Iran’s apparent restraint in the face of Israeli aggression should not be mistaken for weakness. Tehran steadily applies pressure on Tel Aviv through its own methods, setting the stage carefully for Israel’s unravelling.
A strategy in asymmetrical warfare is expressed by the “boiling frog” theory:
Legend has it that a frog placed in a shallow pot of water heating on a stove will remain happily in the pot of water as the temperature continues to climb, and will not jump out even as the water slowly reaches the boiling point and kills the frog. The change of one degree of temperature at a time is so gradual that the frog doesn’t realize he is being boiled until it is too late.
While the story is an apologue – a pretty fable meant to convey a meaningful lesson – it is one frequently invoked by militaries and geopoliticians to describe the “long game” of reaching strategic objectives.
Today, it is Iran and its regional allies who are using a measured approach to increase temperatures in West Asia until the water boils the US and Israeli ‘frogs’ to death. Strategy, discipline, and rare patience – the antithesis of western short-termism – will bring Iran victory. To quote the Taliban: “Americans have watches, but we have the time.”
Time is now on the side of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its regional allies. Two connected examples show how the IRGC is calibrating temperatures like scientists in a laboratory.
The Yankee Frog
Following the launch of the Hamas-led resistance operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October of last year, US President Joe Biden deployed US Navy assets to the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean Sea to “defend” Israel.
On 26 November, the USS Eisenhower and its escorts navigated through the Straits of Hormuz, anchoring in the Persian Gulf on the Saudi Arabian side. Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned naval forces initially targeted Israeli ships and Eilat Port with their first shots on 19 October. But by 29 November, their attacks escalated to include vessels bound to or from Eilat, irrespective of flag or ownership.
This pattern culminated in the Pentagon’s announcement of “Operation Prosperity Guardian” on 18 December, aimed at safeguarding Israel’s economic interests at the expense of US military personnel. Subsequently, the Eisenhower and its naval escorts relocated from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, purportedly to “defend” the occupation state.
Instead, the positioning of US Navy assets in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden has left them susceptible to potential attacks from Iranian or Iranian-supplied weaponry, including cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and drones.
Despite efforts from the US Navy (USN) and the US Air Force (USAF), Ansarallah remains undefeated. Previous Anglo–American airstrikes in Yemen have proven ineffective, while the ongoing pace and expanding scope of Yemeni operations are straining naval resources and dampening morale.
Unlike ‘Hollywood guns,’ US Navy vessels do not have unlimited interceptor missiles, nor can they be reloaded at sea. As for the morale of American personnel, it will break in the long run, particularly since many, if not most, sailors and marines are simply not invested in a fight for Israel.
Last month, Captain Chris Hill, the commanding officer of the USS Eisenhower, said: “People need breaks, they need to go home.”
While sailors, marines, and airmen are getting antsy dodging Ansarallah’s drones and missiles on a daily basis, the ‘Yankee Frog’ is merrily paddling about his Washington hot tub, believing the ‘might’ of the USN will defeat the pesky ‘Houthis.’
This was arguably a well-calibrated move supported by Iran that accomplished two objectives: First, it got the carrier battle group out of the Persian Gulf, and second, it sucked the US into an escalatory trap. The Yankee Frog is in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden hotpot. It cannot win.
It will either jump out and flee in humiliation, further destroying the credibility of the US armed forces following its humiliating 2021 debacle in Afghanistan; or it will remain in the hotpot and be boiled to death—with the loss of ships and lives.
With either outcome, Iran wins. Relatedly, an Iranian defeat of the US will be welcomed by China, Russia, and scores of US adversary states, particularly across the global south. As noted by one astute Twitter/X user, Armchair Warrior (describing Russia’s likely responses to Ukrainian provocations), by its actions, Iran has demonstrated “reflexive control” over Washington’s actions. By this, he means, “If every military action you take gets a symmetrical reaction, then you can control the nature, venue, and tempo of the conflict to your benefit.” This is precisely what the IRGC is cleverly doing.
The Israeli Frog
The wee ‘Israeli Frog,’ meanwhile, somnolent in the warm water, is dreaming of his ‘new Israel’ – the Israel that he will create once he has ethnically cleansed Gaza. He has plans to develop Gaza, build luxury condos along the beachfront, and build housing units for new settlers.
Architects are now drawing up plans. Former President and current Republican contender Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a Netanyahuist and Likud Party benefactor, is measuring drapes for his Gaza waterfront condominium.
However, the Israeli military has not defeated Hamas, which continues to inflict significant damage to Israeli military hardware and human assets. By one estimate, Hamas has only been degraded by 15–20 percent. The occupation army wholly depends on the US and its European vassal states for armaments since its domestic production capacities are limited.
According to one estimate, some 500,000 settlers have returned to their homelands; most will not return. Since 7 October, conscription is no longer a safe yet inconvenient three-year requirement: parents are afraid for their daughters and sons.
The dormant refusenik movement that emerged from the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon has re-awakened. Draftees are refusing to serve and being jailed as a result. The conscription exemption for ultra-Orthodox Jews expired on 1 April; they are threatening to flee Israel, whose very survival is dependent on Jews moving there.
If representatives of ultra-Orthodox Jews quit Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition, it could bring down his extremist government. Internal tensions within Israeli society are escalating, fueled by socio-economic pressures and disillusionment with the government’s handling of the war.
The Israeli economy is in shambles. The shekel is declining. Budget deficits and borrowing have skyrocketed. Moody’s downgraded Israel’s credit from A1 to A2 on 9 February. Israel’s tourism industry has collapsed into crisis. Most major airlines no longer fly to Israel. Israel’s manufacturing and agricultural bases are small. Israel has limited access to natural resources and energy; it depends on overland lifelines to Jordan and Egypt, with Azerbaijani oil and gas coming to Haifa from Turkey.
Iran is doing to Israel just what Israel did to it with economic sanctions. But unlike Israel, Iran has abundant supplies of oil and gas, 85 million literate and educated people who are not planning to flee, and formidable agricultural and manufacturing bases.
Tehran is methodically throttling Israel’s economy. Haifa port is on Hezbollah’s target list. If Haifa is shut down alongside Eilat, Israel will only have overland lifelines for food and energy supplies. Ben Gurion International and other airports may be targeted in the future.
Turning up the heat, one degree at a time
The recent Israeli attack on the Iranian diplomatic mission in Damascus, purportedly in response to an Iraqi drone striking Eilat, mirrors Netanyahu’s apprehensions and frustrations – that “the whole world is ganging up on us.”
Netanyahu’s strategy appears to be to goad Iran into escalating tensions, potentially prompting them to target American military assets in the region, thereby drawing the US into the Gaza War. However, it’s uncertain whether Tehran will take the bait.
While the IRGC is likely to respond, they will look to avoid falling into Netanyahu’s trap. Instead, Iran may opt to tighten its economic stranglehold on Israel, possibly by targeting strategic locations such as Eilat, Haifa, and Ben Gurion Airport.
The IRGC understands that Israel’s economy cannot sustain a prolonged conflict. Therefore, their strategy might involve a gradual escalation – effectively boiling the Israeli frog slowly – through coordinated actions involving Hezbollah, Ansarallah, and various Syrian and Iraqi-based factions.
As the economist Herbert Stein noted, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” While Israel is far from being on the brink of collapse, the disciplined and calculated actions of the IRGC are steadily increasing regional tensions. If left unchecked, this could lead to significant repercussions for Israeli society and its economy – all without it realizing, like the wee boiling frog.
Twenty-five years ago, NATO was bombing Serbia as the first performance in its new role. The collapse of the Soviet Union had deprived the military alliance of its initial official role of defending its member states from a theoretical communist threat. Under no threat and devoid of UN Security Council approval, NATO assumed the self-ordained role of virtuous defender of allegedly oppressed minorities by bombing what was left of largely dismantled Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 on behalf of Albanian rebels in the Serbian province of Kosovo.
NATO’s air attacks on the Balkan nation were the practical application of a new post-Cold War doctrine. To succeed, this doctrine relied on Western media to report on crisis areas with the appropriate mixture of exaggerations, omissions and outright lies to justify NATO’s virtuous interventions. The military industrial complex could breathe easy and a new generation of journalists began successful careers eagerly spinning their reports to serve the new humanitarian war ideology.
None was more successful than Dublin-born Samantha Power, whose novice reports from Bosnia in the mid-1990s provided the basis for her 2002 book on “genocide” which “quickly became an international sensation, glowingly reviewed almost everywhere, a huge bestseller that won her a Pulitzer Prize and launched her career as a leading figure in human rights doctrine.” She has gone on from one top governmental post to another, a Washington star, urging the United States to intervene on moral grounds.
Samantha Power owes her remarkable success to her talent as a writer, her ambition, her striking presence, but not least to the man at the origins of the whole humanitarian war policy.
That was none other than Morton Isaac Abramowitz, a highly influential member of the foreign policy establishment and the main inventor of what would become the “R2P” (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine. The crucial policy contribution of Abramowitz is explained at the start of my 2002 book, Fools’ Crusade, as follows:[1]
As president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the early 1990s, Abramowitz headed a project to develop a new U.S. foreign policy for the post-Cold War era. Rather than identifying “threats”, especially at a time when few threats could be seen, a successful new policy needed to combine promotion of U.S. interests with proclamation of U.S. “ideals”.
Theory and Practice
At the Carnegie Endowment in 1992, Abramowitz published the theory of the new U.S. “humanitarian intervention” policy as Self-Determination in the New World Order.
“The vision of a ‘new world order’ since 1990 has been a world with one superpower – the United States – in which the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle, disputes are settled peacefully, aggression is firmly met by collective resistance, and all people are justly treated.”
That sounds very nice. But put into practice, “collective resistance” means NATO, and “all people are treated justly” depends on Washington’s preferences. The new rules-based order was not to be confused with traditional international law, based on national sovereignty. Globalization was making national sovereignty outdated (except for the United States). “Ideals” make rules more flexible.
