better do what I do and put it in a pocket down your leg with a RFID protection wallet between it and your leg
Both move the mobiles to different pockets and restaurant waiter leaves with the drinks order.
Me: you look tired, sleeping OK?
Barman: not sleeping at all well
Me: do you sleep with your mobile next to the bed and turned on?
Barman: Yes
Me: is it at least 7 ft away from you when you sleep?
Barman: No, it’s next to me as cabin is less than 7 ft wide
Me: turn it off or if you need it for an alarm clock put it on airplane mode
Barman goes off to serve someone else.
Next day the barman says he turned his mobile off and it was the best night’s sleep he had had in years.
I said “you thought I was crazy when I told you didn’t you?” and he said he did but getting a good nights sleep was worth listening to a crazy person if it worked.
3 or 4 days later he said that his sleep was still improving and thank you.
Over the next decade, the US government plans to spend nearly $1 trillion on its nuclear arsenal — with the actual cost certain to run even higher than that. The huge outlay is driven in part by the sheer size of America’s doomsday-weapon collection, which comprises an estimated 3,700 deployed or stockpiled nuclear warheads, not counting another 1,500 that are purportedly “retired” and awaiting dismantlement.
Though Americans have been conditioned to think it’s reasonable to maintain such a large arsenal, the idea that thousands of warheads are required to deter nuclear aggression rests on flawed thinking about the nature of deterrence. While defense contractors and military bureaucracies enriched by the status quo will tell you otherwise, the truth is that an adequate arsenal of nuclear warheads can be measured not in thousands, but mere dozens.
During the Cold War, two successive doctrines guided nuclear war strategy. First came Massive Retaliation, which rested on the threat of a disproportionate, devastating nuclear response to either conventional or nuclear aggression. That gave way to Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), in which any nuclear attack was guaranteed to escalate to the point where both countries are completely destroyed.
Both doctrines shared a cornerstone premise — that effective, credible deterrence requires the capability to completely destroy the opposing country. That’s the wrong yardstick. Deterrence is achieved by the ability to impose an intolerable level of retaliatory destruction on a country that’s contemplating a nuclear first-strike — a threshold far lower than border-to-border annihilation.
For perspective, in World War II, Russia and China each suffered roughly 20 million total civilian and military deaths. The same unfathomable fatality counts that spanned several years in World War II can be achieved in mere minutes with only 20 modern nuclear warheads — 15 striking Russian cities and only five hitting the more densely-populated cities of China, according to calculations by University of Maryland professor Steve Fetter.
If the United States chose to opt against the morally-repugnant targeting of population centers with little military significance (that is, cities similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki), a second-strike could instead vaporize the enemy’s economy, targeting power generation, refinery complexes and vital ports (though even these nuclear attacks would inflict civilian death on a huge scale, not only from the blasts but also the economic destruction). Here, Fetter calculates 100 detonations would suffice.
The fatalities and destruction associated with either of those two targeting scenarios that pursue some level of societal devastation — so-called “countervalue targeting” — are well beyond what any foreign ruler would consider tolerable, suggesting that the anticipation of even one or two second-strike warheads would be sufficient to deter an adversary from striking first.
Note, this approach to deterrence, which focuses on the power to retaliate and inflict “intolerable” destruction, does not require adversaries with high moral character. It matters little whether an opposing ruler regards his citizens with loving empathy or depraved indifference. Rulers are ultimately driven by self-interest — and no leader can expect his hold on power to survive a nuclear gamble that brings about the vaporization of cities or irreplaceable economic assets in his own country. (Indeed, there may be no “power” to hold on to.) As political scientist Kenneth Waltz wrote in a milestone 1990 paper that promoted the peacekeeping value of nuclear weapons while making the case that small arsenals are sufficient, “Rulers like to continue to rule.”
Given these realities of deterrence, the size of an adversary’s nuclear arsenal has no bearing on the appropriate size of America’s. “So long as two or more countries have second-strike forces, to compare them is pointless,” wrote Waltz. “If no state can launch a disarming attack with high confidence, force comparisons become irrelevant…beyond a certain level of capability, additional forces provide no additional coverage for one party and pose no additional threat to others.”
In contrast to countervalue targeting, “counterforce targeting” aims to inflict military defeat by destroying a large, diverse array of military targets, such as missile silos, bomber and submarine bases, command and control facilities, and conventional forces.
Counterforce-targeting is what led both America and Russia to amass far larger arsenals than that of any other nuclear-armed country. Beyond the elevated general risk associated with securing, transporting, maintaining and training with these large volumes of warheads, the mutual targeting of nuclear weapon delivery platforms pursuant to counterforce doctrine encourages first strikes — launched out of fear that an opponent’s first strike would render one’s own weapons unusable.
Aside from the heightened risk of miscalculations during crises and accidental explosions during peace, America’s outsized nuclear arsenal threatens national security in a way that has nothing to do with mushroom clouds — by nudging the United States further along its path to financial catastrophe. As then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen warned in 2010, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” His statement came when the national debt was only about a third of its current $36.8 trillion.
