The House report on HHS Covid propaganda is devastating. The Biden administration spent almost $1 billion to push falsehoods about Covid vaccines, boosters, and masks on the American people. If a pharma company had run the campaign, it would have been fined out of existence.
HHS engaged a PR firm, the Fors Marsh Group (FMG), for the propaganda campaign. The main goal was to increase Covid vax uptake. The strategy: 1. Exaggerate Covid mortality risk 2. Downplay the fact that there was no good evidence that the Covid vax stops transmission.
The propaganda campaign extended beyond vax uptake and included exaggerating mask efficacy and pushing for social distancing and school closures.
Ultimately, since the messaging did not match reality, the campaign collapsed public trust in public health.
The PR firm (FMG) drew most of its faulty science from the CDC’s “guidance,” which ignoredthe FDA’s findings on the vaccine’s limitations, as well as scientific findings from other countries that contradicted CDC groupthink.
The report details the CDC’s mask flip-flopping through the years. It’s especially infuriating to recall the CDC’s weird, anti-scientific, anti-human focus on masking toddlers with cloth masks into 2022.
President Biden’s Covid advisor Ashish K. Jha waited until Dec. 2022 (right after leaving government service) to tell the country that “[t]here is no study in the world that shows that masks work that well.” What took him so long?
In 2021, formerCDC director, Rochelle Walensky rewrote CDC guidance on social distancing at the behest of the national teachers’ union, guaranteeing that schools would remain closed to in-person learning for many months.
During this period, the PR firm FMG put out ads telling parents that schools would close unless kids masked up, stayed away from friends, and got Covid-vaccinated.
In March 2021, even as the CDC told the American people that the vaxxed did not need to mask, the PR firm ran ads saying that masks were still needed, even for the vaxxed. “It’s not time to ease up” we were told, in the absence of evidence any of that did any good.
In 2021, to support the Biden/Harris administration’s push for vax mandates, the PR firm pushed the false idea that the vax stopped Covid transmission. When people started getting “breakthrough” infections, public trust in public health collapsed.
Later, when the FDA approved the vax for 12 to 15-year-old kids, the PR firm told parents that schools could open in fall 2021 only if they got their kids vaccinated. These ads never mentioned side effects like myocarditis due to the vax.
HHS has scrubbed the propaganda ads from this era from its web pages. It’s easy to see why. They are embarrassing. They tell kids, in effect, that they should treat other kids like biohazards unless they are vaccinated.
When the Delta variant arrived, the PR firm doubled down on fear-mongering, masking, and social distancing.
In September 2021, CDC director Walensky overruled the agency’s external experts to recommend the booster to all adults rather than just the elderly. The director’s action was “highly unusual” and went beyond the FDA’s approval of the booster for only the elderly.
The PR campaign and the CDC persistently overestimated the mortality risk of Covid infection in kids to scare parents into vaccinating their children with the Covid vax.
In Aug. 2021, the military imposed its Covid vax mandate, leading to 8,300 servicemen being discharged. Since 2023, the DOD has been trying to get the discharged servicemen to reenlist. What harm has been done to American national security by the vax mandate?
The Biden/Harris administration imposed the OSHA, CMS, and military vax mandates, even though the CDC knew that the Delta variant evaded vaccine immunity. The PR campaign studiously avoided informing Americans about waning vaccine efficacy in the face of variants.
The propaganda campaign hired celebrities and influencers to “persuade” children to get the Covid vax.
I think if a celebrity is paid to advertise a faulty product, that celebrity should be partially liable if the product harms some people.
In the absence of evidence, the propaganda campaign ran ads telling parents that the vaccine would prevent their kids from getting Long Covid.
With the collapse in public trust in the CDC, parents have begun to question all CDC advice. Predictably, the HHS propaganda campaign has led to a decline in the uptake of routine childhood vaccines.
The report makes several recommendations, including formally defining the CDC’s core mission to focus on disease prevention, forcing HHS propaganda to abide by the FDA’s product labeling rules, and revamping the process of evaluating vaccine safety.
Probably the most important recommendation: HHS should never again adopt a policy of silencing dissenting scientists in an attempt to create an illusion of consensus in favor of CDC groupthink.
You can find a copy of the full House report here. The HHS must take its findings seriously if there is any hope for public health to regain public.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a physician, epidemiologist and health economist. He is Professor at Stanford Medical School, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, a Faculty Member at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute, and a Fellow at the Academy of Science and Freedom. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. Co-Author of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Internal information has revealed that Canadian doctors are questioning the morality of euthanizing vulnerable and impoverished patients who are choosing death not just because of illness, but because of poverty and loneliness.
According to internal information published October 16 by the Associated Press, poverty and loneliness are two popular reasons for choosing euthanasia in Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, a phenomenon which has left doctors grappling with the morality of the deadly practice.
“On private forums, doctors and nurses have expressed deep discomfort with ending the lives of vulnerable people whose deaths were avoidable,” the report found.
Canada has one of the most permissive euthanasia programs in the world, euphemistically called “Medical Assistance in Dying.” First introduced in 2016, MAiD was initially only available to those who were terminally ill. However, in 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government expanded the deadly practice to be available to those who are not at risk of death but who suffer from chronic illness. It is worth noting that whether someone is terminally ill or just chronically ill, it is gravely immoral to intentionally kill a human person, a truth infallibly affirmed by the Catholic Church.
In its report, the Associated Press revealed that internal information shows that this 2021 expansion of MAiD has led to a significant number of people in Ontario’s poorest areas seeking MAiD when their pain might be alleviated by “money, adequate housing or social connections.”
While pro-euthanasia Dying with Dignity Association President Dr. Konia Trouton assured the AP that killing patients for vulnerability or financial reasons alone is “completely forbidden,” it remains true that patients themselves suffering with these conditions are factoring that in when opting for death.
In one case, a doctor told forum participants that a middle-aged worker, whose ankle and back injuries had left him unable to work, felt that the government’s insufficient support was “leaving (him) with no choice but to pursue MAiD.”
While the man was eligible under the current MAiD law, the doctor was hesitant to euthanatize him since he had listed the reduced government payments as a key factor in his request.
In another case, a doctor revealed that a patient with a serious lung disease was seeking MAiD “mostly because he is homeless, in debt and cannot tolerate the idea of (long-term care) of any kind.”
While the doctor was hesitant, some on the forum encouraged him to euthanize the man, claiming that “looking at the wall or ceiling waiting to be fed … to have diapers changed” was sufficiently painful. The doctor finally agreed to euthanize his patient.
Other cases included an obese woman who described herself as a “useless body taking up space,” which one doctor argued met the requirements for MAiD since obesity is “a medical condition which is indeed grievous and irremediable.”
In another case, an 80-year-old woman who required dialysis sought MAiD after she lost her husband, sibling and cat in a six-week period. Some doctors argued that the loss of her husband would make her pain unbearable, while others recommended grief counseling.
Overall, in Ontario 116 of 4,528 euthanasia deaths in 2023 involved non-terminal patients, with many of those killed being from impoverished communities.
2023 data from Ontario’s chief coroner revealed that over three quarters of those euthanized when their death wasn’t imminent required disability support before their death.
Similarly, nearly 29% of those killed when they were not terminally ill lived in the poorest parts of Ontario, while only 20% of the province’s general population lives in those areas.
While some doctors appeared to have little to no qualms about killing Ontario’s vulnerable, others questioned the morality of killing their patients instead of offering real care to those in need.
“I don’t want (euthanasia) to become the solution to every kind of suffering out there,” one physician wrote on the forum.
“I have great discomfort with the idea of MAiD being driven by social circumstances,” another admitted. “I don’t have a good solution to social deprivation either, so I feel pretty useless when I receive requests like this.”
While some doctors prefer patient care to MAiD, Trudeau and his government have worked to expand MAiD thirteen-fold since it was legalized, making it the fastest growing euthanasia program in the world.
Currently, wait times to receive care in Canada have increased to an average of 27.7 weeks, leading some Canadians to despair and opt for euthanasia instead of waiting for assistance. At the same time, sick and elderly Canadians who have refused to end their lives via MAiD have reported being called “selfish” by their providers.
The most recent reports show that MAiD is the sixth highest cause of death in Canada. However, it was not listed as such in Statistics Canada’s top 10 leading causes of death from 2019 to 2022.
When asked why MAiD was left off the list, the agency said that it records the illnesses that led Canadians to choose to end their lives via euthanasia, not the actual cause of death, as the primary cause of death.
According to Health Canada, in 2022, 13,241 Canadians died by MAiD lethal injections. This accounts for 4.1 percent of all deaths in the country for that year, a 31.2 percent increase from 2021.
Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat, and NATO has openly stated its intention to make Ukraine a member state after the war. Without a political settlement that restores Ukraine’s neutrality, Russia will therefore likely annex the strategic territories it cannot accept ending up under NATO control and then turn what remains of Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As the war is being lost, the rational policy for the Europeans would therefore be to offer an agreement based on ending NATO’s eastward expansion to save Ukrainian lives, territory and the nation itself. Yet, no European leader has been able to even suggest such a solution publicly. Why?
Present the average European politician, journalist or academic with the following thought experiment: If you were an advisor to the Kremlin, what would be your advice to Russia if there are no negotiations to resolve the Ukraine War? Most would feel morally compelled to give ridiculous answers such as advising the Kremlin to capitulate and withdraw, even if Russia is on the cusp of victory. Any impulse to adhere to reason and address Russia’s security concerns would likely be deterred by the threat of being shamed for “legitimising” Russia’s invasion.
What explains the decline of strategic thinking, pragmatism and rationality in European politics?
Europe’s Reality as a Social Construction
The political class that emerged in Europe after the Cold War have become excessively ideological and committed to narratives to socially construct new realities. The Europeans embrace of postmodernism entails questioning the existence of objective reality as our understanding of reality is shaped by language, culture and unique historical perspectives. The postmodernists therefore often seek to change narratives and language as a source of political power. If reality is a social construction, then the grand narratives can be more important than facts. Indeed, ideological narratives must be defended from inconvenient facts.
The European project had the benign intentions of creating a common liberal democratic European identity that would transcend the divisive national rivalry and power politics of the past. The relevance of objective reality is contested, and narratives about reality are believed to reflect power structures that can be dismantled and reorganised.
The prevalence of constructivism and focus on “speech acts” in the EU has led to the belief that even using realist analysis and discussing competing national interests entail legitimising realpolitik and thus socially constructing a more dangerous reality. Speech acts refer to the use of language as a source of power by constructing political realities and influencing outcomes. By reducing the focus on security competition in the international system, it is assumed that power politics can be mitigated.
Is it possible to socially construct a new reality? Do we transcend security competition by not addressing it or do we neglect the responsible management of security competition. Can we transcend national rivalries by focusing on common values or does the neglect of national interests result in decline?
Socially Constructing a New Europe
The concept of the “rhetorical trap” explains how the EU reached a consensus to offer membership to Central and Eastern European states when it was not in the self-interest of all EU member states to do so. The rhetorical trap was set by first having member states accept the ideological premise that the legitimacy of the EU project was based on the integration of liberal democratic states. By appealing to the values and norms as the foundation of the EU, a rhetorical trap was set as the sense of moral obligation shamed EU member states from vetoing the enlargement process. The use of language and framing could thus influence European states to not act in their own interests as they were shamed into compliance.
