Two days after Russia attacked Ukraine and the day before Vladimir Putin put Russia on nuclear alert, I wrote a little article whose first sentence was: “Not wanting to sound hyperbolic, but I am starting to conclude that the nuclear madmen running the U.S./NATO New Cold War they started decades ago are itching to start a nuclear war with Russia.”
It was an intuition based on my knowledge of U.S./Russia history, including the U.S engineered coup in Ukraine in 2014, and a reading of current events. I refer to it as intuition, yet it is based on a lifetime’s study and teaching of political sociology and writing against war. I am not a Russian scholar, simply a writer with a sociological, historical, and artistic imagination, although my first graduate academic study in the late 1960s was a thesis on nuclear weapons and why they might be someday used again.
It no longer sounds hyperbolic to me that madmen in the declining U.S. Empire might resort, like rats in a sinking ship, to first strike use of nuclear weapons, which is official U.S. policy. My stomach is churning at the thought, despite what most experts say: that the chances of a nuclear war are slight. And despite what others say about the Ukraine war: that it is an intentional diversion from the Covid propaganda and the Great Reset (although I agree it achieves that goal).
My gut tells me no; it is very real, sui generis, and very, very dangerous now.
The eminent scholar Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research agrees that we are very close to the unthinkable. In a recent historical analysis of U.S.-Russia relations and nuclear weapons, he writes the following before quoting Vladimir Putin’s recent statement on the matter. “Vladimir Putin’s statement on February 21st, 2022 was a response to U.S. threats to use nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis against Russia, despite Joe Biden’s “reassurance” that the U.S. would not be resorting to ‘A first strike’ nuclear attack against an enemy of America”:
Let me [Putin] explain that U.S. strategic planning documents contain the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike against enemy missile systems. And who is the main enemy for the U.S. and NATO? We know that too. It’s Russia. In NATO documents, our country is officially and directly declared the main threat to North Atlantic security. And Ukraine will serve as a forward springboard for the strike.” (Putin Speech, February 21, 2022, emphasis added)
Putin is absolutely correct. It is why he put Russia’s nuclear forces on full alert. Only those ignorant of history, which sadly includes most U.S. Americans, don’t know this.
I believe that today we are in the greatest danger of a nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, something I vividly remember as a teenager. The same feelings return. Dread. Anxiety. Breathlessness. I do not think these feelings are misplaced nor they are simply an emotional response. I try to continue writing on other projects that I have started but feel stymied. The possibility of nuclear war, whether intentional or accidental, obsesses me.
In order to grasp this stomach-churning possibility within the context of Ukraine, we need to put aside all talk of morality, rights, international law, and think in terms of great power politics, as John Mearsheimer has so clearly articulated. As he says, when a great power feels its existence is threatened, might makes right. You simply can’t understand world politics without thinking at this level. Doing so does not mean justifying the use of might; it is a means of clarifying the causes of wars, which start long before the first shots are fired.
In the present crisis over Ukraine, Russia clearly feels existentially threatened by U.S./NATO military moves in Ukraine and in eastern Europe where they have positioned missiles that can be very quickly converted to nuclear and are within a few minutes range of Russia. (And of course there are U.S./NATO nuclear missiles throughout western and southern Europe.) Vladimir Putin has been talking about this for many years and is factually correct. He has reiterated that this is unacceptable to Russia and must stop. He has pushed for negotiations to end this situation.
The United States, despite its own Monroe Doctrine that prohibits another great power from putting weapons or military forces close to its borders, has blocked its ears and kept upping the ante, provoking Russian fears. This fact is not in dispute but is shrugged off by U.S./NATO as of little consequence. Such an attitude is pure provocation as anyone with a smidgeon of historical awareness knows.
The world was very lucky sixty years ago this October when JFK and Nikita Khrushchev negotiated the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis before the world was incinerated. Kennedy, of course, was intensely pressured by the military and CIA to bomb Cuba, but he resisted. He also rejected the insane military desire to nuke the Soviet Union, calling such people crazy; at a National Security Council meeting on September 12, 1963, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a report about a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union which they wanted for that fall, he said, “Preemption is not possible for us.”
Such leadership, together with the nuclear test ban treaty he negotiated with the USSR that month, inter alia (such treaties have now been abrogated by the U.S. government), assured his assassination organized by the CIA. These days, the U.S. is led by deluded men who espouse a nuclear first strike policy, which tells one all one needs to know about the danger the world is in. The U.S. has been very sick with Russia hatred for a long time.
After the terror of the Cuban Missile Crisis, many more people took the threat of nuclear war seriously. Today very few do. It has receded into the ”unimaginable.” In 1962, however, as James W. Douglass writes in JFK and the Unspeakable:
Kennedy saw that, at least outside Washington, D.C., people were living with a deeper awareness of the ultimate choice they faced. Nuclear weapons were real. So, too, was the prospect of peace. Shocked by the Cuban Missile Crisis into recognizing a real choice, people preferred peace to annihilation.
Today the reality of nuclear annihilation has receded into unconsciousness. This despite the recent statements by U.S. generals and the U.S. Ukrainian puppet Zelensky about nuclear weapons and their use that have extremely inflamed Russia’s fears, which clearly is intentional. The game is to have some officials say it and then deny it while having a policy that contradicts your denial. Keep pushing the envelope is U.S. policy. Obama-Biden reigned over the U.S. 2014 coup in Ukraine, Trump increased weapon sales to Ukraine in 2017, and Biden has picked up the baton from his partner (not his enemy) in this most deadly game. It is a bi-partisan Cold War 2, getting very hot. And it is the reason why Russia, its back to the wall, attacked Ukraine. It is obvious that this is exactly what the U.S. wanted or it would have acted very differently in the leadup to this tragedy. All the current winging of hands is pure hypocrisy, the nihilism of a nuclear power never for one moment threatened but whose designs were calculated to threaten Russia at its borders.