Of the trillion dollars to be spent on nuclear weapons through 2034, $460 billion will be spent on a “modernization” program that encompasses warheads, missiles and silos and submarines. Of that, the Pentagon expects to spend $120 billion to replace the current generation of land-based, Minuteman III ICBMs with Sentinel ICBMs made by Northrop Grumman. Last year, the Air Force notified Congress that the Sentinel program would cost 37% more than the previous estimate, and take two years longer to implement. If the history of Pentagon weapon procurement is any guide, we can count on more such announcements in the coming years.
Considered in the context of second-strike deterrence, the Sentinel program is particularly exasperating. Given their fixed locations in satellite-observable silos, land-based ICBMs represent the most vulnerable leg in the nuclear-arms triad, which also includes bombers and submarine-launched missiles. Put another way, it’s the leg that does the least to convince a nuclear adversary that the United States has a guaranteed second-strike capacity — which is the only strike capacity that matters. At the same time, land-based ICBMs are a magnet for enemy missiles, with one study suggesting nuclear strikes on US ICBMs could kill 300 million people across North America.
In February, President Trump expressed dismay at the ongoing development of new nukes. “There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”
Trump’s remarks came as he expressed interest in opening new arms control negotiations with Russia and China. That’s a noble pursuit, but when a second-strike capability is all the United States needs for defense, a case can be made for blazing a unilateral path toward rational and frugal nuclear deterrence — particularly when you consider the dangerously destabilizing nature of a huge arsenal built for counterforce targeting.
“There is no compelling military or strategic rationale for linking the size of U.S. nuclear forces to those of other nuclear weapon states,” wrote Fetter. “As long as the United States has enough survivable warheads to deter and respond to nuclear attacks, it should not matter how many weapons other countries have.” That’s not to discount the risk-reducing value of a far smaller Russian arsenal.
Alas, any move toward a dramatically slimmer US nuclear warhead inventory will face fierce opposition from those who benefit from today’s emphasis on numerical superiority. The status quo is a prime example of the principle of “concentrated benefits and diffused costs.” Via both taxation and inflation, the $1 trillion cost of sustaining and upgrading the arsenal over the next 10 years will be spread across hundreds of millions of Americans, including many who haven’t been born yet. Shuffled into the $90 trillion the US government is projected to spend over that same period, the cost flies under the radar of everyday Americans, precluding major political opposition.
The financial benefits, on the other hand, accrue to a relatively small number of stakeholders, from arms manufacturers to Pentagon and Department of Energy bureaucracies. The enjoyment of concentrated benefits incentivizes these stakeholders to fiercely defend the status quo, deploying a formidable influence arsenal that includes lobbyists, campaign contributions, the promises of jobs in 50 states and hundreds of congressional districts, and financial sponsorship of national security think tanks that steer policy.
While those who are enriched by America’s excessive nuclear arsenal have the upper hand, the status quo is so dangerous and wasteful that Americans of all political leanings should unite in challenging it.
About this episode:
In this powerful two-part conversation with Cynthia MacKay, a former clinical professor of ophthalmology, we expose the hidden dangers of LASIK eye surgery. Cynthia shares her deep concerns, including a 30% complication rate and the lack of proper informed consent for a procedure that permanently alters the cornea and can lead to chronic pain, vision issues, and mental health struggles.
She reveals how financial pressures and institutional silence keep the risks buried, with even the FDA failing to protect patients. We explore how profit often overrides ethics in medicine and how patients are left isolated and gaslit when things go wrong.
This episode is a wake-up call to question medical narratives and understand the real risks behind popular procedures like LASIK.
The existence of Klaus Schwab became known to much of the thinking world during the Coronapocalypse, when so-called conspiracy theories began to flourish about the use of the novel COVID-19 virus as a pretext for reconfiguring the world. The “Great Reset” and the “New Normal” began to be spoken of fondly by bureaucrats back in 2020, shortly after the in some ways incomprehensibly influential Schwab co-authored with Thierry Malleret a short book extolling just those concepts: Covid-19: The Great Reset.
The work, or paraphrased excerpts of it, must have been spam-emailed to every government official and mainstream media journalist on the planet, because in no time pundits and their parrots in the press were gushing about the Great Reset, essentially a Brave New World to come (had none of them read Aldous Huxley’s classic work, or did they simply not understand it?). Nearly every influential person with a microphone was emitting the expression “Everything has changed,” insisting that this was because of the emergence of the novel coronavirus, not the government policies enacted in response to it. Schwab was lurking behind the scenes from the beginning, proffering gaslighting homilies and question-begging arguments camouflaged as benevolent recommendations and facts:
“The worldwide crisis triggered by the coronavirus pandemic has no parallel in modern history.”
In truth, “Everything changed” only because government officials changed everything, by closing national borders, locking down entire populations, preventing groups from assembling, and shutting down schools and all but specially designated “essential” businesses. Human beings were required to wear masks nearly everywhere they went, and those who demurred were treated as miscreants and pursued by the police. The insistence by politicians, bureaucrats and other opinion makers that “Everything has changed” was curiously reminiscent of how officials rationalized a massive and ruthless assault on Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of crimes committed on September 11, 2001, by a small group of persons hailing primarily from Saudi Arabia. (Induction on two cases: when someone starts chiming, “Everything has changed!” in order to persuade you to do something or to support some initiative, you should probably turn around and walk away.)