Schimmelfennig, who introduced the concept of the rhetorical trap, argues that “politics is a struggle over legitimacy, and this struggle is fought out with rhetorical arguments”.[1] The rhetorical trap simplifies a complex issue into a binary choice of either supporting the enlargement process or betraying liberal democratic ideals. The moral framing shuts down important discussions about the potential downsides of accepting new members and how to address these challenges in the best way. Dissent could be crushed as framing the issue as a moral imperative meant that those who even questioned the moral framing could be accused of undermining the sacred values that uphold the legitimacy of the entire European project.
The concept of “Euro-speak” entails using emotional rhetoric to legitimise an EU-centric understanding of Europe that de-legitimises alternative concepts of Europe. Centralising decision-making and transferring power from elected parliaments to Brussels is typically referred to as “European integration”, “more Europe”, or “ever-closer Union”. Neighbouring non-member states that adhere to the EU’s external governance are making the “European choice”, confirming their “European perspective”, and embracing “shared values”. Dissent can be delegitimised as “populism”, “nationalism”, “Euro-phobia” and “anti-Europeanism”, which undermines the “common voice”, “solidarity” and the “European dream”.
The language has also changed in terms of how the West asserts power in the world. Torture is “enhanced interrogation techniques”, gunboat diplomacy is “freedom of navigation”, dominance is “negotiations from a position of strength”, subversion is “democracy promotion”, coup is “democratic revolution”, invasion is “humanitarian intervention”, secession is “self-determination”, propaganda is “public diplomacy”, censorship is “content moderation”, and the more recent example of China’s competitive advantage that is labelled “over-capacity”. George Orwell’s concept of Newspeak entailed constraining language to the point it became impossible to express dissent.
NATO and the EU: Redividing Europe or “European Integration”
Western leaders initially recognised that abandoning an inclusive pan-European security architecture by expanding NATO and the EU would likely provoke another Cold War. The predictable consequence of constructing a new Europe without Russia would be to redivide the continent and then fight over where the new dividing lines should be drawn.
President Bill Clinton cautioned in January 1994 that NATO expansion risked to “draw a newline between East and West that could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation”.[2] Clinton’s Secretary of Defence, William Perry, even considered resigning in opposition to expanding NATO. Perry noted that most people in the administration knew the betrayal would create conflicts with Russia, yet they believed it did not matter as Russia was weak.[3] George Kennan, Jack Matlock and a multitude of American political leaders also framed it as a betrayal against Russia and warned against redividing Europe. These concerns were also shared by many European leaders.
What happened to the discourse and warnings about instigating another Cold War? The narrative of the EU and NATO as a “force for good” that advance liberal democratic values had to be defended against the “outdated” narrative of power politics. Russian criticism of reviving the zero-sum security architecture of bloc politics was presented as evidence of Russia’s “zero-sum mentality”. Russia’s inability to recognise that NATO and the EU were positive-sum actors that transcend power politics allegedly revealed Russia’s inability to overcome the dangerous mindset of realpolitik, which was caused by Russia’s enduring authoritarianism and great power ambitions. The EU was merely constructing a “ring of friends”, while Russia allegedly demanded “spheres of influence”.
Russia was presented with the dilemma of either embracing the role of an apprentice aiming to join the civilised world by accepting NATO’s dominant role as a force for good, or Russia could resist NATO’s expansionism and “out-of-area missions” but then be treated as a dangerous force to be contained. Either way, Russia would not have a seat at the table in Europe. Liberal democratic tropes justified why the largest state in Europe should eventually be the only state without representation.
The expansion of NATO and the EU as exclusive blocs also imposes an “us-or-them” dilemma on the deeply divided societies in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Yet, rather than recognising the predictable destabilisation of divided societies in a divided Europe, it is presented as positive-sum “European integration” despite the implicit decoupling from Russia. Societies prioritising closer relations with Russia rather than NATO and the EU are delegitimised for rejecting democracy while their leaders are dismissed as authoritarian “Putinists” who deprive their people of their European dream.
The moral framing of the world convinced European leaders to support a coup to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit. It was common knowledge that only a small minority of Ukrainians desired NATO membership and that it would likely trigger a war, yet liberal democratic rhetoric still convinced European leaders to ignore reality and support disastrous policies. Common sense could be shamed.
Western political leaders, journalists and academics seeking to mitigate the security competition by addressing Russia’s legitimate security concerns are similarly accused of carrying water for Putin, repeating Kremlin talking points, “legitimising” Russian policies, and undermining liberal democracy. With the binary moral framing of good versus evil, intellectual pluralism and dissent are castigated as immoral.
Besides being plagued by war, Europe is also undergoing economic decline. The Europeans are buying Russian energy through India as an intermediary as they are morally obliged to follow failed sanctions. The virtue-signalling contributes to European industries becoming less competitive. The de-industrialisation of Europe is also caused by the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, yet the event that is destroying decades of industrial development is memory-holed as the only two suspects are the US and Ukraine. Furthermore, the US offers subsidies to the subsequent uncompetitive European industries if they relocate across the Atlantic. In the absence of acceptable narratives, the Europeans simply keep silent and do not defend their national interests. The narrative of liberal democracies united by values rather than divided by competing interests must be defended from inconvenient facts.
Diplomacy, Neutrality & the Virtue of War
Diplomacy does not conform with the constructivist effort to socially construct a new reality. The point of departure in international security is the security competition in which efforts to increase the security of a state can decrease the security of another. Diplomacy entails enhancing mutual understanding and pursuing compromise to mitigate the security competition.
The social constructivists often consider diplomacy to be problematic as it “legitimises” the security competition that recognises NATO can undermine legitimate Russian security interests. Furthermore, it risks legitimising the opponent and creating a moral equivalency between Western states and Russia. The European elites believe that [they can] legitimise outdated and dangerous concepts of power politics by engaging in mutual understanding. The absurd conviction that negotiation is “appeasement” has become normalised in Europe.
Diplomacy therefore has been reimagined as a relationship between a subject and an object, between a teacher and a student. In this relationship, NATO and the EU consider their role as “socialising” other states. As a civilising teacher, the Enlightened West uses diplomacy as a pedagogic instrument in which states are “punished” or “rewarded” by their preparedness to accept unilateral concessions. While diplomacy historically has been imperative during times of crisis, the European elites believe they must instead punish “bad behaviour” by suspending diplomacy once a crisis breaks out. Meeting with opponents during crises runs the risk of legitimising them.
Neutrality was until recently considered a moral stance that mitigates security competition and enables a state to serve as a mediator rather than becoming entangled and escalating conflicts. In a struggle between good and evil, neutrality is also deemed to be immoral. The belt of neutral states that existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries has now been dismantled and even war becomes a virtuous defence of moral principles.
How to Restore Rationality & Correct the Post-Cold War Mistakes?
The failure to establish a mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement that would remove the dividing lines in Europe and enhance indivisible security has resulted in a predictable catastrophe. Yet, course correction requires nothing less than reconsidering the policies of the past 30 years and the concept of Europe at a moment when animosity is rampant on both sides. The European project was envisioned as the embodiment of Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis and an entire political class has based their legitimacy on conforming to the idea that developing a Europe without Russia was a recipe for peace and stability.
Does Europe have the rationality, political imagination and courage to critically assess its own mistakes and contribution to the current crisis, or will all criticism continue to be denounced as a threat to liberal democracy?
[1] Schimmelfennig, Frank, 2003. The EU, NATO and the integration of Europe: Rules and rhetoric, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, page 208.
[2] B. Clinton, ‘Remarks to Multinational Audience of Future Leaders of Europe’, US Diplomatic Mission to Germany, 9 January 1994.
[3] J. Borger, ‘Russian hostility ‘partly caused by west’, claims former US defence head’, The Guardian, 9 March 2016.
“It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”
Henry Kissinger’s much-quoted statement after the American friend, dictator Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, took power in Vietnam in 1963 and shot the previous American friend, dictator Ngô Ðình Diệm, was reported by William F. Buckley Jr. When the Americans fled Vietnam headlong a decade later, they left their friends in the care of the communist Việt Cộng.
Meanwhile, Kissinger’s statement could be confirmed by a respectable line of other American friends, haphazardly Reza Shah Pahlavi, expelled from Iran in 1979, Saddam Hussein, executed in 2006, Afghan Mujahideen, recruited in 1978 to fight the USSR and then as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda prominent US enemies, Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, incited to rise against Saddam in 1991 and left to his retaliation, Mikheil Saakashvili, in 2008 incited to attack Russian regions of Georgia, today in a Georgian prison, Afghan friends, after fleeing in 2020 left in the care of the Taliban. And of course: Russia after 1992 and China in the new century. And: Ukraine and Europe since 2014.
“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests,” Kissinger explained.
Ukrainian friend
Recently, I have come across a number of reflections from analysts and commentators expressing wonder at how unreasonable the US government is in encouraging Ukraine to further escalate a lost war. It is a natural curiosity, for a normal person who is repulsed by killing, tries to resolve disputes through negotiations, and sees war as the ultimate tragedy.
Any reasonable person would expect that if Ukraine has strong ties to both the EU and the Eurasian Union, it can play a useful role as a bridge between them. They would expect the conflict between the government and the protesters to end with a round table agreement. When it had already bloody escalated, they would have expected that the EU, Russia and the US would jointly enforce the agreement between Yanukovych and the opposition against armed fighters and that the shooting would be investigated by an international commission. When the coup government took power, they would expect pressure to be exerted on it not to provoke Russian-speaking Ukrainians with hostile actions. When the anti-coup federalists in the east refused to recognize the coup government, they would have expected the international community to push for the federalization of the country and the creation of a government with a share of both parts in order to preserve its integrity. As the Kiev government had already sent an army against the anti-coup federalists, they would have expected the international community to at least prevent massacres of the civilian population by artillery, rocket fire and aerial bombardment.
I also had a possible explanation:
However, if the task was to “force Russia to decide whether to intervene”, the entire Ukrainian development suddenly appears completely understandable and logical. Its strategy was outlined already in March by George Friedman: it will be fought on the battlefields of Ukraine and Moldova by an alliance of Visegrad battlegroups led by Poland, Romania and Azerbaijan.
The strategy wasn’t fulfilled in 2014. Russia decided not to intervene, the Visegrad battlegroups showed no interest, and the anti-coup federalists not only defended themselves, but inflicted a significant defeat on the Ukrainian army. America’s friend needed more thorough preparation.
The faked Minsk II agreement gave it eight years. During that time, anti-Russian hatred was whipped up, the country committed itself to its tradition of pro-Nazi war against Russia, and the army was trained for it and armed with the most modern technology. All that remained was to overcome Russian hesitancy to intervene.
Promises of admission to NATO, spectacular war preparations, plans to install medium-range missiles, the prospect of arming with nuclear weapons, terror against the Donbas population and the planned offensive to break its resistance finally convinced Russia of the necessity of at least a special military operation with the aim of ousting Zelensky’s government and replacing it with a more accommodating one in the manner of Prague 1968. However, the landing was already expected at the airport in Hostomel and the special military operation turned into an open war.
And again, one can wonder:
Why did the West stubbornly insist on expanding NATO to Ukraine when all the experts warned that it would inevitably lead to war? Against what Russian attack were they arming Ukraine when Russia refrained from intervening in 2014, when it would have had the best conditions for it? Why did they convince Ukraine not to respect the Minsk agreements, when they were the only guarantee of peace and – except for Crimea – its territorial integrity? Why did no one mention the protection of ethnic minorities when the Kyiv government ostracized the Russian-speaking population? Why didn’t anyone speak about the ongoing shelling of Donbas cities? Why did the West refuse to even consider the Russian proposal for a European security architecture? Why did they encourage Zelensky toward further and further provocations with strategic partnerships, ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons? Why did they prevent him from concluding the Istanbul peace agreement in March 2022, a month after the fighting began?