The media propaganda against Russia and Putin is the most extreme and extensive propaganda in my lifetime. Patrick Lawrence has astutely examined this in a recent essay, where he writes the same is true for him:
Many people of many different ages have remarked in recent days that they cannot recall in their lifetimes a more pervasive, suffocating barrage of propaganda than what has engulfed us since the months that preceded Russia’s intervention. In my case it has come to supersede the worst of what I remember from the Cold War decades.
Engulfed is an appropriate word. Lawrence rightly points to this propaganda as cognitive warfare directed at the U.S. population (and the rest of the world) and notes its connection to the January 2021 final draft of a “diabolic” NATO study called “Cognitive Warfare.” He quotes it thus: “The brain will be the battlefield of the 21st century,” . . . “Humans are the contested domain. Cognitive warfare’s objective is to make everyone a weapon.”
This cognitive warfare, however, has a longer history in cutting edge science. For each successive decade beginning with the 1990s and a declaration from President (and ex-Director of the CIA) George H. W. Bush that the 1990s would be the Decade of Brain Research, presidents have announced additional decades long projects involving the brain, with 2000-2010 being the Decade of Behavior Project, followed by mapping of the brain, artificial intelligence, etc. all organized and funded through the Office of Science and Technology Project (OSTP) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This medical, military, and scientific research has been part of a long range plan to extend MK-Ultra’s mind control to the population at large under the cover of medical science, and it has been simultaneously connected to the development and funding of the pharmaceutical industries research and development of new brain-altering drugs. RFK, Jr. has documented the CIA’s extensive connection to germ and mind research and promotion in his book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. It is why his book is banned from the mainstream media, who do the prime work of cognitive warfare for the government. To put it clearly: these media are the CIA. And the issue of U.S. bio-weapons research and development is central to these many matters, including in Ukraine.
In other words, the cognitive warfare we are now being subjected to has many tentacles connected to much more than today’s fanatical anti-Russian propaganda over Ukraine. All the U.S. wars of aggression have been promoted under its aegis, as have the lies about the attacks of September 11, 2001, the economic warfare by the elites, the COVID crisis, etc. It’s one piece.
Take, for example, a book written in 2010 by David Ray Griffin, a renown theologian who has written more than a dozen books about 9/11. The book is Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. It is a critique of law professor Cass Sunstein, appointed by Obama to be the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein had written an article with a plan for the government to prevent the spread of anti-government “conspiracy theories” in which he promoted the use of anonymous government agents to use secret “cognitive infiltration” of these groups in order to break them up; to use media plants to disparage their arguments. He was particularly referring to those who questioned the official 9/11 narrative but his point obviously extended much further. He was working in the tradition of the great propagandists. Griffin took a scalpel to this call for cognitive warfare and was of course a victim of it as well. Sunstein has since worked for the World Health Organization (WHO) on COVID psychological responses and other COVID committees. It’s all one piece.
Sunstein’s wife is Samantha Power, Obama’s Ambassador to the United Nations and war hawk extraordinaire. She gleefully promoted the U.S. destruction of Libya under the appellation of the “responsibility to protect,” a “humane” cover for imperialism. Now she is Biden’s Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), an arm of the CIA throughout the world. It’s all one piece.
The merry-go-round goes round and round.
I have gone off on this slight tangent to emphasize how vast and interconnected are the players and groups on Team Cognitive Warfare. They have been leading the league for quite some time and are hoping their game plan against Team Russia will keep them there. So far they are winning, as Patrick Lawrence says:
Look at what has become of us. Most Americans seem to approve of these things, or at least are unstirred to object. We have lost all sense of decency, of ordinary morality, of proportion. Can anyone listen to the din of the past couple of weeks without wondering if we have made of ourselves a nation of grotesques?
It is common to observe that in war the enemy is always dehumanized. We are now face to face with another reality: Those who dehumanize others dehumanize themselves more profoundly.
Perhaps people are too ignorant to see through the propaganda. To have some group to hate is always “uplifting.” But we are all responsible for the consequences of our actions, even when those actions are just buying the propaganda and hating those one is told to hate. It is very hard to accept that the leaders of your own country commit and contemplate unspeakable evil deeds and that they wish to control your mind. To contemplate that they might once again use nuclear weapons is unspeakable but necessary if we are to prevent it.
I hope my fears are unfounded. I agree with Gilbert Doctorow that the Ukraine-Russia war separates the sheep from the goats, that there is no middle ground. This is not to celebrate war and the death of innocent people, but it does demand placing the blame squarely where it belongs and not trying to have it both ways. People like him, John Mearsheimer, the late badly missed Stephen Cohen, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Pepe Escobar, Patrick Lawrence, Jack Matlock, Ted Postol, et al. are all cutting through the propaganda and delivering truth in opposition to all the lies. They go gentile with fears of nuclear war, however, as if it is somewhat possible but highly unlikely, as if their deepest thoughts are unspeakable, for to utter them would be an act of despondency.
The consensus of the experts tends to be that the U.S. wishes to draw the Russians into a long protracted guerrilla war along the lines of its secret use of mujahideen in Afghanistan in 1979 and after. There is evidence that this is already happening. But I think the U.S. strategists know that the Russians are too smart for that; that they have learned their lesson; and that they will withdraw once they feel they have accomplished their goals. Therefore, from the U.S./NATO perspective, time is reasonably short and they must act quickly, perhaps by doing a false flag operation that will justify a drastic response, or upping the tempo in some other way that would seem to justify the use of nuclear weapons, perhaps tactical at first.
I appreciate the input of the Russia experts I mentioned above. Their expertise dwarfs mine, but I disagree. Perhaps I am an excitable sort; perhaps I am one of those Patrick Lawrence refers to, quoting Carl Jung, as too emotional and therefore incapable of clear thinking. (I will leave the issue of this long held but erroneous western philosophical belief in the division of emotions and thoughts for another day.) Perhaps I can’t see the obvious that a nuclear war will profit no one and therefore it cannot happen. Yet Ted Postol, MIT professor of technology and international security, while perhaps agreeing that an intentional nuclear war is very unlikely, has been warning of an accidental one for many years. He is surely right on that score and well worth listening to.