Klaus Schwab founded and led the World Economic Forum (WEF) for more than fifty years. Many of what were revealed during the pandemic period to be the most brazen authoritarians among ostensibly democratic world leaders have connections to the organization. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and French President Emmanuel Macron are notable examples of leaders who punished and even ostracized citizens for daring to defy their administration’s draconian COVID policies. Schwab recently resigned from his position, but whether that was because of age—he was born in 1938—or scandal matters little at this point, for his legacy has been secured throughout much of the world.
Key features of the Great Reset were to foist ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance investing) on people transnationally or, perhaps more accurately, meta-nationally. We have seen that elements of Schwab’s Weltanschauung have indeed made their way into not only federal government policies, with Green New Deals and carbon-limiting programs imposed in many parts of the planet, but also global corporate initiatives, as many companies now boast about their “environmental and social conscience,” using this as a marketing tool. Under the “Social Governance” guise of the ESG program, enthusiastic efforts to expand DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) frameworks throughout the spheres of education and business have led to the appearance of “trans flags” waving alongside national flags at government buildings in what can only be characterized as a bizarre obsession with the subset of human beings, oddly in ascendance, who are said to have been born with the wrong set of genitalia.
One of the more extreme consequences of DEI has indeed been the effusive promotion of a radical trans agenda, which is arguably both homophobic and misogynistic, promoting as it does a grotesque caricature of femininity, exemplified by the skimpily clad and seemingly ditsy Dylan Mulvaney (remember the Budweiser ads?), while essentially denying the possibility of androgyny. In the name of inclusion, biological males (persons in possession of a Y chromosome) have been allowed to compete with females (persons devoid of a Y chromosome) in sports, with female competitors predictably forced to forego awards and scholarships as a result. Female athletes whose sports involve contact with competitors have been physically endangered by the admission of males into their sphere, as is evidenced by the case of volleyball player Payton McNabb and the 2024 Olympic boxing controversy, when two competitors who had previously failed a female gender test (for Y chromosome and testosterone levels) were permitted to compete. On top of all of those clear and present dangers, females in locker rooms have been faced with the prospect of seeing a penis dangling before them as they change their clothes or shower. Rather than attempt to protect females, policymakers were somehow persuaded by radical trans activists that males who decreed themselves to be female needed to be protected instead.
The incomprehensible power of the radical trans facet of the DEI agenda also brought about the enactment of laws which criminalize the “mis-pronouning” of persons who, despite having been born male, self-identify as female, or vice versa. Or neither, which necessitates, by law in some places now, that their interlocutors restrict personal pronoun usage to ‘they/them’. The latter is needless to say a no-win arrangement, for in complying with pronoun laws, one is thus obliged to commit a crime of grammar.
On the New Green Deal front, the European Union is continually devising new policies which attest to its commitments to the New Normal as envisioned by Schwab’s WEF, perhaps the most notorious slogan of which is “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” Countless memes have satirized the WEF leader for exhorting people to eat insects and stay in their “pods,” on the grounds that livestock and travel are allegedly a menace to the future of the planet. (Note: the persons who attend the ever-proliferating conferences on the environment or serve as parliament members of the EU generally fly to their meetings, sometimes in private jets.) Earnest discussion of the possibility of “15-minute cities,” where people do not need to (or are not allowed to) travel farther than fifteen minutes from their domicile has been taken up among local council members in “green-savvy” communities.
The list of rules and regulations already imposed by the European Union is seemingly endless, but to offer only two recent examples: plastic bottles sold in Europe are now required to have their caps affixed to them, and single-serving portion containers (such as are used at bed and breakfast hotels for jam, butter, honey, etc.) are in the process of being outlawed, despite having been devised as a means not only of convenience but also to prevent cross-contamination between unrelated guests. Only time will tell whether bureaucrats eventually side with public health officials or environmentalists in the latter case.
Far more important for the future of free people are the persistent censorship measures in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia and beyond, modeled after anti-misinformation and surveillance policies aggressively enforced in many countries during the COVID period. To the shock of many thinking people, governments have taken it upon themselves to monitor the social media posts of citizens and to criminalize the expression of what are deemed unacceptable opinions, an obvious legacy of the COVID period, when persons who disagreed with the government were roundly denounced as agents of misinformation who needed to be de-platformed and silenced, lest they kill anyone with their dangerous ideas. Strikingly, reports of vaccine injury were not even false (misinformation), according to the censors themselves, but instead “malinformation,” which officials regarded as having the potential to prevent people who needed the “vaccine” from getting it.
Looking back at the surprising convergence among governments about the necessity of global lockdowns and, later, universal vaccination in the face of a virus which primarily endangered elderly and already infirm persons, it is clear that Schwab’s work served as a sort of template for how to communicate with constituents and conduct public affairs. Paternalism reigned (or, if you prefer, “maternalism” à la Nurse Ratched), as citizens were spoken to by political leaders in condescending tones as though they were toddlers who needed to be protected from themselves. This approach to governance can be summed up in a phrase: Children are to be seen, not heard.