The sovereign nation is being broken down subtly by the pressures of economic globalization. It may also be undermined from within, by domestic insurgencies. In the post-Cold War world, the Carnegie Endowment study noted, “groups within states are staking claims to independence, greater autonomy, or the overthrow of an existing government, all in the name of self-determination”. […] In the future, the authors announced, “humanitarian intervention will become increasingly unavoidable”. The United States will have the final word as to when and how to intervene.
Abramowitz subsequently helped put his theory into practice in crumbling Yugoslavia. He was the eminence grise behind U.S. diplomats, steering the events leading to the “Kosovo war” that split the province of Kosovo off from Serbia. He was advisor to the Kosovo Albanian delegation at the imitation “peace negotiations” staged at Rambouillet to provide an excuse for the bombing of Serbia. The moderate Albanian Kosovo leader Ibrahim Rugova was replaced by the armed gangster, Hashim Thaci. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright set terms no Serbian leader could accept, demanding the right to station NATO troops over the entire country, with full impunity. The Serb side was then blamed for the failure, and NATO began to bomb on March 24, 1999.
Samantha Steals her Way into Bosnia
Back in 1992, fresh out of Yale, 22-year-old Samantha Power was given a position as intern in the office of Abramowitz at the Carnegie Endowment. As a proofreader, she quickly absorbed the new official doctrine. At that time, her boss was obsessed with the conflicts in Bosnia as implicating the future of NATO. Determined to get to Bosnia where the action was, Samantha stole stationery from the neighboring office of Foreign Policy magazine and forged a letter from the editor to the head of the UN Press Office, asking that the UN provide her, as Foreign Policy’s “Balkan correspondent,” with “all necessary access.”[2]
From that time on, her work functioned precisely to advance the new “humanitarian intervention” policy of her mentor, Morton Abramowitz. She recalls that his influence helped her get increasingly important assignments – most crucially, writing about the Srebrenica massacre for The Washington Post.
With the Srebrenica reports, the term “genocide” emerged as the power word that could give NATO its new mission.
The Western press corps based in Sarajevo tended to become emotionally involved with the Muslim side which was its principal news source. Missing from their dispatches were reports on Muslim massacres of Serbs villages or on the well-armed Islamic fighters who joined the Muslim side from Afghanistan and Arab countries, some of them settling permanently in Bosnia.
When Bosnian Serb forces captured the Muslim base at Srebrenica in July 1995, they evacuated women, children and the aged to safety, while men fled, fearing retaliation. Many were killed in unclear circumstances.
Without reference to such context, Western media focused on reports of a massacre of 8,000 male prisoners as a unique event which branded the Serbs as the guilty party in the three-sided civil war. With the Srebrenica reports, the term “genocide” emerged as the power word that could give NATO its new mission.
Calling Srebrenica “genocide” provided the argument for NATO bombing: if Serbs committed genocide in Bosnia, it implied that Serbs were genocidal and risked committing genocide in Kosovo unless NATO intervened. This theory was supported by wildly inaccurate accusations voiced by leading Western politicians during the bombing campaign.
That was the story that was sold to the public by politicians and the media. From the start, the Serb majority in Yugoslavia had been portrayed as invaders in their own country, with everyone else as victims. Thus was destroyed the last semi-socialist, nonaligned country in Europe.
The Kosovo war indeed combined U.S. “interests and ideals”. The ideals were preventing a genocide that never would have taken place (and also, incidentally, preventing a negotiation that could have settled the whole conflict as well). The interests included the immediate construction by the Americans of a giant U.S. military base on the territory of Kosovo, once Serbian forces were obliged to leave.
Genocide and R2P
Samantha Power’s 2002 book was subtitled “America in the Age of Genocide”. To speak of the present as an “age of genocide” is wildly melodramatic, but the purpose is to place virtuous America in the center of drastic moral demands. America must save the world from its genocidal self. “Genocide” was thereby promoted as the most potent pretext for U.S. military intervention – precisely by deploring its absence, both in Bosnia and more convincingly, in Rwanda. The Clinton administration was certainly not going to intervene in Rwanda, because the bloody chaos was in fact favoring the conquest of Rwanda by Paul Kagame and his army, which had invaded Rwanda from Uganda in 1990. Kagame was a favored client of the United States. There was no reason for Washington to interfere with Kagame’s victory.
But the “failure to stop genocide” was an appeal to the liberal conscience to intervene later on, whenever the U.S. was in need a powerful argument to get rid of a someone it wanted to get rid of. Moammer Gaddafi had been on the U.S.-UK hit list for decades, but had made concessions to gain reconciliation. But when Gaddafi’s usual fundamentalist Islamic opponents in Tripoli used the 2011 “Arab spring” to raise protests, the “threat of genocide” alarm was raised on their behalf. In Washington, action to stop Gaddafi from “committing genocide” was urged by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, while Bernard Henri Lévy raised the alarm in Paris. NATO rose to the challenge, destroyed the most economically successful country on the African continent and murdered its leader, creating a flood of refugees to Europe and other disasters. Most of the liberal left cheered.
Today it is widely recognized that the Irak war was based on deceit and ended in disaster. Other U.S. wars are mostly conceded to have been unfortunate mistakes. There are doubts about Libya, due mainly to the refugee flow. But the destruction of Yugoslavia, and in particular the 1999 “Kosovo war”, is still widely accepted in the West as what it was arranged to appear: NATO’s generous humanitarian intervention to prevent “genocide” by racist Serbs against the oppressed Albanian minority.
The distortions of the Bosnia conflict and the Kosovo war were precisely the practical application of the Abramowitz policy: promote minority rebellions to break down national sovereignty and change governments the U.S. doesn’t like, while supplying NATO with a new geographically unlimited mission of “humanitarian intervention”. Yugoslavia was the starting point of the whole aggressive post-Cold War U.S. policy as “single superpower” determining the world order, using the idealistic pretexts set out by Abramowitz. Young Samantha Power, who was very smart, got the point and ambitiously cheated her way into a supporting role as reporter in the Bosnia spectacle, which she eventually transformed into an astonishingly successful career.
I was in Kosovo on my own in months prior to the NATO bombardment and saw quite clearly that in that small province, the Serbs were a frightened minority while Albanians were already tasting their future triumph. There was absolutely no danger of a Serbian “genocide” of Albanians. But Western editors kept sending in ignorant young aspiring journalists, on the lookout for some “Serb atrocity” that could advance their budding career. Editors rejected any report that went in a different direction. It was at that time just plain impossible to publish an unbiased report. I know from experience.
Above all, breaking up Yugoslavia was an exercise in subsequent efforts to undermine the Russian Federation, by inciting the Federation’s ethnic minorities against the Russians. Ukraine was the crucial battering ram. I always used to think of Ukraine when studying the conflicts in the Krajina regions of Croatia and Bosnia, as both words have the same root (border land) and suffered from similar conflicts, notably in World War II. Western powers had revived the Nazi-supported Croatian nationalism against the Serbs to break up Yugoslavia. They would revive much more virulent Nazi-supported Ukrainian nationalism against Russian-speakers in Eastern Ukraine, in an effort to weaken and eventually even break up the Russian Federation.
And for the United States, the humanitarian “ideals” of supporting minorities would be compensated by the major strategic “interest” of eventually gaining control of Crimea, and with it, Russia’s main naval base in Sebastopol. Putin did what any Russian leader not brain-dead would have done: he headed off this disaster by mobilizing the Russian inhabitants of Crimea to vote to return to Russia, which they had never chosen to leave. This obvious act of self-determination is denounced in the West as an invasion.
The Ideological Backlash
Unfortunately, the blatantly tragic misuse of the “humanitarian intervention” or R2P doctrine in Libya has not managed to achieve its discredit. It is threatened now by the danger that it is changing sides in the very global conflicts it has stimulated.
The referendum in Crimea was a democratic measure of self-determination that fit the Abramowitz standards. The Russian “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine in 2022 was partially motivated by the sort of consideration featured in the Abramowitz doctrine: defense of the population of Donbas, under attack from an ultranationalist regime in Kiev. Of course, Western governments and media have simply totally ignored any Russia appeal to the ideals of human rights and self-determination, which they consider their own private property as self-declared unique “democracies”. Russia is classed as an “autocracy” whose interests must be malevolent and thus don’t count.
A greater threat to the West’s self-proclaimed monopoly on virtue is coming from Israel’s merciless attack on the people of Gaza. Most of the Global South and growing sections of Western populations are horrified by Israel’s destruction of hospitals, mass murder of children and efforts to starve the Palestinians. They see Israel, with full Western backing, committing Genocide – the real thing this time, out in the open, blatant and unrelenting.
The NATO war machine may have to conjure up a new set of moralizing pretexts for its aggressions.
Notes
[1] See Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press, 2002, pp 9-10; Monthly Review 2003
It is now openly acknowledged in Germany that COVID-19 did not exist and declared from the beginning: the Corona measures had nothing to do with health.
It was a government and intelligence operation to enslave the people, a run-up to dictatorship under a ‘one world government’
One of the World Central Kitchen vehicles targeted by Israel as it was passing through a “deconflicted zone” in the besieged Gaza Strip, April 2, 2024. (Photo by Reuters)
Ships loaded with humanitarian aid for the Palestinians trapped in the Gaza Strip will turn back in the wake of a deadly strike by the Israeli regime forces on relief workers.
Cyprus’ foreign minister said on Tuesday that undelivered food and supplies were being returned after aid groups suspended operations due to the brutal killing of members of an international charity.
Seven World Central Kitchen workers were killed in the Israeli strike on vehicles used by the US-based charity organization.
Minister Constantinos Kombos said the charity is suspending its operations in Gaza out of respect for the victims as well as to review its security protocols. Cargo ships loaded with 240 tonnes of canned food destined for Gaza were preparing to return.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Theodoros Gotsis had said earlier that around 100 tonnes of aid had been unloaded before the World Central Kitchen suspended operations after its workers were killed.
