How powerful is the Rothschild banking family? How did they amass their fortune? Just how rich are they? Do they secretly control the world? Sputnik explores.
Media-shy banking firm Rothschild & Co popped up in the news recently when it was revealed that it played a key role in restructuring over $20 bln in Ukrainian debt, including by arranging face-to-face meetings between Kiev officials and vulture funds like Black Rock and Amundi. The Rothschilds are known to have played an active role in carving up Ukraine’s wealth since at least 2014 and the Euromaidan coup.
But in the global scheme of things, despite its rich black soil and immense resource wealth, Ukraine may be just a side project for the banking family, whose role in the creation of the modern international financial order goes back to the 18th century, when German banker Mayer Amschel Rothschild and his five sons forged a global banking empire with offices in Frankfurt, London, Paris, Vienna and Naples.
What is the Rothschild Banking Clan Known For?
Emerging in the heyday of European colonial empires, the Rothschilds cashed in on the vast wealth flowing to the continent to create merchant and private banking, asset management, venture capital, insurance, commodities, sovereign debt, media, transport, real estate, pharmaceuticals, mining, and energy enterprises.
Establishing close ties to the British Crown, Mayer and his sons played an instrumental role in financing and operating colonial megaprojects of the day, from the Suez Canal trade artery to the East India Company – the British imperial megacorporation which ruthlessly ruled over India as a private company through much of the 18th and 19th centuries, sucking out untold wealth.
The family proved highly active in the international politics of the tumultuous 19th and 20th centuries, betting on Britain against France during the Napoleonic Wars by financing Hessian mercenary soldiers and loaning money to the Crown, and using insider knowledge of government deliberations and a sophisticated communication system to make financial decisions that would consolidate its fortunes.
How Rich are the Rothschilds?
A big question mark surrounding the Rothschild family revolves around their net worth, with publicly available valuations varying from a paltry $1 billion to $400 billion and even $1.2 trillion – which would put the family well above the oft-published pop financial media lists of the “world’s richest,” which typically include names like the Waltons, the Arnaults, the Kochs, Elon Musk and Bill Gates.
The difficulty in establishing a precise figure stems from the family’s incredible secrecy, combined with the murky nature of finance capital. The Rothschilds ‘went dark’, financially speaking, in the early 20th century, when the introduction of national taxation schemes across Europe led family banks to formally split to create ‘independent’ financial institutions.
For instance, while reporting on the family’s public-facing business empire is often focused on the Paris, London and Singapore-based Rothschild & Co, other divisions, like the Geneva-based Edmond de Rothschild Group are less often mentioned, and they are rarely if ever mentioned together.
How Powerful are the Rothschilds?
The world of high finance is an incredibly small place, with the Rothschilds assumed to enjoy a prominent place among banking families like the Rockefellers, Morgans, Barclays, Lazards, Warburgs and others in control over the world’s top private banks, from JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup to HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Societie Generale, and others.
The Rothschilds also have ownership stakes and investments ranging from 5%-50% or more in an array of European, US and Asian mega corporations, from Glencore Mining and TotalEnergies to Siemens, Exxon, Chevron, Repsol, Shell, Mitsubishi, Itochu Corp and the Rio Tinto Mining Corporation.
In his book ‘Big Oil & Their Bankers’, researcher Dean Henderson discovered that the Rothschilds and a clique of seven other banking families enjoy a controlling stake in the New York Federal Reserve Bank – the most powerful Fed bank and the heart of America’s financial system. Other investigators believe the Rothschilds either control the city of London and the Bank of England, or own it outright, although this has been disputed.
Do Rothschilds Control the World’s Politicians?
A handful of political figures, including several of America’s founding fathers, warned about the threat posed by the rise of powerful banking clans in their day. In a letter to John Taylor in 1816, Thomas Jefferson characterized the US banking system as a “blot” in “all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction,” and sweep away “the fortunes and morals of our citizens.”
“I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by prosperity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale,” Jefferson warned.
200 years on, Rothschild influence over world politicians has become impossible to conceal, with the family’s prominent members rubbing shoulders with the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterrand, Petro Poroshenko, Emmanuel Macron, and others, either taking advantage of business connections and sheer economic and market power, or in Macron’s case – hiring him as an investment banker before he began his political career.
Do the Rothschilds Control the World?
To suggest that the Rothschild family is so powerful that they control the planet’s entire economic and political life and world events would be a stretch, not only due to the never-ending, largely silent struggle for resources and power with competitors, but the ever-shifting geopolitical balance of the modern world, which powerful banking elites might try to influence, but never control outright. Nonetheless, overlooking these shadow forces’ actions, or worse, dismissing them as mere “ conspiracy theories,” risks an overly simplistic view on the events and processes taking place in the modern world.
Former Georgian prime minister Bidzina Ivanishvili has accused the country’s United National Movement (UNM) party founded by ex-president Mikhail Saakashvili of inciting the 2008 war in South Ossetia.
The country will find the strength to apologize to the Ossetians for the “bloody conflict” and strive to restore trust and unity between the two brotherly nations, he added.
The US-educated Saakashvili formed the pro-Western UNM party in 2001 and served as president of Georgia from 2004 to 2013. In August 2008, he ordered troops into the breakaway region of Ossetia, shelling a Russian peacekeeper base used by Moscow’s troops since the first conflict on the territory in 1990.
Moscow responded with a “peace enforcement” operation, defeating Georgian forces and recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and another breakaway region, Abkhazia, as a result.
Saakashvili was voted out of office in 2013 and eventually pursued a political career in post-Maidan Ukraine, becoming governor of Odessa. He is now serving a six-year prison sentence on charges related to abuse of power, among other offenses.
Speaking at an election campaign event in the city of Gori on Saturday, Ivanishvili, who leads the ruling Georgian Dream party, claimed that a 12-year investigation concluded the 2008 conflict was “provoked by Saakashvili’s criminal regime” with “outside” assistance, and was aimed at disrupting national unity and dividing the two brotherly nations.
Numerous pieces of evidence compiled by the Georgian government have implicated the National Movement party in starting the war and committing “the worst crime,” he added.
“We were well aware that all this was a well-planned provocation from the outside against the Georgian and Ossetian people, the purpose of which was to split our unity, destroy relations, and make us exist in conditions of endless, artificial confrontation,” Ivanishvili said.
He stressed the importance of recognizing past mistakes and restoring territorial integrity, as well as “the centuries-old brotherhood and friendship between Georgians and Ossetians.”
He also condemned the “instigator of the war” and vowed to bring those responsible for destroying relations between Georgia and Ossetia to justice.
“We will definitely find the strength to apologize for the flames which enveloped our Ossetian brothers and sisters in 2008 on the orders of the traitorous National Movement,” he continued, pledging that United National Movement officials will face a Georgian “Nuremberg process,” referring to the post-WWII trials of Nazi German war criminals.
Last month, the Georgian government said it would set up a parliamentary commission to assess the events of 2008, claiming that Saakashvili acted on instructions “from the outside,” which constitutes “a well-planned betrayal.”
The former president could face additional charges of treason, potentially leading to a life sentence.
On September 2nd 1945, within hours of Imperial Japan’s Emperor Hirohito formally signing an instrument of surrender and ending World War II in the Pacific, Ho Chi Minh, leader of the Viet Minh, proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam’s foundation. Liberally citing passages from the 1776 US Declaration of Independence, Ho pledged that his newly-created state would never again be subject to foreign domination or exploitation, and evermore remain governed solely by and for its people.
Vietnam’s radical post-war euphoria was palpably captured by French photographer Germaine Krull, a French photographer who visited the country mere days later. In her diary, she observed how in Saigon, “all the streets were hung with large banners and all the walls and official buildings” bore revolutionary inscriptions. They declared; “down with French imperialism; down with the colonials; the era of colonization is over; down with slavery.” The Communist-dominated Viet-Minh’s “big red [flag] with the yellow star” could also be seen in profusion.
Japanese soldier hands over his sword to the British, September 1945
This was quite some contrast from the scenes that greeted Krull at Saigon airport. There, “an unusual situation prevailed”:
“It was being serviced entirely by the Japanese. They were doing everything: driving trucks and cars, standing guard, carrying luggage and refuelling. The British were in command of them and kept order… The Japanese performed their duties faultlessly and were perfectly disciplined.”
Krull had flown in on one of several “transport planes carrying British troops,” among them a sizeable detachment of “handsome, impeccable” Gurkhas, along with “their Scotch commanding officer.” Unstated by the photographer, their mission was to comprehensively crush the country’s dreams of independence, and re-establish France’s control over her colonial holding. Under its auspices, the “unusual situation” of Vietnam’s recently vanquished Japanese occupiers taking orders from and working alongside the British, until mere days earlier their sworn adversaries, was not restricted to Saigon airport.
Many decades later, Britain’s immediate post-war intervention in Vietnam remains virtually unknown. Yet, despite lasting just six months, the bitter conflict cost many lives, and effectively ignited the three-decade-long Vietnam War, which ended in embarrassing defeat for Western powers. The impact on the region, and wider world, endures for untold numbers of people today. It is a sordid, secret chapter in London’s recent history, urgently demanding re-evaluation.
That the British meant grave business in Vietnam is amply underscored by their Indian Army’s entire 20th Division’s deployment to the country. As journalist George Rosie reported in 1970, this force had “been at the very heart of the fighting” against Japan over Burma, and in turn control over the whole subcontinent. Across countless brutal battles, its units fought off “ferocious” attacks, “inflicting terrible casualties” on the enemy.
The 20th Division was particularly central to these efforts. By the end of World War II, Rosie recorded, “there was no more skilful, experienced and battle-hardened” unit in Burma. The Division was “probably the best division in one of the best armies in Asia.” Now, its soldiers were to target their well-honed proficiency in the art of killing against the Vietnamese. In all, 26,000 British soldiers along with 2,500 military vehicles were airdropped into Saigon for the purpose.