But either way, I am sorry to say, perhaps because my perspective is that of a generalist, not an expert, and my thinking is informed by art as much as social science and history, my antennae pick up a very disturbing message. A voice tells me that the danger is very, very real today. It says:
According to Yahoo! News, “More than two dozen foreign policy experts have called for the United States and NATO to institute a partial no-fly zone over Ukraine, which would serve as an escalation of the conflict with Russia.” Joining them is Illinois Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who also happens to be a former Air Force combat officer. That would mean the U.S. military would be shooting down Russian planes containing Russian soldiers.
So far, the idea is being resisted by President Biden and the military-intelligence establishment. However, given the extreme anti-Putin mentality that characterizes Biden, the Pentagon, and the CIA, their position could easily change on a moment’s notice.
In July 1961, the U.S. military establishment was pressing Kennedy to launch a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, China, and all the other communist-bloc countries, similar to the surprise attack that Japan initiated against the United States at Pearl Harbor.
Their attitude was that there was inevitably going to be a nuclear war anyway between the United States and the Soviet Union. Given such, the generals believed that it would be in the best interests of the United States to fire first in order to disable a large portion of the Soviet nuclear arsenal.
The generals acknowledged to Kennedy that under their first-strike surprise-attack plan, the United States would nonetheless suffer a large number of deaths — like in the neighborhood of, say, 70 million people — as well as significant destruction of property.
But there would still be tens of millions of Americans who would survive, given that the surprise attack would disable much of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. The important part of the first-strike plan was that there would be no Russians, Chinese, or other communists who would survive the massive U.S. surprise nuclear attack. Since there would still be millions of Americans surviving, that would mean that America will have prevailed as the winner in the war, under indefinite military rule of course.
There is something else that is worth noting: The Pentagon’s plan called for the launching of the surprise nuclear attack “during a period of heightened tensions” with Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union.
To his everlasting credit, Kennedy walked out during the middle of the meeting in total disgust.In the process, he turned to his Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and stated, “And we call ourselves the human race.” Do you see why they hated the guy so much?
Was that military mindset passed down from generation to generation within the Pentagon? I don’t know. But what I do know is that the political gamesmanship that the Pentagon and the CIA have played to maneuver Russia into having to choose between invading Ukraine versus permitting the Pentagon and the CIA to establish military bases, missiles, tanks, and weapon on Russia’s border constitutes an evil, irresponsible, and dangerous game, one that comes with the possibility of nuclear fire.
In the midst of this war, where the Pentagon and the CIA are furnishing weaponry to the Ukrainians to help them kill Russian soldiers, and where U.S. officials are targeting the Russian people with death and impoverishment with brutal economic sanctions, any mishap can easily lead to a rapid escalation of hostilities between the United States and Russia, one in which it becomes in the interest of both sides to initiate a first-strike nuclear attack. Moreover, there is no telling what any exhausted person, including Vladimir Putin, will do when he is under severe pressure in a highly stressful war situation.
That’s one big reason why this entire escapade is so highly evil and irresponsible, even if it is resolved without a war between the United States and Russia. And make no mistake about the cause of the crisis: It’s not about liberty. It is entirely about NATO, the Pentagon-CIA-controlled bureaucratic dinosaur that should have gone out of existence when the Cold War racket supposedly ended decades ago. If NATO had been abolished back then, this crisis in Ukraine would never have happened. All those dead people in Ukraine would still be alive today.
In the final analysis, President Biden, the Pentagon, and the CIA were willing to sacrifice any number of Ukrainians for the sake of having Ukraine join NATO, which would thereby permit the Pentagon and the CIA to establish U.S. military bases, missiles, tanks, and weaponry on Russia’s border.
If that isn’t evil, I don’t know what is. Not one single Ukrainian life was worth NATO, the corrupt bureaucratic dinosaur that should have gone out of existence a long time ago.
Even worse, their unswerving devotion to NATO has clearly motivated Biden, the Pentagon, and the CIA to run the risk of a war with Russia, a war that could easily turn nuclear and cost the lives of countless millions of Americans. If that’s not evil, I don’t know what is. I do know this: NATO, that corrupt bureaucratic Cold War-era dinosaur, is not worth risking the life of even one American, much less untold millions of Americans.
If the United States can escape a nuclear conflict with Russia this time, there is no telling when the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s political gamesmanship will produce the same sort of crisis in the future, either against Russia, China, or North Korea. That’s one big reason it is imperative that the American people do some serious soul-searching about what they want out of life. If they want a crisis-filled life that might well end up at some point in a nuclear holocaust, then they should keep the national-security state form of governmental structure that was brought into existence after World War II. If Americans instead want a life filled with liberty, peace, prosperity, security, and harmony, there is but one solution: restore America’s founding system of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist foreign policy.
This is a scandal of immense proportions that warrants an immediate investigation.
First, let’s set the stage:
— Over one year ago, there were ample peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials that provided strong evidence on ivermectin’s efficacy as a treatment for COVID in every disease phase.
— A paper considering these many studies was written by lead author Dr. Andrew Hill at the University of Liverpool for the World Health Organization’s COVID Guideline Development Group. Hill was an early and vigorous proponent for ivermectin. His paper showed that ivermectin could reduce deaths by 75% if used throughout the world.
— Inexplicably, just days before its publication, the paper appeared on a pre-print server, with its conclusions changed. Instead of concluding that ivermectin—one of the world’s safest and most inexpensive drugs— should be rolled out globally, it now concluded that more studies on ivermectin were needed before it could be recommended worldwide. Given the totality of scientific evidence for ivermectin, it was a stunning—actually shocking—reversal by Dr. Hill.