Citizens were told that it was wrong to do their own research because only “the experts,” such as pandemic guru Anthony Fauci knew what they were doing. Despite having repeatedly lied in insisting that the virus had emerged naturally, having somehow leapt from a bat to a human being (when someone in Wuhan ate a bowl of soup?), Fauci himself, we now know, promoted and funded the gain-of-function research which culminated in the very existence—and potency—of the virus. Throughout this period of history, persons who dared to dissent from the dictates and narratives of the government were decried as enemies of humanity who needed to be controlled in order to protect other people from their nefarious tendencies. Notably, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., author of The Real Anthony Fauci (a true tale of moral horror), who now serves as secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Donald Trump’s second administration, was publicly derided and discredited as an insane conspiracy theorist throughout Joe Biden’s presidency.
The conduct of governments during the period of history from 2020 to 2023 was so confounding and preposterous that a plethora of bona fide conspiracy theories continued to emerge, reaching a peak with the release of the alleged miracle vaccine, which everyone on the planet was first encouraged (through coaxing and bribery) and then, in some cases, required to line up for, on pain of punishment for failure to comply. Some of the theories were quite creative, asserting, for example, that the shots were introducing microchips into the bodies of the recipients, or would turn them into frogs. But the term antivaxxer was affixed to anyone who declined the shot, whatever their reason, with everyone in that group assimilated and depicted as intellectually inept for defying what were claimed by officials at the time to be the dictates of common sense.
Some people, whether with formal training in science or simply endowed with critical thinking skills, understandably expressed skepticism about the new m-RNA therapy shot which they were told would eradicate the virus, while being simultaneously told that natural immunity was inadequate and that persons who already recovered from the virus would still need to undergo vaccination. Because a vaccine, by definition, exploits the subject’s own immune system, anyone with even a modicum of logical acumen must have understood that the new miracle vaccine, which depended on the immune system itself, would only work as advertised if, in fact, natural immunity was possible. This flagrant contradiction was not recognized or acknowledged as such by inept (or, in some cases, mercenarily corrupt) government officials and public health pundits, but it was the most obvious sign to people yet to be indoctrinated into the COVID cult (or not on the Big Pharma dole) that something was seriously awry.
The “Natural immunity is not possible, but this vaccine is necessary and will save you!” contradiction no doubt inspired some of the ever-mutating and proliferating theories about what was really going on. In Covid-19: The Great Reset, Schwab himself refers to antivaxxers as a dangerous impediment to getting through the crisis, and the term came swiftly to be used to denounce anyone who raised even doubts grounded in logic and science about the wisdom of submitting to an experimental treatment in cases where the person’s chances of death from the virus were quite low, as was true for all healthy young persons, and had already been demonstrated in each particular case of anyone who had recovered from previous infection.
The Pentagon required all service persons to take part in the experimental trial of the mRNA therapy, whether or not they had already recovered from infection. The more than 8,000 troops who refused the shot were discharged without pay in 2021, and the military vaccine mandate was not rescinded until 2023. Since assuming office in 2025, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s new defense secretary, has been apologizing to those persons and attempting to make amends, acknowledging that the order to take an experimental vaccine was in fact illegal and that no one was obliged to follow illegal orders. The true motives and sincerity of the new administration on this matter will be seen in how they treat the persons who suffered vaccine injury as a result of having undergone the procedure, under the erroneous belief that Joe Biden’s secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, knew what he was doing when he ordered the entire military corps to follow his über-masked, serially vaccinated and boosted example. If the government extends its offer of compensation only to healthy troops, in an effort to woo them back into service, and ignores the persons who were disabled by the vaccine, or the individuals and families wrecked by being plunged precipitously into penury, then it will be safe to conclude that Hegseth’s apology tour is no more and no less than a measure intended to mitigate the ongoing recruitment crisis.
There seemed to be grounds for hope that the United States had managed to extricate itself from the totalitarian clutches of meta-bureaucrats such as Klaus Schwab and their “Fifty Year Plans” for humanity when Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris (who to this day has pronouns in her profile at X) in the November 2024 presidential election. The new president immediately rescinded all DEI initiatives implemented under Biden and enacted numerous executive orders in an effort to protect women, and restore a modicum of sanity to what had become a surreal situation, by boldly asserting the biological fact that no matter how many body parts a male human being chooses to cut off or modify, every remaining cell in his body will still contain a Y chromosome. Trump also acted swiftly to criminalize the scandalous medical practice of mutilating the genitalia of minors. Both Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance, repeatedly pronounced that free speech would always prevail in the United States as a fundamental pillar of democracy, and they vociferously denounced the censorship going on abroad.