Three artillery regiments also arrived, while the Royal Air Force was on hand with 14 spitfires and 34 Mosquito fighter bombers in support. Backing this vast invading army were Vichy French and Japanese troops, who were provided with new weapons by their British counterparts. The official objective was to “maintain law and order and ensure internal security” in Vietnam. Still, the British and their conquered underlings were given explicit orders to savagely crush any and all local resistance, even if innocent civilians were killed:
“There is no front in these operations: we would be dealing with bands of guerillas… We may find it difficult to distinguish friend from foe… Also beware of ‘nibbling’ at opposition. Always use the maximum force available to ensure wiping out any hostile we may meet. If one uses too much, no harm is done. If one uses too small a force and it has to be extricated [sic], we will suffer casualties and encourage the enemy.”
Japanese soldiers repair an airfield, while British troops observe
Quickly, the Vietnamese began dying in vast numbers. However, this bloodsoaked incursion initially went entirely unremarked upon in the British media, and parliament, for several months. As such, the public at home remained completely in the dark about their Army waging another grand foreign entanglement, let alone in tandem with its World War II enemies. This conspiracy of silence continued until December 1945, when a joint letter authored by British soldiers in Vietnam, sent to then-Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, was published by The Guardian:
“It appears that we are collaborating with Japanese and French forces against the nationalist forces of Viet Minh. For what purpose is this collaboration? Why are we not disarming the Japanese? We desire the definition of government policy regarding the presence of British troops in Indo-China.”
These bombshell disclosures attracted little interest, and were promptly forgotten. The signatories received a stern talking-to from a senior military official, and no further revelations about Britain’s covert war in Vietnam subsequently emerged. In the meantime, slaughter of innocent civilians continued apace. Much later, one of the signatories to the joint letter recalled of his time in the country:
“We saw homes being burned and hundreds of the local population being kept in compounds. We saw many ambulances, open at the back, carrying mainly – actually, totally – women and children, who were in bandages. I remember it very vividly. All the women and children who lived there would stand outside their homes, all dressed in black, and just grimly stare at us, really with… hatred.”
Come mid-January next year, the Viet Minh had learned lessons from launching large-scale attacks on British-led forces, which frequently ended with significant casualties due to their opponents’ superior firepower, and extensive use of machine guns. Hanoi’s freedom fighters thereafter adopted a raft of guerrilla tactics, including ambushes, assassinations, and hit-and-run raids on enemy patrols. It was the world’s first modern unconventional war. These strategies were devastatingly employed against French and US invaders over the next three decades.
Control of the mission was formally signed over by London to French generals at the end of March 1946, and most of her forces duly left Hanoi. France was emboldened by the perceived success of Britain’s intervention, believing Ho Chi Minh’s forces couldn’t withstand further onslaught from a “civilised”, professional army. This delusion led Paris to launch all-out war against Hanoi again in December that year. It ended in bitter defeat eight years later, and then the Americans stepped in.
For its part, in the post-World War II period, Britain waged a number of comparable, covert wars in every corner of the world, as its financial and military clout rapidly withered. In many cases, the US subsequently stepped in to fill London’s shoes, taking over management of far-flung crises and emergencies, and in the process Britain’s fallen empire. The past 80 years has been a neverending story of American struggle to master the dual legacies of colonialism and partition, bequeathed by its own former imperial overlord.
Ukrainian troops in Russia’s Kursk Region have rounded up local civilians and placed them in “something like concentration camps,” RIA Novosti reported on Thursday, citing a Russian Foreign Ministry report.
When Ukrainian forces launched an incursion into Kursk Region last month, thousands of civilians were evacuated or themselves fled deeper into the Russian heartland. Some however, including elderly people and those with disabilities, were unable to leave, and their settlements fell under Ukrainian control.
According to a new report seen by RIA Novosti, those left behind were subjected to detention methods synonymous with the Second World War.
“In a number of territories controlled by militants, something like ‘concentration camps’ were created, which civilians who did not want or were unable to leave the territory captured by the enemy were forcibly driven into,” the report said, according to RIA Novosti. These claims were based on eyewitness accounts collected by the Russian Red Cross in Kursk.
Of those detained, between 70 and 100 were taken to a school in Sudzha, where some of the fiercest fighting took place. Once there, they were subjected to psychological abuse and presented to foreign journalists, RIA Novosti claimed.
“These journalists not only illegally violated the border of the Russian Federation, they did so as part of the paramilitary punitive units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” the report said. “Their goal is the deliberate distortion of real events – the creation of a favorable media background for the actions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Kursk Region and the concealment of information about terrorist crimes against civilians.”
Russian authorities have already filed criminal charges against Italian and American reporters who entered Kursk with Ukrainian troops and interviewed civilians in Sudzha.
Ukrainian commanders ordered the Kursk incursion in an attempt to force Russia to pull troops from the front line near Donetsk, the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Colonel General Aleksandr Syrsky, said last month. However, Syrsky said the gamble had not paid off, and that Russian forces had since doubled their efforts in Donetsk and captured multiple settlements previously held by Ukrainian forces.
The Ukrainian advance in Kursk was quickly stopped. After several weeks of attacks from Russian ground and air forces, Ukraine has lost more than 12,500 service members, 101 tanks, and hundreds of armored vehicles, according to the latest figures from the Russian Defense Ministry.
In a statement on Thursday, the ministry said Russian forces had liberated ten villages near the Ukrainian border in the previous 48 hours, and repelled several counterattacks. Despite suffering massive casualties and failing to relieve pressure on the Donetsk front, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky claimed on Thursday that “everything is going in accordance with our Ukrainian plan” to defeat Russia.
Maria Butina, a Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee member, was a student of foreign affairs at the School of International Services (Washington, D.C.) in 2018 when she was convicted as acting as an unregistered foreign agent, and was imprisoned for 18 months—including 4 torturous months in solitary confinement.
In this conversation, Maria describes her incarceration and the harsh, inhumane and filthy conditions she experienced in various US prisons. She was subjected to psychological torture via sleep deprivation and prolonged isolation.
She now advocates for people facing political persecution.
“Now I help people who want to come to Russia, looking for asylum here, they fear their own state.”
It’s often been alleged that ever since World War II ended, Holocaustianity emerged from its ashes as the West’s official state religion.
To dare suggest that human history’s bloodiest war didn’t happen exactly the way we have been commanded to think that it happened is to face the sort of social death that stared down European heretics who questioned the resurrection of Christ 1,000 years ago.
Like most Manichaean belief systems, Holocaustianity draws a stark and unbroachable line between good and evil, one that permits no nuance. Hitler was Satan, and Jews were six million rubber-stamped versions of Christ, shedding their innocent blood to forever redeem humanity from its wretchedness.
And yet it didn’t work out so neatly. For one, the Jews didn’t ascend to heaven, and they are eternally condemned to tremble in fear at existential threats at the hands of humanity’s clearly irredeemable dregs.
In this state religion, the distribution of guilt is clearly inequitable: The only person who bears ANY blame for World War II, at least while it was happening, was Adolf Hitler. And then after World War II, the guilt must be shouldered by everyone of European ancestry, no matter their forefathers’ role in World War II—they must suffer. Forever.
It’s truly that ridiculous, and meekly attempting to bring facts and reason into the discussion is to be barked at by a pack of rabid bitches in estrus.
I skipped over the Jonestown segments, but what’s remarkable about the rest of their discussion is how calm and non-“hateful” it was. Then again, unless you’re dealing with brutally bitter anonymous meme-tarded trolls online, this has been my consistent experience for the past three decades, ever since I started paying attention to what most accused “hatemongers” actually have to say. Almost without fail, the people who are accusing them of “hate” are palpably more bitter, unhinged, and malevolent than the “haters” are.
Neither Carlson nor his guest say the word “Holocaust” once, although they both agree on the premise that the official World War II narrative has achieved religious status because, as with Christ’s crucifixion, it involved blood sacrifice. Neither one of them has a positive word to say about Adolf Hitler, either. Nor do they have a negative word to say about Jews.
In Darryl Cooper’s framing, World War II would never have reached the colossal scale that it did—involving the American empire, the Soviet empire, and even Imperial Japan—without Winston Churchill:
COOPER: I thought Churchill was the chief villain of the Second World War. Now, he didn’t kill the most people, he didn’t commit the most atrocities, but I believe, and I don’t really think, I think when you really get into it and tell the story right and don’t leave anything out, you see that he was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, becoming something other than an invasion of Poland .…
CARLSON: Why don’t you make the case for that? Okay so you’ve made your statement, a lot of people are thinking, “Well, wait a second, you said Churchill, my childhood hero, the guy with the cigar.” Yeah, well, in the next thought that comes into their head is that, “Oh, you’re saying Churchill was the chief villain, therefore his enemies, you know, Adolf Hitler and so forth, were the protagonists, right? They’re the good guys ….
COOPER: That’s not what I’m saying. You know, Germany, look, they put themselves into a position, and Adolf Hitler is chiefly responsible for this, but his whole regime is responsible for it, that when they went into the East in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners and so forth that they were going to have to handle. They went in with no plan for that. And they just threw these people into camps, and millions of people ended up dead there.
“No plan…camps…millions of people ended up dead there.”
Uttering those words, Cooper committed the unpardonable sin, the modern version of blaspheming the Holy Ghost.
Cooper alleges repeatedly that Germany did not want a war with Western Europe and that Hitler sent a string of peace proposals to both Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. Despite what has now become an item of canonical faith—that Hitler wanted to “take over the world”—Cooper says that Hitler’s proposals stressed that Germany would allow England to keep all its overseas colonies and that the main international threat that both countries faced was Russian Bolshevism.
Cooper calls Churchill a “psychopath”—another grave transgression when that word is only reserved for Hitler—and portrays him as a bellicose imperialist who kept the war going and bided his time while he corralled other imperial forces into joining the effort:
COOPER: The reason I resent Churchill so much for it is that he kept this war going, when he had no way, he had no way to go back and fight this war. All he had were bombers. He was literally by 1940 sending firebomb fleets, sending bomber fleets to go firebomb the Black Forest just to burn down sections of the Black Forest, just rank terrorism, you know, going through and starting to, you know, what eventually became just a carpet bombing, saturation bombing of civilian neighborhoods, you know, to kill, the purpose of which was to kill as many civilians as possible. And all the men were out in the field, all the fighting henchmen were out in the field…. And so this is old people, it’s women and children. And they knew that. And they were wiping these places out. It was gigantic, scaled terrorist attacks, the greatest, you know, scale of terrorist attacks you’ve ever seen in world history.