—In an urgent Zoom call to Dr. Hill initiated by Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy, Dr. Hill admitted to her that one of his study’s sponsors, Unitaid, had a say in the conclusions of his paper. But he would not divulge the name(s) of those who altered the paper’s conclusions.
But now, “The Digger” on Substack (aka producer/director Phil Harper) has revealed the name of the person who could have edited the paper’s conclusions—which led to the WHO’s non-recommendation of the use of ivermectin. That decision could have led to the unnecessary deaths of millions across the world.
GASP.
Mr. Harper studied the PDF of the paper, wanting to learn the identity of its “ghost” author. “The hope was that some artifact on the PDF would reveal something, maybe a font was different, maybe there was a hidden comment, maybe some tracked changes had been saved to the document,” said Harper. “None of those lines of inquiry came to anything.”
Then it came to him. Was it in the PDF’s metadata? “Sometimes it’s the most obvious of things,” Harper writes. “The ‘v1_stamped’ version of the paper did indeed have metadata. It even had author information inside the metadata. Expecting to see Andrew Hill listed as the author, instead, I saw a name I recognized. Andrew Owen.
“Unless someone used his computer, Andrew Owen has his digital fingerprint on the Andrew Hill paper.”
Professor Andrew Owen is the person who allegedly edited the critical Andrew Hill paper on Ivermectin. He was also in receipt of consultancy fees from pharmaceutical companies with competing products.
As it turns out, Andrew Owen is a Professor of Pharmacology & Therapeutics and co-Director of the Centre of Excellence in Long-acting Therapeutics (CELT) at the University of Liverpool. He is also scientific advisor to the WHO’s COVID-19 Guideline Development Group. Just days before Dr. Hill’s paper was to be published, a $40M grant from Unitaid, the paper’s sponsor, was given to CELT —of which Owen is the project lead. “The $40 million contract was actually a commercial agreement between Unitaid, the University of Liverpool and Tandem Nano Ltd (a start-up company that commercializes ‘Solid Lipid Nanoparticle’ delivery mechanisms)— for which Andrew Owen is a top shareholder,” says Harper.
Furthermore, Harper writes that, “Andrew Owen is prolific in the art of receiving money from pharmaceutical companies. He’s received research funding from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Tibotec, Roche Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Myers Squibb.”
GASP.
Read the entire essay HERE. In it, Harper reveals much, much more. This is just the latest in a series of postings on ‘The Digger’ exposing the machinations and the backdoor wheeling and dealing to prevent ivermectin from saving lives so that other, more profitable (and scientifically proven more dangerous) designer drugs could take center stage and make bank.
Earlier this year, a phrase was trending because Bari Weiss used it on a talk show: “I’m done with Covid.” Many people cheered simply because the subject has been the source of vast oppression for billions of people for two years.
There are two ways to be over Covid.
One way is to do what the memo from the consultants of the Democratic National Committee suggested: declare the war won and move on. For political reasons.
Deaths attributed to Covid nationally are higher now than they were in the summer of 2020 when the whole country was locked down. They are also higher now than during the election of November the same year. But today we are just supposed to treat it for what it is: a seasonal virus with a disparate impact on the aged and frail.
Rationality is back! In that sense, it’s good to forget about Covid if it means living life normally and behaving with clarity about what does and does not work to mitigate a virus. The Democrats decided that the hyper-restrictionist ways were risking political fortunes. Hence, the line and the talking points needed to change.
Another way to get over Covid is to forget completely about the last two years, especially the astonishing failures of compulsory pandemic controls. Forget about the school closures that cost a generation two years of learning. Forget that the hospitals were largely closed to people without a Covid-related malady. Forget about the preventable nursing-home deaths. Forget that dentistry was practically abolished for a few months, or that one could not even get a haircut.
Forget the stay-at-home orders, the church and business closures, the playground and gym closures, the bankruptcies, the travel restrictions, the firings, the crazed advice for everyone to mask up and physically separate, the record drug-related deaths, the mass depression, the segregation, the brutalization of small business, the labor-force dropouts, the forced stoppages of art and culture, and the capacity limits on venues that forced weddings and funerals to be on Zoom.
Forget about a closer look at the bogus mathematical models, vaccine trials, the circumstances behind the Emergency Use Authorizations, the adverse effects, the inaccuracies of the PCR test, and misclassification of deaths, the billions and trillions of misdirected funds, the division of all workers between essential and nonessential, and the millions who were forced to get jabs they did not want.
Forget about the possibility of a lab leak, the role of China, the deadly use of ventilators, the neglect of therapeutics, the near-banning of all talk of natural immunity, the overselling of the vaccine, the lost religious holidays, the lonely deaths due to the blocking of loved ones from hospitals, the censorship of science, the manipulated and hidden CDC data, the payments to the major media, the symbiotic relationship between government and Big Tech, the demonization of dissent, and the abuse of emergency powers.
Forget how health bureaucracies headed by political appointees took over the task of regulating nearly the whole of life, while messaging the country that freedom just doesn’t matter much anymore!
Who precisely benefits from this method of being “over Covid?” The unrepentant hegemon that gave us this disaster to begin with. They want to be in the clear. They don’t just desire to be exonerated; they don’t want to be judged at all. They want to be unaccountable. The best path toward that end is to foster public amnesia.
I don’t just mean the Democrats. This calamity all began under a Republican president who still retains folk-hero status. Plus all Republican governors except one (Kristi Noem of South Dakota) bought into the initial lockdowns. They don’t want to talk about it either.
There is a vast machine extant that desperately wants everyone to forget. Not even forgive, just forget. Don’t think about the old thing. Think about the new thing instead. Don’t learn lessons. Don’t change the system. Don’t uproot the bureaucracies or examine why the court system failed us so miserably until it was too late. Don’t seek more information. Don’t seek reforms. Don’t take away powers from the CDC and NIH, much less Homeland Security.
