WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange agreed to a plea deal with the U.S. government and was released on bail, leaving Belmarsh maximum security prison and the United Kingdom (U.K.) on Monday morning WikiLeaks announced on X, formerly known as Twitter.
His wife, Stella Assange, an attorney who has worked for years for his release, celebrated the deal on X.
“This is the result of a global campaign that spanned grass-roots organisers, press freedom campaigners, legislators and leaders from across the political spectrum, all the way to the United Nations,” WikiLeaks wrote. “This created the space for a long period of negotiations with the US Department of Justice, leading to a deal that has not yet been formally finalised.”
A federal judge must still approve the plea deal.
Assange is en route to appear Wednesday in a U.S. federal court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands near Australia. He is scheduled to return to Australia after the hearing.
In exchange for his release, Assange agreed to plead guilty to a single felony count of illegally obtaining and disclosing national security material in violation of the U.S. Espionage Act, The New York Times reported.
Under the terms of the agreement, Justice Department prosecutors will seek a 62-month sentence, which is equal to the amount of time Assange has served at Belmarsh while he fought his extradition to the U.S. The deal would credit that period as time served, which would allow Assange to return home, according to CNN.
The deal would also disallow him from later making any claim that his long prison time in Belmarsh, where he was confined to a cell for 23 hours a day, was unjust, according to journalist Glenn Greenwald.
U.S. authorities were pursuing Assange for publishing classified materials shared with him by U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010 and 2011. He faced 18 counts from a 2019 indictment for his alleged role in the breach that carried a maximum of up to 175 years in prison, CNN reported.
“US officials alleged that Assange goaded Manning into obtaining thousands of pages of unfiltered US diplomatic cables that potentially endangered confidential sources, Iraq war-related significant activity reports and information related to Guantanamo Bay detainees,” CNN wrote.
‘A very courageous human being,’ and ‘a generational hero’
Journalists, politicians, press freedom organizations and countless supporters celebrated Assange’s release, although they remained outraged over what they believed to be his unjustified detainment and that he was forced to plead guilty, despite having committed no crime.
Greenwald tweeted:
There’s so much to say about the Assange case, the outrage of his being detained for almost 15 years, being forced to plead guilty despite committing no crime.
But on a human and personal level, it’s beautiful to watch him leave prison a free man, and finally leave the UK.
Independent presidential candidate and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman on leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Assange had to take the deal to get out of the life-threatening conditions under which he was being held, “but the security state has imposed a horrifying precedent and dealt a big blow to freedom of the press.”
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender that Assange is “a very courageous human being,” who “has suffered enough. He stood up and he did the best he could.”
Boyle said that the plea deal required Assange to agree to a conviction under subsection G of the Espionage Act but also to concede that he had violated other subsections.
“In the future, the federal government can use this as a precedent to go after journalists” for violating those subsections of the act. “In my opinion, this is a loaded gun cocked at the heads of all journalists in the future.”
It means that any journalist in the future who publishes classified information or stories based on classified information could be prosecuted for violating one or more provisions of the Espionage Act, Boyle said — even though the First Amendment is meant to protect the press.
Press freedom group PEN America, which has long called for the U.S. to drop the charges against Assange, called on Congress today in a press release to reform the Espionage Act to protect press freedoms. It wrote:
“Congress should seize this opportunity to immediately reform the Espionage Act to include an exception for information disclosures that advance the public interest. This move would send a strong signal in defense of press freedom, strengthening protections for journalists in the United States and reducing the risk of the law being wielded for political purposes in the future.”
Assange founded WikiLeaks in 2006 as a nonprofit media organization to hold governments and political leaders accountable by publishing large datasets of censored and restricted official materials on war, spying and corruption.
The organization gained international attention in 2010 when it released the “Collateral Murder” video, showing classified raw footage shot from a U.S. Army Apache helicopter depicting the killing of over a dozen people in Iraq — including two Reuters reporters — along with other videos and documents leaked by Manning.
The organization also published other documents related to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The revelations became major global stories and led to intense scrutiny of American involvement in foreign conflicts.
Assange spent almost 15 years in various forms of detention. In 2012, facing sex-related allegations from Swedish prosecutors — which were subsequently dropped in 2019 — Assange said he was willing to travel to Sweden for questioning. However, Swedish authorities wouldn’t guarantee that if he appeared for questioning he wouldn’t be extradited to the U.S.
He sought and was granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government and took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy from 2012-2018, where he stayed in a two-bedroom apartment with no outdoor space and the CIA spied on him.
The British police arrested him and put him in Belmarsh prison, which the BBC has called “Britain’s Guantanamo.” He has spent the last nearly six years fighting extradition to the U.S., where he was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by allegedly committing conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information, following the massive WikiLeaks disclosure in 2010.
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
The International Movement for a Just World (JUST) empathises with the concerns expressed by several NGOs and public figures in Malaysia over the involvement of the investment fund manager BlackRock in Malaysia’s infrastructure development.
BlackRock has extensive investments in companies allied closely to Israel’s arms industry. It has, for example, a 7.4 per cent stake in Lockheed Martin, a US defence contractor that has played a critical role in arming the Israeli military. This is why Lockheed has been accused of complicity in the barbaric genocide in Gaza which is now in its eighth month. The CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, is known to be a staunch supporter of Israel in its ongoing massacre of Palestinians.
The company has earned the wrath of former Federal Ministers in Malaysia such as Khairy Jamaluddin and Saifuddin Abdullah, as well as a former legislative assembly member, Mukhriz Mahathir, and the head of the Malaysian branch of the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, Dr Nazari Ismail, mainly because it is now the owner of Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), a partner in a consortium to manage Malaysia’s 39 airports. Although GIP holds only 30 per cent of shares in the consortium — Khazanah Nasional, the government’s investment arm, and the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) own the other 70 per cent — GIP, given its expertise in airport management, will inevitably play a significant role.
Is it because of this expertise that GIP was brought into the partnership? There are other firms with a comparable level of expertise that could have been considered.
Why should we collaborate with a company owned by an entity that has such close ties to the Israeli and US military establishments?
It is a matter of serious concern because it is Malaysia’s airports — not restaurants or supermarkets — that are now being managed by a company owned by BlackRock. At stake is the fact that airport management places some highly sensitive data at the command of its managers; the Malaysian authorities should have realised at the very outset that this is a transaction that has profound security ramifications.