CARLSON: Why would he do that?
COOPER: Because it was the only means that they had to continue fighting at the time. You know, they didn’t have the ability to re-invade Europe. And so, he needed to keep this war going until he accomplished what he hoped to accomplish. … “We need either the Soviet Union or the United States to do it for us.” And that was the plan and kept the war going long enough for that plan to come to fruition. And to me, that’s just it’s a craven, ugly way to fight a war.
CARLSON: And what was the motive?…
COOPER: There’s all those things but then you get into you know why was why was Winston Churchill such a dedicated booster of Zionism from early on in his life, right? And there’s ideological reasons. In 1920, he wrote a kind of infamous now article called “ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM.” …And this is 1920. So, this is shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. Basically, the point of his paper is he says these people who are over there, they’re all going one direction or the other. They’re going to be Bolsheviks. They’re going to be Zionists. We want them to be Zionists, you know, and so we need to support this. And so that was early on. There’s an ideological component of it. But then as time goes on, you know, you read stories about Churchill going bankrupt and needing money, getting bailed out by people who shared his interests, you know, in terms of Zionism…
When I peeked at Churchill’s 1920 essay “ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM,” I was blindsided at how Winston Churchill, perhaps history’s most celebrated philo-Semite, trotted out the idea that Russian Bolshevism was primarily a Jewish phenomenon, something that would get him tarred as an “anti-Semite” today:
International Jews
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort [i.e., Jews who are nationalists in the nations they reside in] rise the schemes of the international Jews.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.
Writing for the Mises Institute, Ralph Raico dredges up a Churchill quote from 1937 where Winnie reportedly said that if forced to choose between Nazism and Communism, he’d go with Hitler:
Three or four years ago I was myself a loud alarmist…. In spite of the risks which wait on prophecy, I declare my belief that a major war is not imminent, and I still believe that there is a good chance of no major war taking place in our lifetime…. I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism.
But then, when Nazi troops lurked on Moscow’s fringes ready to bring down Communism, Churchill sided with Stalin. And when the war was over, Churchill lamented that an “iron curtain has descended over Europe,” seemingly unconcerned that he’d stolen the phrase from Joseph Goebbels.
A strong case could be made that Churchill was a man whose only motivation was the raw acquisition of power regardless of how much blood was spilled. Otherwise, he seemed to have no principles or guiding ideology.
Toward the end of their discussion, Carlson and Cooper marvel at how, rather than saving the West, World War II destroyed it:
CARLSON: So, Germany is this totally self-hating place. It’s depressing as hell, though also wonderful in a way, but it’s going away. But they lost, at least you could say they lost two World Wars in a row. Britain won two World Wars in a row, and if anything, it’s more degraded than Germany. So, like, just to take it back to the first thing I said, and I’ll shut up and let you answer, but if Churchill is a hero, how come there are British girls begging for drugs on the street of London? And the place is, you know, it’s just there. London is not majority English now. Like, what?
COOPER: Well, the people who formulated the version of history that considers Churchill a hero, they like London the way it is now, you know….
CARLSON: But that’s not victory, that’s like the worst kind of defeat, is it not?
COOPER: That is something that ends your existence as a people….
CARLSON: I just can’t get over the fact that the West wins and is completely destroyed in less than a century.
COOPER: Well, the West was conquered. The West was conquered by the United States and the Soviet Union.
CARLSON: Okay, but I’m including the United States in the West. Right. Somehow, the United States and Western Europe won. That’s the conventional understanding. And both have now looked like they lost a World War.
Cooper described the vituperations, recriminations, and hyperbole that ensued in the wake of his quietly reasonable discussion with Carlson as “emotional incontinence” and said it is “is proof of my point about the sacred nature of the World War 2 mythos.”
Even the White House got involved. On Thursday, in perhaps the most emotionally incontinent outburst of them all, Senior Press Secretary Andrew Bates fumed at Carlson:
… [G]iving a microphone to a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda is a disgusting and sadistic insult to all Americans, to the memory of the over 6 million Jews who were genocidally murdered by Adolf Hitler, to the service of the millions of Americans who fought to defeat Nazism, and to every subsequent victim of antisemitism…. Hitler was one of the most evil figures in human history and the ‘chief villain’ of World War II, full stop… The Biden-Harris administration believes that trafficking in this moral rot is unacceptable at any time, let alone less than one year after the deadliest massacre perpetrated against the Jewish people since the Holocaust and at a time when the cancer of antisemitism is growing all over the world.
In response, Carlson texted CNN:
The fact that these lunatics have used the Churchill myth to bring our country closer to nuclear war than at any moment in history disgusts me and should terrify every American. They’re warmonger freaks. They don’t get the moral high ground.
Color me impressed. That’s like stoically enduring the Battle of Britain in your pajamas, then blithely throwing open your bedroom shutters, stretching, wincing in the daylight, and yawning. We need more hatemongers of this caliber.
Audio version: To listen in a player click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link/target as.”
Despite public statements by government officials affirming the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in early 2022, documents obtained by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) reveal that, at that time, public health officials were increasingly concerned about vaccine-related adverse events.
The 300 pages of documents released on Aug. 22 contain private correspondence from 2021 and early 2022 between U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials, and emails from vaccine-injured individuals to NIH scientists.
CHD requested the documents via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2022. In April 2023, CHD sued the NIH to obtain the records after the agency failed to respond. In an October 2023 settlement, the NIH agreed to produce 7,500 pages of documents at a rate of 300 pages per month.
Last month’s tranche of documents showed that in late 2021 and early 2022, FDA and NIH officials privately expressed concerns about the growing rate of adverse events related to the COVID-19vaccines — concerns that reached high-level FDA officials.
A Jan. 24, 2022, email (pages 239-240) to Dr. Janet Woodcock, the FDA’s principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, and Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, alerted them to the existence of “scientific data” regarding adverse events.
The email, titled “Impromptu Meetup” and sent by an individual whose name is redacted, stated:
“We are in [Washington] DC the remainder of today and tomorrow. Some of our epidemiologists happen to be in town as well and would like to have the opportunity to review with you the scientific data they have.
“Also checking in to see what progress has been made with our researchers?”
In a reply later that day, Woodcock said, “We are evaluating the data and analyses that have been done on adverse events after vaccination, particularly neurologic AE’s” (adverse events).
However, she added that the FDA was “not having in person meetings” at that time but stated that “something could be set up for a discussion between the scientists but it would need to be scheduled to ensure the right people attend.” She did not clarify who the “right people” would be.
On the same day, Marks also responded to the email, stating that the FDA has “connected with” NIH researcher Dr. Avindra Nath — who was studying vaccine-related adverse events — and was “also working through contacting other physicians as well.”
Marks added that he “sent a note to our pharmacovigilance group to see if they can free up time today or tomorrow” but said that “setting up a virtual meeting at some point in the near future when there is more time to plan participants and the agenda may make sense.”
There is no indication as to whether this meeting ultimately took place.
The emails followed just months after another NIH scientist, Farinaz Safavi, M.D., Ph.D., of the NIH Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurovirology, appeared to acknowledge the potential dangers of COVID-19 boosters.
In a Sept. 30, 2021, email (page 129), Safavi told a vaccine-injured individual, “We do not have any data to suggest for or against booster shot [sic] but the consensus among our team is not to take if patient develop [sic] significant neurological complications post vaccine.”
The individual emailed Safavi earlier that day asking whether it was advisable to receive the then-new COVID-19 booster, despite saying that “nothing has really changed” regarding their symptoms.“I think my ears are still off, but I have gotten used to it.”
The injured person previously contacted Safavi earlier in 2021 complaining about injuries sustained following vaccination — describing in a March 26, 2021, email (page 136), “severe paresthesias in my face and scalp and tongue and chest band tightness,” and “severe muscle spasms in my scalp and jaw and even my gums and teeth hurt.”
Vaccine injury victims felt ‘very betrayed’
But while some people injured by the vaccines received replies and advice from NIH scientists, the latest documents showed that many others received no such replies. Some sent desperate emails to NIH scientists asking for help or an update.
For instance, in a Jan. 14, 2022, email (pages 234-235) to Nath, a vaccine-injured person praised Nath for his previous work helping the vaccine-injured, but then noted that he and other NIH scientists subsequently abandoned them. The email stated, in part:
“Dr. Safavi left a vaccine injured chat last September, something strange was going on. The active engagement from the spring and summer was replaced with distance and vague responses, then nothing. But then some people get telehealth visits, and vague responses … and others are told ‘there is no research’ and that’s it for them.
“I am sure you would understand now why the hundreds+ who were turned down for any assistance are now extremely upset after waiting for so long … many feel very betrayed. They have been waiting and waiting, all while suffering every single day. … The conversation isn’t happening. They are dying.”
Marks and other FDA officials appear to have met with vaccine-injured individuals a few months prior, according to an Aug. 18, 2021, email sent to Nath (page 283). In that email, the vaccine-injured person wrote:
“Our ‘injured’ MDs and I are meeting with peter marks and paul Richards [sic] at the FDA Monday morning. I have discussed this with Janet Woodcock and Paul for the last few weeks.
“Hopeful they will be willing to help us ‘nobodies’ in our quest to get medical help for people, or any sort of acknowledgement so people are able to begin dialogue with their home physicians.”
Some victims said Marks blew off scheduled meetings with them.
Dr. Danice Hertz, a retired gastroenterologist from California injured by the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot she received in December 2020, previously told The Defender that she and a group of vaccine-injured individuals secured a Zoom meeting with Marks in early 2021 — which he then skipped.
Previously released documents from CHD’s lawsuit against the NIH contained emails showing that Marks and Woodcock were aware of reports about COVID-19 vaccine injuries in early 2021, including emails from injured people throughout 2021 and 2022 seeking help regarding their injuries.
Other documents indicate that, as early as January 2022, NIH researchers were aware of at least 850 peer-reviewed case reports and/or research articles about COVID-19 vaccine reactions.
In one email (name and agency redacted), NIH researchers were told the federal government was “saddled” with the “mess” of dealing with those injured by the COVID-19 vaccines, due to the liability shield enjoyed by vaccine manufacturers.
