Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Germany on the Geopolitical Stage of the Global South: Between Media Image and Real Capacities

By Ramiz Khodzhatov – New Eastern Outlook – October 21, 2025

The attempts of Friedrich Merz’s government to “relaunch” Germany’s role as a global political actor in the Global South without revising its conceptual foundations risk leaving the country stranded on the margins of international diplomacy – caught between formal participation and substantive isolation.

The Gaza Summit and the New Security Architecture

On October 13, 2025, under the auspices of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a peace summit on Gaza took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The event, co-chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump, gathered representatives from over twenty nations to observe and validate the signing of the first phase of the American initiative for conflict resolution. Egypt and the United States, alongside Qatar and Turkey, acted as the principal mediators of the emerging architecture of multilateral diplomacy. Serving both as brokers of the ceasefire and as the de jure guarantors of the “Declaration on Lasting Peace and Prosperity,” they oversaw a framework that encompassed bilateral agreements on the release of hostages and prisoners, coordination of humanitarian aid, and a detailed roadmap for demilitarization and post-conflict reconstruction of Gaza’s infrastructure.

A wave of criticism followed the paradoxical absence of the conflict’s key parties, the Israeli cabinet and Hamas. At the same time, attention focused on the participation of several unorthodox players in the Middle Eastern geopolitical arena, notably the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The German presence drew disproportionate attention due to an evident dissonance between its media portrayal and its actual diplomatic standing. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, standing to the side of the main participants, appeared frozen in an uneasy, almost constrained posture, smiling politely yet refraining from engaging any of the leaders. The image quickly spread through German and international media, sparking debate. This scene became emblematic of Berlin’s uncertain role within the emerging security architecture. The question arises: what position does Germany seek to claim, and why, despite shifting geopolitical realities and the lessons of history, it risks remaining a “paper player,” bereft of real influence or credibility across the Global South and the Middle East?

From “Feminist Foreign Policy” to the Merz Plan

To understand Germany’s current trajectory, one must revisit the recent phase of its foreign policy. Under Chancellor Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, diplomacy was anchored in the doctrine of so-called “feminist foreign policy,” framed as a flagship direction of global engagement. Yet in practice, this approach revealed its conceptual inadequacy. Its normative and universalist foundations clashed with the political cultures and socio-cultural frameworks of the Global South. Gender and humanitarian rhetoric, imported indiscriminately into conflict zones, failed to take root, particularly when juxtaposed with Western double standards evident in the humanitarian catastrophe of Gaza.

Another blow to Berlin’s image came from its insistence on the “green agenda” as an alternative to traditional energy models. Amid a domestic energy crisis, this stance not only weakened Germany’s position in international negotiations but also eroded its reputation as a reliable and autonomous economic actor. To many states of the Global South, German initiatives in climate and energy diplomacy appeared declarative and unsupported by functional mechanisms.

Against this backdrop, Russia’s advocacy of “multipolarity” gained increasing traction, widely perceived as an attractive alternative to the neo-colonial logic of the West. Moscow succeeded in institutionalizing this discourse through frameworks such as BRICS, which evolved into both an economic and symbolic vehicle of a new international subjectivity. Germany and its European partners failed to propose an equivalent model, thereby cementing their peripheral status in dialogue with the Global South.

The Old–New Architecture of Irrelevance

Despite its declining relevance, Berlin continues to undertake institutional steps aimed at restoring its international agency. Notable measures include expanding humanitarian assistance, covering medical support and the establishment of temporary camps for displaced persons—participating in prospective Palestinian self-governance structures, co-organizing an international conference on Gaza’s reconstruction, and devising instruments for monitoring and coordinating humanitarian aid. Germany aspires to act not merely as a donor but as a mediator, presenting itself simultaneously as a humanitarian and political broker.

However, these ambitions collide with structural constraints. Key mechanisms for monitoring, hostage exchange, and aid distribution depend on the consent of regional actors who, tellingly, were absent from the summit. Germany’s declarative and instrumental efforts to secure influence falter against the realities of local political culture, where situational alliances, pragmatism, and realpolitik shape diplomacy far more than normative idealism. Berlin still relies on a logic of moral universalism inherited from previous decades, cloaked in new labels and narratives yet perpetuating the same disconnect between ambition and capability.