What makes BlackRock’s purchase of GIP and ipso facto its status now as partial owner of Malaysian airports all the more bizarre is the fact that Malaysian Airports Berhad (MAHB), which hitherto managed our airports, had no sound financial reason to sell off its shares to a US-based fund manager with close ties to Israel. It was reported in February 2024 that MAHB recorded “a net profit of RM 543.2 million for the financial year ending 31 December, 2023. This is a huge jump from the previous year, when the company made a profit of RM 187.2m, and also higher than the profit it made in 2019 before the Covid-19 pandemic paralysed the aviation sector worldwide.”
That there was no financial justification for the sale of MAHB shares is reinforced further by its excellent management performance. As its acting CEO Mohamed Rastam Shahrom was quoted as saying by MalaysiaNow on 20 June: “We have worked hard to deliver value to our stakeholders in the past year. Amidst improved operating conditions we have managed to deliver improved financial performance, and we are making good progress in our airport modernisation, digitalisation and commercial rejuvenation programmes.”
Some supporters of the move to bring in BlackRock and GIP opine that the real reason is linked to geopolitics. Since we have strengthened our relations with China in recent years, our leaders feel that we should also develop further our ties with the US. Balancing relations with the two superpowers should not mean a readiness to sacrifice principles. If Malaysia, which has often adhered to ethical concerns in regional and international politics, now deviates from such norms and tries to please one superpower or the other, it will tarnish its reputation and lose credibility.
As a nation, we should never be perceived to be colluding with entities that are complicit in one of the most inhuman and cruellest genocides in history. When the moral dimensions of a conflict are so stark, we must make sure that we are not dismissed as a bunch of people who “hunt with the hounds and run with the hares.” Our commitment to principles and ethical values in a catastrophe like Gaza should be demonstrated through deeds; deeds that prove over and over again that there can be no compromise with evil.
Journalist Tucker Carlson interviewed Republican Congressman from Kentucky Thomas Massie on June 7, 2024. During the interview Massey went into detail about how the Israel lobby bullies US politicians and co-opts evangelicals into getting billions of US tax dollars for Israel. Massie attended MIT where he earned a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering. Before entering Congress, Massie was a successful businessman who holds 29 patents. (See https://massie.house.gov/about/)
This video excerpts Massie’s statements about the Israel lobby from the full Carlson interview, “Rep. Thomas Massie: Israel Lobbyists, the Cowards in Congress, and Living off the Grid”. This can be viewed at https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show…
You seem very reliant on accepting Putin’s worldview
rather than perhaps the stark reality of the
barbarism with which he’s executed this war.
Yeah, maybe because I know too much about the United States.
Because the first war in Europe after world War two was the US bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a european state.
The idea was to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave, and then to install Bondsteel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans, in the southwest Balkans.
So the US started this under Clinton, that we will
break the borders, we will illegally bomb another country.
We didn’t have any UN authority.
This was a, quote, NATO mission to do that.
Then I know the United States went to war repeatedly,
illegally, in what it did in Afghanistan and then what
it did in Iraq and then what it did in Syria, which was the Obama administration, especially Obama and Hillary
Clinton, tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad.
And then what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi and then what it did in Kiev in February 2014.
I happened to see some of that with my own eyes.
The US overthrew Yanukovych together with right wing ukrainian military forces.
We overthrew a president.
And what’s interesting, by the way, is we overthrew
Yanukovych the day after the European Union representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections, a government of national unity and a stand down of both sides that was agreed.
The next thing that happens is the opposition, quote unquote, says, we don’t agree.
They stormed the government buildings and they deposed Yanukovych.
And within hours, the United States says, yes, we support the new government.
It didn’t say, oh, we had an agreement that’s unconstitutional what you did.
So we overthrew a government contrary to a
promise that the European Union had made.
And by the way, Russia, the United States,
and the EU were parties to that agreement.
And the United States an
hour afterwards backed the coup.
Okay, so everyone’s got a little bit to answer for.
In 2015, the Russians did not say, we want the Donbas back.
They said, peace should come through negotiations.
And negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the
east of Ukraine and this new regime in Kiev led to the Minsk II agreement.
The Minsk II agreement was voted by the UN Security Council unanimously.
It was signed by the government of Ukraine.
It was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France.
And you know what?
And it’s been explained to me in person.
It was laughed at inside the us government.
This is after the UN Security Council unanimously accepted it.
The Ukrainian said, we don’t want to give autonomy to the region.
Oh, but that’s part of the treaty.
The US told them, don’t worry about it.
Angela Merkel explained in Die Zeit in a notorious interview after the 2022 escalation.
She said, oh, you know, we knew that Minsk two was just a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength.
No, Minsk too was a UN security council unanimously
adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war.
So when it comes to who’s trustworthy, who to believe
and so forth, I guess my problem, Piers, is I know the United States government, I know it very well.
I don’t trust them for a moment.
I want these two sides actually to sit down in front
of the whole world and say, these are the terms.
Then the world can judge, because we could get
on paper clearly for both sides of the world, we’re not going to overthrow governments anymore.
The United States needs to say, we accept this agreement.
The United States needs to say, Russia needs to say,
we’re not stepping 1ft farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached and NATO’s not going to enlarge.
And let’s put it for the whole world to see once in a while, treaties actually hold.
This updated analysis was written in 2023 (read in full here at CHD Africa)
Sanctions are a powerful instrument of political control and economic profit. One of the rare but critical topics relevant to the international campaign to #ExitTheWHO is whether the World Health Organisation and the United Nations can impose, influence or recommend specific sanctions. The sanctions could be implemented against countries that choose to not comply or cannot comply with International Health Regulations, the proposed new pandemic treaty, or other legislative attempts that curtail rights, freedom and sovereignty.
The accelerating and profitable globalist march towards unprecedented levels of ‘1984’ style totalitarianism – using censorship, vaccine passports, 15 minute cities, and CBDC’s continues. It is plausible that the WHO and the UN will move to impose, influence or recommend sanctions against countries that do not want to or cannot comply with its centralised health agenda and undemocratic legislative attempts.
What is the basis for me raising the red flag on sanctions in 2023?
Health is no longer just health, as it is defined in the WHO’s constitution. Through Covid-19, and other controversially declared pandemics, health is now a multi-billion dollar health security industry. With it, creeps in the tyranny of secrecy, surveillance, vaccine certificates, forced quarantines, and the undemocratic censorship of free speech. Given the absence of public participation, the WHO is a strategic spear for oligarchs and corporations, and given international resistance to its power grab, it becomes desperate and argues or pushes for sanctions.