Marks, FDA still publicly claim COVID shots are safe and effective
Marks continues to promote the COVID-19 vaccines as safe and effective and downplay the extent and severity of vaccine-related adverse events.
Last month, he advised the public to get newly updated formulations of the COVID-19 shots, stating the new vaccines “meet the agency’s rigorous, scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality.” He said vaccination “continues to be the cornerstone of COVID-19 prevention.”
In a subsequent interview with NPR though, Marks hedged on the question of how effective the new vaccines are.
“The vaccine is not intended to be perfect,” Marks said. “It’s not going to absolutely prevent COVID-19. … But if we can prevent people from getting serious cases that end them up in emergency rooms, hospitals or worse — dead — that’s what we’re trying to do with these vaccines.”
During congressional testimony in February, Marks said, “There was a signal for myocarditis or pericarditis only after the primary vaccination series with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine in those 12 to 17 years of age, and that now that signal is not being seen more recently.”
Marks also claimed that numerous false reports are submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), though other experts have disputed this assertion.
However, Marks also acknowledged that the FDA was overwhelmed with adverse event reports after the COVID-19 vaccines became available, stating that “the avalanche of reports was tremendous.”
Five major scientific findings, taken together, explain how vaccines trigger autism, author J.B. Handley wrote on his Substack. The cause is rooted in the body’s response to the aluminum adjuvant used in six vaccines on the childhood immunization schedule.
Federal public health agencies continue to ignore these scientific advances — made largely by prominent scientists working outside of the U.S. in the last decade — despite the scientists’ appeals to agencies to investigate the link and to stop telling the American public the aluminum in vaccines is safe.
The trigger for autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders, according to Handley, is immune system activation that can alter the developing brain when the activation occurs either in a pregnant mother or a young child.
This happens because the neurotoxic aluminum in vaccines travels easily to the brain. There, it can cause inflammation in vulnerable people by triggering the production of a key cytokine — interleukin 6 or IL-6 — a protein that affects the immune system. IL-6 has been linked to autism.
Handley, author of the best-selling book, “How to End the Autism Epidemic,” co-founder of the Age of Autism website and father of a son with autism, draws heavily on the Vaccine Paperswebsite, which collects and analyzes relevant science, to outline the key scientific findings that make this case.
This important research largely happens outside of the U.S. because autism research that is “even remotely controversial” is impossible to get funded or approved, he wrote.
The research Handley cites began to emerge in 2004, and much of it came out after 2009 — after the Vaccine Court dismissed the autism-vaccine hypothesis and denied compensation for their vaccine injuries to thousands of families.
Quoting Vaccine Papers, Handley wrote that vaccines must be subjected to an objective risk-benefit analysis and should be considered as a medical treatment only if they do more good than harm:
“The problem with vaccines is that risks have been underestimated, and the benefits overestimated. In particular, the risk of brain injury from vaccines is much higher than commonly believed.
“Brain injury can be devastating to the life of a child, and the child’s family. The personal and financial costs of vaccine injury are often enormous. Therefore, even a small risk of brain injury must be considered seriously. And the science strongly suggests that the risk is not small.”
Aluminum adjuvant: the data missing from an ‘airtight explanation’ of vaccine-induced autism
Handley began the story with the discovery that he said ties together the research on vaccines and autism: a 2018 paper by Christopher Exley, Ph.D., and colleagues showing “shockingly high” levels of aluminum in 10 autism brain specimens.
According to Exley, the location of the aluminum suggested it was entering the brain through pro-inflammatory cells that had become loaded with the neurotoxin. Exley’s finding is similar to previous research showing what happens with monocytes — a type of white blood cell — at vaccine injection sites.
This is significant, Handley wrote, because it would become clear that macrophages (a type of monocyte) were moving aluminum from the injection site to the brain.
Exley’s study “provided the only data missing from an airtight explanation” of what happened to the countless families whose children developed autism following vaccination, according to Handley.
Aluminum adjuvant is an additive that “serves to wake up” the immune system so it recognizes the antigen for whatever the vaccine is meant to protect against, he explained.
The amount of aluminum children are exposed to has skyrocketed since the 1990s, according to a 2016 study — because vaccination rates for all children rose substantially and more vaccines were added to the childhood schedule.
“A child in the mid-1980s would have received 1,250 micrograms of aluminum from their vaccines by their 18-month birthday if they were fully vaccinated,” he wrote. “Today, that number is 4,925 micrograms, a near-quadrupling of total aluminum.”
Yet, aluminum has never been tested for safety in vaccines for babies. It is a demonstrated neurotoxin that carries a risk for autoimmunity, according to Canadian scientists Chris Shaw, Ph.D., and Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., Canadian scientists.
Aluminum is the most common vaccine adjuvant, even though the mechanisms through which it works as an adjuvant remain unknown.
Despite the lack of data on its toxicology, “the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted,” Shaw and Tomljenovic wrote.
Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) have admitted they have no data to show repeated injections with an aluminum adjuvant is safe, Handley wrote.
Now a growing volume of scientific literature shows that those repeated injections are unsafe. The literature shows that “five clear, replicable, and related discoveries explaining how autism is triggered have formed an undeniably clear picture of autism’s causation,” Handley wrote.
Five key discoveries:
1. There is a permanent immune system activation in the brains of people with autism.
Research by the late Caltech scientist Dr. Paul Patterson, author of “Pregnancy, Immunity, Schizophrenia, and Autism” demonstrated that the immune system interacts with the brain in ways that can affect neurodevelopment.
Patterson and colleagues found that if a pregnant mother’s immune system is subject to high activation — for example, from severe viral or bacterial infection during pregnancy — it can affect her child’s neurodevelopment, leading to neurological problems later.
Patterson noted that the brains of people with autism show that such immune system activation occurred, citing doctors at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who found “neural inflammation” in a postmortem examination of the brains of patients with autism. That finding has since been replicated several times, Handly wrote, including by researchers in Japan.
Patterson and his colleagues hypothesized that chronic neural inflammation resulted from cytokines, produced by white blood cells at higher rates when an infection is present, that interact with the fetal brain. Specifically, one cytokine, IL-6, has a particularly powerful effect, they argued.
They triggered this neural inflammation in an experiment that involved injecting mice with IL-6 and saw changes in the neurology of the mice’s offspring. They later also linked maternal immune activation specifically to autism symptoms in mice and in monkeys. Other scientists replicated their studies.
In 2006, Patterson connected maternal vaccination to possible immune activation. He said current research begged the question, “Should we really be promoting universal maternal vaccination?”
2. Aluminum adjuvant is highly neurotoxic and causes immune activation.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and CDC base their recommendations for aluminum use in vaccines on a 2011 study that concluded aluminum accumulates in the skeletal system rather than soft tissue, and is safe.
However, Handley wrote that the “guess work” on aluminum is based on studies of dissolved aluminum — not of the aluminum hydroxide used in vaccines.
More recent research has shown aluminum hydroxide is a nanoparticle that is absorbed by the body’s macrophage, which can easily transport it to the brain.
A 2017 French study published in Toxicology found the adjuvant had “long-lasting biopersistence” — meaning the body couldn’t get rid of it — and was linked to several illnesses including “chronic fatigue syndrome, cognitive dysfunction, myalgia, dysautonomia and autoimmune/inflammatory features.”
The authors of the French study also found that low, consistent doses were more neurotoxic than a single high dose and raised concerns that the “massive development of vaccine-based strategies worldwide” requires a safety reevaluation of the adjuvant.
3. The immune activation that triggers autism can happen in utero or after a child is born, while its brain is still developing.
Researchers from the Middle East and Europe who used aluminum to induce Alzheimer’s in live rats showed that aluminum caused a four-fold increase in IL-6, and also increased other cytokines.
While researchers may accept that there is disorganization in the brains of people with autism, there is disagreement about whether that disorganization happens in utero or after birth.
Many who refuse the autism-vaccine hypothesis, like Dr. Peter Hotez, deny that postnatal brain reorganization is possible.
However, evidence for post-natal triggers of autism is strong, Handley wrote. He quoted Vaccine Papers to explain that every immune activation event in a susceptible child renders the immune system more sensitive and reactive to immune stimuli. This can happen both in utero and postnatally while a child’s brain is in key developmental stages.
Studies have shown that mice injected with IL-6 after birth later display impaired cognitive abilities. And case studies among children have shown autism onset following infection and inflammation of the brain.
4. Hepatitis B vaccine-induced IL-6 in postnatal rats.
Researchers in China tested the effects of vaccine-induced immune activation on brain development in rats. The hepatitis B vaccine, which had an aluminum adjuvant, increased IL-6 in the hippocampus. Significantly, the effects didn’t appear until the rats were 8 weeks old — when rats are almost fully adults. Most vaccine safety studies look at shorter-term outcomes.
According to Handley that could help explain the appearance of mental illness much later in life among humans, and support the hypothesis that vaccines are contributing to the rise in mental illness in the U.S. over the last 25 years.
“This is biological proof of the link between a vaccine — given to a post-natal animal — inducing an immune activation event, including the cytokine marker for autism, IL-6. A scientific first,” Handley wrote.
5. Several analyses found high levels of aluminum in the brains of people with autism.
As previously discussed, studies like Exley’s later revealed very high levels of aluminum in brain samples from people with autism. This finding was key to understanding a key cause of inflammation in the brains of people with autism, Handley wrote.
The most current and comprehensive explanation of the role of aluminum-containing vaccines, inflammation and the immune system in autism can be found in a 2022 paper in the journal Toxics.
The study, by French researchers, showed the pathways through which a susceptible child might acquire autism when exposed to aluminum adjuvants.
What about the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine?
According to Handley, aluminum adjuvants may also induce other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, including gastrointestinal issues experienced by many children with autism.
Also, many families of children with autism saw their children regress after the MMR vaccine, which doesn’t contain an aluminum adjuvant.
More research is needed to fully explain why that could happen, Handley wrote. But research indicates that the effects of the MMR may be related to the fact that it is the first live vaccine children receive, around age 12-18 months, after they have had many vaccines that do contain aluminum adjuvants.