Vestiges of the New World Order, however, can be seen in the United States, for example, the requirement that all citizens who wish to travel or enter a federal building be in possession of a Real ID. This measure, too, which begins in May 2025, having been planned long ago, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, bears similarities to some of what was going on during the COVID period, when tracking apps and data collection at borders were nearly ubiquitous. More and more data about citizens continues to be collected by governments, and remnants of the health documentation requirements during the COVID period can be seen in the visas now needed to travel to countries where formerly a passport sufficed. Restriction of movement reached a peak during the COVID period, but the apparatus now exists and with a bit of tweaking could be used to stop anyone, anywhere, from relocating at the caprice of government officials, whoever they may be, and whatever their priorities.
The removal of students from campuses in the United States for daring to speak out against the government’s continuing support of the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza suggests that Trump, like Biden and Harris, supports free speech only so long as it does not threaten his own plans for the country or its satellite state, Israel. The libertarians who voted for Trump were needless to say thrilled when he followed through on his promise to pardon Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road who had received a double life sentence plus forty years with no possibility of parole. In choosing to vote for Trump, however, libertarians had somehow forgotten or chose to ignore the fact that Julian Assange was thrown into Belmarsh prison under Trump’s watch. (I am aware that many persons vote according to a “lesser evil” calculation, but the fact remains: the worst persecution of Assange occurred under Trump.) The fact that U.S. government drones are now acknowledged to be flying above U.S. skies (they were under Biden as well, although this was denied at the time), reveals that surveillance of residents remains a priority of the ostensibly new administration.
Antiwar activists—some of whom voted for Trump—were hopeful that he was sincere when he promised on the campaign trail not to start but to end wars. Even more welcome, albeit frankly astonishing, was Trump’s assertion on February 13, 2025, not long after having re-assumed the presidency, that he would like to cut the $800 billion Pentagon budget in half and work for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Pacific hopes were swiftly dashed less than two months later when, immediately after hosting Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (for the second time in 2025), Trump announced on April 7, 2025, a new, even bigger, $1 trillion defense budget, accompanied by his customary raving about how splendid the U.S. military will be, thanks to his management.
In a welcome change to citizens concerned about government overreach and the massive federal debt, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the direction of Elon Musk, has been purging programs and canceling contracts relating to DEI and other parts of the Schwab “New Normal” agenda, including regulations intended to promote the Green New Deal and expand government power over citizens’ lives. The era of big government, however, is obviously not behind us. Along with his sudden imposition of extreme tariffs and announcement of a shocking 25% increase in defense spending, Trump’s strange fascination with the future possible annexation of Greenland, Canada, and Gaza, does not bode well for the future of free people. The idea that the leader of one country may simply “buy” another country or a part of another country (in the case of Gaza) reflects the very megalomania intrinsic to supra-national organizations such as the WEF and characters such as Klaus Schwab who attempt to impose their will on the rest of humanity.
Setting all of those substantial concerns aside, at the very least we can take solace in the fact that Klaus Schwab is no longer calling the WEF shots and penning flagrantly sophistic pamphlets replete with non sequiturs and gaslighting guidance masquerading as benevolence. Goodbye and good riddance, Herr Professor Doktor Schwab, we will not miss you. Alas, the WEF continues on (funded by not only a congeries of self-interested global corporations, but also NGOs and, by transitivity, unwitting taxpayers), and the danger it poses thus remains. Self-deluded officials named as global thought leaders will continue to comply with the WEF, as was exemplified by former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who is explicitly singled out for praise in Covid-19: The Great Reset.
Bureaucrats, for their part, will continue to conduct themselves as bureaucrats do, amassing power, devising new rules and regulations, and imposing arbitrary policies by all means necessary, as we witnessed throughout the COVID era. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the recently named interim chairman of the WEF, is a former CEO of Nestlé who famously claimed that people have no right to water. Unbeknownst to many of the millions of people who purchase and imbibe bottled water everyday, much of it derives from government-treated municipal water supplies filtered and then poured into plastic bottles to look as though it was sourced from natural spring wells such as Evian, Perrier, Pellegrino, Gerolsteiner, et al. It is unclear how much power Brabeck-Letmathe will exert, or for how long, but he does happen to look empirically indistinguishable from the super villains depicted in movies, so there is some chance that if he begins spouting out gaslighting prescriptions about how all human beings ought to behave, at least some among us will shudder, turn around and walk away.
As is often the case, it appears that Israel partisans were behind this, as revealed by Col. Douglas Macgregor in this interview with Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis. Macgregor is a decorated combat veteran, author of five books, a PhD, and a defense and foreign policy consultant. In 2020 he was appointed Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Defense by President Trump. In 28 years of service Macgregor taught at West Point; commanded the 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry; served as the Director of the Joint Operations Center at SHAPE in 1999; and was awarded the Defense Superior Service medal. – https://www.douglasmacgregor.com/about
Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow and military expert at Defense Priorities. Davis retired from the U.S. Army as a Lt. Col. after 21 years of active service. He was deployed into combat zones four times in his career, beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and then to Iraq in 2009 and Afghanistan twice (2005, 2011). He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for Valor at the Battle of 73 Easting in 1991, and awarded a Bronze Star Medal in Afghanistan in 2011. He is the author of The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America. – https://www.defensepriorities.org/peo…
As soon as he came to power, United States President Donald Trump echoed calls for the Palestinians’ massive displacement outside their homeland.