Reported in 2021: “In 2021, GermanHealth Minister Jens Spahn called for sanctions against countries that hide information about future outbreaks. Citing the World Trade Organization’s power to sanction countries for non-compliance, Spahn said “there must be something that follows” if countries fail to live up to commitments under a new pandemic treaty that the World Health Assembly will take up in November.”
Further, it is entirely under reported that controversial “World Health OrganizationDirector-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus also urged countries to consider the idea as they take up the treaty, a legally binding tool. The treaty should “have all the incentives, or the carrots” to encourage transparency, Tedros said, appearing at a press conference with Spahn in Berlin. “But maybe exploring the sanctions may be important,” he added.”
Also reported in 2021: “Speaking at the WHA in June, Mike Ryan, WHO Health Emergencies Programme Executive Director, also spoke out in favour of the treaty, despite the fact that WHO technical staff have historically avoided taking positions on controversial policy choices before member states. “My personal view is that we need a political treaty that makes the highest-level commitment to the principles of global health security — and then we can get on with building the blocks on this foundation.”
I engaged renowned international law expert Professor Francis Boyle about the possibility of sanctions via the WHO. He had no doubt “They will pursue sanctions against countries that do not comply with their orders, coming from Geneva. Both economic and political sanctions. However, they will only have the power to pursue sanctions if we accept their authority. We cannot. We must exit the WHO.”
UN Power Grab. Disaster Capitalism 101.
With far less public scrutiny currently than the controversial WHO, the United Nations is simultaneously seeking exponential new powers and stronger global governance mechanisms, including multilateralism, to deal with what they define as international emergencies.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ Common Agenda report arises from a UN declaration on the commemoration of its seventy-fifth anniversary. This report states “All proposed actions are designed to accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Our Common Agenda is intended to advance the 12 themes of the declaration.”
In March 2023, UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres released a related policy brief: To Think and Act for Future Generations – OUR COMMON AGENDA – Policy Brief 2 – Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform.
One of this policy brief’s 12 key themes is ‘Being Prepared’, which includes:
1. Emergency Platform to be convened in response to complex global crises
2. Strategic Foresight and Global Risk Report by the United Nations every five years
3. On global public health:
a) Global vaccination plan
b) Empowered WHO
c) Stronger global health security and preparedness
d) Accelerate product development and access to health technologies in low- and middle-income countries
e) Universal health coverage and addressing determinants of health
Under the topic of addressing major risks, Guterres states:
98. An effort is warranted to better define and identify the extreme, catastrophic and existential risks that we face. We cannot, however, wait for an agreement on definitions before we act.
99. Learning lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, we can seize this opportunity to better anticipate and prepare to respond to large-scale global crises. This requires stronger legal frameworks, better tools for managing risks, better data, the identification and anticipation of future risks, and proper financing of prevention and preparedness. Importantly, however, any new preparedness and response measures should be agnostic as to the type of crisis for which they may be needed. We do not know which extreme risk event will come next. It might be another pandemic, a new war, a high-consequence biological attack, a cyberattack on critical infrastructure, a nuclear event, a rapidly moving environmental disaster, or something completely different such as technological or scientific developments gone awry and unconstrained by effective ethical and regulatory frameworks.
101. Secondly, I propose to work with Member States to establish an Emergency Platform to respond to complex global crises. The platform would not be a new permanent or standing body or institution. It would be triggered automatically in crises of sufficient scale and magnitude, regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved. Once activated, it would bring together leaders from Member States, the United Nations system, key country groupings, international financial institutions, regional bodies, civil society, the private sector, subject-specific industries or research bodies and other experts. The terms of reference would set out the modalities and criteria for the activation of the platform, including the scale and scope of the crisis; funding and financing; the identification of relevant actors who would form part of it; the support that it would be expected to provide; and the criteria for its deactivation. The platform would allow the convening role of the Secretary-General to be maximized in the face of crises with global reach.
DIAGRAM: Policy Brief 2 – Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform
UN’s Emergency Platform = One World Government backdoor
The emergency platform would be activated during any event that is deemed to have a global impact, and would provide the UN the authority to actively promote and drive an international response. Antonio Guterres, UN secretary-general, declared: “I propose that the General Assembly provide the Secretary-General and the United Nations system with a standing authority to convene and operationalize automatically an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach.”
The policy further argues that such authority would “Ensure that all participating actors make commitments that can contribute meaningfully to the response, and that they are held to account for delivery on those commitments.” While the policy states that the emergency authority would have limited duration, it also states that the UN would be able to extend its own powers if it decides to do so. These powers would effectively render public consensus unnecessary, democracies obsolete, and the role of politicians largely irrelevant.
These all encompassing areas of expanded emergency powers relate to:
pandemics
wars and nuclear events
climate or environmental events, degradation or disaster;
accidental or deliberate release of biological agents;
disruptions in the flow of goods, people, or finance;
disruptions in cyberspace or “global digital connectivity;”
a cyberattack on critical infrastructure
a major event in “outer space;”
“unforeseen risks (‘black swan’ events)
technological or scientific developments gone awry – and unconstrained by effective ethical and regulatory frameworks.
At least 7 out of 10 of the above areas have already happened or are happening.
What does the UN have planned?
On September 20th 2023, the UN intends to adopt a high level political declaration on pandemics. In my analysis, the UN pathway to the one health and one world government agenda is a back up plan to the WHO’s trajectory which is increasingly exposed and resisted.
The UN is planning to host its related ‘Summit of the Future’ in September 2024. Guterres stated “The Summit of the Future is an opportunity to agree on multilateral solutions for a better tomorrow, strengthening global governance for both present and future generations.” The UN website states “The General Assembly welcomed the submission of Our Common Agenda and passed a resolution to hold the Summit on 22-23 September 2024, preceded by a ministerial meeting in 2023. An action-oriented Pact for the Future is expected to be agreed by Member States through intergovernmental negotiations on issues they decide to take forward.”
Understanding Sanctions or Unilateral Coercive Measures
Sanctions are action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws. There are several types of sanctions imposed through the United Nations:
Economic sanctions are distinguished from trade sanctions, which are applied for purely economic reasons, and typically take the form of tariffs or similar measures.
It is plausible that the UN’s controllers realise that the world is pushing back against the WHO’s overreach, or find it irrelevant to real health. Given that sovereign nations will choose to exit the WHO, the UN decided to launch plan B and ascribe to itself even greater powers. Technically, there is no legislation to exit the United Nations within the UN Charter. Again, this is a critical issue of national sovereignty.
Can the WHO and the UN collaborate on sanctions?
The WHO is an agency of the United Nations.