An “immune system bathed in aluminum adjuvant and possibly already simmering with activation events,” might be pushed over the edge by encountering the live virus. It may even trigger aluminum in the body to move into the brain, he wrote.
Handley lamented that public health agencies continue to refuse to study the issue.
“What’s been true throughout the autism epidemic remains true today: an overwhelming (tens of thousands) number of parental reports of regression of their children into autism after vaccination.”
Those parents observed the changes in their children but didn’t have a scientific explanation for what was happening, Handley wrote.
Enough scientific evidence has now been produced to put together a more rigorous theory for how vaccines, and the aluminum adjuvants in them, trigger autism and other illnesses.
“It’s time for the CDC, FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration], Autism Speaks, and the American Academy of Pediatrics to face the biological evidence staring us all in the face!” he wrote.
Clinics that administer ketamine for mental health issues often fail to adequately warn patients of the serious risk ketamine poses for pregnant women, according to a new study from the University of Michigan.
It has long been known that ketamine — which can be addictive — “readily and rapidly” crosses the placental barrier.
Research on animals has shown serious neurotoxic effects in offspring exposed to ketamine in utero. These effects include neuronal cell death, abnormal brain development and serious behavioral, cognitive and affective abnormalities that mirror schizophrenia, among other issues.
The authors of the study said ketamine should not be used during pregnancy. They recommend pregnancy testing before treatment and the use of contraception during treatment, and said treatment should end if a woman becomes pregnant.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports that nearly half of the pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned. Many people who are treated with ketamine for psychiatric illness are women who may become pregnant.
The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, found that ketamine prescribers aren’t paying enough attention to this risk. The authors concluded that more needs to be done to ensure that patients taking ketamine are not pregnant and won’t become pregnant during their treatment.
The researchers surveyed ketamine clinics across the country and analyzed informed consent documents found online.
They also examined the medical records of patients from a University of Michigan medical clinic to determine whether women there who were given ketamine were taking pregnancy tests and using contraception during their treatment.
The study authors found a wide variation in policies, practices and warnings about ketamine and pregnancy among the 119 clinics that responded to their survey. Collectively, the clinics treat more than 7,000 patients per month, about a third of whom are women of childbearing age.
“These data suggest that a large population of patients could be pregnant, or could become pregnant, while receiving ketamine treatment via multiple routes of administration. This risk increases with the duration of therapy which can last weeks for the initial course and a year or more for maintenance. …
“Many patients do not know that they’re pregnant in the first weeks, and animal studies of ketamine are very concerning for potential harm to the fetus during this time.”
Ketamine use on the rise
In recent years, ketamine has gained traction as a promising alternative therapy for treatment-resistant depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions that haven’t responded to other treatments.
The drug is “generally considered safe,” according to the paper, but there are “significant gaps in knowledge” about its effects in “special patient populations,” such as pregnant women.
But the therapy is very new, as is the scientific data supporting its safety and efficacy.
The 119 responding clinics in the study comprise a small percentage of the 500-700 ketamine clinics KFF Health News reported have recently “cropped up” across the U.S. The industry, valued at $3.1 billion in 2022, is projected to more than double to $6.9 billion by 2030.
Ketamine is a Schedule III drug, making it about as easy to access as Tylenol with codeine.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug for general anesthesia during surgery and as a sedative in some settings.
Only one formulation — the intranasal esketamine, sold under the brand name Spravato — is approved for treatment-resistant depression. However generic forms of the drug are commonly used off-label to treat psychiatric disorders.
The common off-label use means there aren’t standard protocols for how to safely administer the drug. Evidence-based guidelines are limited and treatment can vary significantly in terms of the dose, frequency, method of administration and duration of treatment, according to the paper.
Clinics that offer intravenous ketamine or the FDA-approved nasal version often require in-person monitoring post-administration to monitor for safety and prevent the patient from driving after administration.
However, other clinics prescribe sublingual ketamine for at-home use and safety protocols are unknown. Online services like Mindbloom and Nue Life also offer the drug at home, without an in-person visit to a prescriber, often in the form of lozenges shipped from compounding pharmacies, MedPage Today reported. These types of prescribers were not included in the study.
The FDA’s risk mitigation program, meant to ensure that benefits outweigh risks for drugs with serious safety concerns, has no provisions for the use of Spravato during pregnancy, according to Pacilio.
The agency last year issued a warning about the dangers of compounded ketamine, but said nothing about pregnancy.
Prescribing information for the approved form of the drug indicates that prescribers should specifically advise patients about the potential risk of fetal harm resulting from in utero ketamine exposure. However, prescribers are not provided with information about how to effectively counsel women, the study found.
Recent controversy around the death of actor Matthew Perry has also revealed that the addictive potential of ketamine is unknown and more people are also abusing the drug as it becomes more widely available.
‘The field is really in need of standardization’
Over 75% of the clinics that responded to the survey, said they have a formal pregnancy screening process, but only about 20% required a pregnancy test.
However, less than 50% of the clinics warned patients to avoid pregnancy during treatment or explained the specific risks related to pregnancy exposure to patients. Informed consent documents at those clinics had a pregnancy warning only about half the time.
In their examination of informed consent documents on the websites of 70 other ketamine clinics, the researchers found that 39% did not include language about pregnancy in their documents, and those that did were generally vague.
Regarding contraception counseling, only 26% of responding clinics said they discuss the need for contraception and less than 15% of clinics recommend contraception during treatment.
These findings were particularly concerning, according to the researchers, because most clinics prescribed long-term courses of ketamine treatment, ranging from six months to more than a year.
Their review of patient records from 24 women treated with ketamine at the University of Michigan clinic showed that all of them had taken a pregnancy test before treatment, but only half had documentation of contraception in their medical records.
The study concluded that as ketamine treatment becomes more widely available and prescribed, there is a growing need to inform women about the serious risks during pregnancy.
“The variability in practice that we see among clinics in the community in this study is stark,” said Pacilio.
“The field is really in need of standardization around reproductive counseling, pregnancy testing and the recommendation for contraception during ketamine treatment.”
Well, the Jewish Lobby is at it again. In the latest kerfuffle over “Holocaust denial,” Jews and their sycophants are in an uproar over a podcast interview aired on September 2 in which Tucker Carlson spoke at length with a “popular historian” named Darryl Cooper. The two-hour episode is titled “The True History of the Jonestown Cult, WWII, and How Winston Churchill Ruined Europe”—a bit of a stretch for a single show, but with the central theme that conventional or orthodox history is often wrong about events small and large, and thus frequently in need of revision. History is not only written by the victors, it is sustained by powerful lobbies that have a vested interest in a certain interpretation of past events. This much is so obvious that it scarcely needs mentioning.
And yet, when it comes to World War Two and especially the Holocaust, all rules go out the window. The “victors” cannot be named; alternate interpretations are not allowed; and revisionism is declared a crime. In the interview, Cooper offers the mildest of mild statements regarding his thoughts on WW2 and on what happened to “civilians and prisoners of war” at that time. Two points seemed to have raised the greatest ire: that Churchill, not Hitler, was the true villain of the war; and that the millions of people who died—presumably meaning millions of Jews—were, in effect, accidental victims rather than targets of a premediated and planned genocide. Our cultural guardians are upset by the first point but truly enraged by the second.
The horror of stating such views was too much for both our Jewish media and for our Jewish-inspired Biden regime. The headlines are alarming: “Tucker Carlson Criticized for Hosting Holocaust Revisionist” (NYT); “Tucker Carlson Welcomes a Hitler Apologist to His Show” (NYT, Michelle Goldberg); “White House condemns Tucker Carlson’s ‘Nazi propaganda’ interview as ‘disgusting and sadistic insult’” (CNN); “Tucker Carlson Blasted for Interview with Holocaust Revisionist” (The Hill). CNN reports that the Biden administration took the unusual step of publicly “denouncing Tucker Carlson” and his guest. Deputy press secretary Andrew Bates issued a formal statement, not only calling the interview “a disgusting and sadistic insult to all Americans” but also condemning Carlson for “giving a microphone to a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda.” Bates’ chief concern seems to be with “the over 6 million Jews who were genocidally murdered by Adolf Hitler.” “Hitler was one of the most evil figures in human history,” Bates assures us—“full stop.” Certainly no revisionism allowed in this most “freedom-loving” of nations.
This whole incident is worthy of some reflection. Let me start with what exactly Cooper said. Here are the relevant statements (from 46:30 to 49:00):
When [the Germans] went into the East, in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, local political prisoners, and so forth, that they were going to have to handle. They went in with no plan for that. And they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there.
You have letters as early as July, August 1941 from commandants of these makeshift camps that they’re setting up for these millions of people who were surrendering or people they are rounding up. And it’s two months after [Operation] Barbarossa was launched [in June], and they’re writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, “We can’t feed these people…” And one of them actually says, “Rather than wait for them all to slowly starve this winter, wouldn’t it be more humane to just finish them off quickly now?”
At the end of the day, [Hitler] launched that war [against the USSR] with no plan to care for the millions and millions of civilians and prisoners of war that were going to come under [his] control. And millions of people died because of that.
To assess what Cooper is saying here, we must remind ourselves of the basic facts: Hitler launched his war against Poland in early September 1939. Based on a mutual nonaggression pact, Stalin attacked Poland from the East two weeks later, and the two great powers quickly divided Poland in half. England and France then declared war on Germany, not vice versa (wait—who was the aggressor again?), and so Hitler was compelled to direct his military efforts to the west. He never wanted a war to his west, and as Cooper explains, Hitler tried frequently to make peace with Chamberlain (not yet Churchill). Chamberlain sought compromise but the rest of his divided government—including Churchill—preferred to continue a war they were ill-equipped to fight. Germany invaded the Low Countries in May 1940, Chamberlain resigned, and Churchill was elevated to prime minister.
Throughout the second half of 1940 and into the first half of 1941, Hitler continued his impressive string of victories. France was all but defeated and England was on its last legs. Then suddenly, on 22 June 1941, Hitler broke his pact with Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union (“Operation Barbarossa”). This, says Cooper, was the war in which Germany was unprepared to handle “millions” of prisoners. And indeed, more than 3 million Soviet POWs came under Germany control by the end of 1941, many of whom in fact surrendered or defected. They were initially housed in the nearly 100 ad hoc camps established in German-controlled Russia, and conditions were indeed horrible, as Cooper suggests. Upwards of 500,000 Soviet POWs died each month: around two million dead by the end of 1941. As far as we know, this was unplanned; the Germans were too busy fighting on the front to take much care for their 3 million newly-captured prisoners. They indeed simply “ended up dead,” as Cooper says.