And again, a plausible explanation can be offered, which makes the entire Ukrainian development suddenly appear completely understandable and logical:
The brief was to “force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” The Russo-Ukrainian war is not an accident of the reckless policy of the West, but its carefully prepared goal.
A specific feature of American political culture is the public availability of information. There is no need to speculate, interpret and theorize.
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union,” reads the Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire,” writes Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997. “The West wants to finish the job begun with the fall of the Berlin Wall and continue Europe’s march to the east… The great prize is Ukraine,” Washington Post writes in 2004.
“Yats[eniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience,” claimed Victoria Nuland while designing a new Ukrainian government on February 6, 2014.
“The [Donbas] settlements shall be liberated one by one, with armor going in first and wiping out the remaining pockets of resistance,” instructed the RAND Corporation in order to provoke Russian intervention and, after failing that, in April 2019 it developed a detailed scenario “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia.”
In June 2022, the American Helsinki Commission convened a conference on “Decolonizing (fragmentation) Russia.”
“Ukraine has trillions of dollars worth of critical minerals in their country. Vladimir Putin cannot be allowed to access that money,” Senator Lindsey Graham explained.
But first, friend Zelensky has to be convinced. The Russian army is equipped with outdated weapons and suffers from a lack of ammunition, low morale and poor command. Against the Ukrainian army, with modern arms and trained according to NATO guidelines, it has no chance, they lied to him. Ukraine is a bright beacon of Western democracy against Putin’s dark Eastern dictatorship, they flattered him. When Russia attacks, we will impose unprecedented economic sanctions against it, its economy will collapse, hunger will drive people into the streets, and Putin’s regime will be overthrown, they fantasized. And in particular, they promised military aid in a form that convinced him that NATO armies would rush to his aid.
Sobering up came immediately. Like Saakashvili before him, he quickly found out that “We are defending our state alone, the most powerful forces of the world are watching from afar,” that “NATO is afraid of a confrontation with Russia”. Too late. Requests for the establishment of a no-fly zone remained unheeded, requests for tanks, missiles and planes were half-heard with long reluctance only when the situation became critical, not even a desperate attempt to fire a missile at Poland and pass it off as a Russian attack on a NATO state was taken. Zelensky only receives promises of help for as long as it takes. “We have never spent money so well,” Lindsey Graham assures him, “Russians are dying”.
However, after the failed summer offensive of 2023, the money channel is also closing. America’s self-sacrificing friend Ukraine, with hundreds of thousands dead and tens of millions of refugees, faces financial, economic, military, geographic, demographic and political collapse. They won’t even allow part of Ukraine’s astronomical debts to be forgiven. Instead, Western corporations are buying up its remaining assets – agricultural, mineral and industrial – on the cheap.
Russian friend
In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz could have only one new rival in mind, posing a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union: the connection of Europe with Russia, especially German technology and capital with Russian natural resources, the Common European House from Lisbon to Vladivostok. And finally, Europe itself on the path to integration. China, America’s friend then, was not considered as a rival yet.
However, the way to prevent the emergence of a European-Russian rival is clear: divide et impera. To enrage them against each other, to weaken both and to induce a war between them. America has systematically devoted itself to this for thirty years. The nagging questions are answered.
The first decade was spent in the spirit of all-embracing friendship between the US, Russia and European countries, confirmed by the Malta Summit in 1989. American advisers rushed to help the Russian friend with neoliberal economic reforms, advantageously bought up Russian assets, liquidated its nuclear weapons, took away its experts and fissile material, established contacts with the new Russian oligarchs. Financial loans were rejected; the goal was to weaken Russia. Friend Russia sank to the brink of collapse.
Europe, economically consolidated and united by the values of peaceful coexistence, the rule of law, the social market and human rights, was a different issue. The path led in a detour, from the East, through New Europe, the post-communist states, with whose new elites the Americans had close relations since the days of dissent. It was no more difficult to introduce radical neoliberal reforms in countries disoriented by disintegration and profitably privatize their state assets than in Russia, but their role did not end there. In 1993, at the time of Russia’s deepest decline, Václav Havel and Lech Walęsa suddenly began to fear “Russian expansionism” and, “in order to preserve peace in Europe,” insisted on admission to NATO.
This is the key moment. For the first time, it was said that Russia is a threat to Europe and that NATO should expand to the East.
The first three countries are accepted in 1999 at the same time as the outbreak of the first international war in Europe since 1945 and the first combat engagement of NATO in its history, the bombing of Yugoslavia, Russia’s closest ally. Viktor Orbán prevented further escalation by rejecting the demand that Hungary invade Yugoslavia.
European friend
In the following years, the US achieved four key goals in Europe: to portray Russia as a dangerous enemy and isolate it from Europe, to expand NATO to its borders, to subjugate European political elites unconditionally, and finally to weaken Europe.
The last one was initiated by President Trump in 2017 with sanctions against the supply of cheap Russian gas, a symbol of European-Russian integration, with the aim of replacing it with expensive American gas. This is followed by measures against European trade surpluses and tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars. Significant are the references to Europe’s inability to defend itself against Russian aggression and its dependence on American intelligence and defense. They demand an increase in the military spending of NATO states to 2% of GDP, or more billions of European taxes for the US arms industry.
The 2020-2021 Covid operation was not targeted specifically against Europe, but it contributed to its weakening no less than other measures. In addition to the additional billions of dollars of European taxpayers transferred to pharmaceutical companies for absurdly high prices orders for ineffective vaccines, and in addition to the economic collapse due to lockdowns, it further deepened the decay of the already broken cohesion of European communities, increased the tension between establishments and citizens, and helped destroy democracy through censorship and repression.
With the rise of Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken, the architects of the Ukrainian-Russian war, the weakening of the European friend takes a turn. European politicians are pressured to agree to the termination of the Nord Stream and the introduction of “unprecedented sanctions” against Russia in the event of “aggression against Ukraine”, which even Zelensky himself does not believe in at the time. But Biden knows that he will eventually force Russia to intervene.
The Russian invasion unleashes a fanatical anti-Russian campaign. With outrageous rhetoric unheard since the 1950s, an orgy of unprecedented sanctions, the termination of the Nord Stream project sealed by its sabotage, the seizure of bank reserves and the disconnection of Russia from the banking system, and the boycott of Russian culture, sports, vodka and cats, the rift between Europe and Russia is complete.
Let’s not be fooled by the rhetoric. Nominally, the aim of the sanctions is to weaken Russia, but their – intended – parallel effect is to weaken Europe. Anti-Russian hysteria masks the demagogic arguments about “dependence on Russian gas” and the “financing of Russian aggression” as a pretext to replace cheap Russian resources, to which it owes its economic rise, with overpriced American ones. The sanctions affect more or less all European trade with Russia. Imports from Russia fell by 85% from early 2022 to May 2023, exports by 65%. Unlike Russia, which was able to compensate for the shortfall in Asia, Europe does not have a comparable replacement.
The pressure to disengage from trade with China, justified by alleged security risks and trade sanctions, pursues the same goal. However, unlike Russia, China is the EU’s largest trading partner with a 21% share of imports, larger than the US (12%) one, so the pressure rather encouraged latent reservations towards the US and resulted in only a vague formulation of prospective “risk reduction”.
The main drain on the European economy is, of course, Ukraine.
Arms deliveries have emptied European military warehouses, which will need to be replenished with state-of-the-art American technology. Not only to supplement, but also to increase thoroughly, because “after the victory in Ukraine, Russia plans to invade other European states”.
And let’s not overlook the differences. While European weapons for Ukraine are a taxpayer-funded gift, American ones are subject to a lend-lease agreement. Ukraine will pay them back for decades – by cheaply selling off land and raw materials to BlackRock and other American corporations.
The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, provides $783 billion in subsidies to US-based businesses. This, in addition to the significant difference in energy prices, is another effective incentive for European companies to relocate to the US.
An overlooked financial drain are the consequences of American aggression paid for by European taxes. Refugees from countries ravaged by American aggression at the beginning of the century already meant a considerable burden for Europe. Illegal trafficking structures, establishing with them, quickly compensated for the drop in demand in West Asia with inexhaustible resources in Africa, especially after the destruction of Libya, which until then had functioned as a filter. The Ukrainian war then drove out millions of others, to whom Europe provides above-standard conditions for political reasons. Even more serious than the economic costs themselves are the social, political and cultural consequences, the polarization and disintegration of the European value system.
Even in 2011, GDP per capita in the EU was slightly higher than in the US ($15,800/$14,700 USD). Twelve years later, it is a third lower ($18,350/$27,400). Europe is in a phase of deindustrialization, which the crisis of the automobile industry due to cheap Chinese competition will significantly accelerate. While the USA has greatly strengthened its economy through the war, its European friend is facing a long-term economic and political decline.
Israeli friend
The relationship between the US and Israel, as observers note, has no parallels in history. It appears as if little Israel is the despotic ruler of the superpower USA. It collects an annual tribute from them, sends their army against its rivals, uses their veto in the Security Council to ensure its own impunity, has them finance the genocide of the Palestinians, drains their weapons potential, forces them to violate their own laws prohibiting the supply of arms to states developing nuclear weapons and is obstructing American humanitarian aid. In order to stifle criticism, it will abolish their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and lead the US into international isolation.
At the same time, Israel has no mercy for its vassal. In 1967, it stole material for the development of the atomic bomb from the US, and there are indications of Israeli participation in the assassination of JF Kennedy, who wanted to prevent the nuclear armament of Israel. In the same year, Israel tried to sink the American ship Liberty and blame it on Egypt to get the US military to fight its war. Israel maintains an extensive espionage network in the US, steals their know-how without scruples and occasionally even sells it on. Very strong indications point to its involvement in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, with the intention of pushing the US into wars against its rivals. For years, it has been trying to provoke the US into war against the last of them, Iran, and after October 7, 2023, into a war against the Axis of Resistance. Israel infiltrated and paralyzed US intelligence services to make investigations of Israeli activities impossible, forged pretexts for war actions, and distorted information provided to the public and government administration.
It could be described as an example of a fatal friendship with Israel, but the reality is more complex. Some observers believe that it is the US, on the contrary, that is ruthlessly using Israel – down to the last Israeli – as a battering ram to control Arab oil resources. Its fate would thus follow the fate of Ukraine and other American friends.
However, it is more likely that both countries are controlled by the same globalist cartel, called in the US the Israel Lobby. Its members operate in the public only partially, but they own a significant part of the American media and allocate funds to the election campaigns of more or less all senators and members of the House of Representatives. Some of them have dual nationalities, but the preferred identity is Greater Israel (Eretz Israel). It is not only made up of Jewish Zionists, its larger part is made up of Christian Zionists with a broad background in evangelical communities. And to be consistent, it is not the only one, it seamlessly blends with other cartels, such as the military-industrial, banking, pharmaceutical ones. Thus, their members jointly created a new aristocratic social class of the type of Mussolini’s ”fascio”, which holds the US, Israel and other Western countries under tight control.
Since October, over half a million Jews who had somewhere to go have left Israel. This is almost as many as the number of Palestinians expelled during the Nakba of 1948. The outlook for others is all the more bleak because Israel has burned all the bridges behind it. There is nowhere left to go to.
Facit
One of the hallmarks of psychopathic individuals — and communities — is a headlong fixation on an immediate goal with no plans for what then and what if it doesn’t work out, with complete ignorance of background, context, side effects, and consequences.