In 2015, on punishing member states who violate the International Health Regulations (IHR), as reported: “United Nations health officials said they want to impose sanctions on countries that do not comply with public health regulations meant to avoid the spread of dangerous epidemics, such as the Ebola outbreak that killed more than 9,000 people and ravaged domestic health care systems in West Africa last year.
World Health Organization Director Margaret Chan said she is investigating ways to reprimand countries that disobey the IHR — a set of rules adopted in 2005 and mandate that countries set up epidemiological surveillance systems, fund local health care infrastructure and restrict international trade and travel to affected regions deemed unsafe to the public, among other provisions. Chan is on a panel set up by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who instructed the group to think of ways to hold countries accountable for how they manage public health crises and punish those who violate the IHR.”
In 2022, according to commentators in a policy article: “In order to enforce compliance, some commentators have recommended concluding the treaty at the United Nations level. However, we fear that it has been already decided with the INB (mandated by WHASS) that a treaty will be developed under the roof of WHO. They added: “To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically. If international pandemic response is enhanced, compliance is enhanced. In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support.
These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak. High-income settings may not be motivated by financial resources in the same way as their low-income counterparts. An adaptable incentive regime is therefore needed, with sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.”
Conclusion
Given the rapidly growing distrust in the WHO, its historical failures and harms, Covid-19 failures and harms, and the fact that it cannot maintain independence because it is a largely privately funded entity; it is plausible that the WHO and/or the UN will move to impose or influence sanctions via the World Trade Organisation, ahead of Agenda 2030. This act of aggression weaponises the WHO and/or the UN against countries that influential funders and unethical stakeholders have an interest in destabilising for power and resource control.
This sinister strategy has disturbing implications for democracy, peace, and prosperity around the world. Freedom faces an existential risk through unelected bureaucratic entities. Nations can and must protect their sovereignty by defunding and exiting WHO, and, by critically assessing the true history, nature, value, and risks of continued membership in the 78 year old United Nations. Not to do so, means to ignore the risks of UN peacekeepers, known to commit crimes with impunity, being deployed in your country to enforce UN and WHO governance.
Apparently, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo is to blame for the outbreaks.
After several measles cases were reported in a Florida school, Ladapo allowed parents to choose whether they wanted their healthy children to attend school during that time, even if they were unvaccinated against the disease.
In a letter to parents, Ladapo wrote “Due to the high immunity rate in the community, as well as the burden on families and educational cost of healthy children missing school, DOH is deferring to parents or guardians to make decisions about school attendance.”
The advice sparked outrage because it contradicted the CDC’s official advice which recommends a 21-day ‘quarantine’ for individuals who have not been vaccinated against measles or do not have prior immunity.
Ladapo was labelled “anti-vax,” accused of being the Governor’s “lap dog” making maverick proclamations that would pose “an unacceptable danger to the health of Florida residents” and fuelling the growing distrust in vaccines across the board.
Criticism of Ladapo escalated after he appeared on a podcast in late 2023 and called the covid-19 vaccines “the Anti-Christ of all products.”
And when the FDA failed to adequately address his concerns that billions of DNA fragments found in the vaccines might lead to cancer, he called for the halt of their use in Florida.
Recently, I spoke with Ladapo about his reaction to the measles outbreaks, covid-19 vaccines and the diminishing trust in public health. His calm, candid and authentic approach shone through.
DEMASI: Dr Ladapo, thanks for your time today.
LADAPO: You too Dr Demasi. Hey, can you call me Joe? Then I can call you Maryanne.
DEMASI: No problem, Joe. You’ve been blamed for the measles outbreaks across America. What do you say about that?
LADAPO: Oh, it’s completely political Maryanne. When I tell people that, all in all, we had maybe 10 or 11 cases of measles, they’re shocked because based on the news articles, you’d think that we had thousands of cases of measles. I just saw some over-the-top, completely ridiculous titles to news articles about this. Ultimately, I guess what really ticked off people in the media was that we said that parents could make the decision about whether their healthy kids could go to school. We weren’t suggesting kids who were sick with measles go to school, it was only if they were not sick.
DEMASI: But you said unvaccinated kids could return to school if their parents wanted then to… that’s what caused the upset…
LADAPO: You know, vaccination rates at the school were very high, so there was a lot of protection against measles already. Therefore, you let the parents choose. Giving parents the choice is what people really couldn’t handle.
DEMASI: And it was because your advice contradicted CDC’s advice to quarantine unvaccinated kids for 21-days…
LADAPO: Yes, it did go against CDC guidelines, but it’s in sync with Florida guidelines, which is, that if a kid is healthy, they can go to school.
DEMASI: Why was this all so triggering?
LADAPO: Honestly, that’s what I struggle with. I do hear people say that if a kid is unvaccinated and there is a measles outbreak, then they should stay home. But keeping healthy kids home from school puts an enormous burden on the families. It’s obviously bad for the kids. It’s bad for their education, it’s bad for their mental health and wellbeing. Those lessons were apparently not learned during the pandemic. We’re in this state of mind where people reflexively want to isolate healthy people. It was rampant during the pandemic and caused tremendous harm. Those policies never really took a foothold here in Florida, but in other states, it was very common for whole classrooms to go home just because one kid had covid.
DEMASI: That’s the difficulty in public health, weighing up the pros and cons…
LADAPO: Right, you have to make a judgement call. There was a high rate of vaccination against measles already in the school and a kid who maybe hasn’t had a measles vaccine should be allowed to go to school if the parents have all the information about their options. Measles is very contagious and the chances their kid will catch it is high if they’re exposed to it. But that’s a choice the parents should make, it’s not for public health officials to make for families. That’s my opinion.
DEMASI: You said there were only 10 or 11 cases. It seems as if public health officials like frightening people… Do you think there is some disease-mongering happening?
LADAPO: Oh, definitely. Absolutely there is. Measles certainly can be serious and sometimes you can get very sick. But by and large, historically, it’s not something that was abnormal to catch. Many recover but nowadays it has been transformed into something that signals the end of days. It’s just not realistic. Again, it’s not to say that measles cannot be serious, because it can be, but for most healthy kids, they’re going to get over it. That’s just the reality. All the pandemonium about casting it as if its the plague or Ebola, well, no, it’s not. Unfortunately, some public health officials, at least the ones that make it on TV, have a warped vision of health. They equate things like vaccines with health, but vaccines are not health. Health is health – when you’re sleeping, you’re eating and you’re exercising. It’s not a medical product. Medical products can help people, but they’re not the definition of health. I think ‘disease mongering’ is equating medications and vaccines with health – it’s actually a sick way of thinking about health and wellness.
