Will the more than 100 Iranians killed by terrorist bombs today be mourned in the West as victims of terrorism? Certainly not. Allied doctrine has it that the killing of Israeli or American civilians is a crime of cosmic proportions, while shedding the blood of “enemy” women and children is perfectly acceptable; indeed commendable.
The West does not memorialize the hundreds of thousands of civilians bombed by the U.S. in Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan and every major German city 1943-1945. America’s fire-bombing of the city of Tokyo by General Curtis LeMay in March 1945 was followed by Harry Truman’s atomic incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of that year. Truman never had a moment of doubt or regret over the murder of more than a 100,000 Asian children, mothers and non-combatant boys and men. It was business as usual for the “noble” Allies during the “Good War.”
In the West human rights signifies passionate concern only for civilians designated as truly human: Israelis first, then Americans and British, followed by their satraps.
This inhumanity is the legacy of Talmudic ideology, beginning with tractate Sanhedrin 57a from 400 A.D., concerning liability for capital punishment: “If a Jew murders a gentile, he is exempt.”
This teaching of contempt was reiterated in the dogma of Chabad Lubavitch founder Rabbi Shneur Zalman in the 18th century:
“In the Tanya of Zalman we encounter the doctrine that the souls of the gentiles contain no good whatsoever: Tanya Likutei Amarim I: ‘This law is taught: in the case of Israel, this soul of the kelipah is derived from kelipat nogah, which also contains good, as it originates in the esoteric ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.’ The souls of the nations of the world (gentiles) however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever.”
The unbroken chain of this dogmatic hate speech was continued by the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook in the 1920s. Kook weaponized the Talmud by uniting it with war-Zionism. He took the racism of the Talmud and “married” it to the Herzl/Ben Gurion ideology. Kook reiterated the Talmud’s ancient hostility to gentiles. He declared:
“The difference between the Israelite soul… and the souls of all the nations (gentiles), in their various grades, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul…of man and the soul of animals. For between the latter there is only a quantitative difference, while between the former there exists a qualitative, essential difference.”
[Source: David Dishon,“The Beauty of Yefet in the Tents of Shem-Gentiles and Jews in the Thought of Rav Kook,” in Havruta: A Journal of Jewish Conversation. Shalom Hartman Institute. 1 (2): 80–89.]
Talmudic Zionist delegation to New York, 1924. Jerusalem Chief Rabbi Kook is on the right. Mayor John Hylan is at center.
The Cryptocracy clandestinely reverences the Talmud and the Kabbalah as the holiest books of Western civilization. This esteem has emerged in public in “Conservative” circles in the US and Britain, where Talmudism is hailed as an integral pillar of western civilization, an assertion which is unsustainable from the point of view of historiography, but a fervent article of faith on the Right, in that the Right wing believes that its agenda can’t prevail against the winds of woke without swearing fealty to this myth.
Influential Conservative Pastor Douglas Wilson advances his pro-nationalist views on the coattails of Talmudist philosopher Yoram Hazony of the Jerusalem Herzl Institute. I’m probably on safe ground in supposing that Rev. Wilson would never do the same partnered with an exponent of the Quran. Wilson, in spite of being acutely aware of the hate speech and blasphemous contents of the Talmud, offers a qualified “two cheers” for it in his new book, American Milk and Honey.
The august Acton Society, which bills itself as a paladin in the revival and restoration of our civilization, last month virtually canonized Lord Jonathan Sacks, the late Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth. Their gushing paean, brimming with rapture for Sacks’ life work, cited his mentor, the late Zionist Grand Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Chabad-Lubavitch, disciple of the aforementioned racist Shneur Zalman.
“It was the Lubavitcher Rebbe, as Schneerson is known, who inspired Sacks to pursue his rabbinic ordination and dedicate himself to the Jewish people. These encounters would influence Sacks’ intellectual sensibility and approach to Jewish institutional leadership for the rest of his career.
“… Sacks delivered the Erasmus Lecture, hosted by First Things magazine in New York… under the auspices of Pope Francis, Sacks delivered the keynote address at the Vatican’s International Colloquium on ‘The Complementarity of Man and Woman.”
The Talmudic content of Rabbi Sacks’ teaching is not mentioned by the Acton institute. In a review of Jonathan Rosen’s book, The Talmud and the Internet, Chief Rabbi Sacks wrote:
“Rosen loves, as I do, the extraordinary moment in the Talmud in which God is outvoted on a point of Jewish law and celebrates the fact that his children have defeated him. In the world of the rabbis not only do men study the Word of God, God studies the word of men.”
Rabbi Lord Sacks was referring to tractate BT Bava Metzia 59b in which Rabbi Yehoshua contradicts God by declaring that the law is rightfully decided on earth by the rabbis, not in heaven. The Talmud has God admit he was wrong. It puts these words into God’s mouth: “My sons have defeated me! “My sons have defeated me!”