Current conflicts illustrate the characteristic. “Mission accomplished,” cheered GW Bush after the defeat of Saddam Hussain. His uncompromising threats to North Korea led to the emergence of another nuclear power. The result of Israeli aggression was the creation of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Axis of Resistance. The consequence of mobbing Iran is that it has become the undisputed leading power in West Asia. Unprecedented sanctions catapulted Russia to the world’s fourth largest economy in purchasing power parity. The identification of Russia and China as the biggest threats has created the BRICS+ bloc the most economically and politically significant global actor. The confiscation of Russian assets and the cutting off of Russia from the international banking system led to the gradual decline of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and a prospective non-dollar banking system. The unscrupulous arming and support of Ukraine and Israel brought both countries to the brink of extinction. And the quest for totalitarian control of their own society brings even the US itself to the brink of collapse.
The domination of European countries by international power cartels under American domination threatens even Europe with the prospect of war and long-term decline. Logical starting points – gradually detaching from the sinking American Titanic, returning to a Europe of peaceful coexistence, the rule of law, the social market and human rights, and a reorientation towards multipolar politics and economics – run into internal and external obstacles.
Of the internal ones, it is primarily the infiltration of European politics by personalities dependent – pragmatically, career-wise, through corruption, compromise, threats – on power cartels. The role of the fifth column is played by the post-communists, especially the Baltic countries, over which they took control without resistance immediately after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. However, the attraction of global dominance is not alien to the European cultural tradition of exceptionalism, wars, colonialism and conquest. Finally, decades of ideological indoctrination have shaped the attitudes and, in particular, the fanatical aversion of a significant portion of the European population in favor of Western anti-Russian, anti-Islamic, and anti-Chinese narratives.
The external obstacles are mainly the expected reactions of powerful cartels to the threat of loss of influence. A small sample are the reactions of the European bureaucracy to the dissenting positions of Hungary, Slovakia, or Poland. A more massive movement away from the US is likely to be met – if they are still capable – with the full weight of US resources – from political pressure and economic sanctions to the mobilization of hidden structures to color revolutions and false flag actions.
The whole world, and Europe in particular, is currently in a stage that will decide the developments of the coming decades. Western dominance is being eroded faster and faster by desperate attempts to maintain it. At the same time, it must be admitted that European attitudes can only influence the speed, but not the direction. The only thing it can influence is its own future: Europe as an insignificant relic of bygone times or as an equal partner in a multipolar world.
The weeks and months after November 5th will tell us more.
Since the Zionist entity’s 21st century Holocaust in Gaza began, Israeli officials, pundits, journalists, and their Western opposite numbers have endlessly invoked the sinister spectre of “terrorism” to justify the industrial-scale slaughter of Palestinians. It is because of “terrorism”, twice-failed US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton representatively wrote for The Atlantic in November 2023, “Hamas must be permanently erased.” Destroyed hospitals and schools and civilians killed en masse are reasonable “collateral damage.” Such is the unparalleled evil of “terrorists.”
Yet, the relentless stream of heart-rending clips documenting the Israeli Occupation Force (IOF) Holocaust deluging social media feeds the world over, and the ever-ratcheting child death toll has compelled countless citizens to ask, “if Hamas are terrorists, then what are Zionists?”. Similar questions were posed during the Empire’s long-running “War on Terror”. Then, the purported global threat of “terrorism” was exploited throughout the West to savage civil liberties and demonise Muslims at home, while waging relentless criminal “interventions” abroad.
Mainstream usage of the term precipitouslyplummeted thereafter. It is only now regaining popular currency due to the Gaza genocide. This is no accident. As we shall see, Zionists – specifically Israel’s veteran leader Benjamin Netanyahu – were fundamental to concocting mainstream conceptions of “terrorism”, explicitly to delegitimize anti-imperial struggles, while validating Western state violence directed at oppressed peoples across the Global South. The impact of this informational assault can be felt in every corner of the world today – not least Gaza.
Usage of the term ‘terrorism’ 1960 – 2020, per Google
‘First Strike’
In fact, one might reasonably conclude the specific foundations of Nakba 2.0, which continues to unfold in grisly real-time right now, were laid decades ago, as a result of the connivances of Netanyahu, the international Zionist lobby, and US Central Intelligence Agency. What follows is the little-known history of how “terrorism” came to be. A majority of the world’s population – the Palestinian people in particular – live with the monstrous consequences every day.
Our story starts in 1976, at the peak of détente between the US and Soviet Union. After two-and-a-half decades of bitter enmity, the two superpowers had resolved to peaceful coexistence at the start of the decade. They collaborated to systematically dismantle structures and doctrines that defined the immediate post-World War II era, such as Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.).
In May that year, the CIA produced its annual National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a comprehensive report combining data from various intelligence agencies, intended to be a basis for crafting foreign policy. In keeping with the past five years, it concluded the Soviets were in severe economic decline, favoured diplomacy over conflict, and desperately sought an end to the Cold War. Such findings lay behind Washington’s push for détente, and Moscow’s eager acceptance of major disarmament and arms control treaties.
However, newly-appointed CIA director George H. W. Bush categorically rejected these conclusions. He sought a second opinion, so constructed an independent intelligence cell to review the NIE. Known asTeam B, it was composed of hardcore Cold Warriors, defence industry-funded hawks, and rabid anti-Communists. Among them were several individuals who would later become leading figures in the neoconservative movement, such as Paul Wolfowitz. Also present were infamous CIA and Pentagon dark arts specialists who had been professionally ostracised due to détente.
Team B duly reviewed the NIE, and rubbished each and every one of the Agency’s findings. Rather than dilapidated, impoverished and teetering on total collapse, the Soviet Union was, in fact, more deadly and dangerous than ever, having constructed a vast array of “first strike” capabilities right under the CIA’s nose. To reach these bombshell conclusions, Team B relied on a confounding hodgepodge of peculiar logical fallacy, paranoid theorising, crazed conspiratorial conjecture, unsupported value judgments, and amateurish circular reasoning.
An explainer on Team B authored by one of its members, in a Zionist rag
For example, Team B repeatedly assessed that a lack of evidence Moscow possessed weapons systems, military technology, or surveillance capabilities comparable or superior to Washington’s own was inverse proof the Soviets, in fact, did. Moscow’s innovations were just so sophisticated and innovative, Team B concluded, they couldn’t be detected or even comprehended by the West. Team B’s analysis was confirmed to be a total fantasy after the USSR collapsed. Yet, its methods informed all subsequent NIEs throughout the Cold War, and likely endure today.
On June 27th of that year, mere weeks after Team B was set to work on reigniting the Cold War, Air France Flight 139, en route to Paris from Tel Aviv, was hijacked by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Redirected to a Ugandan airport, the plane was greeted on the runway by Idi Amin’s military, who ushered the passengers – the majority being Jewish or Israeli – into the terminal, watched over by scores of soldiers, intended to prevent their escape or rescue.
The hijackers relayed a demand to the government of Israel. Unless a ransom of $5 million was paid to them and 53 Palestinian prisoners were released from jail, the hostages would be executed. In response, 100 elite IOF commandos launched an audacious action to free the hostages. Their mission – known as the Entebbe Raid – was a stunning success. All but four hostages were rescued alive, and the IOF lost just one commander – Yonatan (Jonathan) Netanyahu, the older brother of Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
For years by that point, Israeli officials had been attempting to popularise the term “terrorism” to explain the motivations and actions of Palestinian freedom fighters. That way, their righteous fury at repression could be reframed as a destructive ideology of violence for violence’s sake without rationale, and Zionist colonial tyranny as warranted self-defence. This effort became turbocharged in September 1972, when the kidnapping of 11 Israeli athletes at that year’s Olympics in Munich by Palestinian militants ended with all hostages murdered.
This particularly public bloodshed centred world attention on Israel, and left Western citizens wondering what could’ve possibly inspired such violence. Zionists had hitherto managed to largely conceal their systematic, state-enforced repression and displacement of Palestinians from the outside world. Journalists were kept well away from the scenes of major crimes. At the same time, Amnesty International’s Israeli branch was secretly financed and directed by Tel Aviv’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to whitewash facts on the ground.
For the Netanyahu family, the Entebbe raid was a tragedy – but also an ideal opportunity to validate and internationalise the concept of “terrorism,” as espoused by Zionists. In 1979, Benjamin Netanyahu founded the Jonathan Institute, in honour of his slain brother. Its purpose, he said, was:
“To focus public attention on the grave threat that international terrorism poses to all democratic societies, to study the real nature of today’s terrorism, and to propose measures for combating and defeating the international terror movements.”
In July that year, the Institute convened the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT) in Jerusalem’s Hilton Hotel. It gathered together a 700-strong mob of Israeli government officials, US lawmakers, intelligence operatives from across the ‘Five Eyes’ global spying network, and Western foreign policy apparatchiks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many representatives of Team B were in attendance. Over four days and seven separate sessions, speaker after speaker painted a disturbing picture of the worldwide phenomenon of “terrorism.”
They unanimously declared that all “terrorists” constituted a single, organised political movement that was being secretly financed, armed, trained, and directed by the Soviet Union. This devilish nexus, it was claimed, posed a mortal threat to Western democracy, freedom, and security, requiring a coordinated response. Eerily, as academic Diana Ralphlater observed, the JCIT’s collective prescription for tackling this purported menace was precisely what transpired just over two decades later during the “War on Terror”:
“[This included] pre-emptive attacks on states alleged to support ‘terrorists’; an elaborate intelligence system apparatus; slashed civil liberties, particularly for Palestinians targeted as potential terrorists, including detention without charge, and torture; and propaganda to dehumanize ‘terrorists’ in the eyes of the public.”
Israel’s then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin addressed the JCIT’s opening session. He set the tone by claiming Western state violence was ultimately “a fight for freedom or liberation” and, therefore, fundamentally opposed to “terrorism.” He concluded his remarks by imploring the assembled throng to go forth and promote the conference’s message once it was over. Which they did.
‘Insufficient Evidence’
Among JCIT’s attendees was American author and journalist Claire Sterling, who cut her teeth as a reporter decades earlier at the Overseas News Agency, an MI6 propaganda operation seeking to boost US public support for entering World War II. Following the conference, she frequently amplified the claims of JCIT speakers in articles for prominent newspapers, leading to an epic March 1981front-page exposé in The New York Times – Terrorism: Tracing The International Network.
A book published later that year, The Terror Network, expanded significantly on Sterling’s oeuvre, and firmly cemented the notion of Moscow as a grand spider sat in the middle of a vast, globe-spanning web of deadly political violence in the Western public mind. It caused a sensation upon release, receiving rave reviews from major news outlets, being translated into 22 languages, and becoming a bestseller in several countries.
The Terror Network had a particularly potent impact on newly-inaugurated President Ronald Reagan and his CIA chief William Casey. Committed anti-Communists, they entered office desperately seeking a pretext for brutally crushing left-wing, nationalist opposition to US imperialism in Latin America. Sterling’s work provided ample ammunition for achieving that bloodsoaked objective and was key to the White House decisively shattering détente, a process begun by Team B five years earlier.
Consequently, “The Terror Network” was circulated among US lawmakers and heavily promoted overseas on the Reagan administration’s dime. Casey furthermore tasked his Agency with verifying its thesis. They quickly assessed Sterling’s work to be irredeemable garbage, ironically enough, as it washeavily influenced by CIA black propaganda. Enraged, Casey demanded the evaluation be revised. Anupdated appraisal was less scathing but nonetheless stressed the book was “uneven and the reliability of its sources varies widely,” while “significant portions” were “incorrect.”