Meanwhile, we live amidst a crisis without precedent. It affects health, economics, law, culture, education, and science. Nothing has been left untouched. The end of travel augmented every preexisting international tension. The wild government spending and the monetary accommodation of the ballooning debt, in addition to supply chain breakages, are all directly responsible for record levels of inflation. It’s much easier to blame Putin than it is to look at the failed policies of the US and many other governments in the world.
There are so many remaining questions. My own estimate is that we know about 5% of what we need to know to make sense of this whole disaster. What precisely were Fauci, Collins, Farrar, Birx, and the whole gang doing in February 2020 when they weren’t looking for early treatments?
Why did so many prominent epidemiologists completely reverse their stated views on lockdowns? They flipped from being largely skeptical of coercive measures on March 2, 2020, to fully embracing the most egregious measures only a few weeks later. Moreover, there was clearly a conspiracy emanating from the top to smear dissenting scientists who later said that the lockdowns were causing vastly more harm than good. The people behind the Great Barrington Declaration were targeted by government and media for professional ruin.
When did the vaccine companies get rolled into the mix and under what terms? We need to know the when and why of the questioning and denial of natural immunity. Who was involved in this egregious and wholly inaccurate attempt to stigmatize those who rejected the vaccine? Where were the trials for generic therapeutics that the NIH is supposed to fund?
Why in general did an entire establishment choose panic, lockdown, and mandate over calm and the traditional practice of public health?
I have my own questions. What were the conditions and the messages that led the New York Times to use its podcasts and printed pages (February 27 and 28, 2020) to spread absolute panic? This institution had never done this before in any previous pandemic. Why did it choose this path even weeks before Fauci and Birx started lobbying Trump to pull the trigger?
To put a fine point on it: how much money was involved?
What we need is a full timeline with every detail for two years. We need reparations for the victims. We need to take powers away from hundreds and thousands of leading politicians, scientists, public health officials and media executives.
What changed pandemic panic to a new calm is the force of public opinion. God bless the protestors, polls, and truckers. That is a great improvement but there is a long way to go to rekindle the love of liberty that can protect us next time. It’s not about left and right. We need a new understanding of public health, bodily autonomy, and essential liberties.
Some people want global amnesia and otherwise no change in the regime, no follow-up, no investigations, no connecting dots, no justice, no answers to burning questions.
And consider this. If we are so over Covid, why are people still being fired for not being vaccinated, including people with superior natural immunity? Why have the fired not been rehired? Why the masks on planes, trains, and buses? Why the continued quarantine rules? Why the restrictions on international travel? Why are children still forced to cover their faces? Why must everyone who wants to see a Broadway play be forced to cover up their smiles?
The remnants of restrictions, mandates, and impositions are there to serve as a reminder of the prevailing ruling-class attitude toward their policy choices. There are no regrets. They have done everything right. And they still have their thumb on you.
That is intolerable. By all means, forget about Covid and live life as normally as possible in defiance of those who live to foster fear. But, never forget the disastrous Covid restrictions that created such destruction. We cannot let anyone off the hook, much less pretend that the policy disaster that created billions of personal tragedies never happened.
The world we live in today – with worse health, economic dislocations, demoralized and undereducated children and youth, segregations and censorships, the unquestioned ubiquity of rules manufactured by the undemocratic administrative state, the instability and fear that comes with no longer trusting the system – is a far cry from the one that existed only a few years ago. We need to know why, how, and who. There are millions of questions that cry out for answers. We must have them. And we need to work to recover, rebuild, and insure it will never happen again.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown.
An international treaty banning bioweapons needs to be strengthened with a compliance verification mechanism, contrary to the US position on the issue, Moscow said on Wednesday. The call comes in the wake of the reported discovery of evidence that there were lethal pathogens at Pentagon-backed labs in Ukraine.
The Russian military reported this week that Ukrainian authorities had ordered the destruction of highly pathogenic samples that were stored at US-backed biological labs throughout the country.
The purported documents indicate that both Ukraine and the US breached the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), which both nations signed and ratified, the Russian foreign ministry alleged on Wednesday. The order to destroy the samples was an attempt to cover up the violations of the treaty, it said.
“We stand for the resumption of the work on a legally binding Protocol to the Convention for an effective verification mechanism, which the US has been stonewalling since 2001,” the ministry said.
The BWC, which came into force in 1975, bans the development, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons. Unlike its counterpart for chemical weapons, the Convention for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the treaty lacks an international watchdog organization to verify compliance.
An attempt to establish such an organization took place in the 1990s. The VEREX ad hoc committee spent a decade formulating proposals for surveillance, inspections, information sharing and other confidence-building measures.
The effort ultimately failed due to objections from the George W Bush administration which, in 2001, rejected a 210-page draft protocol. Washington claimed that it would not have improved the BWC, if implemented, and would have hurt US national security and commercial interests.
John Bolton, then-Undersecretary of State, said at the time that Washington was focusing its anti-germ warfare interest on Iraq. The existence of Saddam Hussein’s bioweapons project was “beyond dispute,” he claimed at the time. Two years later the US invaded Iraq under the pretext that it needed to destroy Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which was later proven to be false.
Russia has been voicing concerns for years over US military-funded labs hosted by some nations in its proximity, most notably Georgia. Moscow believes that Washington is conducting military research there that may pose a threat to Russia. The foreign ministry statement said activities held on foreign soil should be subjected to reporting under the BWC, just like domestic programs.
The proposed measures “would allow subjecting military-biological activities of the US and its allies … to international control and ensure full verifiable compliance with the BWC by member states,” Moscow said.
Following Russia’s claims about labs in Ukraine, China called on the Pentagon to publicly comment on bio research conducted in foreign nations with its funding. Beijing claimed the US military controlled “336 biological laboratories in 30 countries around the world.”
The US denies that anything nefarious is being done in the labs, claiming they are used to monitor possible emerging infection threats around the world. US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland confirmed on Tuesday that her country was involved in Ukraine’s effort to destroy research materials so that Russia would not seize them.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said that Ukrainian biolabs near Russia’s borders engaged in the development of components for biological weapons.