This is what Sacks “loves.” What does Mr. Sacks’ rabbinic megalomania have to do with the gospel of Jesus, or the literature of Augustine, Aquinas or Shakespeare? Nothing. In fact, it is profoundly inimical to it: the Talmudic mentality boasts of contradicting God. The Talmud of Mystery Babyon is an occult dictatorship emanating from the Torah sheBeal peh (the counterfeit “Torah” founded upon “the traditions of men” — cf. Mark 7 and Matthew 15).
The bipolar contradictions evident in the promotion of the demonstrably false legend of the West’s civilizational debt to Orthodox rabbinic theology carry the seeds of the downfall of the Conservative movement.
Meanwhile, Muslims in Iran today, and Arab civilians both Muslim and Christian in Gaza, die under the bombs of Western-enabled terrorists. This bloodshed is privately applauded in the salons and think tanks of America and Britain, given that the victims have been judged “qualitatively” and “essentially” to be a lesser “grade” of human.
Michael Hoffman manages the podcast, Revisionist History®. He is the author of the banned 2008 textbook Judaism Discovered (1,102 pages), and nine other volumes of history and literature, as well as 122 issues of the periodical, Revisionist History®. He is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press and a former consultant to the news department of the New York Times. His books have been published in translation in Japan and France. He resides with his family in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.
Revisionist History® is a registered trademark of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816. All Rights Reserved.
A member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament) from Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party said on Tuesday that it is becoming increasingly clear to Israelis that “all Gazans must be destroyed,” it has been reported.
“My friends at the prosecutor’s office, who fought with me on political matters, in debates, tell me, ‘Moshe, it is clear that all the Gazans need to be destroyed,’ and these are statements I have never heard,” Moshe Saada told Channel 14. He claimed that the rise in calls to destroy all Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip proves that the right-wing was correct “all along”.
Today, he added, the matter is simple. “Everywhere I go, they [Israelis] tell me that all the residents of Gaza must be destroyed.”
Explicit calls for Israel to annihilate the population of the Gaza Strip have increased in number since the start of the apartheid state’s war on the Gaza Strip on 7 October.
Commenting on the MK’s comments, Israeli journalist Avner Hopstein said: “A former senior official in the law enforcement agencies is submitting evidence to the [International Criminal] Court in The Hague, saying that his friends in the Attorney General’s Office insist that all Gazans must be exterminated… The man is very stupid. When [former Attorney General] Shai Nitzan fired him, he did at least one good thing.”
Calley is the co-founder of TrueMed.com , a company that enables Americans to buy exercise and healthy food with FSA/HSA dollars, and the co-author (with his sister, Dr. Casey Means) of an upcoming book on food-as-medicine. Earlier in his career, he was a consultant for food and pharma companies and is now exposing practices they use to weaponize our institutions of trust. He is a graduate of Stanford and Harvard Business School. twitter.com/calleymeans
ICAN Lead Counsel, Aaron Siri, Esq., gives presentation ‘What is Informed Consent’ before members of the Novel Coronavirus Southwestern Intergovernmental Committee in Arizona. He explains the imperative of Informed Consent, and pillars that make it an essential tenet of freedom and liberty.
My initial encounter with the mental health system has had a lasting impact on my life. At the age of 22, my first post-undergraduate job took me to a children’s psychiatric hospital, where I worked with children between the ages of 5 and 10.
These children, many of whom were victims of abuse and neglect, were placed on a cocktail of mind & mood-altering drugs to manage their behavior. Despite clear signs of acute stress, they were assigned pseudoscientific labels such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder, ADHD, and Bipolar Disorder, and subsequently treated with the latest psychiatric medications.
It became clear to me that the main goal was to numb and sedate the children, with the intention of reducing behavioral issues and making them more manageable. Lethargy, excessive sleep, and emotional numbness were considered secondary; the absence of aggression was viewed as a successful treatment outcome.
Unfortunately, the path to sedation often led to worsening mood, increased aggression, ticks, akathisia, and other disturbing side effects. Shockingly, many of these adverse drug reactions were misinterpreted as symptoms of their supposed “mental illness.”
The prevailing belief was that they needed their “medicine” to balance their brain chemicals. Disregarding their behavior as a result of their living conditions or natural post-trauma responses was overshadowed by the declaration of a mental illness.
Recalling that period in my life, nights were restless for me, haunted by distressing images of young children suffering with horrific side effects from their prescribed “medicine.”It weighed heavily on my conscience, knowing that I was part of a system that would inevitably return these same children to environments marked by abuse, often worse off than when they arrived.
What would happen to these kids? What is the implication of labeling them as mentally ill when it was clearly their environment that was the problem?
The duration of their stay in the psychiatric hospital was relatively brief, typically spanning 7-10 days for “stabilization” before being sent back home. For many of these kids, it became a disheartening pattern – a revolving door in and out of the hospital until they were eventually discharged to a residential facility.
What troubled me even more was the emotional detachment exhibited by the staff. I often found myself wondering if others shared my concerns.
Were there others struggling with sleepless nights as I did?
How could a psychiatrist rationalize such treatment as humane?