Cyprus’ port city of Larnaca has played a key role in trying to establish a maritime aid corridor to Gaza. Those efforts suffered a major setback when the World Central Kitchen halted operations.
The World Central Kitchen said its aid workers were traveling in a “deconflicted zone” in two armored cars branded with the charity’s logo as well as “a soft skin vehicle.”
Despite coordinating movements with the Israeli military, “the convoy was hit as it was leaving the Deir al-Balah warehouse, where the team had unloaded more than 100 tonnes of humanitarian food aid brought to Gaza on the maritime route,” the group said in a statement.
The Israeli regime has acknowledged the strike, claiming it will carry out an independent investigation into the attack.
Researcher Frances Stonor Saunders dedicated an entire book, under the title “Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War”, to the work of the United States government to finance influencers of the non-communist left, mainly in Europe and North America.
Intellectuals, journalists, artists and activists (in addition, obviously, to professional politicians) were financed directly or indirectly by the US Central Intelligence Agency through programs to promote culture and development that were nothing more than a façade for it to pour money into determined sectors, in order to combat the influence of the Soviet Union and what it still represented, in one way or another (the revolution and the fight against imperialism).
The CIA’s “cultural war” strategists were thinking not of modifying the leftist policy they financed, but rather of encouraging an already existing policy. It was a left compatible with its interests, which did not clash with the fundamental policy of imperialism. The objective was to strengthen this policy, make it “hegemonic” within the left, making revolutionary and anti-imperialist politics secondary ─ the final victim of these projects.
In this way, the CIA financed the holding of cultural congresses, exhibitions, concerts and the publication of newspapers, magazines, books and films with the intention of promoting “left-wing” ideas and policies perfectly compatible with its own.
Mainly journalistic and theoretical publications had as a fundamental aspect of their editorial line the fight against Marxist and anti-imperialist ideas.
This type of activity is often called “covert operations”, when the US government uses front organizations to hide the involvement of its agencies in conspiracies and operations around the world. Two of the main organizations that serve as a facade for the CIA to this day are the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, “both of which were conscious instruments of the clandestine foreign policy of the United States, with directors and employees who had close ties to the US secret service. American, or were even members of it” (pp. 156-157).
Created in 1936, the Ford Foundation was the tax-exempt cream of the vast Ford fortune, and had assets totaling more than three billion dollars by the late 1950s. Dwight Macdonald memorably described it as “a vast mass of money, completely surrounded by people who want some.” The architects of the Foundation’s cultural policy after World War II were perfectly in tune with the political imperatives that supported the United States’ massive presence on the world stage. At times, the Ford Foundation seemed to be a simple extension of the government in the area of international cultural propaganda. The Foundation had a history of close involvement in clandestine actions in Europe, working closely with those responsible for the Marshall Plan and the CIA on specific projects. This reciprocity was further amplified when Richard Bissell, a Marshall Plan planner whose signature had provided matching funds to Frank Wisner, joined the Ford Foundation in 1952, accurately predicting that there would be “nothing to prevent an individual from exercising as much influence through his work at a private foundation as he could have through government work.” During his tenure at Ford, Bissell met often with Allen Dulles and other CIA officials, including Tracy Barnes, his former classmate at Groton, in a “reciprocal search” for new ideas. He left suddenly to join the CIA as special assistant to Allen Dulles in January 1954, but not before helping to bring the foundation to the forefront of Cold War thinking.
Bissell had worked directly under Paul Hoffman, who became president of the Ford Foundation in 1950. Having come to the Foundation directly from his position as administrator of the Marshall Plan, Hoffman had taken a thorough immersion course in the problems of Europe and the power of ideas for dealing with these problems. He was fluent in the language of psychological warfare and, echoing Arthur Koestler’s 1950 exclamation (“Friends, freedom has gone on the offensive!”), spoke of “fighting the battle of peace.” He also shared with Robert Maynard Hutchins, a spokesman for the Ford Foundation, the view that the State Department was “subject to so much domestic political interference that it can no longer present a complete picture of American culture.”
In 1952, the Ford Foundation debuted in earnest as a CIA front in the international political-cultural arena. This is when the Intercultural Publications Program was created. It allocated 500 thousand dollars to launch the magazine Perspectives, whose target audience was the French, English, Italian and German non-communist left. Its aim was “less to defeat leftist intellectuals in dialectical combat than to lure them away from their positions through aesthetic and rational persuasion,” according to the program’s head, James Laughlin. The magazine’s policy was not to advertise the American lifestyle. “This omission alone will become the most important element of propaganda, in the best sense,” said one academic at the time. That is, the aim was to convey right-wing politics as something left-wing.
(to be continued)
Eduardo Vasco is a Brazilian journalist specializing in international politics.
If nature or God had perfected puncturing one creature with substances from another as a pillar of health and vitality, plentiful examples would abound throughout the natural world. Instead, every creature that punctures and injects another only harms the creature being toxxinated by direct blood injections. Simple examples: ticks, fleas, mites, parasites, mosquitos, snakes, scorpions, tse-tse flies, black flies, horse flies. Across all species, there’s over 200 that puncture and suck blood. In no case does blood sucking or toxxine injection benefit the suckee, only the parasitic sucker.
TOXXINES, scientific definition for the ancient blood cult practice of injecting toxins by a predator into their prey. Legend has it that early cult priests observed that in nature, every single example where a predator punctured a prey and sucked blood, or injected into the blood, the prey suffered under some magical or mystical influences wielded by the predator. Priests reasoned they could own this power. Cult priests convinced millions throughout history to give their life forces over to this dark cult. The cult thrived and gained extensive powers over their punctured prey. Where do we see this parasitic class thriving today? What effect do we see upon their suckees? – Anon Reader
This stack is based on AMD’s excellent recent article.
Let’s do something different here. Let’s start with a test.
Here is a 15-question multiple-choice test based on AMD’s stack. Answers below.
Let’s see how many you get right?
Exam
1. What is the most common term used for the sudden and unexplained death of an infant?
A) Crib death B) Infant mortality C) Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) D) Shaken Baby Syndrome
2. Which vaccine has been most strongly linked to cases of SIDS?
A) MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) B) DPT (Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus) C) Polio D) Hepatitis B
3. In what decade did national immunization programs begin, leading to a rise in SIDS cases?
A) 1940s B) 1950s C) 1960s D) 1970s
4. What did Dr. Archie Kalokerinos identify as a major contributing factor to infant deaths in Aboriginal communities in Australia?
A) Poor sanitation B) Genetic predisposition C) Vitamin C deficiency D) Parental neglect
5. What was the name of the 1985 book that led to the withdrawal of the whole-cell DPT vaccine from the US market?
A) “The Vaccine Book” B) “DPT: A Shot in the Dark” C) “Vaccine Safety Manual” D) “What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children’s Vaccinations”
6. Which country saw a significant reduction in severe reactions and deaths from the DPT vaccine after delaying the injection age?
A) United States B) United Kingdom C) Japan D) Australia
7. What did Dr. William Torch’s study find regarding the timing of infant deaths after DPT vaccination?
A) Most deaths occurred within 24 hours B) Most deaths occurred within 1-3 weeks C) Most deaths occurred within 2-3 months D) There was no clear pattern
8. What did Peter Aaby’s study in low-income countries reveal about the DTP vaccine?
A) It reduced overall mortality rates B) It increased mortality rates by 5-fold compared to unvaccinated children C) It had no effect on mortality rates D) It only increased mortality rates in girls
9. Which type of vaccine has been shown to significantly increase the risk of sudden unexpected death in infants within days of administration?
A) Hexavalent vaccines B) Pentavalent vaccines C) Trivalent vaccines D) Monovalent vaccines
10. What did studies find regarding the incidence of cardiorespiratory events in premature infants after vaccination?
A) There was no increase in cardiorespiratory events B) Cardiorespiratory events increased by 10-15% C) Cardiorespiratory events increased by 30-50% D) Cardiorespiratory events decreased after vaccination
11. What trend in infant mortality was observed during the COVID-19 lockdowns when childhood vaccination rates declined?
A) Infant mortality increased significantly B) Infant mortality decreased significantly C) There was no change in infant mortality rates D) The data was inconclusive
12. According to VAERS data, what percentage of reported infant deaths occur within 7 days post-vaccination?
A) 25.5% B) 48.3% C) 63.7% D) 78.3%
13. What did a study find regarding the risk of death in infants receiving 5-8 vaccine doses compared to those receiving 1-4 doses?
A) The risk was the same B) The risk was 1.5 times higher C) The risk was 2 times higher D) The risk was 3 times higher
14. What percentage of Medicare spending is attributed to care in the final year of life?
A) 10% B) 25% C) 40% D) 60%
15. According to one study, what reduction in overall risk of death was observed when a few non-necessary drugs were removed from elderly patients?
A) 23% B) 41% C) 56% D) 72%
Answer Key:
C
B
C
C
B
C
B
B
A
C
B
D
B
B
C
Next let’s look at 20 Statistics.
Nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths occur in the United States each year, potentially related to vaccines.
The incidence of SIDS has grown from 0.55 per 1,000 live births in 1953 to 12.8 per 1,000 in 1992 in Olmstead County, Minnesota.
The increase in SIDS as a percentage of total infant deaths has risen from 2.5 per 1,000 in 1953 to 17.9 per 1,000 in 1992.
In Japan, a 85-90% reduction in severe reactions and deaths from the DPT vaccine was observed when the injection age was delayed from 3-5 months to 24 months during the 1970s.
The infant mortality rate in Japan declined from 12.4 per 1,000 births in the mid-1970s to 5 per 1,000 births in the mid-1980s, after the DPT vaccination age was raised to 2 years old.
In a study by Torch, 6.5% of infants died within 12 hours of DPT vaccination, 13% within 24 hours, 26% within 3 days, and 37%, 61%, and 70% within 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively.