“In the past several days, long-standing fears which we have expressed repeatedly for years regarding the development of military biological materials by the United States on the territory of Ukraine under the auspices of the relevant US special services have been confirmed,” Zakharova said in a briefing Wednesday.
“This has been confirmed based not only on those materials and data which were obtained operationally on the territory of Ukraine, not just based on the statements of the relevant agencies in Ukraine, but confirmed directly in Washington during a speech by US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland,” Zakharova said.
The spokeswoman said the question of whether or not the biological weapons components being researched at these facilities have been destroyed or not remains to be answered, but pointed to the receipt of documents from employees of biolabs ordering the liquidation of dangerous pathogens dated 24 February.
Zakharova emphasized that there is now no doubt about the military nature of the research at these facilities, pointing to the Russian military’s revelations on the labs’ US Department of Defense funding, and the presence of US specialists instructing the Ukrainian side in conducting the relevant research.
The Russian diplomat, meanwhile said that the special operation does not include occupation, destruction of statehood or overthrow of Ukrainian Government.
Separately, in an interview with Radio Sputnik Wednesday, Zakharova suggested that the Russian military’s revelations about US-funded biolabs “completely changes the picture of US involvement in the fate of Ukraine.”
“It is not just an instrument of influence, it’s not just an an instrument of deterrence. Its an instrument of a direct threat to our country,” Zakharova said.
In testimony before the Senate on Tuesday, Victoria Nuland admitted that Ukraine was home to biological research facilities, and told lawmakers that Washington was “quite concerned Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of” these facilities and the “research materials” contained therein.
“So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach,” Nuland said.
US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland has confirmed that Washington has been involved in an effort to make sure no “materials” Ukraine keeps in its biolabs end up with the Russian military.
“Ukraine has biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned… Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of,” Nuland said on Tuesday as she testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“We’re working with Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach,” she added.
The Russian military previously claimed that the Ukrainian authorities have been hastily destroying dangerous materials, including highly pathogenic bacterial and viral agents they allegedly kept in laboratories linked to the Pentagon.
On Monday, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov said the documents seen by the Russian military suggest that some of these laboratories worked with anthrax, among other things. Kirillov also claimed that the only reason Kiev reportedly moved to destroy the materials was out of concern that Russian experts “will highly likely prove Ukraine and the US have been in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention,” once they study the samples.
While Moscow has expressed concern over the alleged development of bioweapons in Ukraine, Nuland appeared to preemptively blame Russia for any potential release of hazardous materials amid the ongoing military conflict.
Nuland agreed with Senator Marco Rubio that if a chemical or biological “incident” or “attack” takes place in Ukraine, then Russia would be the culprit.
“There is no doubt in my mind, senator, and it is a classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they’re planning to do themselves,” she said.
Kiev has denied it was designing bioweapons. The Pentagon said speculation about its involvement in these programs in former Soviet states is ‘Russian disinformation’.
Del sits down for a one-on-one with the former W.H.O. consultant & research scientist, Tess Lawrie MD, PhD, who was a critical part of the Ivermectin trials over a year ago with overwhelmingly positive conclusions. See data and recorded personal zoom calls that reveal how a key review was attacked from within, keeping the safe, life-saving drug out of the hands of millions of dying Covid patients for more than a year.
In February 2021, the U.K. Medical Freedom Alliance wrote our first of several Open Letters to the JCVI and MHRA, raising serious ethical concerns over any future use of COVID-19 vaccines in healthy children. I will highlight these ethical issues over the next few minutes.
When we are considering any medical intervention for an individual, it must be proportionate, necessary, and given under strict ethical principles. There is important wisdom in the Hippocratic Oath, upheld by doctors around the world for over two millennia, which states: “First, do no harm.” As all medical interventions carry a risk of harm, we have a professional duty to act with care and proportionality.
In addition, a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is a dangerous and unethical way to practise medicine. At the heart of the practice of safe and ethical medicine is the doctor-patient relationship, where the patient’s unique medical history, his or her individual risk-profile and personal philosophy/wishes should always be the prime concern of the doctor administering a treatment.
When it comes to children, it is clear that the risk/benefit calculation does not support administering Covid vaccines to healthy children, who are at no risk (statistically) from COVID-19 and who have, in any case, mostly acquired robust and durable natural immunity by now. It is important to remember that these vaccines are not traditional vaccines but use a completely novel, gene-based technology and are still in Phase 3 trials.
Without long-term safety data (on either the mRNA technology or the specific COVID-19 vaccines) we cannot know yet what, if any, long-term effects on health or fertility may become apparent over the next five to 10 years. The vaccines have not been inside any adult for more than 21 months, and for even less time in children. We also now have emerging safety signals and acknowledged side-effects, some serious, like myocarditis, clotting/bleeding disorders and neurological conditions, many of which appear to affect younger people disproportionately.
The possibility of detrimental health effects coming to light after a few years was raised by a spokesperson for AstraZeneca in August 2020, when the company was granted full immunity from liability for harms because: “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in… four years the vaccine is showing side-effects.” If this risk is considered too high for the manufacturers economically, surely, we cannot allow our children to take the same level of risk with their long-term health, especially for a disease that is of negligible risk to them.
Medical history is littered with drugs and vaccines that were once considered safe and effective, that were subsequently withdrawn from the market, months or years after their use was started as unforeseen harms were identified. For example, the Swine Flu vaccine Pandemrix, rushed to market in the 2009 pandemic, was withdrawn two years later, after millions of doses had been given, when over a thousand children suffered the serious brain injury narcolepsy, not picked up in the trials. An essential part of the safe practice of medicine involves adapting and adjusting to new data and safety signals.
It is unprecedented that a pharmaceutical product still in the clinical trial phase is being recommended and administered to children on such a mass scale. That this is being done without full transparency and disclosure of the known and unknown risks to children and young people, and with aggressive marketing, seriously undermines the ability of parents and teenagers to give full, voluntary, and informed consent – a legal and ethical requirement for all medical treatments under U.K. and International Law and professional guidelines.