Notably, nowhere does Cooper talk about Jewish prisoners. The whole discussion centers on Soviet POWs and other political prisoners, of whom there were relatively few Jews. Jews did pay a price during Barbarossa, but it was because they were partisan fighters: attacking German troops from behind the front lines. According to international rules of warfare, partisans are to be treated the same as soldiers—meaning, they could be captured, or they could be killed. And the Germans preferred to kill partisans; this was logical, given their already overcrowded ad hoc POW camps.
This resulted in the true beginning of “the Holocaust,” if we wish to call it that. Thousands of partisan Jews were shot on the Eastern Front—perhaps 30,000 or 40,000 in 1941, based on reasonable estimates (certainly not the 400,000 or 500,000 that our orthodox historians would have us believe). But Cooper was not discussing these deaths. Jews also died in the ghettos in 1941—perhaps another 40,000 or 50,000, most from natural causes (old age, illness, accident, suicide). And precisely zero Jews died in “homicidal gas chambers” or “death camps” in 1941; none of the infamous six camps—Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chełmno, and Majdanek—were operational that year. For that matter, precisely zero Jews died in “homicidal gas chambers” during the entire war, precisely because such things did not exist. But neither Carlson nor Cooper dared step into that sticky wicket.[1]
So, in Cooper’s (and Carlson’s) defense, the passage at hand says nothing about Jews and thus nothing about “the Holocaust.” Everything Cooper said there was factually correct. In fact, in the entire two-hour-plus interview, Jews were only mentioned a handful of times, and the “Holocaust” not once, that I can recall.
Jews Go on the Attack
But that’s not how our Jewish Lobby sees it. Every reference to “millions” of deaths is, to them, a coded reference to Jews. Even discussing Hitler as anyone other than a comically-evil madman means that you are a Nazi sympathizer, a “denier” (whatever that means), or simply “disgusting and sadistic.”
A good example the absurdly inane orthodox response can be found in (Jewish) Michelle Goldberg’s op-ed in the (Jewish) New York Times of September 6. The alleged “Hitler apologist” Darryl Cooper failed to toe the party line on the unconditional evil of the Nazis, and so she condemns him in the strongest terms, without even knowing what she is talking about. She clearly doesn’t like the idea that Holocaustianity is our current “state religion” (which it is), and she is incensed when Cooper rightly mentions the “emotional triggers” that keep us from asking tough questions. To Goldberg, Cooper offers us only “clever rhetorical formulations” that are presented in a “soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way.” So overwhelmed is she by Carlson’s and Cooper’s audacity that she is reduced to the following idiocy: “Nazi sympathy is the natural endpoint of a politics based on glib contrarianism, right-wing transgression, and ethnic grievance.” This, from a staff writer at the New York Times.
More to the point, despite the utter lack of mention of the Holocaust in the interview, Goldberg is fixated on this supposed inference. She laments “Carlson’s turn toward Holocaust skepticism”; she frets over the “disgraced, Holocaust-denying author David Irving” (as if he is relevant here); and she bemoans the fact that “there are few better trolls than Holocaust deniers.” Those clever deniers “love to pose as heterodox truth-seekers,” and they “excel at mimicking the forms and language of legitimate scholarship”—when in fact their level of scholarship often equals or exceeds that of our conventional so-called experts.[2] Deniers “blitz their opponents with out-of-context historical detail and bad-faith questions” (How dare they go into detail! How dare they ask questions!). In the end, “they only know how to use crude provocation to get attention”—says the attention-seeking Jewess.
One of Goldberg’s biggest fears is that, in her Jewish-controlled ideological universe, that the jig might be up. She worries about the red-pilled right-wing belief “that all you’ve been told about the nature of reality is a lie, and thus everything is up for grabs.” In fact, much of what we have been told by our Jewish-inspired orthodoxy has been a lie, or a half-truth, or otherwise deeply deceptive, and Goldberg worries that more and more people are figuring this out. And she is right to worry: a mass awakening will spell big trouble for her and her co-ethnics.
Finally at the end of her piece, she puts her finger on a bit of truth: “Ultimately, Holocaust denial isn’t really about history at all, but about what’s permissible in the present and imaginable in the future.” Hitler and the Nazis must be viewed “as the negation of our deepest values,” or else we are “softened up” for Trump-like fascism. Holocaust denial—that is, deeply questioning the basic assumptions of that event—is indeed not really about history simply because the revisionists have won: the orthodox story of the “homicidal gas chambers,” “the 6 million,” and the alleged National Socialist mad plot to kill all the Jews—all these have been utterly demolished. Orthodox historians no longer even try to respond to revisionists because they know that they will be disgraced. Instead, they and their potent Jewish backers resort to censorship, lawfare, slander, intimidation, and (in many countries) imprisonment to stifle revisionism. Such things are a sure sign of defeat.
As for her remark about what is permissible and imaginable, this too is correct: The standard Holocaust story is the keystone of present-day Jewish power in the US and the West; everything rests on our collective guilt, and all Jewish/Israeli atrocities are thereby justified. Jewish power presently declares that questioning the Holocaust is impermissible; and that a society in which Hitler and National Socialism are viewed neutrally or even positively is unimaginable. But this will soon change. When Holocaust revisionism becomes permissible, and National Socialism becomes imaginable, then everything—everything—will change. That day cannot come soon enough.
The great irony in this whole much-ado-about-nothing is that it could have been something : Carlson and Cooper could have actually discussed the many problems with the Holocaust story, and they could have actually asked the tough questions that orthodoxy cannot answer. They could have examined the many works of Germar Rudolf or Carlo Mattogno; they could have reviewed the reasons why homicidal gas chambers were technically impossible; they could have explained that the best evidence to date suggests that perhaps 500,000 Jews died during the war, not 6 million. And when all that comes out, Michelle Goldberg and friends will truly have something to fear.
Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and the Jewish Question. All his works are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.
[2] For the full academic story, see the 50-volume “Holocaust Handbook” series. For a concise treatment of all the core issues, see the newly-released Holocaust Encyclopedia.
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is crossing the country with a mobile science “escape room” — complete with a robotic dog — to provide students in rural communities with a “science-based learning experience.”
In the process, students are “exposed to a multi-national company” and they get to meet Pfizer employees.
In its promotional video for the “School of Science Mobile Experience,” students in rural Sanford, North Carolina, are greeted by a Pfizer robot dog, which makes several appearances during their field trip.
Students enter the Pfizer mobile trailer for a “fantastic, interactive, escape-room-like experience,” where they work with Pfizer employees to solve a mystery about a pandemic outbreak that starts with people showing up in doctor’s offices with scaly, lizard-like skin.
As they move through the pandemic tabletop exercise, proceeding through different rooms in the trailer, the children learn different lessons. They learn about antigens in one room, about vaccine manufacturing in another, and more.
In the end, the students “successfully produced a remedy that will be distributed around the world” — reminiscent of Pfizer’s own production of the COVID-19vaccines.
“This is not your typical science class,” a Pfizer spokesperson says, closing out the video.
Through Pfizer School of Science Mobile Experience, we aim to bring the wonders of #STEM to life. Discover how our interactive experience is helping inspire the next generation of scientists and manufacturers: https://t.co/HBLRYMaq3N 🚀🔬 pic.twitter.com/Z2PiPpHiSc
North Carolina mother Beth Secosky told The Defender she wouldn’t want Pfizer teaching science to her children or anyone’s children.
“Pfizer has paid billions in penalties for false claims and safety violations,” she said. “Why would schools invite a corporation that is notorious for putting profits over people to teach their children ‘science’?”
Michael Kane, New York City educator and founder of Teachers for Choice told The Defender he was struck by the fact that the experience would highlight antigens and manufacturing as part of science education for young people.
“It’s definitely crossing a line from education to directly marketing or promoting their products to kids,” he said. “It just feels so wrong.”
The hands-on learning modality is great for kids learning, Kane added, but even in the short video, it’s clear this is just an attempt to promote their vaccines. “It kind of blows me away.”
The robotic dog was especially concerning, Kane said. Police departments across the country and the world have controversially begun deploying robot dogs to surveil citizens with cameras, sensors and microphones and militaries are starting to weaponize them for military applications by mounting them with machine guns.
“They are bringing these dogs to the kids in such a disarming way — showing how cute this robotic dog is when it looks precisely like the dogs that they’re putting out into police departments and into the military,” he said. “That is very frightening in terms of what they’re programming these children to be used to and to think is cool, and to think is normal.”
The video was released a couple of weeks ago. The comment function for the video on Pfizer’s YouTube channel is turned off, so viewers have not been able to share their thoughts.
‘School of Science’ fully funded by Pfizer
The mobile escape room is a project of the Pfizer School of Science, which brings middle school students to Pfizer’s headquarters in New York City, where Pfizer teaches them 90-minute courses on topics like artificial intelligence in healthcare, the history of vaccines and how they protect against epidemics and drug discovery and manufacturing.
On Pfizer’s flagship New York campus, middle-schoolers get to wear lab coats and goggles and listen to Pfizer employees promote possible future careers.
As of early 2024, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla reported on LinkedIn the program had brought more than 6,000 students from New York City schools to its headquarters. The program targets students from “diverse backgrounds,” which is a refrain across the promotional materials.
“In some cases, this meant modifying our coursework to accommodate diverse needs, such as customizing classes to suit different learning abilities and language capabilities,” he wrote.
Pfizer’s promotional celebration of “science” to younger generations as part of its strategy to also promote the company was on display in its Super Bowl ad in January. The 60-second ad — and an extended 90-second cut — featured famous scientists throughout history singing along to Queen’s “Don’t Stop Me Now,” Fierce Pharma reported.
Drew Panayiotou, the company’s chief marketing officer said the “iconic Queen song … cuts across generations with the words ‘don’t stop me now,’ which is a great line for Pfizer.”