I questioned the bystanders—the nurses, social workers, and counselors on staff—did anyone else share my reservations and question the ethics of this approach?
What about the human condition can allow seemingly good people to accept this as safe and ethical care?
What I uncovered was a diffusion of responsibility among the staff—an acceptance that they had no authority and the doctor must possess greater knowledge. There was an uncanny ability to deny reality. Many staff members seemed to assume that there must be a valid medical reason necessitating these drugs for the children.
Some held onto the belief that a complex medical treatment was at play, where the doctor, armed with advanced knowledge of biochemistry, was meticulously fine-tuning the dosage of a medication to enhance a child’s life. I recall saying “like a mad chemist?”
The concept of mental illness as a brain disorder was widely accepted.
I began to question the evidence supporting these practices. It struck me that many staff members knew little beyond what they were told, yet they were entirely comfortable accepting it as unquestionable truth.
There appeared to be little motivation to challenge the authority or a seeming lack of concern about the veracity of the information. This lack of critical inquiry and complacency deeply troubled me and became an enduring source of concern.
After moving on from the hospital and continuing my education with the ultimate aim of becoming a clinical psychologist, I realized that the psychiatric treatment I had observed with children in the hospital was unfortunately the norm in most community settings.
Children, teens, and adults alike were often assigned pseudoscientific labels and placed on multiple drugs, with little evidence of substantial help. This was mental health care. The predominant approach seemed to revolve around offering various methods of numbing or sedation.
The typical “treatment” involved assigning a diagnose, adjustments to dosages, the addition of new drugs, or discontinuation of existing ones, all within the framework of managing, rather than believing in, any form of recovery. The prevailing attitude was that, being deemed mentally ill, genuine recovery was not a realistic expectation—only ongoing management. Working in some of these settings proved to be a soul-crushing experience.
Many readers may be all too familiar with mental health treatment in the United States, but the focus here isn’t on the system itself. Instead, the question at the heart of this article is about human nature: How can seemingly rational and compassionate professionals reconcile endorsing such a treatment as ethically sound?
What does this reveal about human nature?
This has been a persistent question for me over decades. How can fellow human beings become so disconnected from the suffering of others? How can intelligent doctors endorse the notion of a “chemical imbalance,” witness the decline of their patients, and continue justifying the treatment?
Why do bystanders choose not to act?
Indeed, let’s confront the reality: the entire psychiatric drug movement can be characterized as a form of mass experimentation on the human brain. The profound implications and consequences of this approach warrant serious reflection and examination.
Not on the experiment itself… but what it demonstrates about humanity.
What is Sociopathy?
A sociopath, clinically referred to as someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), is an individual characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others, coupled with a lack of empathy and remorse.
Sociopathy is marked by deceitfulness, impulsivity, irritability, aggressiveness, and a consistent failure to conform to societal norms. These people can exhibit a charming and manipulative demeanor, enabling them to navigate social situations adeptly while lacking genuine emotional connections. They may engage in deceitful or criminal behavior without experiencing guilt or remorse, displaying a persistent pattern of exploiting others for personal gain.
The term sociopath is used interchangeably with psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder.
What distinguishes a sociopath from the general population is the striking inability to experience fundamental human emotions, most notably empathy, guilt, and remorse. There exists a profound detachment from the typical spectrum of human feelings, and, notably, some sociopaths may derive pleasure from the suffering or exertion of control over others.
This absence of moral and emotional anchors can lead to a disturbing capacity for manipulation and exploitation, as sociopaths navigate social interactions with a calculated and often self-serving perspective, void of the emotional connections that guide typical human behavior.
An early Radically Genuine Podcast episode explored this topic: Episode 25 titled “The Sociopath Next Door”: Listen here
The central theme of the episode was to educate the listener on the prevalence of sociopathy in society and its implications, revealing how 4% of the general population meets the criteria for this condition. This translates to approximately 1 out of every 25 people, a far more common occurrence than many realize.
Importantly, not every sociopath fits the stereotype of a mass murderer or repeat offender. Instead, sociopaths can be found in various roles of power and authority within our society. Some may choose careers in politics, medicine, or leadership positions in Fortune 500 companies, while others could be working at your local grocery store. The recognition of this broader spectrum highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of sociopathy and its potential impact across diverse facets of daily life.
I am not suggesting that every medical professional involved in psychiatric practices is a sociopath, but rather recognizing that a percentage of individuals in all fields exhibit sociopathic traits, while others may display characteristics such as deference to authority, adherence to established rules, and a fear of acting outside the norms defined by their profession.
When individuals in positions of power, wielding both financial and political influence, have the ability to shape the narrative, it becomes clear how detrimental medical practices could persist and thrive.
This realization has shaped my understanding of the perpetuation of harmful practices. I’ve dispelled the illusion that all human beings invariably act in each other’s best interests. History has consistently demonstrated that people often prioritize their own self interest when confronted with moral dilemmas. Embracing this recognition has been instrumental in fostering a more realistic perspective on human behavior and motivations, especially within the context of challenging ethical considerations.