In 1978-1979, 9 out of 11 infants who died within 8 days of DPT vaccination had been given the same Wyeth vaccine lot, and 5 died within 24 hours.
Vitamin C deficiency, exacerbated by vaccination, led to an infant death rate of over 50% in one Aboriginal community in Australia.
DTP vaccine was associated with a 5-fold higher mortality rate than being unvaccinated in low-income countries, according to a study by Peter Aaby.
Hexavalent vaccines increase the risk of sudden unexpected death in infants by 31.3 times within one day and 23.5 times within two days of vaccination.
A GSK confidential report revealed that 97.9% of all sudden deaths following the first dose of hexavalent vaccination occurred within the first 10 days post-vaccination.
Premature infants have a 30% incidence of cardiorespiratory events within 24 hours of vaccination, with 51.5% experiencing such events after their first vaccination.
During the COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020, a significant drop in overall childhood mortality was observed, particularly in the 0-4 age range and among ethnic minorities.
All-cause infant mortality under one year of age in Florida decreased by 8.93% in 2021, coinciding with a drop in childhood vaccination rates from 93.4% to 79.3%.
In VAERS, 58% of reported infant deaths clustered within 3 days post-vaccination, and 78.3% within 7 days post-vaccination, a statistically significant difference compared to the 8-60 day post-vaccination period.
For SIDS cases reported in VAERS, 51% occurred within 3 days post-vaccination, and 75.5% within 7 days post-vaccination.
Infants receiving 5-8 vaccine doses were 1.5 times more likely to die than those receiving 1-4 doses, according to a VAERS analysis.
Boys were 1.4 times more likely to die after vaccination than girls, according to the same VAERS analysis.
Care in the final year of life accounts for approximately 25% of all spending by Medicare.
One study found that removing a few non-necessary drugs from elderly patients reduced their overall risk of death by 56%.
Lastly here are 30 Q&As to interact with AMD’s essay.
1. What vulnerable groups does the pharmaceutical industry often target to maximize profits?
Answer: The pharmaceutical industry often targets prisoners, colonized indigenous populations, the mentally disabled, orphans, children in foster care, the elderly, and infants to maximize profits through unethical human experimentation and creating captive markets for unsafe pharmaceuticals with questionable benefits.
2. Where was the DPT vaccine first tested in the early 20th century, and what was discovered in 2014 related to this?
Answer: The DPT vaccine was first tested in Irish orphanages in the early 20th century. In 2014, unmarked mass graves belonging to Irish orphans were discovered. Further research revealed these graves belonged to a group of 2,051 children upon whom an early diphtheria vaccine was covertly tested in the 1930s.
3. Since the DPT vaccine hit the market, what have physicians around the world observed regarding infant deaths?
Answer: Since the DPT vaccine hit the market, physicians around the world have observed waves of infant deaths following its use, which were often sudden and inexplicable, along with many other severe side effects.
4. What key role did infant deaths play in creating the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act?
Answer: The infant deaths observed after DPT vaccination played a key role in creating the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, as many parents who successfully lobbied Congress to address vaccine injury issues had DPT-injured children.
5. What did vaccine safety activists predict would happen to infant deaths during the COVID lockdowns when children were skipping their routine vaccines?
Answer: Vaccine safety activists predicted that the COVID lockdowns would lead to an unprecedented drop in infant deaths since children were skipping their routine vaccines.
6. How do current events with COVID-19 parallel the early days of the AIDS epidemic in regards to Fauci’s actions?
Answer: In both the early AIDS epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci fought to keep effective treatments off the market and instead pushed dangerous and ineffective but profitable drugs like AZT for HIV and remdesivir for COVID-19.
7. What are two recurring issues that always emerge in the pharmaceutical industry?
Answer: Two recurring issues in the pharmaceutical industry are: 1) Finding ways to regularly test experimental drugs with high potential toxicities to identify commercially successful ones, and 2) Creating guaranteed markets for unsafe pharmaceuticals with questionable benefits.
8. How have dangerous medical treatments been unethically tested on vulnerable populations throughout history?
Answer: Dangerous medical treatments have been forcibly tested on prisoners, colonized indigenous populations, the mentally disabled, orphans, foster children, and by outsourcing research to third-world countries or using the military’s command structure to compel participation.
9. What process can be observed in how countless drugs are prescribed to the elderly until their combined toxicity causes significant health issues?
Answer: In the elderly, countless drugs are prescribed until their combined toxicity causes enough degeneration to require hospitalization or nursing home admission. Then, more medical interventions are administered until a critical point is reached and the elder dies, with end-of-life care accounting for a large portion of Medicare spending.
10. What are some of the key demographics in the United States that are forced to receive vaccinations?
Answer: In the U.S., key demographics forced to receive vaccinations include children, those in foster care, the elderly, prisoners, service members, students, and healthcare workers. Pediatricians and veterinarians also face financial pressures to vaccinate to maintain their practices.
11. What did a doctor who worked with Robert Mendelsohn recall him saying about why he was willing to sacrifice his eminent position to speak out against the medical system?
Answer: Dr. Mendelsohn said that during his time as Medical Director of Project Head Start in 1968, he was horrified by private White House discussions on controlling poor populations through infant formula, vaccinations, hospital birthing practices, deficient schools, and neighborhood abortion clinics, which deeply conflicted with his faith and medical ethics.
12. What important book published in 1985 was pivotal in the whole-cell DPT vaccine being withdrawn from the domestic market?
Answer: The 1985 book “DPT: A Shot in the Dark” was a pivotal factor in the more dangerous whole-cell DPT vaccine being withdrawn from the U.S. market and replaced with an acellular version. The book also helped create the political will for the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
13. What did Dr. Archie Kalokerinos discover was the primary cause of many health issues affecting Aboriginal children in Australia?
Answer: Dr. Kalokerinos discovered that many of the serious health issues affecting Aboriginal children, such as pneumonia, ear infections, infant irritability, and inability to feed, primarily arose from severe vitamin C deficiencies due to the destruction of native diets by colonization.
14. After Dr. Kalokerinos addressed the vitamin deficiencies, what did he then witness regarding the infant death rate in one Aboriginal community following an immunization campaign?
Answer: After initially addressing widespread vitamin deficiencies, Dr. Kalokerinos then witnessed the infant death rate in one Aboriginal community reach an astonishing 50% following an immunization campaign, leading him to realize that the same vitamin C depletion occurred after vaccination.
15. What did Dr. Kalokerinos later demonstrate in an animal model regarding vitamin C supplementation and vaccination?
Answer: Dr. Kalokerinos later demonstrated in an animal model that vitamin C supplementation could prevent the deaths commonly seen after vaccination, and he eventually convinced local medical authorities to hear his case that vaccines may be causing unintended infant deaths.
16. How did the DPT vaccine also become linked to childhood ear infections by many physicians like Dr. Kalokerinos?
Answer: Many physicians, including Dr. Kalokerinos, observed a direct link between DPT vaccination and the development of childhood ear infections. One doctor noted a surge in ear infections among children in an Indian ashram after a DPT vaccination campaign, a condition not seen there in the years prior.
17. What reduction in severe reactions and deaths from the DPT vaccine did Japan observe when they delayed the injection age from 3-5 months to 24 months during the 1970s?
Answer: When Japan delayed DPT vaccination from 3-5 months to 24 months of age during the 1970s, they observed an 85-90% reduction in severe reactions and deaths attributed to the vaccine.
18. What did Raymond Obomsawin find regarding monitoring infants at home after DPT and Polio vaccination?
Answer: Raymond Obomsawin found that when infants were monitored at home after DPT and Polio vaccination, there was a spike in non-fatal disruptions of breathing that continued for over six weeks post-vaccination, overlapping with the typical period of death observed after these vaccinations.
19. What tends to happen with SIDS cases when examined at morgues in relation to the infant age and vaccination schedule?
Answer: When SIDS cases are examined at morgues, they tend to cluster at precisely 2, 4, and 6 months of age, rather than evenly throughout the 2-6 month range, which coincides with the timing of routine childhood vaccinations and can only be logically explained as a consequence of vaccination.
20. How did the diagnostic criteria and classification for SIDS change over time, and what impact may this have had on tracking SIDS incidence?
Answer: Prior to 1969, SIDS was not formally classified as a disease entity. In 1979, the ICD coding system removed vaccinations as an official cause of death, making it impossible to directly link SIDS to vaccines. Changes in diagnostic classifications during the “Back to Sleep” campaign may have also impacted SIDS statistics.
21. What did a 2011 study find when comparing infant mortality rates across 34 nations in relation to the number of required childhood vaccines?
Answer: A 2011 study comparing infant mortality rates across the 34 nations with the lowest rates found a clear correlation between the number of required childhood vaccines and increased infant mortality, with the United States having the highest number of mandatory vaccines and the highest infant mortality rate.
22. What were the results of Peter Aaby’s study on the DTP vaccine’s effects on mortality in low-income countries, and what happened after he reported his findings?
Answer: Peter Aaby’s study found that the DTP vaccine was associated with a 5-fold higher mortality rate compared to unvaccinated children in low-income countries, suggesting the vaccine may cause more deaths from other causes than it prevents. After reporting his findings, the results were buried, and DTP vaccination rates continued to increase in these countries.
23. What specific factors have been found to increase the likelihood and severity of adverse events and deaths following vaccination in infants?
Answer: Factors found to increase the risk and severity of adverse events and deaths after infant vaccination include premature birth, low birth weight, younger age at vaccination, receiving multiple vaccines simultaneously (especially DTP and Polio), and the use of combination vaccines like the hexavalent vaccine.
24. What did multiple studies find regarding the risk of cardiorespiratory events and death in premature infants after receiving routine vaccinations?
Answer: Multiple studies found significantly increased risks of cardiorespiratory events (apnea, bradycardia, desaturation) and death in premature infants following routine vaccinations, particularly in those with younger gestational age, lower birth weight, and pre-existing respiratory issues. These risks were highest after the first vaccination and with simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines.