DEMASI: Do you think people’s trust in vaccines more broadly has been damaged since COVID?
LADAPO: Oh, it definitely has. And frankly, I think it will only get worse. I, myself, have learned so much about some of the clinical trials that were used to approve other vaccines. Ever since seeing how corrupt the scientific approach to the safety and efficacy of mRNA covid-19 vaccines has been, more people are looking at other vaccines now. And it’s really appropriate to do that because vaccines do not have the same type of critical scrutiny as other medications. Just for example, one of the things that has come out during the pandemic is the work by Dr Christine Stabell Benn. It’s very clear that some vaccines can be very effective against the condition that they’re targeted against, but have other effects on people’s health outside of the condition.
DEMASI: That’s right, her work found that vaccines can have ‘off-target’ effects that are unintended.
LADAPO: Right, and you never really hear any discussion about things like that. But that’s clearly part of a critical analysis of any medication you’re putting into someone’s body. And some people just want to exempt vaccines from that type of scrutiny… I think that’s hogwash.
DEMASI: You know about the discovery of DNA fragments contaminating the mRNA vaccines. What has happened since you called for the halt of their use in Florida?
LADAPO: The FDA wrote us back, I think, in December last year with a long letter where they didn’t answer directly our question of whether DNA integration studies had been performed with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines… which I interpreted to mean that those studies had not been done. And that was last correspondence from them. Since then, we’ve seen FDA and CDC officials continue to prop up the COVID-19 vaccines.
DEMASI: What’s your reaction to how the FDA handled the safety concerns about the COVID vaccines?
LADAPO: Honestly, it makes me sick to my stomach, It’s so sad. And there really should be much stiffer consequences for when people knowingly choose to prioritise the reputation of an institution above the health and wellbeing of human beings. The FDA and the CDC, they just care about their own reputations.
DEMASI: You commented that covid shots were the work of the devil. I can’t imagine that went down well….
LADAPO: They are, Maryanne. Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are evil products…
DEMASI: It’s extraordinary to hear a physician in public office say that. Vaccines are considered the “holy grail’ of medicine… is it just covid-19 vaccines that concern you?
LADAPO: The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, yes, and it’s all tied together with the inhumane lockdowns, the harms to kids, the separation of people, the inability to say goodbye to people you love, who were dying. Give me a break — saying goodbye to people over zoom when they’re dying, that’s bullshit. All that stuff where they were firing nurses and doctors or firemen who didn’t want to take the vaccine. It has just been a series of anti-human and… well, evil behaviours. And the fact that many people weren’t conscious of how inhumane their actions were was part of the hypnotic environment that was created to allow those behaviours to occur and to be sustained. The fact that so many people have been injured by the vaccines, and people have been misled into taking them – people who were very low risk and manipulated – the whole thing’s evil, it’s totally all evil.
DEMASI: What drives you to say these things out loud?
LADAPO: I personally had an early life experience, a very traumatic experience, that affected me profoundly. As a little kid, I was molested by my babysitter when I was probably four years old or something like that. And I thought I was fine and normal. A few decades later, I fell in love with my wife and the effects of that traumatic experience came out like a volcano that erupted, and really presented the most challenging personal experience I’ve ever had in terms of dealing with it. That experience created intense fear and an inability of being able to connect with other people – almost a disassociation from reality. But I fell in love – accidently – we met on a plane, she was living in California, I was in Boston at graduate school at the time and we end up continuing to talk on the phone. I had no idea I fell in love with her on the phone from our conversations. Eventually, I ended up working with a guy named Christopher Maher, who’s a former Navy SEAL, and he helped me really overcome the effects of my early traumatic experience and that changed everything for me. Now, it’s easy to recognise truth, but also to say it out loud.
DEMASI: Thank you for sharing that story Joe. It sounds like your experience also instilled a strong sense of social justice?
LADAPO: I would call it love and appreciation for who we are as humans. So, when there are forces that undermine people’s sovereignty, that undermine people’s ability for autonomy, to make decisions for themselves with full information, that will rub me the wrong way. So, I would actually say it’s that, yeah.
DEMASI: We’ve lost trust in public health. How do we get it back?
LADAPO: I think it’s going to be a long road. Unfortunately, we still have leaders who are not forthcoming about information and risks. I think you need new leadership, and whether it’s head of CDC or head of FDA, they’re just clearly incapable of being honest with Americans, they are way more interested in preserving the reputation of institutions. You’re never going to be able to really earn people’s trust back, when you have people that don’t prioritise people’s health. So, yeah, we need new leadership.
DEMASI: All right. I think I’ll leave it there, Joe. It’s been lovely speaking with you.
LADAPO: Cool, Maryanne. Great to speak with you too.
The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is often criticised for failing to produce a vision for the “day after” the end of the Gaza war. Some of the criticism emanates from Israel’s traditional Western allies, who are wary of Netanyahu’s personal and political agendas, which are fixated on delaying his corruption trials and ensuring that his extremist allies remain committed to the current government coalition. The criticism, however, is loudest within Israel itself.
“As long as Hamas retains control over civilian life in Gaza, it may rebuild and strengthen [itself], thus requiring the IDF [Israel Defence Forces] to return and fight in areas where it has already operated,” said Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in May, demanding a “day after” plan.
The same sentiment was conveyed by Israeli army Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi. “As long as there’s no diplomatic process to develop a governing body in the Strip that isn’t Hamas, we’ll have to launch campaigns again and again,” he was quoted as saying by Israel’s Channel 13.
It is true that Netanyahu has no post-war plan.
The lack of such a “vision”, however, does not rest entirely on his own failure to produce one, but is also due to his inability to determine, with any degree of certainty, if the war would yield favourable results for Israel.
Nine months of war have shown that the occupation state is simply incapable of maintaining its military presence in urban areas, even those that have been ethnically cleansed or are sparsely populated. This has been proven to be as true in the southern parts of Gaza as in the north, including border towns that were relatively easy to enter in the first days and weeks of the military offensive.
For a post-war plan to be produced that fits Israeli interests, Gaza would have to be militarily subdued, a goal that seems more distant than ever. At the start of the war, and many times since then, Netanyahu argued that Israel would have “overall security responsibility” for the Gaza Strip “for an indefinite period”.
That too is unlikely, as Israel tried to establish such security control between 1967 and 2005, when it was forced, due to the popular resistance during the Second Uprising, to withdraw its settlers and troops from the Gaza Strip, imposing a hermetic siege that has been in effect since then.