Israel’s war on Gaza has displaced nearly two million Palestinians since October 2023. And with calls by some Israeli politicians to permanently expel Palestinians from the Strip, fear is growing of yet another forced population transfer. An Israeli minister has even called the current war the “Gaza Nakba”, referring to the forced displacement of Palestinians in 1948-49.
Meanwhile, in the occupied West Bank, the Israeli army and settlers are waging a less visible but equally dangerous shadow war. People & Power delves into the history of Palestinian displacement and asks whether population transfer is Israel’s ultimate goal.
Former Biden officials admitted that Netanyahu rejected a ceasefire, prolonged the Gaza war for political reasons, sabotaged a Saudi normalization deal, and faced no serious pressure from Washington to stop the assault.
Senior officials from the former Biden administration have acknowledged in a revealing interview aired Sunday by “Israel’s” Channel 13 that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actively derailed efforts to reach a normalization deal with Saudi Arabia and prolonged the Gaza war for political survival, all while rejecting any serious move toward a ceasefire.
The officials revealed that in 2023, “Israel” was presented with an opportunity to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia. The proposed deal, brokered by Washington and Riyadh, would have required a ceasefire, the release of captives, and a political commitment toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu rejected these conditions outright. Following the October 7 events, he entrenched his refusal, dismissing any discussion of Palestinian rights as “a prize for terrorism.”
Biden aides noted that advancing Palestinian self-determination was not framed as an Israeli concession but as a necessary step to weaken Hamas and empower a reformed Palestinian Authority. Still, “Israel” refused.
“I don’t understand the decision not to grab that opportunity as the most important strategic move Israel can make,” former senior US envoy Amos Hochstein said. “I think it was missed before. I hope Israel doesn’t miss that opportunity moving forward, even if it means doing things that politically are uncomfortable.”
Throughout the course of the war, “Israel” consistently rejected calls for a ceasefire, not once requesting one itself, even as the Palestinian death toll climbed into the tens of thousands. Despite widespread destruction in Gaza, Netanyahu’s government pursued a military strategy without any political plan for what would follow, a choice Biden officials now admit was deliberate.
Former US national security adviser Jake Sullivan expressed frustration at Netanyahu’s attacks on the US, saying, “Having the prime minister of Israel question the support of the United States after all that we did, do I think that was a right and proper thing for a friend to do? I do not. [However], I will always stand firm behind the idea that Israel has a right to defend itself and that the United States has a responsibility to help Israel.”
In internal discussions, Washington briefly considered more forceful measures, including a speech from Biden to pressure Netanyahu or even encourage Israeli elections. But the US ultimately chose not to directly confront Netanyahu’s extremist coalition, enabling continued escalation in Gaza without a coherent exit strategy.
Officials further revealed that Netanyahu sabotaged diplomatic efforts by falsely accusing the US of a broad weapons freeze, leading to the collapse of negotiations to release a shipment of 2,000-lb bombs. This, despite the fact that Washington had already pushed through $19 billion in new security assistance to “Israel.”
Behind the scenes, Biden aides said they struggled to secure basic humanitarian aid entry into Gaza, facing Israeli obstruction and attacks on aid convoys by far-right settlers, actions enabled by ministers inside Netanyahu’s own government. Although the US signed memoranda requiring the State Department to monitor whether Israeli behavior violated US arms laws, whistleblowers like Stacy Gilbert resigned after accusing the Biden administration of manipulating findings to continue arms shipments to “Israel.”
Despite recognizing these realities, Biden officials continued unconditional political and military support for “Israel” throughout the war. While they claim to have privately voiced concerns, there was no serious pressure on “Israel” to halt its attack or pursue a ceasefire.
Discussions with Saudi Arabia over normalization continued during the war, but ultimately faltered because “Israel’s” leadership refused to accept any framework that would guarantee Palestinian rights. “The fact that there wasn’t a way in the Israeli political system for anyone to navigate a space to allow for that is kind of shocking,” former US ambassador Jack Lew said.
Even in ceasefire talks, Biden officials acknowledged that Netanyahu’s internal political considerations often obstructed possible deals. US negotiators admitted that Netanyahu added new conditions at critical moments, disrupting progress aimed at securing the release of captives.
While some former Biden officials sought to portray President Biden’s loyalty to “Israel” as an act of courage, the interviews paint a different reality: Biden’s refusal to apply meaningful pressure allowed Netanyahu’s government to escalate the devastation in Gaza without restraint.
Former Israeli ambassador Michael Herzog summed up this perspective when he said, “God did the State of Israel a favor that Biden was the president during this period, because it could have been much worse. We fought [in Gaza] for over a year, and the administration never came to us and said, ‘ceasefire now.’ It never did. And that’s not to be taken for granted.”
The reality, confirmed even by officials closest to Washington and Tel Aviv, is that “Israel’s” attack on Gaza was never accompanied by any serious plan for peace, only the relentless continuation of genocide, enabled and shielded by unconditional US support.