In fact, we are compelled to confront the reality that a contemporary movement exists, expressing a strong aversion for human beings and propagating the belief that the majority of us are mere parasites to them, consuming resources without providing any inherent value.
Transhumanism
Transhumanism is the position that human beings should be permitted to use technology to modify and enhance human cognition and bodily function, expanding abilities and capacities beyond current biological constraints.Ultimately, by merging man and machine, science will produce humans who have vastly increased intelligence, strength, and lifespans; a near embodiment of gods.
Transhumanist perspectives include the notion that human life is expendable in the pursuit of scientific advancements and innovation. This philosophical stance raises ethical considerations about the balance between technological progress and the preservation of human dignity, prompting a broader societal conversation about the potential consequences and moral implications of prioritizing scientific pursuits over the inherent value of human life.
The conflict between spiritual or religious beliefs and transhumanist ideologies encapsulates a profound clash of worldviews. On one side, individuals rooted in spirituality or religious traditions prioritize the sanctity of life, viewing it as divinely ordained and deserving of respect and preservation.
In contrast, transhumanists advocate for the enhancement and transcendence of human limitations through technological means, sometimes challenging traditional notions of mortality and the human experience. This dichotomy raises complex questions about the ethical boundaries of scientific intervention, the nature of existence, and the role of spirituality in shaping our understanding of humanity.
When Virtue Becomes a Blindspot
I genuinely believe that most individuals who support psychiatric medications perceive it as an inherently virtuous and compassionate act. The primary care doctors, nurse practitioners, and countless frontline psychiatrists prescribing medications daily are not inherently malevolent. Similarly, the parents who trust medical advice and diligently administer prescribed pills to alleviate their children’s suffering do so with the best intentions.
This belief is grounded in the recognition that, when someone is facing considerable distress, seeking solutions to ease their pain is inherently humane. Take persistent anxiety as an example, a condition that can be profoundly debilitating. Attempting to decrease anxiety to improve quality of life, on the surface, is reasonable.
Yet, beneath the surface lies a trust that these drugs, influencing the brain in ways that nobody could fully comprehend, will yield only positive outcomes. It’s a belief that suggests essential aspects of human nature and our inherent design are flawed. It suggests that a medical doctor can modify this experience by utilizing synthetic chemical compounds produced in a factory, with the expectation that this pharmaceutical will enhance the human experience.
These convictions are deeply ingrained in our culture, to the extent that people often reject contrary evidence when confronted with it. The reality, however, is that these chemical compounds seldom, if ever, result in a positive transformation of the human experience.
In some cases, these compounds lead to worsening conditions, while others find themselves in a state of numbness and sedation. Despite facing debilitating side effects, individuals endure them, driven by the idea that they themselves are fundamentally flawed—a supposed design error necessitating the intervention of these chemical compounds.
In the face of persistent suffering and worsening conditions brought on by the use of psychiatric drugs, I’ve observed mental health professionals attributing the decline to a “mental illness” rather than recognizing the consequences of the ongoing experiment on the patient’s brain.
This constitutes a form of brainwashing, a mass conditioning that persists for various complex reasons. Sociopaths, driven by a lack of empathy and fueled by a desire for profit and control, vehemently strive to maintain their position of authority and exploit the vulnerable for financial gain. Concurrently, the underlying transhumanism movement persistently conducts perverse experiments on human beings in an attempt to advance the human condition. Throughout history, there are also the bystanders who, for various reasons, allow these unethical practices to persist.
Lessons in Conformity
It runs deep. Our education system, spanning from grade school to medical school, often places a heavy emphasis on rote learning at the expense of fostering critical analysis and ethical considerations. The prevailing culture of standardized testing and rigid curricula tends to prioritize memorization of facts and figures rather than nurturing a deeper understanding of concepts and encouraging thoughtful inquiry.
Unfortunately, the result is a learning environment produces students who excel at regurgitating information but may lack the skills for independent thinking or ethical decision-making. Particularly in fields like medicine, where ethical considerations are paramount, the absence of dedicated education on ethics can have profound consequences.
In the realm of healthcare within a free society, an unquestioning deference to authority can prove particularly perilous. When individuals blindly trust medical professionals or institutional directives without engaging in critical scrutiny, it opens the door to harmful medical practices and compromises patient well-being.
The ethos of a free society demands an active and informed citizenry, especially in matters as personal and crucial as healthcare. Excessive deference in the medical realm can result in a lack of accountability and transparency, permitting harmful practices to persist. To safeguard the principles of individual health and autonomy, it is imperative for individuals to question medical authority, advocate for informed decision-making, and actively participate in shaping the ethical standards of healthcare delivery.
Indeed, it is a slippery slope. Without fostering critical analysis and ethical decision-making, we run the risk of relinquishing our medical freedom and blindly surrendering to medical authority.
Forced medical interventions without consent represent a blatant violation of free will and personal freedom, striking at the very core of individual autonomy. In a society that values personal agency and the right to make decisions about one’s own body, coercive medical practices undermine the fundamental principles of freedom. Such interventions strip individuals of their right to give informed consent, turning medical care into a tool of control rather than a service that respects individual choices.