Still dissatisfied, Casey asked a CIA “senior review panel” charged with scrutinising Langley’s formal estimates to write their own report on the subject. They concluded the Soviets did offer limited financial, material and practical assistance to a handful of anti-imperial Global South liberation movements, some of which were labelled “terrorists” by Western powers. But there was “insufficient evidence” of Muscovite culpability for the entire global phenomenon of “terrorism,” let alone funding and directing such entities as dedicated policy.
Undeterred, when Casey personally delivered the report to Reagan, heallegedly said of its findings, “of course, Mr. President, you and I know better.” So it was CIA-backed death squads ran roughshod across Washington’s “backyard” throughout the 1980s, in the name of neutralising alleged Soviet influence in the region. Their actions were heavily informed by the Agency’s guerrilla warfare manual, which encouraged assassinations of government officials and civilian leaders and deadly attacks on “soft targets” such as schools and hospitals. “Terrorism”, in other words.
‘We Are All Palestinians’
Another example of Reagan’s “terrorism” was sponsoring Afghanistan’s Mujahideen resistance fighters in their battle with – ironically enough – the Soviet Red Army. This policy endured after the “Evil Empire” was vanquished. The same militants were transported by the CIA and MI6 to Bosnia andKosovo in the 1990s, to aid and abet Yugoslavia’s painful, forced death.
When these covert actions produced [MIHOP or LIHOP] “blowback” in the form of the 9/11 attacks, several individuals who attended the JCIT, and their acolytes, were elevated to the Bush administration due to their supposed “terrorism” expertise. Meanwhile, with public and state-level fears of “terrorism” ramping up significantly the world over, many Western countries turned to Israel for advice and guidance on how to tackle the issue. AsNentyahu bragged in 2008:
“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.”
This was not only because 9/11 “swung American public opinion in [Israel’s] favour.” In a blink, Zionist repression and slaughter were transformed from a source of international embarrassment and obloquy into a compelling sales pitch and unique selling point for Tel Aviv’s welter of “defence” and “security” firms. The Occupied Territories became laboratories, their inhabitants test subjects, upon whom new weaponry, surveillance methods, and pacification techniques could be trialled by the IOF, then marketed and sold overseas.
It is not for nothing that graphic videos showcasing IOF “surgical strikes” on Palestinians, their homes, schools, and hospitals are proudly displayed at international arms fairs, while private demonstrations of invasive surveillance tools such as Pegasus routinely wow repressive foreign security and intelligence agencies behind-closed-doors.
On top of a significant financial benefit, there is a diplomatic dividend too. Israel secures invaluable censure-stifling goodwill from customers, therefore permitting the Zionist project of permanently purging Palestine of its indigenous inhabitants to persist untrammelled. While the streets of almost every major Western city have regularly teemed with pro-Palestine fervour ever since the entity’s attack on Gaza began in October 2023, protesters’ elected representatives are at best silent, at worst actively complicit.
Impassioned chants of “We are all Palestinians!” have been afrequent fixture at these events. This rallying call is highly apposite, for in addition to expressing sympathy and solidarity with the Palestinian people, it is urgently incumbent upon us all to reflect upon how the very same techniques and technologies of control and oppression to which they have been so cruelly subjected daily for decades are now firmly trained on us as well, as a result of Israel’s invention of “terrorism.” It is no exaggeration to say Palestinians are canaries in the coalmine of humanity.
In 2016, David Ihben moved his wife and three children from Chicago to Jamestown, in rural Tennessee, with high hopes for a new and calmer life.
But the dream turned into a nightmare for David and his children in December 2019, when divorce proceedings and a subsequent custody battle resulted in the forced vaccination of the children — and changed the family’s fortunes forever.
Ihben said his ex-wife decided “this wasn’t the life she wanted.” So they were attempting to develop a parenting plan in family court — when Tennessee judge Todd Burnett “pulled up the vaccine issue” after discovering the couple’s children were unvaccinated — and forced the parents to vaccinate their children.
Ihben’s two oldest children — daughter Hannah and son Joseph — were spared significant adverse events following their vaccination.
But his youngest son, Isaac, wasn’t so fortunate. After receiving 18 vaccines in one day, Isaac developed severe regressive autism. Today, he requires around-the-clock care.
The children’s mother soon abandoned the children, leaving Ihben to raise them as a single parent — even though he is still obliged to pay child support.
Ihben shared his story with Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Vax-Unvax bus. In a subsequent interview with The Defender, he detailed the challenges he faces in caring for Isaac and the harassment he endured from officials in his community. Ihben shared documentation with The Defender verifying his story.
‘How can a judge force medical care without a doctor’s input?’
Ihben told The Defender his entire family was unvaccinated. “I’ve never had any. My dad was drafted by the Army in 1961, and he didn’t get any either. We’ve never vaccinated,” he said. “Our children had to sign religious exemptions for school.”
During divorce proceedings though, his wife’s attorney used the vaccination issue to drive a wedge between the parents.
“When we went to court, I guess her attorney knew that [Burnett] was a pro-vaccine judge and that’s something that they could get me on,” Ihben said.
According to Ihben, Burnett told the couple that it was his “personal opinion that not vaccinating your children is child abuse.” He then told the couple that whichever parent would be willing to vaccinate the children that same day would leave the courthouse with custody.
“I said, ‘Your Honor, we have rights. It’s between the mom and their father,’” Ihben recalled. “Her attorney whispered to her, and she goes, ‘I’ll take them down and vaccinate them today.’”
“I was so surprised, because me and my ex-wife didn’t agree on much, but we did agree on that,” Ihben said, referring to their views on vaccination.
After the hearing, Ihben and his wife were granted joint custody of the children, with their mother as their primary guardian. Later that day, the children received their childhood vaccines — and Isaac immediately became sick.
“My daughter had previous allergies … so the doctor refused to give her all in one day. They split those … She didn’t have any side effects from what I can see,” Ihben said. “[Joseph] was in the ICU for a couple of days but seems to be okay. But [Isaac] spent 12 days in the ICU, eight days with a 106-degree fever.”
Isaac, who was 5 years old at the time, was “just a normal happy kid,” Ihben said.
Today, Isaac has severe regressive autism. Ihben told The Defender :
“He doesn’t talk. He wears a diaper. He eats out of a baby bottle 20-30 times a day, he has speech therapy and will require 24-hour care and supervision for the rest of his life.
“I haven’t had a full night’s sleep in four years. He has to be changed every two hours, or he will have an accident. If you have a child with regressive autism or know someone, you will understand what our days are like.”
Ihben didn’t learn about Isaac’s injuries right away, because the court initially slapped him with a six-month restraining order. When the six months were up, he finally made plans to pick up his children for “two-hour supervised visitation” at a local McDonald’s.
“My youngest comes walking out and I’m like, ‘What’s going on?’” He said his oldest children then told him about what happened to Isaac. “My children told me everything that’s going on. Basically, nobody’s given me information. I had to go off what 10- and 11-year-olds were telling me,” Ihben said.
Ihben tried to find out what happened to Isaac — but encountered more obstacles at Cookeville Regional Medical Center, his local hospital. “The judge had sealed the hospital records. I still cannot get them,” he said.
It wasn’t until he enrolled his daughter in high school that, while obtaining her records from the local health department, he had a chance to view Isaac’s records. That’s when he saw that Isaac had received 18 vaccines in one day.
“How can a judge force medical care without a doctor’s input?” Ihben asked. “I don’t think judges should be dictating medical treatment from the bench.”
According to Ihben, doctors at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said Isaac’s injuries “are a direct result from forced vaccination,” with one doctor telling Ihben that “she’s seen only one other kid that acts like Isaac does.”
Required to continue paying child support, despite mother’s disappearance
Soon after seeing his children for the first time after the custody battle, another surprise was in store for Ihben and his family: Ihben’s ex-wife called to say she and the children had been evicted.
After he kept the children for a week, their mother “got a free house, everything furnished and paid,” and the children were returned to her.
“Then she got evicted from there” in May 2020, Ihben said. He again picked up the children — but that was the last they saw of their mother. According to Ihben, after her second eviction, she left town without a trace.
“We haven’t heard from her or seen her,” Ihben said. “It’ll be five years in May.”
Ihben still pays child support to the state, even though he alone takes care of the children. He said the child support money, which remains uncollected, goes to a state fund — and, if it remains unclaimed, will be confiscated by the state when the children reach adulthood.
Ihben said that though he has gone to court to request full custody of his children or a reduction of his child support payments, he has faced a catch-22 situation.
“The judge said, I can’t do anything unless you get her here in front of me,” Ihben said. “I was like, ‘I’ve served her. Nobody knows where she is.’”
Ihben said he believes the children’s mother didn’t realize Isaac was going to be hurt so badly, and “she just can’t face it.” He added, “I just don’t understand, if she’s been gone almost five years, why she still has full custody, why I still have to pay child support.”
Tennessee laws, local officials pose challenges for raising Isaac
Ihben described the day-to-day realities of caring for Isaac, who will turn 11 next month and just started the fifth grade in a special education program. He said:
“Our lives have changed forever. I can’t have a regular job. I pick up stuff here and there … I have an alarm that goes off every two hours to change Isaac. He eats in the middle of the night … We live out in the country. There’s no bus, so I take him to school back and forth.
“He doesn’t talk, so you don’t know if he’s sick, if he’s upset, if he’s hungry, if he’s cold, if he has a stomach ache … I’ve got a mental list, and I just check it off and hopefully I hit the one that calms him and provides what he needs.”
State rules also pose obstacles. “You’re not allowed to have home healthcare for a disabled child unless you have no other children in the home under 18,” Ihben said.
“Our local school district has restraint chairs for autistic children. They are allowed to put Isaac in a chair, to pepper spray him, to tase him. Police departments have no training for dealing with autistic children,” Ihben said.
Ihben said state, county and town officials have attempted to intimidate him and his family.
According to Ihben, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) showed up at his home on Dec. 5, 2023. “Somebody starts beating on the door … there’s a truck at the end of the road, a truck at the end of the other road and two trucks in the driveway. They had assault weapons.”
Ihben said the officers claimed that a social worker wanted to speak with him, but that he refused to open his door for them. He submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the state to find out why his home was raided, but was told there are “no records of anything.”
The TBI raid took a toll on him. “I had a heart attack that night,” he said. “I couldn’t breathe.” He said the incident still affects him today. “I’m sure I have PTSD from it. I’m still under treatment,” Ihben said.
In June 2023, Ihben said he went to his county commission meeting to tell them about what happened to his family. The county commissioner, Jimmy Johnson, left him a voicemail warning him not to hold any rally or protest.
“The commissioner called the sheriff,” Ihben said, but ultimately “they backed off.”
In another incident, Ihben said he was banned from his local Walmart store after a store manager called the police because Isaac “was causing a disturbance.” This obliged Ihben to shop at another Walmart, an hour away from his home.
Ihben said it’s also difficult to find a lawyer to represent him and his family. “No attorney is willing to take on the judge.”
Local officials ‘tried to scare us’ into not doing Vax-Unvax bus interview
Ihben credited CHD and its Tennessee Chapter for helping him and his family. “We wouldn’t be here without CHD helping us out,” Ihben said. “The Tennessee Chapter has helped us out a lot.”
Ihben said he recently saw “Vaxxed 3” with members of the state’s CHD chapter. “What we have to live through every day is horrible, but it could be worse,” Ihben said, citing stories in the film of children who died post-vaccination.
According to Ihben, his efforts to promote CHD initiatives in his community, such as the visit of the Vax-Unvax bus earlier this year, have also been met with intimidation.
“We put a little flyer together [for the Vax-Unvax bus] and we started passing it out,” Ihben said. But on Feb. 1, the day of his bus interview, Ihben said his wife’s attorney, her husband — who is the attorney for the local school board — and Burnett, who mobilized the TBI, “tried to scare us into not doing the bus interview.”