25. How did the COVID-19 lockdowns inadvertently provide a control group to assess the impact of vaccination on SIDS incidence?
Answer: The COVID-19 lockdowns created an unintended natural experiment by disrupting routine childhood vaccination programs globally, providing a rare opportunity to compare SIDS incidence and infant mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated infants during the pandemic period.
26. What trends were observed in SIDS and infant mortality in the U.S. during the 2020 lockdowns when childhood vaccination rates significantly declined?
Answer: During the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns in the U.S., when childhood vaccination rates significantly declined, an unexpected decrease in all-cause infant mortality was observed, particularly in the 0-4 age range most affected by SIDS. This reduction was most pronounced in ethnic minority groups, who often experience higher rates of vaccine injury.
27. How did Florida’s drop in childhood vaccination rates in 2021 appear to affect infant mortality in the state?
Answer: In Florida, a drop in childhood vaccination rates from 93.4% in 2020 to 79.3% in 2021 coincided with an 8.93% decrease in all-cause infant mortality under one year of age, a reversal of the previous year’s trend. This suggests a potential causal link between vaccination and a significant portion of infant deaths.
28. What patterns can be observed in VAERS data regarding the timing and clustering of reported infant deaths after vaccination, particularly with the DPT vaccine?
Answer: Analysis of VAERS data shows clear clustering of reported infant deaths in the days immediately following vaccination, with the DPT vaccine being most commonly associated. Of reported deaths, 50-75% occur within 3-7 days post-vaccination, representing a 57-69 times higher rate than in the 8-60 day post-vaccination period, a statistically significant difference.
29. How do the physiological responses to vaccine toxicity tend to be distributed across the population, and what does this suggest about chronic health issues in children?
Answer: Physiological responses to vaccine toxicity follow a bell curve distribution, with severe reactions like death representing the tip of the iceberg. This suggests that for every reported death, there are likely far more unreported cases of chronic health issues in children resulting from vaccine damage, many of which have become increasingly common.
30. What role does the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) play in perpetuating issues with unsafe vaccines being added to the childhood schedule without adequate safety testing?
Answer: The CDC’s ACIP perpetuates issues with vaccine safety by consistently assuming all newly approved vaccines are safe and effective without adequate testing and recommending their addition to the childhood schedule. This effectively creates captive markets and liability protection for manufacturers, disincentivizing thorough safety studies and allowing potentially harmful vaccines to be widely administered.
Ukrainian attacks against Russia’s Belgorod region are becoming increasingly serious. Missiles and drones hit civilian targets on the Russian border every day, causing casualties and spreading terror. In Western media, the incursions against Belgorod are commonly linked to alleged “Russian partisan” groups, but insiders in the region seem to disagree with this narrative, pointing to Kiev’s agents and foreign mercenaries as the true perpetrators.
On March 14, I was in Belgorod on an expedition by the BRICS Journalists Association to cover the border attacks. On that occasion, as reported here, I had the opportunity to visit the places affected by the bombings and interview some of the victims. It was also possible to talk to some members of the Belgorod military forces, from whom I obtained very interesting information about those responsible for the terrorist incursions in the region.
The military says that groups of “Russian dissidents”, such as the “RDK” (“Russian Volunteer Corps”) and the “Legion of Freedom”, so praised by the Western media – despite their open ties to neo-Nazism –, in fact are just fake organizations, whose leaders are actually Russian expatriates, but their staff is made up of disguised Ukrainian agents.
Sources claim that the Kiev regime uses the narrative that there are “Russian partisans” fighting on their side to spread the lie that there is “strong opposition to the Putin government,” with Russian citizens willing to go to war to defend Ukraine. For Western media, this narrative is important as it allows public opinion in NATO countries to believe that the Russian government is unpopular, thus legitimizing the anti-Russian agenda that allows weapons to be sent to Ukraine.
More than that, the Belgorod military also believes that claiming responsibility for the attacks by these fake groups guaranteed the Kiev regime and its Western sponsors a certain “immunity” when it comes to terrorism. Attacks against Belgorod are absolutely illegal, as there are no military targets in the region. Kiev bombs residential buildings, common streets and civilian infrastructure in the city, making its acts illegal under international law.
To escape responsibility for their crimes, Ukrainians use these fake organizations as proxies. In practice, “Russian dissidents” – whose combat personnel are anonymous – function as scapegoats, claiming responsibility for attacks against civilians that could create problems for Kiev. In addition to the attacks on Belgorod, these same groups claimed to be behind several individual assassinations and attempted assassinations against Russian public figures, preventing the Kiev regime from being held accountable for the acts.
It is important to remember that Belgorod became a target of Kiev in May 2023, when troops commanded by Kiev invaded the Russian region and killed civilians during hostilities that were called the “Battle of Belgorod” by the media. Russian defense forces quickly neutralized the invaders, but since then attacks against the region have become frequent – even more so on dates relevant to the Russian Federation, such as patriotic and religious holidays, or presidential elections. At the time, “Russian partisans” claimed to be responsible for the incursion, which was immediately covered by all Western media.
In March 2024, the Ukrainian offensive on Belgorod reached its peak, with brutal shelling killing many civilians. The local military says that the so-called “Russian partisans”, who are just anonymous Ukrainian and foreign agents, are working in this operation together with members of the ultranationalist “Kraken” battalion, which is subordinate to Kiev’s military intelligence – commanded by Kirill Budanov.
As well known, Budanov has already admitted being behind the murder of Russian civilians and promised to “continue killing” Russian citizens until the end of the conflict. Budanov ‘s soldiers commonly disguise themselves as members of the RDK to try to deceive Russians and public opinion. They also say that, instead of “Russian expatriates”, the RDK has among its members not only members of Ukrainian intelligence, but also Western mercenaries trained in Poland – which shows the criminals’ deep ties to NATO.
It increasingly appears clear that the Kiev regime is directly responsible for every Russian civilian death in terrorist attacks. And, as we know, the neo-Nazi regime does not act alone, which means that its Western sponsors are co-responsible for these deaths. The Belgorod case is an example of how the enemies of the Russian Federation are trying to disguise their guilt for these crimes.
The Russian Investigative Committee has launched a probe into allegations that Ukraine and its Western backers are involved in terrorist activities on Russian soil; these were supported by some MPs and public figures last week.
The law enforcement body announced on Monday that it was moving forward with the procedural investigation after reviewing the claims. The initial complaint, which the Committee confirmed receiving last Wednesday, identified the US and its allies as allegedly driving a string of attacks on Russian soil. The agency is looking into the purported “organization, financing and conduct of terrorist acts” by those nations.
Nikolay Kharitonov of the Communist Party, one of the MPs who filed the complaint, insisted that Western nations “benefited” from the terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall outside Moscow earlier this month. He reasoned that the geopolitical opponents of Russia stood to gain from the tragedy on Russian soil, and counted “on their inaccessibility and impunity.”
A total of 12 people – including the four gunmen, believed to be radical Islamists – have so far been arrested in connection to one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in the country’s history.
Over 140 people were killed in the shooting spree and arson attack just outside of Moscow. The Afghanistan-based offshoot of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) has claimed credit for the strike. However, Russian officials claim to have uncovered evidence of possible Ukrainian involvement, contrary to US assurances that Kiev could not have been behind the attack.
“The US and its allies are today conducting terrorist acts on Russian territories with the hands of ISIS and Ukrainian special services,” Kharitonov claimed on Telegram last week. “We demand that the political leadership of the US and Ukraine, as well as the intelligence services of these countries, be held criminally liable for organizing, financing, and conducting terrorist operations directed against Russia and the entire modern world.”
The complaint was signed by three Russian lawmakers as well as some public figures, including the philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. His daughter Darya was killed by a car bomb in August 2022 in what is widely believed to have been a targeted assassination attempt aimed at her father, a prominent nationalist.
Russian investigators accused Kiev of organizing the bomb attack. Reports in the Western media said officials in the US likewise believe that Ukrainian covert operatives were behind the murder.
The Ukrainian government has publicly claimed credit for some of the attacks against Russian targets, such as the bombings of the Crimean Bridge. Last week, Head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) Vasily Malyuk all but bragged about a string of assassinations of people he described as enemies of his country.
When asked about several such killings during an interview, the official said the question was “directed to the right address, but we will not acknowledge that in any way.” Malyuk proceeded to give some details about the crimes.
Malyuk is among the senior Ukrainian officials wanted for terrorism by Moscow. The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Sunday it had sent a demand to Ukraine to hand such suspects over, under the UN-backed international treaties on fighting terrorism, to which Kiev is a signatory.
What is biowarfare? COVID was due to a biological warfare agent. It was designed in one or more laboratories to be more virulent than its natural precursors:
to prefer to infect humans;
to infect more organs than possible in naturally occurring strains;
to interfere with the body’s immune responses.
I say one or more laboratories becasue many of its features had been previously discovered or created in various laboratories, and then these features were essentially grafted onto a coronavirus, one by one; or some features were achieved by passaging the virus through humanized mice, other humanized animals, human cell tissue cultures or humans themselves.
Why were these features created? In which labs?
Why were they painstakingly added to a coronavirus backbone? Where was this done and how many labs were involved?
Why was a coverup by western scientists so critical? Because claiming that pandemics come from animals living in nature, and are spread to humans due to our incursions into their territory, was needed to justify the entire biosecurity agenda that the WHO is steamrolling over us.
By the way, the newest version of the treaty (released March 7, 2024) states that part of the WHO plan is to “identify” those areas where disease “spillover” occurs. You watch: the WHO will then empty those areas of humans. It really is a great cover story, “spillover.” Except it is a total lie.
_____________________
Historically most biowarfare agents were naturally occurring viruses or bacteria. Here is one example in which whistleblowers identified the hand of the CIA.