The imposition of medical procedures without consent not only disregards the principle of bodily autonomy but also erodes the trust between individuals and the healthcare system. In a free society, respecting the sovereignty of personal decisions in matters of healthcare is paramount, and any breach of this principle threatens the foundation of individual freedom and self-determination.
If we relinquish the right to make informed medical decisions, we risk placing authority in the hands of individuals who may not prioritize our well-being. Sociopaths, lacking empathy and driven by personal gain, could exploit such a vacuum of autonomy for their own agendas.
Furthermore, a transhumanistic agenda, seeking to merge human biology with technology, might capitalize on the absence of individual decision-making, potentially leading to the imposition of radical medical interventions without regard for personal values or consent. Safeguarding the right to make our own medical choices becomes a crucial defense against potential abuses of power, ensuring that decisions about our health remain aligned with our individual beliefs and values rather than dictated by those who may not have our best interests at heart.
In April 2021 I had my AstraZeneca jab, ‘doing the right thing’ to protect myself and my family. I was a full-time teacher, fully fit: gym and swim three times a week. That Friday night I had a severe headache and tiredness.
By Monday morning, I couldn’t dress because of vertigo, nausea and migraines. By Thursday, my employer suggested I go to A&E as I’d been absent. A&E were concerned about my blood pressure and clots given that I’d had AZ. I was sent home and told to rest. I continued to be unable to work or function. In early May the GP sent for an ambulance from the surgery as my heart rate was 150 bpm at rest.
In the High Dependency Unit, I was asked after nine hours if I’d taken drugs as it was abnormal to have a heart rate and blood pressure like mine. I answered no and was discharged. Four days later I was back there via an ambulance, having blacked out trying to have a shower. The doctors were alarmed by my BP and HR again and gave me an analgesic. I was discharged.
I returned eight more times by ambulance with a racing heart rate, unable to breathe, pressure on my chest, gastroesophageal reflux, nausea, migraines, pins and needles, inability to control my temperature, slurred speech and vertigo. Despite all these symptoms, and being admitted with an irregular ECG I was told, ‘It’s stress. Go home with beta-blockers and we’ll arrange a heart echo and tape.’ The nurse said, ’This is wrong, you’ve pressure on your chest.’ Unable to breathe on beta-blockers, I was told by a GP: ‘It’s asthma, we’re not referring you, just use an inhaler.’ The hospital rang, said, ‘Your heart fell below 39 bpm. If this happens again call 999.’ The GP responded, ‘Just reduce beta-blockers.’
The hospital advised me to have Pfizer as my second jab. When I questioned this, I was told, ‘Do you want to die from Covid? You’re sick but you’ll be sicker if you catch it.’
In July 2021 I had my second jab. I experienced pins and needles but was told ‘You’re fine’ by the dispensing chemist. Two hours later my face swelled. That night I had to prop pillows under my back to breathe. I felt every nerve ending on my left side and my arm went dead. The metallic taste in my mouth was followed by a swollen tongue and an inability to swallow. My eyes were yellow. My heart raced.
The GP called and said ‘Come off the beta-blockers.’ My blood pressure dropped, I collapsed and an ambulance paramedic said, ‘It’s an SVT’. (Supraventricular tachycardia is a condition where your heart suddenly beats much faster than normal.) I was referred to a heart hospital. A cardiac nurse said, ‘You’re stressed, you need to go back to work and have CBT.’ (Cognitive behavioural therapy or ‘talking therapy’.) A later test showed ectopic beats and tachycardia. No phone call nor follow-up.
A gastroenterologist said, ‘I think you’re burping for attention, try Gaviscon.’ An allergy consultant said, ‘You’re struggling, it could be histamine.’ By now I couldn’t swallow properly, burped incessantly and struggled with speech/co-ordination/brain fog and living.
I fought to be referred to a long Covid clinic reluctantly by a GP. The clinic sent a link to an app and I had one online breathing session. That was it. I have paid thousands for referrals, private physio, holistic care just to get some semblance of a life back.
I was rejected by the benefits system by a phone call assessment in which they said, ‘Well, you concentrated for the assessment, so you can work.’ This was even though I broke down several times and asked for breaks. The small amount of ESA (employment and support allowance) I claimed in September 2021 was stopped as I missed a call from them.
The mental torture of being rejected by the NHS system, denied any help – financial or otherwise – and being branded a liar or fantasist by the very system that abused me, is as cruel as the broken body and devasting, life-changing symptoms the jab has left me with.
I now live with my parents. A one-night stay in April 21 turned into 20 months and full-time care. I lost my flat as I couldn’t work. I lost my job by September 2021 as I couldn’t dress, wash or eat independently. I couldn’t breathe, walk or function.