Getting the word out, spreading the message is ‘the only weapon we have’
Isaac has recently shown some improvement, according to Ihben. “He’s doing better slowly … He’s in a lot of therapy. He’s starting to write some numbers and letters on his own. Teachers think he’s reading, but he’s still never said a word.”
Ihben said this has been a learning experience for his oldest children, who will “have to take care of Isaac every day” after his death. “That’s a lifetime commitment.”
Another silver lining, according to Ihben, is that Isaac’s story has become a learning experience for his family and many members of his local community.
“This hasn’t just got me learning. My kids are learning. Hannah and Joseph are learning about their government and their food and their environment. They’re teaching their friends about this.”
For Ihben, getting the word out and spreading the message is “the only weapon we have.” He said, “It’s powerful that my kids’ friends come up and say ‘we’re sorry for what happened to you, we’ve seen the [Vax-Unvax] interview.’”
Ihben said he hopes the message will help other children avoid Isaac’s fate. “I hope Isaac will be the last,” he said.
The Democratic Party is championing presidential candidate Kamala Harris as a born-again champion of freedom. Earlier this year, Democrats shifted their focus from democracy to freedom, convinced that the latter word would enthrall voters on Election Day. Providing “freedom from fear” has become one of their most frequent political promises this past century.
Politicians routinely portray freedom from fear as the apex of freedom, higher than the initial freedoms buttressed by the Bill of Rights. While presidents have defined “freedom from fear” differently, the common thread is that it requires unleashing government agents. Reviewing almost a century of bipartisan scams on freedom from fear provides good cause to doubt the latest geyser of promises.
“Freedom from fear” first entered the American political lexicon thanks to a January 1941 speech by President Franklin Roosevelt. In that State of the Union address, he promised citizens freedom of speech and freedom of worship—two cornerstones of the First Amendment—and added socialist-style “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear.” FDR’s revised freedoms did not include freedom to dissent, since he said the government would need to take care of the “few slackers or trouble makers in our midst.” Nor did FDR’s improved freedoms include the freedom not be rounded up for concentration camps, as FDR ordered for Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. Three years later, FDR amended his definition of freedom by championing a Universal Conscription Act to entitle government to the forced labor of any citizen.
Richard Nixon, in his acceptance speech at the 1968 Republican National Convention, promised, “We shall re-establish freedom from fear in America so that America can take the lead in re-establishing freedom from fear in the world.” Nixon asserted, “The first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence, and that right must be guaranteed in this country.” But with the Nixon scorecard, government violence didn’t count. He perpetuated the war in Vietnam, resulting in another 20,000 American soldiers pointlessly dying. On the homefront, he created the Drug Enforcement Administration and appointed the nation’s first drug czar. The FBI perpetuated its COINTELPRO program, carrying out “a secret war against those citizens it considers threats to the established order,” as a 1976 Senate report noted.
President George H.W. Bush told the National Baptist Convention on September 8, 1989, “Today freedom from fear…means freedom from drugs.” To boost public fear, a DEA informant arranged for a knucklehead to sell crack cocaine to an undercover narc in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Bush invoked the sell a few days later to justify a national crackdown. He informed the American Legion, “Today I want to focus on one of those freedoms: freedom from fear—the fear of war abroad, the fear of drugs and crime at home. To win that freedom, to build a better and safer life, will require the bravery and sacrifice that Americans have shown before and must again.”
Foremost among the sacrifices that Bush demanded was that of traditional liberties. His administration vastly expanded federal power to arbitrarily seize Americans’ property and increased the role of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. In a 1992 speech dedicating a new DEA office building, Bush declared, “I am delighted to be here to salute the greatest freedom fighters any nation could have, people who provide freedom from violence and freedom from drugs and freedom from fear.” The DEA’s own crime sprees, corruption, and violence were not permitted to impede Bush’s rhetorical victory lap.
On May 12, 1994, President Bill Clinton declared, “Freedom from violence and freedom from fear are essential to maintaining not only personal freedom but a sense of community in this country.” Clinton banned so-called assault weapons and sought to ban thirty-five million semi-automatic firearms. Gun bans in response to high crime rates mean closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Citizens would presumedly have nothing to fear after they were forced to abjectly depend on government officials for their own survival. During Clinton’s first term, public housing authorities began mass warrantless searches of apartments to confiscate guns and other banned items. Clinton slammed a federal court ruling blocking the unconstitutional raids. When he visited the Chicago housing projects, Clinton declared, “The most important freedom we have in this country is the freedom from fear. And if people aren’t free from fear, they are not free.” In Clinton’s view, public housing residents had no right to fear the federally-funded housing police storming into their apartments.
In February 1996, Clinton, seeking conservative support for his reelection campaign, endorsed forcing children to wear uniforms at public schools. Clinton justified the fashion dictate: “Every one of us has an obligation to work together, to give our children freedom from fear and the freedom to learn.” But, if mandatory uniforms were the key to ending violence, Postal Service employees would have a lower homicide rate.
Senator Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential nominee, repeatedly promised voters “freedom from fear” via crackdowns on crime. How did Dole intend to provide “freedom from fear”? By proclaiming that “we must…untie the hands of the police.” Dole did not specify exactly how many no-knock raids would be necessary to restore domestic tranquility.
George W. Bush, like his father, alternatedpromises of “freedom from fear” with shameless fearmongering. Prior to election day 2004, the Bush administration continually issued terror attack warnings based on flimsy or no evidence.The New York Times derided the Bush administration in late October for having “turned the business of keeping Americans informed about the threat of terrorism into a politically scripted series of color-coded scare sessions.” Yet each time a terror alert was issued, the president’s approval rating rose temporarily by roughly three percent, according to a Cornell University study. The Cornell study found a “halo effect”: the more terrorists who wanted to attack America, the better job Bush was supposedly doing. People who saw terrorism as the biggest issue in the 2004 election voted for Bush by a 6-to-1 margin.
The most memorable Bush campaign ad, released a few weeks before the election, opened in a thick forest, with shadows and hazy shots complementing the foreboding music. After vilifying Democratic candidate John Kerry, the ad showed a pack of wolves reclining in a clearing. The voiceover concluded, “And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm” as the wolves began jumping up and running toward the camera. At the end of the ad, the president appeared and announced, “I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.” One liberal cynic suggested that the ad’s message was that voters would be eaten by wolves if Kerry won. The Bush ad spurred protests by the equivalent of the Lobo Anti-Defamation League. Pat Wendland, the manager of Wolves Offered Life and Friendship, a Colorado wolf refuge, Colorado, complained, “The comparison to terrorists was insulting. We have worked for years, teaching people that Little Red Riding Hood lied.”
Bush’s campaign to terrify voters into granting him four more years to rule America and much of the world did not deter him from announcing a few months later in his State of the Union address, “We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy, and chief among them is freedom from fear.” This was back when the mainstream media was continuing to hail Bush as a visionary idealist, prior to the collapse of his credibility on the Iraq war, torture, and other debacles.
President Joe Biden milked “freedom from fear” in a Pennsylvania speech earlier this year on what he labeled “the third anniversary of the Insurrection at the United States Capitol.” Biden revealed plans to turn the November election into a referendum on Adolf Hitler, accusing Donald Trump of “echoing the same exact language used in Nazi Germany.” CNN reported that Biden campaign aides planned to go “full Hitler” on Trump. Biden spent half an hour fearmongering and then closed by promising “freedom from fear.” This was the famous Biden two-step—demagoguing to his heart’s content and then closing with a few schmaltzy uplift lines, entitling the media to re-christen him as an idealist.
Biden did not survive the Democrats’ version of the Night of the Long Knives and Vice President Kamala Harris has been designated the party’s presidential flagbearer.Harris painted with an even broader brush than most politicians. At a Juneteenth Concert this summer, she condemned Republicans for “a full-on attack” on “the freedom from fear of bigotry and hate.” Harris implied that politicians could wave a psychological magic wand to banish any bias in perpetuity. How can anyone have “freedom from fear of bigotry” unless politicians become entitled to perpetually control everyone’s thoughts?
In August, the Democratic National Convention whooped up freedom in ways that would qualify as “authentic frontier gibberish,” as the 1974 movie Blazing Saddles would say.A campaign video promised “freedom from control, freedom from extremism and fear.” So Americans won’t have true freedom until politicians forcibly suppress any idea they label as immoderate? The Democratic Party platform warned, “Reproductive freedom, freedom from hate, freedom from fear, the freedom to control our own destinies and more are all on the line in this election.” But the whole point of politics nowadays is to preempt individuals from controlling their own destinies. Regardless, a Time magazine headline hailed “How Kamala Harris Took ‘Freedom’ Back from the GOP.”
“Freedom from fear” is the ultimate political blank check. The more people government frightens, the more legitimate dictatorial policies become. Pledging “freedom from fear” entitles politicians to seize power over anything that frightens anyone. Giving politicians more power based on people’s fears is like giving firemen pay raises based on how many false alarms they report.
Politicians’ promises of “freedom from fear” imply that freedom properly understood is a risk-free, worry-free condition. It is the type of promise that a mother would make to a young child. Freedom is now supposedly something that exists only in the womb of government paternalism. “Freedom from fear” is to be achieved by trusting everything that politicians say and surrendering everything that politicians demand. New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham epitomized that mindset when she proclaimed at the Democratic National Convention, “We need a president who can be Consoler-in-Chief. We need a president capable of holding us in a great big hug.” And continuing to hold us until we formally become psychological wards of the state?
“Freedom from fear” offers freedom from everything except the government. Anyone who sounds the alarm about excessive government power will automatically be guilty of subverting freedom from fear. Presumably,the fewer inviolable rights the citizen has, the better government will treat him. But as John Locke warned more than 300 years ago, “I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away everything else.”
Why not simply offer voters “freedom from the Constitution”? “Freedom from fear” means security via mass delusions about the nature of political power. Painting the motto “freedom from fear” on shackles won’t make them easier to bear. Perhaps our ruling class should be honest and replace the Bill of Rights with a new motto: “Political buncombe will make you free.”
And who is Trent Horn? Dr. E. Michael Jones, arguably America’s leading Catholic intellectual, explains:
Trent Horn is a guy who works for something called Catholic Answers. Catholic Answers got started in the 90s by a guy named Carl Keating, who basically was going to defend the Catholic Church against fundamentalists who would say that the church was the whore of Babylon—fever swamp stuff like that. And it was like shooting fish in a barrel. He made a lot of money. He retired. He got replaced by Chris Check, a guy I knew from the Rockford Institute and Chronicles Magazine, a guy I always liked.
And now the world has changed. And so Trent Horn (took over Catholic Answers)… Some people said he was trying to apply for a job with the Daily Wire. He wanted to get Candace Owens’ slot.
So he’s going to be the Catholic guy who’s going to take up the Jewish cause. Well, it didn’t work. This guy singlehandedly resurrected an idea that really needs to be taken up, which is basically: What exactly is the status of the Jews and the Catholics? What is exactly the Catholic position?
And he took it to the extreme where he said basically it’s a sin to deny the Holocaust. And then he’s got “quotes” from people like Pope Benedict, which don’t say what he said they said. The Pope would never say (that Holocaust denial is a sin). The Pope, responding to the Williamson affair when Bishop Williamson got attacked across the world, said that basically “this is not decent. Decent people don’t do this.” Well, no one ever said Catholicism was just reserved for people who are fit for polite company.