For the first time, a sitting U.S. senator has publicly endorsed the position that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition on September 11, 2001.
Johnson was explicit, sounding a lot like I did in 2006:
He mentioned the molten steel under the towers and questioned why evidence was quickly removed from the site.
“Who ordered the removal and the destruction of all that evidence, totally contrary to any other firefighter investigating procedures? Who ordered that? Who was in charge? I think there’s some basic information. Where’s all the documentation for the NIST investigation?
“There are a host of questions I will be asking, quite honestly, now that my eyes have been opened up.”
Johnson says he’ll work with Weldon to expose the truth, which has been kept from the world.
“What actually happened on 9/11?” the senator asked. “What do we know, and what was covered up? My guess is that there is a whole lot that has been covered up in terms of what the American government knows about 9/11.”
Johnson is not the first US senator from Wisconsin whose “eyes have been opened up” to the 9/11 false flag. I brought the matter up several times between 2004 and 2006 with Johnson’s predecessor, then-Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), whose best friend, Sen. Paul Wellstone, was murdered in a rigged plane crash in 2002 to nip his 9/11 truth efforts in the bud. Feingold pointedly did not disagree with my assertions about 9/11 and thanked me for giving him David Ray Griffin’s books. Another senator and friend of Feingold and Wellstone, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), told a senior staff member “you don’t know how right you are” in asserting that Wellstone was murdered to protect the 9/11 coverup. As I reported in May 2010:
Scholar-activist Four Arrows, co-author of American Assassination: The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone, today revealed for the first time a reported conversation in which U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) confirmed that the Wellstone plane crash was an assassination, not an accident.
As Four Arrows recounted on today’s edition of The Kevin Barrett Show (beginning somewhere around the 20 minute mark): a trusted friend of his, during a conversation with Sen. Boxer, was surprised when the Senator asked “are you a friend of Four Arrows?” The friend said yes. Boxer said “tell him he doesn’t know how right he is. (The Wellstone assassination) was meant as a warning to all of us.” Sen. Boxer went on to say that if asked, she would deny the statement.
Sen. Boxer, who other sources report has confidentially admitted that she knows 9/11 was an inside job, has publicly confirmed that she does not trust the 9/11 Commission version of events, specifically the official narrative of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. The following exchange took place between Senator Boxer and myself on Wisconsin Public Radio’s program “Conversations with Kathleen Dunn” on December 5th, 2005 (click here for archive — note that the text below is a summary, not a transcript):
“Barrett: Senator Boxer, I’d like to thank you and Senator Feingold for hanging in there after 9/11…(Boxer: “You’re welcome.”) Now as you may know, Congressman Kurt Weldon has been screaming from the rooftops that we need a new 9/11 Able Danger investigation focusing on what US intelligence agencies knew about Mohammad Atta and when they knew it. Newsweek and other mainstream publications have written that Mohammad Atta was trained at the Foreign Officer’s school Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. And Daniel Hopsicker’s book Welcome to Terrorland makes it clear that Hoffman Aviation in Venice Florida, where the so-called hijackers trained, was actually a CIA drug import facility—it was a flight school in name only. Now Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer has blown the whistle—he says he and his colleagues in military intelligence identified Atta as a terrorist in 2000, but they were gagged and ordered to “forget they had ever heard of Atta.” Are you among the 245 senators and representatives who have signed Congressman Weldon’s letter demanding a Congressional investigation into what US authorities knew about Atta prior to the 9/11 attacks?
“Senator Boxer: That isn’t what the 9/11 Commission Report said—but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I haven’t seen Congressman Weldon’s letter yet, but…we need to pursue the truth about 9/11 wherever it leads. The truth should be the only priority. And we need the truth. My main focus now, though, is to end the war in Iraq.”
According to Four Arrows, Sen. Boxer and other high-visibility people know that if they cross certain lines, they and/or their families will be assassinated.
I salute Ron Johnson for having the courage to take on an issue that can get senate-level people killed. And while I don’t agree with Johnson’s positions on many issues, I am glad I knocked on doors for a day to help get him re-elected in 2022. Like Dennis Kucinich, who recently appeared on my podcast to voice his anguish about the US-backed Gaza genocide, Johnson has enough courage and integrity to break taboos and speak important truths. But can he organize a Senate investigation with the power to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony? The stakes couldn’t be higher: Against the chance of getting Wellstoned, an opportunity to make history and become a genuine national hero for the ages.
The current war between Russia and NATO in Ukraine is far from being merely a regional conflict. Behind the military clashes and media propaganda lies a much deeper confrontation: a struggle between sovereignty and global domination, between a multipolar world and the imposition of a centralized governance serving the interests of the transnational financial elite. In this context, Russia emerges as the last major obstacle to the globalist agenda, which seeks to completely reshape the international order—eliminating any country that resists the project of forced unification under Western technocratic control.