These injections have destroyed my life, my body and to some degree my soul. I’m lucky I had somewhere to go; someone to call an ambulance; someone to financially support me, to feed me and take care of me. Thousands haven’t and I understand the suicide rate is high. I am not surprised. It is the lack of empathy and understanding, and the brandishing of people as ‘liars and fantasists’ by the very system that abused us, that is as cruel as the initial violence itself.
I don’t know my future, but I do know this has been a cruel, abusive and life-altering ‘experiment’ on my body and mind. My message would be to support victims, at least believe them. This IS happening.
"Scenes of the Occupation from Gaza", a short film by Abu Ali Mustafa, released in 1973. As the title suggests, this film presents what everyday life was like for Gazans back in the 1970s, documenting the IOF's barbarism and also the steadfast resistance. pic.twitter.com/nvT2mYMUFP
I am sharing my reflections from my visits to Palestine over the years. I was truly saddened and shocked by the way Israel treated the Palestinians. It’s important to note this was years before Oct 7, which provides a Palestinian perspective. pic.twitter.com/XcOmcp6X4c
The Israeli army killed ten Gazans who insisted on returning from the south to the north of the Gaza Strip, contrary to the army’s instructions, Israeli journalist Avishai Grinzaig of the Kan public broadcaster reported on 1 January.
Grinzaig wrote on X that, “Anyone who crossed a certain line, the soldiers shot to kill. After ten bodies, the Gazans understood the hint and retraced their steps.”
In November, Palestinians who had fled south to escape the fighting in northern Gaza used the four-day truce to try to return to their homes but were similarly shot by Israeli forces as they attempted the trip.
Israel had warned people that they will not be allowed to return to the north of the war-torn enclave.
Al-Jazeerapublished video showing Palestinians returning to their homes in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip, despite the Israeli army’s insistence that it is a combat zone.
The Qatari news outlet reported that Israeli troops killed two Palestinians and wounded 11 as they attempted the trip to northern Gaza.
Israel dropped leaflets over southern Gaza, warning the hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians who sought refuge there not to return north amid its ground offensive, reported the Associated Press.
But hundreds nevertheless attempted to walk north during the truce.
An Israeli military spokesperson, Avichay Adraee, released a statement in Arabic on X saying, “Residents of Gaza, the movement of the population from the south of the Strip to the north will not be allowed in any way, but only from the north to the south,” it read.
“We invite you not to approach the military forces and the areas north of the Gaza Valley. Take advantage of the time to replenish your needs and arrange your affairs,” he said.
Israeli politicians continue to make statements indicating they seek to ethnically cleanse Gaza by forcing its 2.3 million inhabitants to flee first to southern Gaza, then to Egypt or other countries. Israeli politicians have lobbied Egypt and European nations to accept Palestinians from Gaza as refugees, under the pretext of solving the humanitarian crisis resulting from Israel’s own bombing campaign.
On 30 November, The Wall Street Journalreported “The war in the Gaza Strip is generating destruction comparable in scale to the most devastating urban warfare in the modern record.”
“By mid-December, Israel had dropped 29,000 bombs, munitions and shells on the strip. Nearly 70% of Gaza’s 439,000 homes and about half of its buildings have been damaged or destroyed. The bombing has damaged Byzantine churches and ancient mosques, factories and apartment buildings, shopping malls and luxury hotels, theaters and schools. Much of the water, electrical, communications and healthcare infrastructure that made Gaza function is beyond repair. Most of the strip’s 36 hospitals are shut down, and only eight are accepting patients,” theUS newspaper explained.
The destruction resembles that left by US bombing of German cities during World War II. “The word ‘Gaza’ is going to go down in history along with Dresden and other famous cities that have been bombed,” said Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago and the author of a history of aerial bombing. “What you’re seeing in Gaza is in the top 25% of the most intense punishment campaigns in history.”
Israel’s bombing of Gaza has killed over 21,000 people, the majority women and children, since the start of the war on 7 October.
The illusory truth effect, also dubbed the illusion of truth or reiteration effect, refers to our inclination to accept false information as accurate when exposed to it repeatedly. When evaluating the truth, individuals often gauge information based on its alignment with their existing knowledge or its familiarity. The former is a logical process, as people naturally compare new information with their established truths. Through repetition, statements become more easily processed compared to novel, unrepeated information, leading individuals to perceive the reiterated conclusion as more truthful.
For decades, a uniform message about antidepressant drugs has been consistently delivered to physicians, and by extension, to the public. Specific advertising tactics have been utilized to target the general population.
Antidepressant drugs correct an underlying deficiency in brain chemicals associated with low mood.
Antidepressant drugs are safe and effective because they have been approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). Any adverse reactions are rare and benefits outweigh the risks.
Antidepressant drugs have decades of evidence demonstrating they are superior to placebo in clinical trials.
Antidepressant drugs should be combined with a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and if therapy is not available the drugs by themselves are just as effective.
Antidepressant drugs can be utilized across a spectrum of psychiatric presentations, including anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), general stress, grief, and eating disorders.
99% of medical professionals and a majority of mental health professionals continue to embrace these five assertions as truths. In actuality, they are blatant falsehoods—deceptive proclamations carefully propagated by pharmaceutical companies to boost their product sales. How did this happen?