It is vital that we maintain the ethical principles that underpin any civilised society and that we put the safety of children as our top priority. There is no scientific or ethical justification to support any further rollout of COVID-19 vaccines to children. Therefore, we must urgently pause the programme.
In late February the international news cycle moved between two very important focuses. One addressed controversies in Canada. The other continues to highlight events unfolding primarily in Russia, Ukraine, and the USA. While different in many ways, both stories have many-faceted worldwide implications.
Both involve configurations of power and intrigue that overlap in crucial ways. Both involve conflicts with profound life-and-death implications. Both conflicts highlight that humanity and our civilizational inheritances are at a crossroads.
At this parting of the ways, the most well-travelled autobahn looming up ahead points towards tyrannies far more extreme than anything we have known in history so far.
Whatever highway we follow, it seems there is no escaping the onslaught of new forms of aggressive warfare that are fast pushing humanity into a jagged collision with high-tech weaponry capable of unprecedented destruction. To say we are living in dangerous times is a gross understatement.
Will humanity be subjected to even greater extremes of outright militarization? Will we continue to be assaulted by a novel array of overt and covert tactics aimed at radically re-engineering society as well as the very genetic attributes of the human genome? Will human beings continue to be reconfigured to advance the conditions of our decline into submissive enslavement? Will we continue to be subject to litanies of media lies, strategies of behavior modification, and unregulated medical experiments aimed at merging our biological persons with aspects of digital technology?
Some common themes wind through the convoluted array of unregulated assaults that menace humanity’s very survival in anything like the God-given form we inherited from nature. Powerful enemy forces are exploiting for their own self-interested advantage, our credulousness, naivety, and susceptibility to programs of mind control. The goal of the master class, it seems, is to modify our behavior so we can be better integrated into a world of pervasive robotization.
Enslavement With the Help of Digital IDs Combined with Cashless Transactions
Right now in the Western countries’ onslaughts of psychological warfare are integral to the military showdown initiated in Eurasia.
While experts in “perception management” are using the media to lure the public into single-minded condemnation of Russia, our attention is being drawn away from stunning revelations coming to light in our midst.
The disclosures underway illuminate the role of COVID Officialdom in forcing on us through mandates and other coercive techniques, highly lethal and injurious medical procedures. These procedures have been purposely designed to induce pathogenic outcomes and depopulation agendas. Throughout Europe and North America, dramatic increases in all-cause rates of death are being reported especially by life insurance companies and funeral homes.
One result is that Pfizer and Moderna investors are “running for the exit.” Former BlackRock investment advisor, Edward Dowd, has sounded the alarm on Moderna and Pfizer “as sinking ships that investors need to abandon.”
The bad news for the vaccine companies and their notoriously negligent regulators is compounded by the fact that their indemnification is threatened.
The companies and their regulators can be sued if it can be demonstrated that they have lied about their products. Indeed, they have lied on an epic scale and continue to do so. The evidence is clear that the inadequately-tested medical injections advertised as “safe and effective” are no such thing. Now there are headlines proclaiming, “Pfizer and Moderna are modern versions of Enron.”
As blanket coverage of the Ukrainian conflict dominates the media, the next stage in the insidious COVID con is being executed with blitzkrieg speed. The objective is to rush humanity into a privatized system of universalized and standardized Digital ID before most people have an opportunity to get informed on the fuller implications.
The growing contingent of people devoted to principled non-compliance to the myriad COVID frauds must resist allowing the COVID hucksters to advance their diabolical agenda. The COVID con men and women must be forced to back away from their attempt at making sweeping appropriations and instrumentalizations of yet more elements of our private information. We need to hold the line against slick kleptocrats seeking total control of everything through digital invasion and theft of the little that remains of our personal realms.
Included in the Digital ID con job is the creation of a new type of One World digital currency presently being rushed into existence by the private central banks holding membership in the Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements (BIS). This process is being pushed ahead in partnership with the dystopian World Economic Forum (WEF).
Recently Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s founder, bragged that more than one-half of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Canadian cabinet is infiltrated with WEF insiders. Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, is one of them.
In fact Freeland is currently a prominent member of the WEF’s governing body of trustees. As shall become clear, Freeland is emblematic of the abundant conflicts-of-interest and round-the-clock lies that have come to characterize the Liberal Party during the time of Trudeau’s denigration of public office in Canada.
A pervasive system of social credit scoring is taking shape with the rush to entrench in many jurisdictions a transnational system of Digital IDs. The other necessary element is our willingness to go along with the creation of a single digital currency. The new system requires the consolidation of a One World megabank that is meant as a key element in the so-called Great Reset.
The advancement of a system of total surveillance and total control requires the termination of all cash transactions. Hence our insistence on continuing the conduct of business through the circulation of cash must be an expression of our principled non-compliance.
The merger of Digital ID together with the replacement of cash transactions would give central authorities the ability to cut off our “freedoms,” including, for instance, even our capacity to buy food. The entrapment of people in digital enclosures would put the vast majority of humans in a virtual penitentiary of unmitigated top-down authority.
The creation of a social credit dystopia is being pushed rapidly forward under the cover of wall-to-wall coverage devoted to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian troops are intervening with the goal of “demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine.”
It is also thought that Putin intends to dismantle about fifteen US biological warfare labs. The Pentagon sponsors of these “research facilities” for mass murder would have us believe they are engaged in a “Biologic Threat Reduction Program.”
In his memorable speech of 24 Feb., Putin claims that the Russian mission in Ukraine, “is not a plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory.” The Russian government asserts that its actions in Ukraine are necessary for the protection of the Russian Mother Country. Over many years Putin has been stressing the themes that the Russian Armed Forces are now acting upon.
The explanation of this military operation as an act of self-defense depends on a historical analysis highlighting the decades-long campaign to strangle Russia in a boa constrictor’s grip of NATO’s aggressive militarism. The core agreements enabling the end of the Cold War have been violated by the patterns of NATO’s expansion since 1991.