It is “gain-of-function” research that makes them more virulent and/or more transmissible. Gain of function research was considered illegal under international law until about 2001, and then the customary norms of national behavior simply changed, after the US was caught ignoring the usual norms—as revealed in the NYT on 9/4/2001 and in the book GERMS.
The WHO suggested it should be put in charge of gain-of-function research in the pandemic treaty draft that was released on February 14, 2024. It only took 3 weeks before a new draft was issued on March 7, 2024 in which all mention of “gain-of-function” was erased. I wonder if the rapidity of release of the next draft (it usually takes about 3 months to get a new draft) had to do with cutting out the Gain-of-Function section.
But the idea of requiring nations to supply the WHO with samples of potential pandemic pathogens, and to upload their genetic sequences to publicly accessible databases asap remained, was discussed with even more details in the newest March 7 draft. The WHO and nations would be free to share biological warfare agents aka potential pandemic pathogens (essentially) with anyone they liked.
This makes no sense any way you look at it. The goal seems to be a situation where “Pandemics R Us” and they appear frequently, with no ability to tell where they came from or whether they were deliberate or an accident. By sharing them all globally the WHO has paved the way for using the alibi of accidental release for future COVIDs.
The biowarfare segment starts at about 26 minutes into the episode.
As I said, we at DoortoFreedom.org are here to help you educate your lawmakers while you urge them to question this effort publicly, introduce resolutions, and in other ways throw some boulders in front of the steamroller, just like Louisiana’s Senate did this week.
“I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…”
—The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
When confronted by journalist Vicki Dillard on his stance on several Black issues—including his support for Israel’s genocidal obliteration of Gaza, Israel’s targeting of Black youth, and Israel’s training of police in America—presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., ducked, dodged and resorted to the standard political pablum that every politician knows to pitch to the Black electorate. But when this Caucasian Irish Catholic lectured Blacks on how grateful they should be to white Jews for ALL they have done for them, he brought arrogance and ignorance to new levels. A verbatim transcript of his remarks follows:
“I would point out to you that during the civil rights movement that the Jews in this country and particularly the leadership of the Jews took a, um, were at the forefront of that movement and were embraced by Martin Luther King, were embraced by the other leaders of the movement. Three Jewish boys—Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney—were killed in Mississippi. They died or that Black Americans could—first the civil rights movement. Many, many other Jews took, took great risk and suffered because of their sacrifices for this civil rights movement…”
And with this fairytale-filled paragraph Kennedy believes he can dismiss the immense record of Jewish slave trading and the slavery-derived profits that made America the “promised land” for Jews, who, as a direct result of the slave trade, slavery, and sharecropping, achieved unprecedented wealth and prosperity. It is impossible to tell exactly what Kennedy is referring to with his disjointed word salad, but what is clear is that Kennedy believes he can milk an alleged civil rights legacy left to him by his father and uncle, Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy respectively. His double-barreled gambit is that (1) he can “embrace” the Black vote with a nostalgic civil righteousness; and (2) he can keep Jewish money flowing into his current presidential campaign by repeating an imaginary “civil rights” history Jews love to hear over and over and over again.
Indeed, Kennedy referred to the civil rights “movement” five times in that single paragraph. But the hard truth is that as attorney general, RFK, Jr.’s father ordered the FBI’s 24-hour surveillance and wiretapping of the movement’s leader—the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King—as part of his Justice Department’s notorious COINTELPRO operation that terrorized and murdered Black leaders and organizations. The harassment suffered by Dr. King, his family, and his movement has been well-covered elsewhere (here and here), but it included sending a menacing letter to Rev. King (see graphic) calling him “an evil, abnormal beast” and advising him to kill himself. Ultimately his assassination in 1968 was most likely carried out by these same agents of the U.S. government. When confronted recently on the role his father played in this targeting of Rev. King, RFK, Jr. exonerates his elders: “There was good reason for them doing that at the time… They knew that Hoover was out to ruin King,” Kennedy acknowledges. Blacks would be hard pressed to find a “good reason” for anyone to unleash J. Edgar Hoover on Black America’s most revered religious leader.
The Kennedys’ Alleged Civil Rights Legacy
As attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy—RFK,Jr.’s father— developed a reputation as an advocate of civil rights in large part based on an incident that occurred in Georgia in 1960 involving the Rev. Martin Luther King, whom the FBI had been monitoring for five years. Dr. King was leading more than 200 activists in a campaign of sit-ins at 11 department stores in Atlanta when he was among the 51 Blacks arrested, but King was sentenced to four months of hard labor at a Georgia penitentiary.
When the incident hit the national news, the public outcry and pressure on “Bobby” to act was intense and so Kennedy called the sentencing judge and appealed to him to allow King to be released on bond and to appeal the conviction. Thus, Robert Kennedy became known as a “protector” of Black rights, if not a crusader. But the Atlanta episode exposed the underbelly of the Black–Jewish relationship and challenges the notion that the “Jewish leaders,” as Kennedy so smugly claimed, “um, were at the forefront of that movement.”
The arrest of Dr. King and the many demonstrators with him occurred at Rich’s Department Store, the largest department store in the South—at the demand of its Jewish owner Richard Rich (in photo). Rich was an honored member of his Atlanta synagogue and a president of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, and he was even voted Georgia’s Citizen of the Year by the Association of County Commissioners. Certainly he would be considered a Jewish leader, and he certainly was at the “forefront” of the civil rights movement—but on the opposite side of Black justice.
Rich (who changed his name from Rosenheim) operated the largest segregated business in Atlanta. He paid Blacks less than whites, had separate cafeterias and restrooms, and even held separate Christmas parties. Despite having one of the largest Black customer bases, he denied Blacks the right to work in any capacity other than in the kitchen, and he put those Black women in “Aunt Jemima costumes” to serve the all-white diners. All of this is by anyone’s definition the very opposite of “civil rights.”
This is significant because Jews and their supporters—like RFK, Jr.—demand that Blacks only consider the works of the “helpful” Jews like Goodman and Schwerner, but ignore the much larger role of those powerful Jim Crow Jews like Richard Rich who created the very conditions that necessitated the civil rights movement.
According to the book We Are Not Afraid: The Story Of Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney by Seth Cagin and Philip Dray, after the first anti-segregation protest at his store a defiant Richard Rich “warned them angrily that integration would not be tolerated at Rich’s and that if they attempted a sit-in in his store again he would have them all arrested.”
Rich said he based his racism on “local customs,” but the other Jim Crow stores indicated that their racist policies were based on Rich’s, because his store was by far the largest. It was on the orders of the racist Richard Rich that Martin Luther King was handcuffed and jailed. When the publicity threatened to affect Rich’s profits, he tried to escape responsibility and declined to prosecute—but not because King and fellow protestors were right, but because, according to Rich and his attorney Morris Abram, “we didn’t want to make martyrs out of them and King.”
Rich was the most important Jew in Atlanta, and he was following in the footsteps of another leading Jew of a previous generation. In 1906, Oscar Pappenheimer was the most influential Jewish businessman in Atlanta. He offered this “practical suggestion” for Black civil rights in the Atlanta Constitution:
“I propose the registration of negroes in the southern states 14 years of age and more….Each person so registered should possess… a certificate… in which should be entered description, date and place of birth and, at each registration, record of abode, employment, conduct and reference….Let others decide whether it be legal to pass laws bearing on this subject with reference to the colored race only…”
So far, where do these Jews fit in RFK, Jr.’s civil rights fairytale?
RFK’s “Three Jewish boys”
In a truly embarrassing gaffe Kennedy claimed that “Three Jewish boys—Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney—were killed in Mississippi.” This, of course, would be news to James Chaney (left) and his family, who were not only Black but members of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Meridian, Mississippi. Nonetheless, the three martyrs cannot be forgotten for the ultimate sacrifice they made in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1964 for the cause of Black human rights. Nor can we allow falsehoods and propaganda to be cynically promoted in their names. Kennedy is the latest in a long line of mostly Jewish deceivers who use the names and tragic stories of the two “Jewish boys” to very subtly conceal the long and very uncivil history of Jews in the apartheid South.
By far Mississippi had more lynchings and racist violence than any other state. It is where at least 581 human beings met a horrifying, trial-free demise, and it is where three outright massacres of Blacks occurred in Vicksburg, Clinton, and Macon. After slavery Blacks made great strides in education and began building independent communities, so whites who saw no other role for Blacks but as plantation laborers increased their anti-Black violence and repression. In 1890, Mississippi legislators passed a state constitution specifically to “eliminate the nigger from politics.”
On the other hand, the two Jewish New Yorkers—Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman—were coming to a state that had loved and embraced Jews—and vice versa—for centuries. It is a secret reality that the most distinguished Jewish historians, Rabbi Dr. Jacob Marcus and Dr. Abraham Peck, proudly expressed in the book Jews in Early Mississippi:
“Where else would members of the Christian community donate monies to help build the local synagogue? Where else could Jews be members of the city council or even become mayor? Where else, as in the case of Leopold Marks, could a town be named after a Jew? And when it came time to answer the call to arms [serving the pro-slavery Confederate army] the Jews of Mississippi went with enthusiasm.”
Drs. Marcus and Peck write that these Jews “had love of and devotion to the state of Mississippi.” With the same evident pride the Goldring/Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Lifelists 23 Jewish mayors who reigned in cities and towns all over Mississippi. And note that these Jews were considered by their overwhelmingly white gentile voters to be the very best people to lead their slavery-based, apartheid-practicing, drop-of-a-hat lynching, black voter-discriminating towns and cities. As the Institute says, “For the most part, Jews have enjoyed remarkable acceptance in Mississippi.”
Here is a screenshot of their listing:
Jewish leaders, like Natchez, Mississippi, merchant Jacob Soria, would not have “embraced” Martin Luther King, as RFK, Jr. surmises, but would have sold him and his fellow protesters at Rich’s along with the 32 Black men, women and children he advertised for sale at auction in 1839.