Recent events proved that even the Israeli blockade itself is unsustainable, as those who were entrusted with keeping the Palestinians locked in, failed miserably at their main task. This assessment is that of the Israeli military itself. “On October 7, I failed (in) my life’s mission: to protect the [Gaza] envelope [of settlements],” said the commander of the 143rd Division, Brigadier General Avi Rosenfeld, as he tendered his resignation on 9 June.
This means that returning to the post-1967 war status quo is not a rational option, nor is the reactivation of the post-2005 so-called “disengagement plan”.
While Washington is busy hoping to devise an alternative that ensures long-term security for Israel — with no regard for Palestinian rights, freedom or security, of course — Netanyahu refuses to play along. The problem with the American ideas, as far as the Israeli government is concerned, is that such language as “returning to negotiations” and the like is completely taboo in Israel’s mainstream politics.
Moreover, Netanyahu rejects any involvement of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza.
This position, which was even advocated by other Israeli officials, seems to puzzle many, as the PA is already incorporated into Israel’s security arrangements in the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu’s real fear is that a return of the PA to Gaza would come at a political price, as it would give greater credibility to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who is invested keenly in the US-championed “peace process”.
Not only does the current Israeli leadership reject the return to the old political discourse, but it has also fundamentally moved on, passing that language into that of military annexation of the West Bank, and even the re-colonisation of Gaza. To re-colonise Gaza, as per the expectations of far-right Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, two consecutive events would have to take place: first, the pacification of the Gaza Resistance, then, a partial or total ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population there into Egypt.
While the Israeli army is failing at its first task, the second also seems unfeasible, especially since the recent Israeli operation in Rafah has pushed hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians back, away from the Gaza-Egypt border towards the centre of the Strip.
Netanyahu does not seem to have an actual plan for Gaza, neither for now nor for the “day after” the war. So, he prolongs the offensive despite the fact that his army is exhausted and depleted, and is being forced to fight on multiple fronts.
Blaming Netanyahu for failing to produce a “day after” vision for Gaza, however, is also wishful thinking as it assumes that Israel has all the cards. In fact, it has none.
Of course, there is an alternative to the never-ending war scenario, namely lifting the siege on Gaza permanently, ending the military occupation, and dismantling the apartheid regime. This would grant Palestinians their freedom and rights as enshrined — indeed, guaranteed — in international and humanitarian laws. If the international community mustered the courage to force such a “day after” reality on Tel Aviv, there would be no need for further war or resistance.
Xi Jinping has said that the US tried to provoke the Chinese military into attacking Taiwan but that Beijing did not take the bait, the Financial Times reported on Saturday, citing sources.
According to people allegedly familiar with the matter, Xi made the remarks during a private meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in April 2023. The Chinese president also reportedly relayed concerns about Washington’s alleged attempts to trick Beijing into invading the self-governed island to his officials.
Beijing considers Taiwan to be sovereign Chinese territory under its One-China policy. The island has been self-governing since 1949 when nationalists fled the mainland with US help after losing the Chinese Civil War to the communists.
Financial Times described Xi’s reported remarks to von der Leyen as the first known time he told a foreign leader that the US was trying to goad Beijing into invading Taiwan. The Chinese president also reportedly explained that a conflict with the US would be detrimental to China and derail its plans for a “great rejuvenation” by 2049. The project, also known as the ‘Chinese Dream’, aims at creating a “modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, civilized, and harmonious.”
China has long accused the US of fomenting tensions over Taiwan and has denounced Washington’s arms sales to Taipei. Beijing has also protested visits by top US officials to the island, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, claiming it violates China’s sovereignty. Against this backdrop, China regularly conducts military exercises in the Taiwan Strait.
In 2022, Xi said that while Beijing seeks peaceful reunification with the island, it is “not committed to abandoning the use of force” to accomplish that goal. In March, the head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral John Aquilino, suggested that the Chinese military would be prepared to invade Taiwan by 2027. Officials in Beijing have denied having any near-term plans to use force against the island, accusing the US of “hyping up the China-threat narrative.”
US President Joe Biden has said that Washington would defend Taiwan if it were attacked by China, although he later conceded that the exact response would “depend on the circumstances.”
Please subscribe to my channel here on Bitchute for notifications of new videos and visit my webiste http://www.vernoncoleman.com every week day for new material.
Back in September 2017 I wrote an article for the Unz Review site entitled “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars” with the subtitle “Shouldn’t they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?” The article focused on the fact that most of the individuals and groups in the US that were agitating for war with Iran in particular were Jewish and most did not hide their loyalty to Israel, headed then as now by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I argued that it was a mistake to have Jews managing America’s relationships in the Middle East in particular as some of them certainly would experience a conflict of interest that would inevitably not be beneficial to the United States. And, one might add, that in spite of that tie that binds with a foreign government, no pro-Israel group has ever been compelled to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 which would provide some transparency on finances and concerning direct contacts with the Israeli government or its Embassy in Washington. The end result of all that is to make it extremely easy to use money, which the Zionist billionaires have in abundance, to corrupt the US government process on behalf of an apartheid state that is no ally in reality and does not have values that fit well with what was once American democracy.
If measured by comments received on it on the Unz site, the article on the ethnic advocacy promoting America’s Wars turned out to be the most popular that I have ever written and it was picked up widely online and in various publications both in the US and abroad. Inevitably, however, it produced a backlash from Israel’s many friends and within 24 hours there was added an update to the original online posting. It read “On the morning of September 21st Phil Giraldi was fired over the phone by The American Conservative, where he had been a regular contributor for fourteen years. He was told that ‘America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars’ was unacceptable. The TAC management and board appear to have forgotten that the magazine was launched with an article by founder Pat Buchanan entitled “Whose War?” which largely made the same claims that Giraldi made about the Jewish push for another war, in that case with Iraq. Buchanan was vilified and denounced as an anti-Semite by many of the same people who are now similarly attacking Giraldi.”
The TAC malignancy who did the actual firing was particularly miffed by my assertion in the article that prominent Jews, like Bill Kristol, who appear regularly on television to advocate hardlines against Iran and others while articulating a “threat to America” when they are actually acting on behalf of Israel should appear above a label that reads something like “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” I added that it would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison – translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”
Indeed, it is the wealthy and influential beyond belief Jewish diaspora and its non-stop lying and corruption that sustains the fictitious narrative of Israel as a “land without people for a people without a land.” Australian journalist Caitlin Johnstone observes that “Everything about Israel is fake. It’s a completely synthetic nation created without any regard for the organic sociopolitical movements of the land and its people, slapped rootless atop an ancient pre-existing civilization with deep roots. That’s why it cannot exist without being artificially propped up by nonstop propaganda, lobbying, online influence operations, and mass military violence.”