So Trent Horn’s trying to up the ante by saying Catholics commit a sin if they contest Jewish fables. Well, it’s not going to work. And it bombed. There were hundreds of people who wrote in after this “Holocaust Denial Is a Sin” video, including people who noticed, as I did, there was fraud, academic fraud, going on here.
He flashes this image for two seconds, supposedly a letter from Himmler talking about the extermination of the Jews. Wait a minute. I have a pause button, Trent. And I put it on there. It turns out the beginning of this is Latin. It’s the Lorem Ipsum text generator. And then plopped in the middle is some statement—I guess he doesn’t think that anybody can read German because he apparently can’t—that says “the extermination of the Jewish people.”
But the real quote that follows is in a completely different typeset. The real quote is “die Evakuierung des deutschen Volkes,” which means the evacuation of the German people.
So I can’t tell you how angry I was. It’s been a long time since I got that angry. And I said that my friend Chris should either take the video down or stop claiming that he’ speaking for Catholics, because this is not Catholic theology. And you’re putting burdens on Catholics that they do not need to bear.
Catholic Holocaust Denial: A Confession
If crypto-Jew Trent Horn gets his way, Catholics the world over will be filing into confessionals every Sunday to whisper to their priests:
“Forgive me father for I have sinned. I have doubted the existence of the gas chambers.”
“Why would you do that, my son?”
“It has been six months since my last confession, and during that time I have been studying the issue.”
“ّWhy would you ‘study’ such rubbish, my son?”
“I was curious, father.”
“Have you not heard the old saying, my son, that ‘curiosity killed the catamite’”?
“No, I never heard that one, father. (Pause.) What’s a catamite?”
“That, my son, is another of those things you shouldn’t be curious about.”
“But why shouldn’t I ask questions about the Holocaust, father?”
“Because it is an article of faith, my son. If a Catholic denies OR doubts any article of faith determined by the Catholic Church, they are a sinful heretic. To be a Catholic is to be believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches. To doubt or deny ANY dogma is to proclaim oneself a Protestant – even if one continues to attend Mass and, God forbid, receive Holy Communion.”
“But father, is the Holocaust really an article of faith?”
“Of course it is, my son. There is no convincing evidence that it ever happened. That means we must accept it on faith. As Tertullian writes in his De Carne Christi: ‘I believe it because it is absurd.’ That certainly applies to the Holocaust.”
“I’m confused, father. What must I believe about the Holocaust?”
“It’s quite simple, son. Holocaustianity is the new Christianity. Instead of Jesus, we worship the Jewish people and their sacred six million. Instead of the Crucifixion, we have the gas chambers. And instead of the Resurrection, we have the state of Israel. That is the new Holy Trinity.”
“Is there a creed I should recite?”
“Indeed there is, my son. It goes like this:
‘I believe in the Holy Jewish People, the only chosen sons of Yahweh, masters of all things visible and invisible.
‘I believe in the sacred six million.
‘I believe in the gas chambers.
‘I support the holy state of Israel.
‘I will bow down to Antichrist, the Jewish messiah, when he comes.
‘And above all, I condemn Hamas.’
“But father, what you’re saying doesn’t sound like what I learned in Sunday school.”
“That was the old church, son. Today’s church is different. It’s new and fresh and irreverent about everything except the Holocaust and above all it’s no longer antisemitic. By the way, have you considered having a sex change?”
The parishioner hastily leaves the confessional, exits the church, and finds himself in the middle of a Hollywood studio lot. The church he just left, he discovers, was a paper maché mock-up, and the priest and parishioners were actors. (Was that Trent Horn playing the priest?) Discombobulated, he tries to find an exit from the studio lot, but it just seems to go on and on forever…
Genocide Denial IS a Sin
The notion of denial involves willful refusal to face an obvious truth. It does not apply to those who ask questions about matters that are far from obvious, including: Were six million Jews really murdered in German concentration camps? How many, if any, died in gas chambers? Were the deaths of German concentration camp inmates part of a preconceived bureaucratic plan to kill all Jews within reach of the German government?
The Jewish father of Holocaust Studies, Raul Hilberg, denied that six million Jews died. The more plausible number, he said, was 5.1 million. Was he “in denial”? Should he have been imprisoned along with others who offer even lower figures? What number is the cutoff, below which one goes to jail or commits a sin?
Mainstream historians have all sorts of different views about the alleged gas chambers and who may have died in them. Should those who hold less than maximalist views be imprisoned, or condemned for sinfulness, alongside those who see no convincing evidence for gas chambers at all?
Mainstream historians also hold widely varying views on whether there was a preconceived bureaucratic plan to kill all Jews within reach of the German government. Should those who argue for a more ad hoc Holocaust be incarcerated (or deemed guilty of mortal sin) alongside those who think that most of the roughly half-million Jews who died in the camps were victims of starvation and deprivation, not gas or bullets?
There is a plausible case that the German government committed genocide against Jews and gypsies during World War II. But all sorts of reasonable positions on the details of that genocide, if indeed it was one, have been criminalized. Though it is a crime in several European countries to discuss those details, calling it a sin seems a bit of a stretch.
Is Denying the Palestinian Genocide a Sin?
The genocide that is currently taking place in Occupied Palestine is one of the most fully-documented events in human history. It is being broadcast on social media and independent media (despite Israel’s relentless slaughter of journalists) 24/7/365. No reasonable person can doubt that the state of Israel is deliberately slaughtering Palestinian civilians en masse in order to facilitate its theft of their land and resources.
According to official body counts, Israel has killed about 42,000 people in Gaza during the past year. More than two-thirds of the dead are women and children, and most of the rest are noncombatants.
But the official body count is unrealistically low. It only includes identified bodies killed directly by the Israeli military. Thousands of other bodies remain buried in rubble, while others are excavated but not identified. And then there tens of thousands more whom Israel kills through starvation or deprivation. The Lancet, a leading medical journal, has estimated the real number of deaths in Gaza as over 186,000. Dr. Gideon Polya, an expert on avoidable mortality, thinks the total is even higher:
On 5 September 2024 Professor Devi Sridhar (chair, global health, University of Edinburgh) reported: “Total deaths since the conflict began would be estimated at about 335,500 in total” or 30,500 per month and 366,000 per year. Of these “first year” deaths about 55,000 were violent (from “bullets and bombs”) and 311,000 from horrific imposed deprivation.
By “horrific deprivation” Professor Sridhar is referring to Israel’s deliberate starvation of Gazans, its destruction of water and sewage infrastructure, and its obliteration of almost all of Gaza’s hospitals, clinics, and other medical facilities.
The USA and the West are indeed mired in what might be accurately called “genocide denial.” Most Americans and Westerners prefer to look the other way, deliberately averting their gaze from the sniper-murdered babies and whole families dying slowly beneath rubble created by American tax dollars.
That genocide denial is indeed a sin that puts them not only outside of all faith, but outside of all humanity.
The British Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has announced a £7 million procurement process for anti-semitism training in schools, colleges and universities, where she claims there’s been a huge increase in anti-semitic incidents.
However, the statistics on which she’s relying have been provided by the Community Security Trust (CST), which has links to Israel’s overseas spy agency, Mossad.
The British government has announced that its response to the ongoing genocide in Palestine is that it will spend £7 million on tackling anti-semitism in education.
Meanwhile, the government has failed to earmark any money at all to tackle the epidemic of anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic racism whipped up by the Zionist movement.
َ£500,000 of the £7 million funding has been awarded to the University Jewish Chaplaincy, or UJC, for ‘welfare support’ for Jewish students in universities.
But what is the UJC, a kindly Jewish religious organization devoted to the welfare and spiritual needs of their students?
Unfortunately not, in fact, it’s a fully signed up Zionist organization with direct links to illegal settlements and to the genocidal occupation forces.
The UJC is a charity that is also a member of the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council, JLC.
One of the directors of the UJC, Yuri Goldberg, was appointed a director of the JLC in August 2024.
Both groups are advocates of the genocidal ideology of Zionism, but perhaps the UJC is best known for its chaplain at Leeds University who was involved in the genocide in Gaza as a member of the occupation forces.
In October 2023 it emerged that he had been circulating videos of himself to Jewish students in Israeli occupation forces uniform, claiming: “No one could deny that Israel is dealing with this war with the utmost morality and good ethics”.
“What Israel is trying to do is destroy the evil, which is the most moral thing possible.”
It seems unlikely that this was conducive to the welfare of Jewish students at Leeds or elsewhere.
Zechariah Deutsch and his wife, Nava, the chaplaincy couple, had both trained for two years at Ohr Torah Stone’s Straus-Amiel Institute.
The Institute is located in Migdal Oz in the Gush Etzion settlement block in the West Bank. Ohr Torah Stone is an educational Zionist venture founded by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin in New York. He later became a settler colonist.
In November 2023, the president of Ohr Torah Stone, Riskin’s successor, Rabbi Kenneth Brander, visited the Zionist Northern Front. He was asked by the company commander to write a message to our enemies on one of the rockets used to retaliate to their attacks. In indelible black marker Brander wrote “To fulfill the mitzvah and mission of obliterating Amalek”.
Ohr Torah Stone is, in other words, a genocidal propaganda and indoctrination operation.
How the government imagines it will increase the welfare of Jewish students by giving money to genocidal Zionist extremists is unclear.
University Jewish Chaplaincy, links to illegal settlements and Israeli Occupation Forces
Leeds University is again the subject of outrage as the new chaplaincy couple are withdrawn from campus after shocking anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic posts were found on social media. The posts, mostly made by Sonia Pariente, included her view that Israeli lives were more valuable than those of Palestinians, referred to Palestinian women wearing black bags and to the Arabs of darkness.
“After October 7th I don’t differentiate between Hamas and so called Palestinians”, she wrote going on to say that “for the next 10 to 20 years, the Palestinian people will pay the bill that Hamas set today, and this bill will be paid in blood.”
Under pressure from pro-Palestine groups, the University Jewish Chaplaincy sacked them and removed their internet profile page.
The University Jewish Chaplaincy operates as a charity in the UK. It provides Jewish chaplains to universities up and down the country. Our investigations reveal that many have direct connections to illegal settlement and the occupation forces.
There are currently 17 individuals appointed in the UK, six couples and five individuals.
At Bristol, Asaf and Atara Forges are said to come from Israel, though both trained in the Straus Emil Institute of Ohr Torah Stone. This is the Gush Etzion settlement block run by an openly genocidal organization.
The Glasgow and Edinburgh chaplain, Eliran, trained at a yeshiva that is also run by Torah stone and included service in the occupation forces. His wife, Ayala Shabo, is from the illegal settlement of Efrat and attended Shalem College, in the occupied territory.
The chaplain at Nottingham, Uriya Dvir, attended two Yeshivas for a total of six years. Both were in illegal settlements. The Yeshivas combined Torah study and service in the occupation forces.
Rabbi Fishel Cohen at Birmingham is part of the genocidal Chabad cult, which believes it is justified to kill Palestinian children.
Unsurprisingly, the UJC is funded by a slew of hardline genocidal Zionists such as the convicted fraudster and founder of the Community Security Trust, Gerald Ronson, property developer David Dangoor, whose money is channeled via the Exilarch’s Foundation.
It also donates to the Islamophobic Henry Jackson society as does the Wolfson family, which owns the retailer ‘NEXT’.
The family has donated to Islamophobic think tanks, including Policy Exchange, and the Jerusalem Foundation which is directly involved in ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
The University Jewish Chaplaincy is a charity so these connections must raise questions about its ability to provide public benefit as required by law.