According to the National WWII Museum, the Second World War resulted in 45,000,000 civilian deaths, 15,000,000 combat deaths, and 25,000,000 soldiers permanently wounded.
This is what many academics and media influencers refer to as “The Good War.”
Just as we cannot truly understand a court case hearing only the defense, we must also hear the prosecution in order to come to the most accurate conclusion on who is guilty, who is innocent, and how such a tragedy can be avoided in the future.
I want to make the case that the Second World War is in fact a tale of good vs. evil. In short, evil politicians on every side conscripting millions of people and murdering millions of others while the civilians of all countries remain good.
Since there is no shortage of people rightfully vilifying the Japanese Empire and the German National Socialists, I would like to focus primarily on the villainy of a man who Cambridge University reports is the “Greatest Briton”: Winston Churchill.
Exhibit A: Starvation Blockade
Winston Churchill wrote a book titled, The World Crisis, 1911-1918. In this book Churchill summarizes the British naval policy during World War I when Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty. On page 672, Churchill writes.
“The British blockade treated the whole of Germany as if it were a beleaguered fortress, and avowedly sought to starve the whole population – men, women and children, old and young, wounded and sound – into submission.”
Notice, Churchill did not say, “This is how we will make the Kaiser suffer and prove we are the good people in this conflict by protecting innocent people. We good men must discriminate between evil Germans and innocent Germans.” The Kaiser was humiliated of course, but was never assassinated, and lived in a mansion in the Netherlands after the war was over, dying in 1941 at the age of 82.
According to historian Martin Gilbert, a man who writes Churchill in a very favorable light in his book The First World War: A Complete History, estimates of the civilian death toll from Britain’s blockade are 762,106.
Many people might have predicted that such protectionist policies would stimulate the German economy since Germany would now have to employ more people domestically, which should produce the multiplier effect of money. But of course, the opposite is true. When any state coercively stops a group of people from engaging in mutually beneficial trades, human beings suffer and frequently die as a result.
Exhibit B: Poison Gas and Biological Warfare
On May 12, 1919, Winston Churchill authored a war office memorandum in which he writes:
“I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas… I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those effected.”
Would you have a friend in your life if he used poison gas against people he deemed uncivilized in order to spread a lively terror? Any one of us would be rightfully imprisoned for assault if we used poison gas against a non-aggressor. Yet, Churchill is still celebrated as a respectable statesman even though none of us would accept this behavior from any other person in our private lives.
In 1942, the United Kingdom’s War Department Experimental station conspired to infect the German civilian population with deadly anthrax by first poisoning animals, in hopes that the German food supply would turn deadly. According to the BBC in an article discussing the “island of death” off the coast of Scotland:
“The truth was that Gruinard Island had been the site of a clandestine attempt by the UK during World War Two to weaponise anthrax, a deadly bacterial infection… The project, called Operation Vegetarian, had started under Paul Fildes, then head of the biology department at Porton Down, a military facility in Wiltshire, England, that still exists today… The plan was to infect linseed cakes with Anthrax spores and drop them by plane into cattle pastures around Germany. The cows would eat the cakes and contract anthrax, as would those who ate the infected meat. Anthrax is a naturally occurring but deadly organism… The proposed plan would have decimated Germany’s meat supply, and triggered a nationwide anthrax contamination, resulting in an enormous death toll.”
Those fighting on behalf of civilization, truth, and freedom must lead the world in distinguishing themselves from the “bad guys” by explicitly discriminating between guilty and innocent parties. Churchill took no such steps to distinguish between the German civilian population, and the central figures of the national socialist state (Hitler, Hess, Goering, Eichmann, Goebbels, etc).
Exhibit C: De-Housing Policy
As the history of World War II is described in its cartoonish version with the National Socialists being hell bent on taking over planet Earth and killing all non-blue eyed, blond haired people, one can be forgiven for not knowing that it was Churchill’s government which initiated the bombing of civilians in May 1940, while the German bombing of London did not take place until the September 1940 Blitz.
The mastermind behind Winston Churchill’s policy of civilian bombing was German immigrant, physicist, and science advisor Frederick Lindemann, 1st Viscount Cherwell. Lindemann established the S-Branch (Statistical Branch), an esoteric group of academics who regularly advised Prime Minister Churchill, and eventually was the catalyst behind Britain’s “Dehousing” policy with regard to the German civilian population.
This “Dehousing” policy was explained by Charles Percy Snow, whose position in Churchill’s cabinet was described by Britannica as “a scientific advisor to the British government” during the Second World War. In 1961, Harvard University published Snow’s Science and Government, a series of lectures Snow gave at Harvard describing the internal workings of British policy from 1939-1945. On page 48 of the lecture’s transcript, Snow claims:
“… [T]he paper on bombing went out to the top government scientists. It described, in quantitative terms, the effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next eighteen months (approximately March 1942-September 1943). The paper laid down a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially against German working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space round them, and so are bound to waste bombs; factories and “military objectives” had long since been forgotten, except in official bulletins, since they were much too difficult to find and hit. The paper claimed that—given a total concentration of effort on the production and use of bombing aircraft—it would be possible, in all larger towns of Germany (that is, those with more than 50,000 inhabitants), to destroy 50 per cent of all houses.”
The strategic bombing policy was also explained by Principal Assistant Secretary of Air Ministry J.M. Spaight in his 1944 book, Bombing Vindicated :
“Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany… Yet, because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May, 1940, the publicity which it deserved. That surely, was a mistake. It was a splendid decision. It was as heroic, as self-sacrificing, as Russia’s decision to adopt her policy of ‘scorched earth’… It could have harmed us morally only if it were equivalent to an admission that we were the first to bomb towns.”
In 1979, British journalist and military historian Max Hastings (foreign correspondent for the BBC, editor in chief of The Daily Telegraph, and editor of the Evening Standard ) published Bomber Command: The Myths and Reality of the Strategic Bombing Offensive 1939-45. On page 127-8, Hastings cites the Cherwell Memorandum (aka Lindemann Memorandum) which he delivered to Prime Minister Churchill in March of 1942. The memorandum reads as follows:
“The following seems a simple method of estimating what we could do by bombing Germany. Careful analysis of the effects of raids on Birmingham, Hull and elsewhere have shown that, on the average, one ton of bombs dropped on a built-up area demolishes 20-40 dwellings and turns 100-200 people out of house and home.
We know from our experience that we can count on nearly 14 operational sorties per bomber produced. The average lift of the bombers we are going to produce over the next fifteen months will be about three tons. It follows that each of these bombers will in its lifetime drop about forty tons of bombs. If these are dropped on built-up areas they will make 4,000-8,000 people homeless.
In 1938 over 22 million Germans lived in fifty-eight towns of over 100,000 inhabitants, which, with modern equipment, should be easy to find and hit. Our forecast output of heavy bombers (including Wellingtons) between now and the middle of 1943 is about 10,000. If even half the total load of 10,000 bombers were dropped on the built-up areas of these fifty-eight German towns, the great majority of their inhabitants (about one-third of the German population) would be turned out of house and home.
Investigation seems to show that having one’s house demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed. At Hull, signs of strain were evident, though only one-tenth of the houses were demolished. On the above figures we should be able to do ten times as much harm to each of the fifty-eight principal German towns. There seems little doubt that this would break the spirit of the people.
Our calculation assumes, of course, that we really get one-half of our bombs into built-up areas. On the other hand, no account is taken of the large promised American production (6,000 heavy bombers in the period in question). Nor has regard been paid to the inevitable damage to factories, communications, etc., in these towns and the damage by fire, probably accentuated by breakdown of public services.” [Emphasis Added]
Exhibit D: Intentional Provocation of Bombing Britain
The Complete War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle, who at the time was chairman of the French National Committee, addresses Churchill’s mindset after the British state initiated the bombing of civilians with no German state response for months. From page 104 of his memoirs, de Gaulle writes:
“Among the people many, in their desire to emerge from an almost unbearable tension, went so far as to say out loud that they wished the enemy would risk the attack. Foremost among them, Mr. Churchill found the waiting hard to bear. I can still see him at Chequers, one August day, raising his fists towards the sky as he cried, ‘So they won’t come!’ ‘Are you in such a hurry,’ I said to him, ‘to see your towns smashed to bits?’ ‘You see,’ he replied, ‘the bombing of Oxford, Coventry, Canterbury, will cause such a wave of indignation in the United States that they’ll come into the war!’”
Churchill knew the blowback his de-housing policy would create for British civilians, and he still unapologetically pursued them.
Exhibit E: France’s Pearl Harbor aka Operation Catapult
On July 3, 1940 Churchill initiated Operation Catapult, which was Britain’s intentional bombing of French naval ships off the coast of Algeria resulting in the deaths of 1,297 French soldiers.
“In the summer of 1940 Winston Churchill faced a terrible dilemma. France had just surrendered and only the English Channel stood between the Nazi’s and Britain. Germany was poised to seize the entire French fleet, one of the biggest in the world. With these ships in his hands, Hitler’s threat to invade Britain could become a reality. Churchill had to make a choice. He could either trust the promises of the new French government that they would never hand over their ships to Hitler. Or he could make sure that the ships never joined the German navy by destroying them himself.”
Exhibit F: Dresden
Arthur Harris was a British air officer whom whom Britannica credits as the person “who initiated and directed the ‘saturation bombing’ that the Royal Air Force inflicted on Germany during World War II.” In his memoir Bomber Offensive, Harris addresses the Dresden controversy, where the Allies bombed a city of 630,000 Germans, killing roughly 25,000 human beings in two days:
“An attack on the night of February 13th-14th by just over 800 aircraft, bombing in two sections in order to get the night fighters dispersed and grounded before the second attack, was almost as overwhelming in its effect as the Battle of Hamburg, though the area of devastation—1600 acres—was considerably less; there was, it appears, a fire-typhoon, and the effect on German morale, not only in Dresden but in far distant parts of the country, was extremely serious. The Americans carried out two light attacks in daylight on the next two days. I know that the destruction of so large and splendid a city at this late stage of the war was considered unncessary even by a good many people who admit that our earlier attacks were as fully justified as any other operation of war. Here I will only say that the attack on Dresden was at the time considered a military necessity by much more important people than myself, and that if their judgment was right the same arguments must apply that I have set out in an earlier chapter in which I said what I think about the ethics of bombing as a whole… Between one and two thousand acres were devastated in Dresden, Bremen, Duisburg, Essen, Frankfurt-am-Main, Hanover, Munich, Nuremburg, Mannheim-Ludwigshafen, and Stuttgart. As an indication of what this means it may be mentioned that London had about 600, Plymouth about 400, and Coventry just over 100 acres destroyed by enemy aircraft during the war.” [Emphasis Added]
Anyone who considers themself to be pro-life must unapologetically oppose the mass murder of civilians and destruction of cities so late in the war (February 1945). Yes, I agree the fetus is a living being, and so are German civilians.