My point in revisiting the past is that seven years ago one would never have imagined the control that the Jewish Lobby has since obtained over the US foreign policy as well as over many domestic policies largely thanks to the alarmingly pro-Israel measures that have been advanced by an ignorant and reckless Donald Trump followed by the totally mindless and heedless Joe Biden. Biden has a majority of Jews occupying senior positions in his administration and it is fair to say that Jews are at the controls for Middle Eastern policy as well as what is playing out in Ukraine. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken is little more than a spokesman and advocate for Israel as he made clear when he arrived in Israel after the Hamas attack and announced that “I come before you as a Jew…” and followed that up with his family holocaust history, though he failed to mention that his stepfather worked for Robert Maxwell, a leading Israeli spy. And let’s not forget about Congress, where pro-Israel fanatics have taken complete control (with the sole exception of Tom Massie) of the Republican Party. This control is exercised through over the top political donations and favorable media coverage dependent on one’s supportive view of Israel. A story is currently circulating indicating that Miriam Adelson, Israel-born heiress to the Sheldon Adelson multi-billion dollar casino fortune, has offered Trump $100 million as a political campaign contribution if he will promise to enable Israeli annexation of all of historic Palestine after he wins the November election.
Some congressmen have revealed that when they first surfaced as political candidates a representative of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) would casually drop by and determine their viewpoint on the Middle East. In some cases, would-be legislators would be asked to sign a statement pledging full and uncritical support of Israel no matter what it does. And we have recently learned that Israel runs major secret intelligence operations using fake personas on social media spreading pro-Israeli stories to influence decision making and maintain control of the US government. Beyond that, according to Massie, who told Tucker Carlson, every Republican in Congress besides himself “has an AIPAC person” assigned to them with whom they are in constant communication, whom he describes as functioning “like your babysitter” to make sure that no one hesitates when it comes to policies impacting on Israel. One assumes that this consists of AIPAC or Anti-Defamation League (ADL) provided interns who spy on the officials lest they deviate from their pledged loyalty to the Jewish state. I would call such activity foreign espionage connected to incitement to commit treason that should be exposed like the rat poison metaphor cited above. These monsters promoting a foreign country’s interests are not really our friends and are not out to do anything beneficial for the American people.
Support for Israel in the media is also contrived and essentially phony, going beyond slanting stories and ignoring the Palestinians. It is so generally and imposed from the top down. Since October outlets like The New York Times, CNN and CBC have been denounced through staff leaks regarding demands from their top executives, who are often Jewish, that they slant their Gaza coverage to support the narratives favored by Israel. There have been resignations in government over the Israeli genocide being supported by Biden and Briahna Joy Gray has just been fired by The Hill for mildly criticizing Israel while co-hosting the show “Rising”, a fate that every media employees must understand lest they share Gray’s fate if they are insufficiently supportive of the Zionist entity. Israel’s support from Hollywood and other celebrities is similarly forced. A Hollywood marketing firm has had to explain a newly leaked email that instructed the firm’s employees to “pause on working with any celebrity or influencer or tastemaker posting against Israel.”
Other new developments on the Israel front that have emerged in the past seven years include the attacks on freedom of speech and association, the development of pro-Israel legislation at state and local levels which deny government benefits and jobs to citizens who support peaceful boycotts of Israel, and the ultimate abomination the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which is seeking to criminalize any criticism of the Jewish state. The Act is just one aspect of how the power of organized Jewish groups over the government and media is shaping the kind of society that Americans will be living in in the near future. It will be a society devoid of several fundamental constitutional rights, like free speech, due to deference to the preferences of one tiny demographic.
Upcoming elections have also been targeted by the “Lobby,” with Jewish groups raising hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out attacks on candidates considered to be anti-Israeli. The Zionist inspired heavy hand of government and of America’s educational institutions has also been observed recently in the arrests and other punishments to include blocking of employment opportunities and canceling degrees to students protesting against the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians. Jewish counter-protesters, sometimes violent as in the recent case of UCLA, are as a rule not punished and their student groups are untouched while pro-Palestinians groups are banned from campus.
Sometimes the leaning over backwards to please the Israelis is completely ridiculous. Congress is currently seeking to pass a bill that would punish the Maldives for blocking travel to the islands for Israeli passport holders while the war in Gaza continues. US Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey is leading efforts to pressure the government of the Indian Ocean tourist hotspot. Gottheimer, known to be one of Congress’s most aggressive Israel firsters, is seeking bipartisan support in developing the legislation which will be called the Protecting Allied Travel Here (PATH) Act. The legislation could block any US aid or assistance to the Maldives until Israelis again have permission to visit the country. Gottheimer argued that “taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be sent to a foreign nation that has banned all Israeli citizens – one of our greatest democratic allies.” He also added predictably that the Maldivean move was “antisemitic”.
So, in my humble opinion we have been increasingly getting screwed relentlessly by Israel in spite of much of the punishment taking place out in the open, but the hapless wretches in Congress are too weak and terrified by the Jewish lobby to do anything about it. And now we have war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu showing up at the end of July for another round of pandering and groveling plus cheering and bowing by the Joint Session of that very same Congress that has done so much to give Bibi and tools and money enabling him to kill 35,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and counting. It is a disgrace and when the world sits back and reckons what has happened and determines who is to blame the chickens will inevitably come home to roost. America the Pariah. It almost rhymes.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Avery interesting study appeared last week by two researchers looking into the pandemic policy response around the world. They are Drs. Eran Bendavid and Chirag Patel of Stanford and Harvard, respectively. Their ambition was straightforward. They wanted to examine the effects of government policy on the virus.
In this ambition, after all, researchers have access to an unprecedented amount of information. We have global data on strategies and stringencies. We have global data on infections and mortality. We can look at it all according to the timeline. We have precise dating of stay-at-home orders, business closures, meeting bans, masking, and every other physical intervention you can imagine.
The researchers merely wanted to track what worked and what did not, as a way of informing future responses to viral outbreaks so that public health can learn lessons and do better next time. They presumed from the outset they would discover that at least some mitigation tactics achieved the aim.
It is hardly the first such study. I’ve seen dozens of such efforts, and there are probably hundreds or thousands of these. The data is like catnip to anyone in this field who is empirically minded. So far, not even one empirical examination has shown any effect of anything but that seems like a hard conclusion to swallow. So these two decided to take a look for themselves.