NATO has been ingesting former Soviet republics into a US-backed militarized zone of organized anti-Russia zealotry. As Putin warned again and again over recent years, the US goal of transforming Ukraine into yet another militarized enemy of Moscow established a “red line,” a “matter of life or death” for Russia.
The Ukrainian authorities have been urgently destroying pathogens studied at its laboratories linked to the US Department of Defense, the Russian military claimed on Monday, adding that such activities hint at the military purposes of these studies.
As many as 30 biological laboratories have been established in Ukraine that are actively cooperating with the US military, the commander of the Russian radiological, chemical and biological defense force, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, said at a news briefing on Monday.
The list of these laboratories’ partners includes the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) – the largest biomedical research facility administered by the US military; the general added.
Many of these laboratories have been active since the 2014 coup d’état in Ukraine and their emergence in the country has coincided with a spike in infectious diseases in the region, including German measles, diphtheria and tuberculosis, the Russian military said.
After the Russian forces launched a military operation in Ukraine on February 24, these laboratories started hastily destroying the materials they had been working on, including the highly pathogenic bacterial and viral agents, Kirillov has said, adding that Moscow has obtained documents related to that process.
Analysis of the documents shows that the laboratories had been working with dangerous infections such as anthrax and the plague. “Assortment and the excessive quantity of the biological agents suggest that the work done in these laboratories had been part of some military biological programs,” the general has said, adding that just one such laboratory in the western Ukrainian city of Lvov had destroyed as many as 320 containers with pathogens causing plague, swamp fever and Malta fever among others.
“If these collections fall into the hands of the Russian experts, they will highly likely prove Ukraine and the US have been in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention,” Kirillov has said, adding that “this is the only reason that can explain the hasty destruction” of those materials.
The general has also expressed his concerns that all the biological materials needed for the alleged military biological program to continue had been already transported to the US.
Kiev has denied developing bioweapons, and Washington has not commented on the Russian military statements so far.
Moscow has been raising alarm about the activities of the US-financed biological laboratories located in the former Soviet states for quite some time. Earlier, it pointed to the Lugar Research Center – a US-funded laboratory in Georgia – as a place where some dangerous experiments are being conducted.
The Pentagon brushed off such accusations as a “Russian disinformation campaign” at that time.
As the mainstream media power down the pandemic narrative and engage war mode, there’s still time for one last autopsy – the media’s post mortem of the pandemic itself.
And, in a beautifully fitting piece of poetic irony, Covid’s autopsy will be inaccurate and fitted to a foregone conclusion.
The media are discussing the “bad data” which was used to build the Imperial College models that called for a lockdown.
A Telegraph article quotes Prof Mark Woolhouse, who claims in his recent book that “lockdowns had surprisingly little effect”, and that “Anyone who supported lockdown on the basis of the half-million figure was misled” but still lays the blame at the feet of incompetence, never malice.
This is all still part of the story. The post-event navel-gazing. We’ve seen it before.
Both outright, provable lies. A protective rear-guard for the establishment narrative.
The agonising over “mistakes” and promising to “do better next time” are all still part of the theatre, buttressing the fake story against a more brutal reality – “Covid”, as it was sold to us, never really existed.
The pandemic was not organic. Lockdowns were not the result of panic.
We have all read the facts. The data was fudged, the tests were useless, the statistics artificially inflated, and many deaths were intentionally caused through institutionalized medical negligence. Hospitals received funding bonuses as payoffs.
None of that had anything to do with bad data, or pessimistic models. They did it all on purpose, all of it.
Every life lost, every business destroyed, every penny wasted, every child traumatised. Every moment of anxiety and fear – every single one – entirely intentional.
They ruined lives and countries and the global economy as a deliberate policy on the back of a vast web of lies, and last act of the deception will be to claim it was a “mistake”.
Meanwhile, the same agenda that masked itself behind this “mistake” – mass poverty, food and energy shortages, censorship and social control – is creeping ever closer in a new guise: War.
It’s all the same, no matter what they’re saying, no matter what they’re pretending to care about, what they actually want never changes.
“Covid” cost every single one of us a something – safety, money, trust, health, friends, family – but it gave us something too – A peek behind the curtain. In their ambition, the establishment exposed their true face.
They think if they stop talking about the “great reset”, the “new normal” or “building back better” for a few months we’ll forget. But we won’t.
They told us, clearly, who they were and what they intended, and now they’re going to pretend they didn’t mean it.
Our world is run by oligarchs, the holders of vast wealth from monopolies in banking, resource extraction, manufacturing, and technology. Oligarchs have such power that most of the world doesn’t even know of their influence over our lives. Their overall agenda is global power — a world government, run by them — to be achieved through planned steps of social engineering. The oligarchs remain in the background and have heads of state and entire governments acting in their service. Presidents and prime ministers are their puppets. Bureaucrats and politicians are their factotums.
Who are politicians? Politicians are people who work for the powerful while pretending to represent the people who voted for them. This double-dealing involves a lot of lying, so successful politicians must be good at it. It’s not an easy job to make the insane agenda of the powerful seem reasonable. Politicians can’t reveal this agenda because it almost always goes against the interests of their constituents, so they become adept at sophistry, mystification, and the appearance of authority. For example, wars for Israel have been part of the agenda of the powerful for years. Since 2001, wars for Israel have been sold as “the war on terror” and lots of lies had to be made up as to why the war on terror was a real thing. The visible faces promoting the war on terror were neoconservatives in the US, almost all of whom were advocates for Israel, or Zionists. Zionists are not the only members of the oligarchy, but they seem to be its lead actors. ... 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.
Their attitude was that there was inevitably going to be a nuclear war anyway between the United States and the Soviet Union. Given such, the generals believed that it would be in the best interests of the United States to fire first in order to disable a large portion of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. 
Aletho News
Aletho News 