Anyone who claims to oppose ‘inequality’ must recognize there is no greater inequality than a living person murdering another person. Yes, paying a person a low wage is unequal to those with high wages, but the ultimate inequality occurs in the mass murder of civilians in wartime.
Colonel Carla Coulson’s research at Canadian Forces College estimates that:
“600,000 German men, women and children died as a result of the direct bombing of German cities during the war (1939-1945); many thousands more were wounded and mutilated. Millions more were left homeless. In the prosecution of the bombing campaign the British Commonwealth lost 55,573 aircrew, 18% of which were Canadian, and only one man in three could be expected to survive his tour of duty, which equated to 30 missions, with Bomber Command.”
Exhibit G: Undemocratic and Allied with Tyrants
In May 1940, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stepped down after the “Narvik debacle,” and Winston Churchill was appointed, not by popular vote, but an act of oligarchs in Parliament.
For all we hear about “threats to democracy” from academics and the corporate press, you’d think Churchill’s rule would be met with a little more skepticism.
To recap, the “good side in the good war” was lead by unelected Joseph Stalin, unelected Winston Churchill, unelected Charles de Gaulle, and Franklin Roosevelt, who while elected kidnapped and sent 117,000 people of Japanese ancestry to interment camps and confiscated the nations gold via executive order.
Roosevelt and Harry Truman, frequent heroes of those who proudly boast of supporting democracy, also partook in a mass murder campaign of their own in Japan. According to former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara in his documentary The Fog of War,
“Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50 percent to 90 percent of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.”
To be clear, I’m a libertarian who believes democracy is mob rule by the ignorant. The reason we have good computers, TVs, refrigerators, and NBA players is not because there was a nation-wide referendum on these issues. The reason we have civilization is because people engaged in voluntary contracts, voluntary profit incentives, and the Iron Law of Oligarchy within the division of labor.
The point is, those who center their world view on democracy (neoconservatives and Democrats) being a good in and of itself idolize Winston Churchill.
Exhibit H: Intention of Continental Monopoly
There is good reason courts take intent into account. The mindset of the person in question matters, for example: Did a person accidentally hit and kill a pedestrian with their car (involuntary manslaughter), or did they plan for months to murder someone by hitting them with their car (intentional homicide)?
What were Churchill’s intentions during this war? To save civilization from barbarism (by allying with Joseph Stalin, who killed millions in the 1930s Ukrainian Holodomor) or to increase his own institutional power?
In a book titled Churchill: A Life by historian Martin Gilbert, the author quotes Churchill in an exchange with Lord Londonderry—Leader of the House of Lords—on May 4, 1935:
Londonderry: “I should like to get out of your mind what appears to be a strong anti-german obsession.”
Churchill: “[You are] mistaken in supposing that I have an anti-German obsession… British policy for four hundred years has been to oppose the strongest power in Europe by weaving together a combination of other countries strong enough to face the bully. Sometimes it is Spain, sometimes the French monarchy, sometimes the French Empire, sometimes Germany. I have no doubt who it is now. But if France set up to claim the over-lordship of Europe, I should equally endeavor to oppose them. It is thus through the centuries we have kept our liberties and maintained our life and power.”
Churchill’s private position was not that the National Socialists were a unique evil, but that he would wage war on any competitor to British power, even if it comes at the cost of millions of innocent people being conscripted and killed. Churchill embraced real world tyranny in order to fight a hypothetical tyranny. Churchill was the crazy ex-boyfriend who would rather kill his ex-girlfriend than see her with another man.
Exhibit I: Results
On September 1, 1939, the National Socialist regime invaded Poland after a dispute over the city of Danzig which had been stripped from Germany twenty years prior at Versailles. The population of that coastal city was 95% German, and we have every reason to believe those people would have prefered to be reunified with Germany as opposed to remaining a minority in Poland.
Here is the text of Neville Chamberlain’s September 3, 1939 declaration of war against Germany two days afterwards:
“This morning, the British ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o’clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.”
The war waged on behalf of Polish independence ended with 7.1 million dead Poles, and Poland under Soviet occupation.
There was never a true war guarantee for Poland, since the Bolshevik regime invaded Poland on September 17, 1939, and Britain didn’t declare war against Moscow. It was a promise to wage war against only Germany, the biggest rival of Churchill’s empire.
Many will claim, “The lesson from World War II is never appease! That’s what Chamberlain did at Munich when he refused to declare war against National Socialism for invading the Sudetenland.”
The Sudetenland was roughly one fifth of the area in the newly created country of Czechoslovakia, mostly consisting of Germanic peoples. After the Second World War, all of Czechoslovakia was under Soviet occupation. We must declare war if one fifth of a country’s independence has been violated, but when the entire country’s independence is violated, we can apparently appease.
There are multiple lessons one can draw from the example of World War II, ones which organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations will never acknowledge. They include:
War guarantees incentivize small groups of people to provoke wars since a few oligarchs can benefit from war at the expense of the population they claim to be protecting. Consider how the power, prestige, and social status of Volodymyr Zelensky has risen drastically while hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have had to suffer. The very people you claim to help (like Poles) can suffer most as a result.
The ultimate check and balance in a civilized society is the freedom to disassociate with bad actors. The governments of every combat zone did not face such a constraint. They used enslaved soldiers (conscripts) and funded their operations with taxation and money printed by a central bank. This means that people who opposed the mass murder conflicts provoked by government had to serve by law, and had to fund the operations lest they be jailed. If governments truly represent us, they should gladly allow our financing of them to be as voluntary like our funding of Amazon or the Catholic Church.
Empires fall from expansion. The world wars saw the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Czarist Empire, two German empires (Kaiser and Hitler), Hirohito’s Japanese Empire, and the British Empire. As empires expand their reach, their obligations expand, and they must tax more or print more to sustain themselves. They become “spread too thin,” so to speak, misallocate military personnel, lose support via public opinion, and cease to exist.
We can talk to the bad guys. The Allies shook hands with the Bolshevik leader Joesph Stalin at Yalta and Richard Nixon shook hands with Mao Zedong in China, but people say with a straight face that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping cannot be spoken with to reach détente. Notice how whenever the government of the United States violates the freedoms of the American people, we must always stay calm and not get riled up. But when an alleged foreign government potentially violates our freedoms we must advocate mass conscription and mass bombings of civilians to protect our way of life.
We are always told about the cost of “appeasement” or not engaging in mass murder of innocent life. But consider all the downsides of war: mass death, enslavement (conscription), dismemberment, PTSD, military occupation, and property damage on an unimaginable scale.
Wars are naturally chaotic and their results cannot often be predicted. Few soldiers and civilians could have foreseen an outcome where half of Europe would be occupied by the Bolshevik regime for forty-five years, initiating a Cold War where people walked on eggshells terrified of a nuclear exchange and fighting mass death proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Central America.
A Gift
Psychology Todaydefines a cult leader as “A charismatic leader who becomes an object of worship beyond any meaningful accountability and becomes the single most defining element of the group as its source of truth, power, and authority.”
If a guy in a cabin orders you to murder an innocent person on his behalf, he is rightfully seen as a psychopathic lunatic. But for some reason—maybe the fact that governments monopolize compulsory education—when military commanders order their underlings to go commit mass murder of innocent people it is seldom met with skepticism, and even often admired.
The unwillingness or inability for people to see Winston Churchill as a cult leader who committed horrific crimes qualifies him as a cult leader if there ever was one. We seldom even get an intellectual defense by Churchill supporters addressing my above points. Instead we’re treated to typical cult-like emotional responses like “You must love Hitler,” or “Churchill saved the West, yes one man!” or the classic, “We’d all be speaking German if you were in charge.”
For the Churchill supporters, I give the gift which they so often yearn for: a disavowal of National Socialism:
National Socialism involves institutionalized aggression against private property and contracts between consenting adults while judging people on arbitrary characteristics and is thus evil down to its foundational principles.
In practice, the National Socialists bombed civilians in Warsaw, Rotterdam, and London, then declared war on America on December 11, 1941. Here is how evil one of their leading figures was. On March 26, 1942, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary:
“Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.”
National Socialists justified the mass murder and enslavement of innocent people while bombing cities which took centuries to build, thus violating the non-aggression principle. They are indisputably villains of history.
A Way Forward
While I am very pleased to hear people disavow Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces for their killing of innocent people, we inheritors of Western civilization must reject double standards and equally oppose the mass indiscriminate murder of civilians. Yes, the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020 were unjustifiable and destructive, but nothing compares to the crimes of states with militaries which have a legally recognized monopoly on violence.
Every crime of the West (slavery, Native American massacres, segregation, etc) is immoral because it involves one person or group of people initiating violence against non-aggressors. Too often the focus of these atrocities is the race or nationality of the victim or perpetrator as opposed to the actions being immoral insofar as they initiate violence against non-aggressors.
The heroes of history are not politicians who claim the right to rule millions of strangers, but entrepreneurs and workers who used the voluntary sector to improve the lives of everyday people. Cornelius Vanderbilt drastically lowered the price of travel by steamship from $7 to six cents, giving the average person access his ancestors never could have fathomed. Steve Jobs and Apple employees played a central role in giving the average person access to more freely available communication with people across the globe while empowering people to educate themselves using this easy to grasp technology. The Wright Brothers gave the average person the ability to see parts of the world kings and queens of the past never could have imagined visiting.
Let us not be primitive moral relativists, only using morality when it suits us. Let us reject double standards on violence and embrace a genuine pro-life and antiwar position unapologetically.
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 