They even went to the next step. They assembled and reassembled all existing data in every conceivable way, running fully 100,000 possible combinations of tests that all future researchers could run. They found some correlations in some policies but the problem is that every time they found one, they found another instance in which the reverse seemed to be true.
You cannot infer causation if the effects are not stable.
After vast data manipulation and looking at every conceivable policy and outcome, the researchers reluctantly come to an incredible conclusion. They conclude that nothing that governments did had any effect. There was only cost, no benefit. Everywhere in the world.
Please just let that sink in.
The policy response destroyed countless millions of small businesses, ruined a generation in learning losses, spread ill health with substance abuse, wrecked churches that could not hold holiday services, decimated arts and cultural institutions, broke trade, unleashed inflation that is nowhere near done with us yet, provoked new forms of online censorship, built government power in a way without precedent, led to new levels of surveillance, spread vaccine injury and death, and otherwise shattered liberties and laws the world over, not to mention leading to frightening levels of political stability.
And for what?
Apparently, it was all for nought.
Nor has there been any sort of serious reckoning. The European Commission elections are perhaps a start, and heavily influenced by public opposition to Covid controls, in addition to other policies that are robbing nations of their histories and identities. The major media can call the victors “far right” all they want but this is really about common people simply wanting their lives back.
It’s interesting to speculate about precisely how many people were involved in setting the world on fire. We know the paradigm was tried first in Wuhan, then blessed by the World Health Organization. As regards the rest of the world, we know some names, and there were many cohorts in public health and gain-of-function research.
Let’s say there are 300 of them, plus many national security and intelligence officials plus their sister agencies around the world. Let’s just add a zero plus multiply that by the large countries, presuming that so many others were copycats.
What are we talking about here? Maybe 3,000 to 5,000 people total in a decision-making capacity? That might be far too high. Regardless, compared with the sheer number of people around the world affected, we are talking about a tiny number, a mico-percent of the world’s population or less making new rules for the whole of humanity.
The experiment was without precedent on this scale. Even Deborah Birx admitted it. “You know, it’s kind of our own science experiment that we’re doing in real time.” The experiment was on whole societies.
How in the world did this come to be? There are explanations that rely on mass psychology, the influence of pharma, the role of the intelligence services, and other theories of cabals and conspiracies. Even with every explanation, the whole thing seems wildly implausible. Surely it would have been impossible without global communications and media, which amplified the entire agenda in every respect.
Because of this, kids could not go to school. People in public parks had to stay within circles. Businesses could not open at full capacity. We developed insane rituals like masking when walking and unmasking when sitting. Oceans of sanitizer would be dumped on all people and things. People were made to be afraid of leaving their homes and clicked buttons to make groceries arrive on their doorsteps.
It was a global science experiment without any foundation in evidence. And the experience utterly transformed our legal systems and lives, introducing uncertainties and anxieties as never before and unleashing a level of crime in major cities that provoked residential, business, and capital flight.
This is a scandal for the ages. And yet hardly anyone in major media seems to be interested in getting to the bottom of it. That’s because, for bizarre reasons, looking too carefully at the culprits and policies here is regarded as being for Trump. And the hate and fear of Trump is so beyond reason at this point that whole institutions have decided to sit back and watch the world burn rather than be curious about what provoked this in the first place.
Instead of an honest accounting of the global upheaval, we are getting the truth in dribs and drabs. Anthony Fauci continues to testify for Congressional hearings and this extremely clever man threw his longtime collaborator under the bus, acting like David Morens was a rogue employee. That action seemed to provoke ex-CDC director Robert Redfield to go public, saying that it was a lab leak from a US-funded lab doing “dual purpose” research into vaccines and viruses, and strongly suggesting that Fauci himself was involved in the cover-up.
Among this group, we are quickly approaching the point of “Every man for himself.” It is fascinating to watch, for those of us who are deeply interested in this question. But for the mainstream media, none of this gets any coverage at all. They act like we should just accept what happened and not think anything about it.
This great game of pretend is not sustainable. To be sure, maybe the world is more broken than we know but something about cosmic justice suggests that when a global policy this egregious, this damaging, this preposterously wrongheaded, does all harm and no good, there are going to be consequences.
Not immediately but eventually.
When will the whole truth emerge? It could be decades from now but we already know this much for sure. Nothing we were promised about the great mitigation efforts by governments turned out to achieve anything remotely what they promised. And yet even now, the World Health Organization continues to uphold such interventions as the only way forward.
Meanwhile, the paradigm of bad science backed by force pervades nearly everything these days, from climate change to medical services to information controls.
In 2000, everything about Bill Gates’ public persona changed. He morphed from a hardnosed and ruthless technology monopolizer into a soft, fuzzy and incredibly generous philanthropist when he and his wife launched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.1
It was a public relations coup. May 18, 1998, the U.S. Justice Department, in collaboration with 20 state attorneys, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.2 At that time, the company was 23 years old and was ruling the personal computer market. The Seattle Times described the fallout from the antitrust lawsuit:3
“The company barely escaped being split up after it was ruled an unlawful monopolist in 2000 for using its stranglehold on the PC market with its Windows operating system to cripple competitors, such as Netscape’s Navigator Web browser.”
How would the world be different today if the company had been split? Yale law professor George Priest described the antitrust lawsuit as “one of the most important antitrust cases of its generation.”4 In 2002, a court settlement placed restrictions on Microsoft to curb some of its practices for five years.
It was later extended twice and then expired May 12, 2011. The lawsuit had a dramatic effect on “the emergence of an entirely new field called IP (intellectual property) antitrust,” Iowa law professor Herbert Hovenkamp told the Seattle Times.5
Later, large sums donated from the foundation made the news multiple times, including $9.5 million to GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines), a second $7.5 million to GAVI and $6.8 million to the World Health Organization in 2017.6
By June 2020, in the middle of a global pandemic, the Gates Foundation’s donations totaled 45% of WHO’s funding from nongovernmental sources.7 Once mainstream media’s attention was no longer on Gates’ antitrust activities and focused on the philanthropist actions of the foundation, Gates publicly turned his attention to vaccinating the world, long before COVID-19.8
Event 201: A Preplanned Pandemic
In a deep dive into the Gates Foundation’s charitable donations, The Nation found there were $250 million in grants to companies where the foundation held corporate stocks, including Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi and Medtronic. The money was directed at supporting projects “like developing new drugs and health monitoring systems and creating mobile banking services.”9 … 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 