History of “Antidepressants”
The history of antidepressants traces back to a serendipitous discovery in the 1950s. Initially developed to find a cure for tuberculosis, chemists experimented with surplus rocket fuel from World War II stockpiles. Two chemicals, iproniazid, and isoniazid, showed promise for destroying bacteria. Although the intended tuberculosis cure failed, researchers observed varying effects on patients’ mental states and behavior. The initial drugs had significant adverse effects and high toxicity, necessitating strict regimens and limiting their use. Yet, the concept of influencing mood and behavior by targeting specific brain chemicals with pharmaceuticals emerged.
The Serotonin Hypothesis & SSRI’s
The concept linking clinical depression to deficient serotonin activity in the brain dates back over 50 years, with the initial proposal by British psychiatrist Alec Coppen in 1967. In his review, Coppen considered various factors, including noradrenaline, excess cortisol secretion, and electrolyte disturbances, as potential causes. During Coppen’s time, direct investigation of neurochemistry in the living human brain wasn’t feasible.
Support for the serotonin hypothesis largely came from the effects of antidepressant drugs, like monoamine oxidase inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants, which were shown to enhance serotonin action in animal experiments. Coppen cautioned, however, that these drugs’ actions might be therapeutic maneuvers unrelated to the root causes of most depression cases.
For centuries, depression was viewed as a malady of the soul, a consequence of hardship. However, a pivotal shift occurred over 50 years ago when scientists, seeking to unravel the biological roots of mood, started conceptualizing depression as a brain disease. This shift coincided with the discovery of biogenic amines, particularly noradrenaline and serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT), as brain transmitters. This breakthrough paved the way for pharmaceutical companies to create Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI’s) aimed at alleviating the profound suffering of severe depression by increasing the availability of serotonin.
SSRIs mainly target the serotonin transporter (SERT) in the brain, with minimal impact on dopamine transporter (DAT) and norepinephrine transporter (NET). Inhibiting serotonin (5-HT) binding to SERT boosts 5-HT concentration in the synaptic cleft, theoretically improving depression symptoms. Yet, recent systematic reviews have found no correlation between brain 5-HT levels or activity and depressive symptoms. The serotonin hypothesis was never proven.
Drug Manufacturers Design Clinical Trials to Produce Favorable Results
Many consumers are unaware that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) does not test drugs in the approval process. Instead, drug manufacturers test their drugs and submit their own results to the FDA for review. Hoping to convince the FDA and investors of the safety and effectiveness of their new drug, manufacturers go to great lengths to report positive results in clinical trials.
Several strategies manufacturers use to design clinical trials to make their drugs look better than they are:
Test your drug against a treatment that either does not work or does not work very well.
Test your drug against too low a dose of the comparison drug because this will make your drug appear more effective.
Test your drug against too high a dose of the comparison drug because this will make your drug appear less toxic.
Publish the tests of a single multicenter trial many times because this will suggest that multiple studies reached the same conclusions.
Publish only that part of a trial that favors your drug, and bury the rest of it.
Fund many clinical trials, then publish only those that make your product look good.
While the FDA asks for raw data from clinical trials, it lacks resources to independently verify drug manufacturers’ submitted work for accuracy.
Examining the history of SSRIs, it becomes evident that drug manufacturers faced challenges in demonstrating their drug’s superiority over placebos. To overcome this hurdle, they utilized the aforementioned strategies to expedite the approval and market presence of their drugs.
Ghost Writing & Hidden Harms
A study published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology revealed that a third of meta-analyses of antidepressant studies were written by pharma employees and that these were 22 times less likely than other meta-studies to include negative statements about the drug.
Researchers examined documents from 70 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of two common types of antidepressants—selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI)—and found that the occurrence of suicidal thoughts and aggressive behavior doubled in children and adolescents who used these medications.
They discovered that some of most the useful information was in individual patient listings buried in the appendices. For example, they uncovered suicide attempts that were passed off as “emotional liability” or “worsening depression” in the report itself. This information, however, was only available for 32 out of the 70 trials.
Additionally, another research group reported that after reanalyzing the data from Study 329, a 2001 clinical trial of Paxil funded by GlaxoSmithKline, they uncovered exaggerated efficacy and undisclosed harm to adolescents.
Selling Lies
Drug companies employ extensive advertising, targeting both physicians and consumers, to propagate neuroscientific theories about mental illness. These campaigns aim to persuade doctors and patients that their products possess a clear, objective, and scientific connection to the symptoms they purportedly treat.
In American popular culture, the prevailing perception of mental illness is often simplified—an individual strolling down the street, life seemingly fine, until an abrupt chemical imbalance arises out of the blue. Through direct-to-consumer advertising, drug companies have crafted a straightforward marketing approach, easily comprehensible to the public and readily communicable by physicians. The chemical imbalance lie was born.