From “Germany Must Perish” to “Russia Must Perish”
To understand the logic behind current events, it is essential to recall the historical context of the 20th century. In 1941, Theodore Kaufman published the infamous book Germany Must Perish!, advocating for the total annihilation of Germany and the German people as a condition for world peace. Obviously, Kaufman’s absurd thesis greatly contributed to German extremism and the rise of racist revanchism. Today, that same logic has simply been redirected: the target is now Moscow. The prevailing narrative in the West no longer seeks understanding or coexistence, but rather the complete weakening and dismantling of the Russian state.
This hostility did not arise out of nowhere. What bothers the globalist power centers—based primarily in London, Washington, and Brussels—is the fact that Russia continues to refuse to surrender its national sovereignty, its distinct civilizational model, and its natural wealth. A country with immense energy and military potential that rejects subordination to rules dictated by entities like the World Economic Forum or the IMF automatically becomes an enemy.
Ukraine’s Role and the Geopolitical Siege
Ukraine has become the centerpiece of the strategy to contain Russia. The 2014 coup, openly supported by Washington and Brussels, marked the starting point of a new phase of hybrid war against Moscow. Ukraine’s integration into Western structures, the training of its armed forces by NATO, and the continuous sabotage of the Minsk agreements left Russia no choice but to launch the Special Military Operation.
It is important to note that the globalist elite never had any genuine interest in Ukraine’s stability. The country served as a pressure tool, a platform for military provocation, and a source of strategic resources: fertile agricultural lands, gas deposits, rare minerals. More than that, it acted as a barrier to prevent a rapprochement between Berlin and Moscow—a potentially devastating alliance for Anglo-American dominance.
The Trump Factor
Donald Trump’s election in 2024 reignited an unexpected hope: that the Western axis of power could be broken from within. Unlike the Washington political establishment, Trump does not represent the interests of the transnational elite, but rather a nationalist and pragmatic faction of the American bourgeoisie that sees peace with Russia as an opportunity, not a threat.
The emerging rapprochement between Trump and Putin—even if limited—suggests a possible reconfiguration of international alliances. The globalist project, which viewed the war in Ukraine as a way to weaken Moscow and solidify control over Europe, must now deal with the possibility of a ceasefire that could further strengthen Russia’s position.
A Captured Europe on a Suicidal Path
Meanwhile, the European Union remains blind in its obedience to globalist interests. Leaders such as Emmanuel Macron, Ursula von der Leyen, and Kaja Kallas do not act as statesmen, but as colonial administrators of the globalist agenda. Rapid militarization, constant war propaganda, and even campaigns urging civilians to prepare for conflict are clear signs that Brussels is committed not to peace—but to destruction.
Russia, therefore, resists not only for itself. It also resists on behalf of those in Europe and beyond who still believe in the possibility of a world based on civilizational balance, not subjugation to speculative capital. The true battle of our time is not between democracy and autocracy, as they want us to believe—but between sovereignty and servitude.
By Jay Knott | Dissident Voice | September 24, 2013
In a recent article on Counterpunch, Rob Urie defended the traditional Marxist analysis of US policy in the Middle East. He argues that support for Israel is driven primarily by economic interest, not the Jewish lobby.
He starts by paying tribute to the idea that Western societies are uniquely racist. He says that the “Western narrative” claims there is an “Arab character”, and that this is “antique racist blather”. He gives no definition of these terms. Further, he establishes his credentials as part of the dominant current in the American left by claiming that “over a million people in Iraq died so ‘we’ in the West can drive SUVs.”1
When he tries to criticize bourgeois economics, he makes it clear he doesn’t understand the developments it has made since Marx’s day, using the mathematical discipline known as “game theory”. He dismisses the basic abstraction of economic theory, the idea of the rational individual, on the grounds that it is “devoid of history, culture and political context”. But abstractions are always devoid of something.
He defends a more concrete economic theory, mostly Marxist, with some input from another theorist of capitalist crisis, Hyman Minsky. This concrete theory leads him to the view that US activity in the Middle East is primarily driven by rational capitalist motives, the need to secure a supply of oil.
“Taking the totality of circumstance — former oil company executives launching war on an oil rich nation on a pretext they publicly proclaimed they didn’t believe shortly before taking office — and that upon launching their war proved to be non-existent, requires a willingness to overlook the obvious — that the war on Iraq was for oil, that is difficult to support.”1
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood him, but based on what he says in the rest of the article, this convoluted sentence seems to argue that, because president Bush and vice-president Cheney attacked Iraq on false premises, and they also said it was all about oil, and they are former oil executives, and Iraq has a lot of oil, it’s difficult to deny US attacks on Iraq are all about oil.
In fact, it’s not hard at all. As Urie points out, at times Bush and co. said that attacking Iraq was “protecting the world’s supply of oil.”1 But, as he also points out, they are congenital liars. Why should we believe them when they say they are trying to “protect” the oil supply? Protect it against what? When politicians “admit” attacks on Middle Eastern countries are wars for oil, they are parroting the neo-con party line, feeding the public, both left and right, with a plausible-sounding pretext. For right-wingers, “it’s a war for oil” is a reason to support war, and for leftists, it’s a way to feel better by complaining impotently about corporate greed. Both approaches help the war drive. … 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.
• Col Doug Macgregor: Defense Sec Hegse… 
Aletho News
Aletho News 