Jewish hate groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center exploit the triple murder tragedy to advance the fallacy that the fates of Blacks and Jews in America were somehow intertwined—that their histories are one and the same. And from this hypocritical trick these satanic shysters, claiming to be “friends and allies” of Blacks, have been able to maneuver themselves into organizational control over the Black “civil rights” leadership.
Typical of this Tricknology is the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt, who in 2023 stood in front of Dr. King’s children and other Black leaders and pompously “counseled” them on “the history of how Blacks and Jews struggled alongside one another…” He said, “They don’t remember the sacrifices of Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman…” But it is Greenblatt who doesn’t remember the sacrifices Blacks made for Jewish wealth in Mississippi and elsewhere in America.
To wit, B’nai B’rith is the parent organization of Greenblatt’s ADL. In deep, dark, Ku Klux Klan-saturated Mississippi the B’nai B’rith of Vicksburg held a dance (left photo below) in 1917 at the dedication of their palatial new “BB club.”
Their new building—opulent even by today’s standards—was designed in Spanish Renaissance architecture and constructed with Georgian marble and fine mahogany with ivory inlay. The lower level had a swimming pool, massage tables, locker rooms, a servant’s entrance, a butler’s pantry; and the upper floors had meeting rooms with pivoted windows, a walnut-encased billiard room, high-relief plaster work accented with electric lighting, a fine dining room, a lounge area in the mezzanine leading to the balcony overlooking the chandeliered ballroom, a roof garden, a gallery with a tiled floor and stone balustrade, a kitchen with a gas range, and a library.
This is how Mississippi Jews were faring 47 years before Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner arrived to help Blacks achieve voting rights! At that same moment, Mississippi Blacks “were landless sharecroppers or laborers facing inescapable poverty,” trapped in oppressive “contracts” with wealthy landowners like H. Hiller, a Jewish merchant who owned 400 of these sharecropper farms.
The pictured “negro shack” on white-owned land was the lot of the vast majority of Mississippi Blacks, whilst Jews flaunted the wealth they acquired in the most obscene way, in the most violently racist state in America.
Today we must ask why on earth would these Jews want to jeopardize, let alone change, this golden reality by participating in any “civil rights” movement? Logically, they would not, and indeed they did not.
Nonetheless, by all accounts both Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman came to Mississippi as dedicated individuals committed to racial justice, and, tellingly, not representing any synagogue or Jewish organization. And though their memories are cynically exploited—as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., just did—for political benefit, a very thoughtful Andrew Goodman offered his community some sage advice about a Black organization that “Jewish leaders” like Greenblatt and his predecessor Abraham Foxman were dedicated to destroying:
“… it is true that the white man (and by this I mean Christian civilization in general) has proved himself to be the most depraved devil imaginable in his attitudes towards the Negro race…. The historical contempt that the white race held for the Negroes has created a group of rootless degraded people. The current neglect of the problem can only irritate this deplorable state of affairs. The Black Muslims should constitute a warning to our society, a warning that must be heeded if we are to preserve the society. The road to freedom must be uphill, even if it is arduous and frustrating. A people must have dignity and identity. If they can’t do it peacefully, they will do it defensively.”
According to the aforementioned book We Are Not Afraid, Goodman’s 31-page thesis “The Black Muslims: A Phenomenon of Negro Reaction,” completed just days before he was murdered, “was a young man’s cri de coeur, a pronouncement of beliefs, and an explanation for the action he was about to take.” Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Jonathan Greenblatt must then come to grips with a very inconvenient racial reality—that Andrew Goodman, the man they hold up as a sacred symbol of the Black–Jewish relationship, made his fateful decision to aid the Black struggle in Mississippi as a consequence of the Teachings of the Nation of Islam.
For more on this topic see the Nation of Islam book series The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews. Download the free guide by clicking here.
Has Europe really stopped supporting the genocide, ethnic cleansing and starvation war taking place in Gaza? It is clear that changes have occurred in European positions recently, compared to previous months.
European officials have begun to express increasing “concern” about the humanitarian conditions in the Gaza Strip and have recently mentioned the word “international law” in their statements regarding the brutal Israeli war after they had previously ignored it. Then, the European Union (EU) called for a ceasefire for the first time at the European Council summit on 21 March, finally after the Israeli army killed 32,000 Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.
European positions have budged, but very slowly and with great caution and the result is that they have not yet left the trenches of supporting the ongoing genocide, with scattered exceptions issued by Belgium, Ireland, Spain, Malta and Norway.
It seems clear that the criticism directed at the Israeli side from most European platforms is still cautious, with great care being taken to choose expressions carefully. Most importantly, Europe ignores the fact that its influence gives it the ability to stop war and genocide immediately if it has the political will through a package of sanctions, for example, but it simply does not want to.
Instead, European politicians are currently trying to give the impression that they disagree with the horrors committed by the Israeli government and its forces against 2.3 million people in the Gaza Strip, but without doing anything to deter them. Because the invasion of Rafah will bring back the most horrific scenes of World War II to the world of colours, Europe clearly opposes the invasion of this narrow area crowded with displaced persons, as do the allies in Washington as well. However, most European platforms do not declare opposition to the ongoing war, despite all the atrocities that have accompanied it. Indeed, the Israeli war leadership still enjoys generous military supplies from European countries, in addition to the continuation of mutual partnership and cooperation agreements without prejudice or even the threat of being suspended.
Instead of taking serious action to curb the horrific massacre, Europe’s political leadership is deluding its people and the world that it is really acting by talking a lot about providing humanitarian aid and showing concern about the worsening famine in the Gaza Strip, without this changing anything in reality, which is, in fact, worsening. There are also renewed declarations of support for the political vision of the two-state solution, readiness to discuss recognition of a Palestinian state and denounce the attacks of extremist settlers in the West Bank and perhaps impose sanctions on them. Regrettably, none of these relate to the essence of the ongoing war on Gaza, which includes genocide, even though the EU and most European capitals have avoided pronouncing this forbidden word when it comes to Israeli behaviour.
Even if Europe imposes sanctions on a few settlers who attack Palestinian citizens, it ignores what is being done by the Israeli army and its soldiers, who do not stop killing, terrorising and abusing Palestinians in the West Bank, in addition to their atrocities in Gaza. Europe grants immunity to the Israeli army, its officers and its soldiers from any sanctions or even any explicit criticism. The focus of criticism on the behaviour of the settlers is always accompanied by a clear insistence on exempting the army from blame and accountability for war crimes.
History will forever recall that Europe’s political establishment supported genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip from day one in multiple forms through military support, political encouragement, propaganda and financial aid. Moreover, they have remained indifferent to the ongoing public objections against this shameful involvement. The war leadership with clear fascist tendencies would not have been able to wage this terrible massacre without this unwavering European cover, in addition to US and Western support in general.
Political Europe supported the atrocities through a rhetorical plot that included prior justification for everything that any army could commit against civilians. They did this despite knowing that the matter is related to an occupying army whose record is replete with war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere. In fact, the Benjamin Netanyahu government, which is the most extreme and racist Israeli government since its creation, had from the very first days declared its intentions to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation, war and total destruction. The evidence in this regard is well-documented in the case file South Africa submitted to the International Court of Justice. Yet the EU and most European capitals stuck to a unified narrative, providing excuses for all the atrocities that this army committed in the Gaza Strip, the majority of whose residents are refugee children and women.
European positions did not budge partially until after months of horrific massacres that reached a record level of Palestinian civilian casualties. Their partial change only came months after the brutal Israeli bombing campaign destroyed most homes, hospitals and civilian facilities with ammunition supplied by US and European industries and after starvation in Gaza reached a terrifying and visible peak before the entire world.
Still, European politicians behave as if they are incapable of acting. They continue to make feeble statements and diplomatic appeals to the Israeli side without telling their people and the world that they can take immediate, deterrent and effective steps to stop the genocide, ethnic cleansing and brutal starvation. Alas, they simply do not want to.
The easiest test of the seriousness of European positions is to compare their stand toward the Israeli occupier with the punitive steps taken after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The EU and other European countries have imposed strict, extensive and unprecedented sanctions on Russia since 24 February, 2022, in addition to the sanctions that were previously imposed after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The EU also imposed sanctions on Belarus and Iran due to their roles in supporting the Russian war effort.
On the other hand, the EU and other European countries did not take any clear punitive steps towards Israel, except for the imposition of sanctions against a few settlers. The strangest thing, however, is that Europe rushed to punish the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the Palestinian citizens served by the UN agency by hastily cutting off its funding as soon as uncorroborated Israeli allegations were received regarding some of its employees.
In contrast, Europe’s politicians still exempt the Israeli occupation army from even verbal censure. They choose carefully worded phrases when commenting on the terrible atrocities that the world sees, such as the mass killings at aid distribution points, so that these atrocities are not explicitly linked to the Israeli army.
One of the taboos of political discourse in the EU and the capitals of the continent is the use of specific vocabulary to describe what is happening. During half a year of horrors, expressions such as “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, “atrocities” and “war crimes” did not appear in European official comments, except in rare exceptions from non-conformist politicians in blog posts. The logical question that has been repeated for months in the words of demonstrators in European squares is: How many more victims would make you consider what is happening to be genocide?
Political Europe is now trying to disavow the image of the party supporting Israel’s war on the Palestinian people with all its atrocities. It is covering up its involvement in justifying this war and encouraging the genocide campaign that has been ongoing for months, including providing multiple forms of military, political, financial and propaganda support from several European countries. Ending the policy of supporting genocide, starvation, war and brutal war crimes has a clear title: ending the partnership and cooperation agreements, imposing strict sanctions, banning the supply of weapons and ammunition and launching a serious humanitarian operation to end the programmed starvation policy. The question remains: How many victims are needed in order to do something like this?