This theory significantly fueled the emergence of biological psychiatrists, transforming the psychiatry profession. It shifted the focus from therapies and managing severe mental illness to legitimizing psychiatrists as medical doctors who treat patients’ organic diseases. Similar to internists addressing insulin shortages in diabetics, psychiatrists began addressing serotonin deficiencies in depressed patients. Depression was no longer seen as just a natural response to stress, there was now an underlying biological factor which was the cause of the depression.
Pharmaceutical companies found an expanded customer base by normalizing depression and aligning with the psychiatric medical establishment. This allowed them to broaden the diagnosis criteria and market their drugs to a significantly larger audience. They further enlisted academics from prestigious institutions to endorse their drugs at national conferences and produce papers on the drugs’ effects, essentially turning them into paid spokespeople. The outcome: billions in annual sales and a considerable expansion of psychiatry’s role in American society.
For an expanded look at the corruption I highly recommend this article from Mad in America: Read here
Infiltrate Primary Care & Influence Guidelines
In recent years, there has been growing concern about the infiltration of drug companies into primary care centers, notably to promote psychiatric drugs. Pharmaceutical companies often establish strategic partnerships with healthcare providers, offering educational materials, financial incentives, and even sponsored events to influence prescribing patterns. It is now believed that more than 80% of antidepressant drugs are prescribed in primary care.
Pediatricians, burdened by time constraints, find themselves at a heightened risk of pathologizing normal reactions and succumbing to the pressures of overdiagnosing clinical depression. What’s more troubling is that these diagnoses often rely on biased screening measures, conveniently developed by the very pharmaceutical industry that profits from the sale of these drugs.
If you’re curious about the potential reasons behind the American Academy of Pediatrics’ inclination to amplify the number of children identified as depressed, as well as their willingness to misrepresent scientific literature by overestimating the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs and downplaying their potential risks, it’s worth examining their major donors.
The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention receives 63% of its funding from industry. The major donors include: Pfizer, Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, Mallinckrodt pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb and other pharmaceutical companies. If you examine the top 10 list of donors (unknown amount of funding) these other companies, foundations and organizations have major ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Primary care doctors, constrained by time pressures, are increasingly compelled to adhere to industry-established guidelines that advocate antidepressant drugs as frontline, effective, and safe interventions for a range of psychiatric presentations.
How to Reclaim Truth
Advocate for informed consent. It is your legal and ethical right to comprehend the risks and benefits.
Reframe the narrative around psychiatric drugs. Let’s call them what they are – drugs, not medicine.
Educate your primary care doctors. They weren’t trained to address mental health issues and are unknowingly perpetuating pharmaceutical marketing misinformation. They are operating beyond their boundaries of competence.
Challenge the notion of a chemical imbalance. Depression is not a “brain disease.” Dispel these myths to foster a more accurate understanding of mental health.
Dennis Meadows of the Club of Rome wants to reduce the world’s population by almost 90%, without complaint or resistance from the people being eliminated.
As context is very important for all videos; this message is to confirm that the purpose of this video is reporting on or documenting the content. Note that we make an effort to research for context and cite our sources when necessary.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Closing days of the book I am writing for and with Dr. James Thorp, I tackled, this evening, the persona, the figure, the puppet, the vaccine “brand ambassador” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who kicked off—as you know—a mass die off event of American babies at every stage of gestation, and after birth.
Once they branded the shots as “safe and effective” in pregnancy, they were able to psychologically roll in and colonize the whole world.
Naturally, Walensky came from the AIDS cabal.
I listened to this exchange between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Walensky, and felt the familiar despair of watching corporate public health murderers wriggle free because they do not recognize language. Rather, they deploy their own. They answer something not asked. They answer concrete questions about mass death with goal-post moving deflections about how great their apparatus is.
This is the stuff of very advanced narcissists. Or maybe “public health officials” are their own category of narcissists. (Presumptuous, false, no soul, no empathy, very busy cleaning up the world of all that lives.)
Still, I don’t know how to write about this person, Rochelle Walensky. It’s impossible to know anything about her.
When you watch this, if you watch it, consider my (forthcoming in 2024) new direction, which is to analyze how Monarch programming operates.
The two women sound very different. How does Walensky manage to not break a sweat, manage to say so sanguine?
Also, why didn’t she “have any plans” for a new position after leaving the CD? And why did she leave? Or why was she fired? She performed perfectly.
Here she speaks to the CDC’s desire to “vaccinate” perfectly healthy children.
BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • NOVEMBER 13, 2021
By a strange paradox, most Kennedy researchers who believe that Oswald was “just a patsy” spend an awful lot of time exploring his biography. This is about as useful as investigating Osama bin Laden for solving 9/11. Any serious quest for the real assassins of JFK should start by investigating the man who shot Oswald at pointblank in the stomach at 11:21 a.m. on September 24, 1963 in the Dallas Police station, thereby sealing the possibility that a judicial inquiry would draw attention to the inconsistencies of the charge against him, and perhaps expose the real perpetrators. One would normally expect the Dallas strip-club owner Jack Ruby to be the most investigated character by Kennedy truthers. But that is not the case. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 