The pharmaceutical industry paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at top medical journals between 2020 and 2022, according to a research letter published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Payments to peer reviewers for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine included $1 billion to individuals or their institutions for research and $64.18 million in general payments, including travel and meals. Consulting fees and speaking compensation accounted for $34.31 million and $11.80 million respectively.
Among the nearly 2,000 physician peer reviewers analyzed, more than half received at least one industry payment between 2020 and 2022.
Although conflicts of interest among journal editors and authors have been investigated, the study authors wrote, any conflicts of interest the peer reviewers may have have been harder to assess.
“The traditionally opaque nature” of peer review has hindered the evaluation of peer reviewers, “despite their crucial role in academic publishing,” the authors wrote.
The typical conflict-of-interest policies most journals have for authors — requiring only that they disclose their conflicts — do not usually apply to peer reviewers, according to the JAMA study.
Journal editors may inquire about those conflicts, but they rarely publicly disclose them — even though many reviewers for top journals may have industry ties “due to their academic expertise,” the authors wrote.
Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender the scientific news process is compromised when reviewers are beholden to Big Pharma, rather than to the scientific community.
“No conflicting or competing interests should be anywhere near the publication process,” he said, adding:
“Science is a community. We need each other to modify and change ideas into better ideas, to critique, to better ourselves, otherwise we do not progress. A scientific publication is how scientists communicate with each other. It is the one thing that is sacrosanct, that is too valuable and too important to be meddled with.
“As scientists, our fundamental duty is to the community. That includes ensuring that our one time-honored method for communicating ideas with each other is free and clear of conflicting interests.”
Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown University Medical Center project that educates medical professionals about industry marketing practices, told MedPage Today that pharmaceutical companies are the largest purchasers of preprint articles and that they advertise heavily in journals, which “affects what gets published.”
“Obviously, pharma-critical articles are going to be published less often in journals supported by pharmaceutical companies, whose medical editors are supported by pharmaceutical companies, and whose peer reviewers are supported by pharmaceutical companies,” she said.
The study authors identified reviewers based on 2022 reviewer lists for each journal. They searched the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database for payments made to reviewers.
Drugmakers are required to report payments to physicians to the database, which was established by legislators in 2013 to address growing public concerns about Big Pharma’s influence over doctors.
The authors of the JAMA research letter limited their analysis to U.S.-based physicians, as those are the only ones listed on Open Payments. Of 7,021 reviewer names, 1,962 were practicing physicians and therefore searchable. Of those, 145 had performed peer reviews for more than one journal.
Overall, the authors found that 1,155 of the reviewers included in their study received industry payments between 2020 and 2022, with most payments made to physicians and their institutions to finance research.
More than half of the reviewers accepted payments for travel, speaking and consulting. Those direct, non-research-related payments had a median value of $7,614.
The authors said the study may have underestimated industry payments because it excluded non-U.S.-based physicians and reviewers who are not practicing physicians. It didn’t account for payments from other entities that may present conflicts of interest, including insurance and technology companies.
“Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed,” the researchers concluded.
If you’re of a certain age or demographic and in the northern hemisphere, chances are you’re being invited or encouraged to get a flu vaccine. The claim is that flu vaccines protect you and others from coming down with flu – and that if you do get it, the symptoms will be mild. So, is this true?
Many scientists see the flu shot as an unnecessary measure. For one thing, there’s a big question over whether the flu vaccine even works, particularly for older people, for whom it is recommended. Studies show that the vaccines often do not match the circulating viruses and no significant effects on serious complications or hospitalizations have been demonstrated.
You’d think that vaccinating people against flu would lead to a reduction in deaths from flu. But figures show that this isn’t the case. In fact, even though the number of flu shots given has increased more than eightfold, the number of flu-associated deaths has remained more or less unchanged.
There’s a logical explanation, and it goes like this:
Antibodies are not enough
Flu vaccines, like any other vaccine, primarily rely on the so-called Th2 antibody response. This generates antibodies to help the body fight off the influenza virus once it enters the bloodstream. What vaccines don’t do is impact the first line of defence in the nasal mucosa. This part of the innate immune system does not use antibodies, and it is here where respiratory viruses replicate.
This is whyvaccines for respiratory viruses will never prevent infection or the transmission of the disease.
The immune response to vaccinations also decreases with age, which further reduces the already weak effect of vaccination in older people. Studies bear this out. In particular, a 2012 article in the British Medical Journal quoted an independent study that looked at data from 1967 to 2012 and concluded there isn’t strong evidence showing that the flu vaccine consistently protects people. While it does offer some protection for young, healthy adults who usually don’t face serious flu complications, the researchers noted that there is not enough evidence to support its effectiveness for older adults (65 and older), who account for more than 90% of flu-related deaths.
Recent research into the efficacy of flu shots also reveals their limitations
In 2020, Anderson et al. showed that influenza vaccination of 60 to 70 year olds in England and Wales had no discernible positive impact on hospitalization or deaths:
Another study in Japan reported on 83,146 individuals aged 65 years and followed them up over six years. In 2023, the incidence of hospitalization for influenza did not differ significantly by vaccination and the claimed protective effectiveness against incidence waned quickly after four or five months.
Another 2020 study from Anderson and team analysed data covering 170 million episodes of care and 7.6 million deaths. Turning 65 was associated with a statistically and clinically significant increase in rate of seasonal influenza vaccination. However, no evidence indicated that vaccination reduced hospitalizations or mortality among elderly persons. The study points out that estimates were precise enough to rule out results from many previous studies.
This is not just a concern for the elderly but for all those with weakened immune systems, including those undergoing immunosuppressive treatments, or individuals with chronic health conditions. In such cases, the Th2 response may not produce enough protective antibodies to effectively combat the virus, leading to a higher risk of severe illness.
Here’s another reason to exercise caution of the flu vaccine:
Flu vaccines actually SPREAD the virus
Controlled studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) find that people who receive flu shots emit 630% more flu virus particles into the air compared to non-vaccinated people. In other words, flu vaccines spread the flu!
Physicians for Informed Consent has produced this concise summary of facts that you, your loved ones and your doctor should consider before a potential injection.
All this leads to an important next question:
If the flu shot isn’t a good idea, what is?
The flu shots’ limitations make the prevention and treatment of flu with nutritional supplements like Vitamin D, Quercetin, and Zinc more appealing and safe. These supplements not only enhance the immune response but also offer additional antiviral and anti-inflammatory benefits:
Vitamin D protects the lungs and airways – and much more besides
Studies have shown that Vitamin D supplementation can significantly reduce the risk of influenza infections by enhancing the body’s immune response. It works by modulating the expression of inflammatory cytokines and increasing macrophage function, which are essential for fighting off infections.
Moreover, Vitamin D has been found to protect the lungs and airways through the antimicrobial peptide cathelicidin, which has both antibacterial and antiviral properties. Vitamin D supplementation shows promise in reducing the risk and severity of respiratory infections, including influenza. The evidence suggests that consistent Vitamin D intake can lower the incidence of acute respiratory infections, shorten the duration of symptoms, and enhance immune response, particularly in the elderly. These benefits can translate into reduced hospitalizations and deaths due to flu, making Vitamin D a valuable component in flu prevention and management strategies.
Quercetin: a powerful antiviral and zinc’s vital wingman
Quercetin is a flavonoid found in many fruits and vegetables, known for its antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties. It has been shown to inhibit the entry and replication of viruses in lung cells, making it a potent candidate for managing respiratory infections like the flu. Quercetin also acts as a zinc ionophore, facilitating the transport of zinc into cells, which enhances its antiviral effects. Studies suggest that the co-administration of Quercetin and Vitamin C can exert a synergistic antiviral action, further boosting immune response and reducing viral replication
Zinc: helps prevent and reduce infection severity and duration
Zinc is an essential mineral that supports various cellular functions of both the innate and adaptive immune systems. It interferes with the process that certain cold viruses use to multiply, thereby reducing the severity and duration of infections. Zinc is particularly important for the recruitment and activity of neutrophil granulocytes, natural killer cells, and T cells, all of which play critical roles in the immune response. Supplementation with zinc has been supported by evidence showing its effectiveness in preventing viral infections and reducing their severity.
In summary…
The questionable efficiency and safety of the flu vaccine raises important concerns that cannot be overlooked. Alternative approaches such as supplementing vitamin D, quercetin and zinc, are one way to enhance immunity without the risks associated with traditional vaccinations.
Moreover, the potential for the production of IgG4 antibodies as a response to the vaccine illustrates a complex interaction between immunization and immune system dynamics, where the very act of repeated vaccination may inadvertently lead to a weakened response against certain influenza strains. This effect can also result in the weakening of the immune system in general to fight infections and cancer. This highlights the need for continued research and dialogue about the benefits and risks of flu vaccination versus alternative preventive strategies.
As we navigate through flu seasons, it is crucial to remain informed and consider individualized approaches to immune health. Ultimately, a well-rounded strategy that includes lifestyle choices, nutritional support, and an understanding of the science behind flu immunization could empower individuals to make informed decisions that best suit their health needs. The World Council for Health stands for a better way.
3. http://www.gpk.de/downloadp/STIKO_2011_Bulletin10_110314_Schaetzung_der_Influenza_bedingten_Todesfaelle.pdf. 51 World Health Organization: »List of Members of, and Advisor to, the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency
5. Di Pietrantonj, C.; Rivetti, A.; Bawazeer, G.A.; Al-Ansary, L.A.; Ferroni, E.: ‘Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults’, in: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2010, 7., Art. No.: CD001269, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4.
6. Wittig, Frank. Die weiße Mafia: Wie Ärzte und die Pharmaindustrie unsere Gesundheit aufs Spiel setzen, 2012Yan J, Grantham M, Pantelic J, Bueno de Mesquita PJ, Albert B, Liu F, Ehrman S, Milton DK; EMIT Consortium. Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jan 30;115(5):1081-1086. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1716561115. Epub 2018 Jan 18. PMID: 29348203; PMCID: PMC5798362.
By Dr. Elias Akleh* | Sabbah Report | May 24, 2010
A build up of heightened tension in the Middle East is escalating in the last few weeks. American and Israeli postures towards Lebanon, Syria, and Iran have become more threatening. Listening to speeches of political leaders one hears talks only about war not peace. Iranians and Israelis are continuously training hard for a possible showdown. Both sides are conducting extensive war games every month. This led Syrians to claim that Israel is preparing for a soon-to-come another war. The Jordanians also are warning that current stalemate of the peace process is an indication of a war breaking out this summer. The Russian President and his army chief hinted, a few months ago, that the US and Israel were planning for an attack on Iran.
Indeed Iran is, as it has been for last few years, the target of most of the threats and accusations of supporting terrorism. Escalating incitement against Iran the American Defense Department sent last month (April) to Congress a report on Iran’s military claiming Iran could develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US by 2015.
Ignoring the fact that N. Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are proven to have nuclear weapons while Iran does not, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose in her speech, to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference at the UN, to focus on Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions putting the whole world at risk as she put it. According to Clinton Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, rather than Israel’s more than 200 nuclear bombs, is destabilizing the Middle East. She called on the world’s nations to rally around US efforts to hold Iran, not other nuclear countries, to account.
The accusation that Usama Bin Laden is living comfortably in Iran had received a boost after the broadcast of a documentary called “Feathered Cocaine”. This echoed the June 2003 claims of the Italian newspaper Corre de la Sierra that Bin Laden was in Iran according to some intelligence report, and according to Richard Miniter’s book “Shadow War”. … 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.
/ ggreenwald 
/ glenn.11.greenwald 
/ systemupdate__ 
/ systemupdate.tv 
/ systemupdate 
Aletho News
Aletho News 