William J. Burns has published a long piece in Foreign Affairs under the title ‘Spycraft and Statecraft.Transforming the CIA for an Age of Competition‘. This is an essay likely to be read with great attention, maybe even parsed, not only by an American elite audience, but also abroad, in, say, Moscow, Beijing, and New Delhi, for several reasons. Burns is, of course, the head of the CIA as well as an acknowledged heavyweight of US geopolitics – in the state and deep-state versions.
Few publications rival Foreign Affairs’ cachet as a US establishment forum and mouthpiece. While Burns’ peg is a plea to appreciate the importance of human intelligence agents, his agenda is much broader: In effect, what he has released is a set of strategic policy recommendations, embedded in a global tour d’horizon. And, last but not least, Burns is, of course, not the sole author. Even if he should have penned every line himself, this is a programmatic declaration from a powerful faction of the American “siloviki,” the men (and women) wielding the still gargantuan hard power of the US empire.
By the way, whether he has noticed or not, Burns’ intervention cannot but bring to mind another intelligent spy chief loyally serving a declining empire. Yury Andropov, former head of the KGB (and then, for a brief period, the whole Soviet Union) would have agreed with his CIA counterpart on the importance of “human assets,” especially in an age of technological progress, and he would also have appreciated the expansive sweep of Burns’ vision. Indeed, with Burns putting himself so front-and-center, one cannot help but wonder if he is not also, tentatively, preparing the ground for reaching for the presidency one day. After all, in the US, George Bush senior famously went from head of the CIA to head of it all, too.
There is no doubt that this CIA director is a smart and experienced man principally capable of realism, unlike all too many others in the current American elite. Famously, he warned in 2008, when serving as ambassador to Moscow, that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).” That makes the glaring flaws in this big-picture survey all the more remarkable.
Burns is, obviously, correct when he observes that the US – and the world as a whole – is facing a historically rare moment of “profound” change in the global order. And – with one exception which we will return to – it would be unproductive, perhaps even a little churlish, to quibble over his ideologically biased terminology. His mislabeling of Russia as “revanchist,” for instance, has a petty ring to it. “Resurgent” would be a more civil as well as more truthful term, capturing the fact that the country is simply returning to its normal international minimum status (for at least the last three hundred years), namely that of a second-to-none great power.
Yet Burns’ agenda is more important than his terminology. While it may be complex, parts of it are as clear as can be: He is eager (perhaps desperate) to prevent Washington from ending its massive aid for Ukraine – a battle he is likely to lose. In the Middle East, he wants to focus Western aggression on Iran. He may get his will there, but that won’t be a winning strategy because, in part thanks to multipolar trend setters, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, Iran’s escape from the isolation that the US has long imposed on it is already inevitable.
Regarding China, Burns’ real target is a competing faction of American hawks, namely those who argue that, bluntly put, Washington should write off its losses in Ukraine and concentrate all its firepower on China. Burns wants to persuade his readers that the US can have both its big fight against China and its proxy war against Russia.
He is also engaged in a massive act of CIA boosterism, clearly aiming to increase the clout of the already inordinately powerful state-within-a-state he happens to run himself. And last but not least, the spy-in-chief has unearthed one of the oldest tricks in the subversion and destabilization playbook: Announcing loudly that his CIA is on a recruiting spree in Russia, he seeks to promote a little paranoia in Moscow. Good luck attempting to pull that one on the country that gave us the term “agentura.” Moreover, after the horrific terror attack on Crocus City Hall in Moscow, it is fair to assume that Burns regrets having boasted about the CIA expanding its “work” in Russia. Not a good look, not at all.
What matters more, though, than his verbal sallies and his intriguingly straightforward, even blunt aims, are three astonishingly crude errors: First, Burns insists on reading the emerging outcome of the war in Ukraine as a “failure on many levels,” for Russia, revealing its, as he believes, economic, political, and military weakness. Yet, as the acknowledged American economist James K. Galbraith has recently reiterated, the West’s economic war on Russia has backfired. The Russian economy is now stronger, more resilient, and independent of the West than never before.
As to the military, Burns for instance, gleefully counts the tanks that Russia has lost and fails to note the ones it is building at a rapid rate not matched anywhere inside NATO. In general, he fails to mention just how worried scores of Western experts have come to be, realizing that Moscow is overseeing a massive and effective expansion of military production. A curious oversight for an intelligence professional. He also seems to miss just how desperate Ukraine’s situation has become on the ground.
And politics – really? The man who serves Joe Biden, most likely soon to be replaced by Donald Trump, is spotting lack of popularity and fragility in Moscow, and his key piece of evidence is Prigozhin and his doomed mutiny? This part of Burns’ article is so detached from reality that one wonders if this is still the same person reporting on Russian red lines in 2008. The larger point he cannot grasp is that, historically, Russia has a pattern of starting wars on the wrong foot – to then learn, mobilize, focus, and win.
Burns’ second severe mistake is his argument that, ultimately, only China can pose a serious challenge to the US. This is staggeringly shortsighted for two reasons: First, Russia has just shown that it can defeat the West in a proxy war. Once that victory will be complete, a declining but still important part of the American empire, NATO/EU-Europe will have to deal with the after-effects (no, not Russian invasion, but political backlash, fracturing, and instability). If Burns thinks that blowback in Europe is no serious threat to US interests, one can only envy his nonchalance.
Secondly, his entire premise is perfectly misguided: It makes no sense to divide the Russian and the Chinese potentials analytically because the are now closely linked in reality. It is, among other things, exactly a US attempt to knock out Russia first to then deal with China that has just failed. Instead, their partnership has become more solid.
And error number three is, perhaps, even odder: As mentioned above, Burns’ language is a curious hybrid between an analytical and an intemperate idiom. A sophisticated reader can only wince in vicarious embarrassment at hearing a CIA director complain of others’ “brutish” behavior. What’s worse: the tub-thumping or the stones-and-glasshouse cringe? Mostly, though, this does not matter.
Yet there is one case where these fits of verbal coarseness betray something even worse than rhetorical bravado: Describing Hamas’ 7 October assault as “butchery,” Burns finds nothing but an “intense ground campaign” on Israel’s side. Let’s set aside that this expression is a despicable euphemism, when much of the world rightly sees a genocide taking place in Gaza, with US support. It also bespeaks an astounding failure of the strategic imagination: In the same essay, Burns notes correctly that the weight of the Global South is increasing, and that, in essence, the great powers will have to compete for allegiances that are no longer, as he puts is, “monogamous.” Good luck then putting America’s bizarre come-what-may loyalty to Israel first. A CIA director at least should still be able to distinguish between the national interests of his own country and the demands of Tel Aviv.
Burns’ multipronged strike in the realm of elite public debate leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. It is genuinely disappointing to see so much heavy-handed rhetoric and such basic errors of analysis from one of the less deluded members of the American establishment. It is also puzzling. Burns is not amateurish like Antony Blinken or a fanatic without self-possession, such as Victoria Nuland. Yet here he is, putting his name to a text that often seems sloppy and transparent in its simple and short-sighted motivations. Has the US establishment decayed so badly that even its best and brightest now come across as sadly unimpressive?
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
By Maryanne DemasiMaryanne Demasi | Brownstone Institute | June 15, 2026
For decades, vaccines have been treated as the sacred cow of modern medicine. I was taught that they were the holy grail. To question them was heresy. To raise concerns about safety was to risk professional exile.
“No child should be sacrificed on the altar of the religion of vaccines,” Siri writes, as he turns his focus to America’s overcrowded childhood immunisation schedule.
I assumed little in this book would surprise me. I’ve spent years reporting on drug safety, regulatory capture, and the corruption of science. But Siri showed me how wrong I was.
Siri is not a doctor or a scientist. He is an attorney, and this, he says, is his advantage. In court, rhetoric won’t save you. Evidence does. As he puts it, he doesn’t get to say “trust me” the way many doctors do. “I need to prove claims with real data.”
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.
As attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy—RFK,Jr.’s father— developed a reputation as an advocate of civil rights in large part based on an incident that occurred in Georgia in 1960 involving the Rev. Martin Luther King, whom the FBI had been monitoring for five years. Dr. King was leading more than 200 activists in a campaign of sit-ins at 11 department stores in Atlanta when he was among the 51 Blacks arrested, but King was sentenced to four months of hard labor at a Georgia penitentiary.
Rich said he based his racism on “local customs,” but the other Jim Crow stores indicated that their racist policies were based on Rich’s, because his store was by far the largest. It was on the orders of the racist Richard Rich that Martin Luther King was handcuffed and jailed. When the publicity threatened to affect Rich’s profits, he tried to escape responsibility and declined to prosecute—but not because King and fellow protestors were right, but because, according to Rich and his attorney Morris Abram, “we didn’t want to make martyrs out of them and King.”
In a truly embarrassing gaffe Kennedy claimed that “Three Jewish boys—Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney—were killed in Mississippi.” This, of course, would be news to James Chaney (left) and his family, who were not only Black but members of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Meridian, Mississippi. Nonetheless, the three martyrs cannot be forgotten for the ultimate sacrifice they made in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1964 for the cause of Black human rights. Nor can we allow falsehoods and propaganda to be cynically promoted in their names. Kennedy is the latest in a long line of mostly Jewish deceivers who use the names and tragic stories of the two “Jewish boys” to very subtly conceal the long and very uncivil history of Jews in the apartheid South.
Jewish leaders, like Natchez, Mississippi, merchant Jacob Soria, would not have “embraced” Martin Luther King, as RFK, Jr. surmises, but would have sold him and his fellow protesters at Rich’s along with the 32 Black men, women and children he advertised for sale at auction in 1839.
Nonetheless, by all accounts both Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman came to Mississippi as dedicated individuals committed to racial justice, and, tellingly, not representing any synagogue or Jewish organization. And though their memories are cynically exploited—as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., just did—for political benefit, a very thoughtful Andrew Goodman offered his community some sage advice about a Black organization that “Jewish leaders” like Greenblatt and his predecessor Abraham Foxman were dedicated to destroying:
Aletho News
Aletho News 