This pattern mirrors the systemic flaws observed during Baerbock’s “feminist foreign policy.” The persistent refusal to engage with regional geopolitical realities produces a gap between Germany’s ambitions and its actual leverage. The now-famous image from Sharm el-Sheikh thus becomes a visual metaphor for deeper structural dysfunction: the fragmentation of the Western course, wherein the American line retains strategic dominance while Europe’s voice fades amid inconsistency and moral self-contradiction.

The declarative support for Israel expressed by the Merz cabinet within the Middle East peace process has triggered a crisis of trust toward Germany as a would-be neutral actor. Rooted in the concept of Staatsräson and the moral logic of historical atonement, this stance increasingly contradicts the disposition of public opinion. Recent YouGov data reveal that 62% of Germans consider Israel’s actions in Gaza an act of genocide, a view shared across party lines, including 60% of supporters of Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc. Over two-thirds of the population now hold a negative view of Israel, while sympathizers account for only 19%. Support for Palestinian recognition has climbed to 44%. This gap between domestic consensus and foreign policy undermines the legitimacy of Germany’s global agency and weakens its credibility as an impartial mediator.

Internationally, the erosion of trust is even more pronounced. Since 2023, Germany has increasingly been seen across the Global South and the Middle East as a partisan ally that has abandoned neutrality for rigid pro-Israeli alignment. Decisions such as boosting arms supplies to Tel Aviv and abstaining from U.N. ceasefire resolutions are widely interpreted in Arab and African contexts as emblematic of Western double standards. Meanwhile, as several EU states, including Spain, Ireland, and Norway, have recognized Palestine, Germany finds itself isolated even within Europe. This loss of trust is quantifiable: Arab Barometer surveys show Germany’s favorable rating in the Middle East has plunged from 70% to 35% over just two years.

The position intended to affirm moral leadership has, paradoxically, curtailed Berlin’s diplomatic efficacy. Bereft of real leverage, Germany remains a participant without presence – a formally engaged yet substantively excluded actor on the geopolitical stage of the Global South.

Friedrich Merz’s attempt to “reboot” German foreign policy reveals a structural impasse: institutional innovations without conceptual transformation cannot yield genuine agency. Without a fundamental rethinking of its diplomatic worldview, Germany risks remaining on the periphery of international affairs, caught between symbolic involvement and strategic irrelevance. The image from Sharm el-Sheikh may thus endure as more than a fleeting moment of awkwardness, it embodies Berlin’s broader crisis of orientation in an increasingly multipolar world.

Ramiz Khodzhatov – political scientist, international observer, expert in geopolitics, international security and Russian-German relations

October 21, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

World Bank Reduces Emissions, Not Poverty

By Brenda Shaffer | RealClear Energy | October 9, 2025

The World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund will hold their annual meetings next week in Washington, DC. It is time for Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to give direct guidance to the World Bank to renew funding and loans for fossil fuels for the world’s poorest. The World Bank should return to its mandate of poverty reduction, instead of climate emissions reduction.

The World Bank has banned fossil fuel finance and loan guarantees since 2019. The idea behind denying investments and funding for fossil fuels was that it would force people to adopt renewable energy. However, with no modern energy option, people turn to burning of dung, wood and other biomass for cooking and other basic functions. The result of this policy is increased emissions, pollution and health endangerment.

The World Bank describes its mission as “To create a world free of poverty — on a livable planet.” However, in reality, the World Bank promotes policies that increase energy poverty and thus overall poverty among the world’s poorest, especially in Africa. Instead of focusing on poverty elimination, the World Bank has committed to allocating 45% of its funds in 2025 to climate finance and announced its intention to increase climate finance over the next five years.

In another blatant example of its choosing to reduce carbon emissions over poverty, the World Bank promotes imposing carbon taxes in Africa on imported fossil fuels. If implemented, these taxes would lead to higher prices for electricity and transportation, which would further increase energy poverty on the continent. It is difficult to understand how raising energy costs in Africa is part of the World Bank’s poverty reduction mandate.

The lack of public funding for fossil fuels particularly hurt Africa. For the first time in decades, electricity access declined in Africa in 2022 and 2023. The halting of foreign investments and loans meant that Africans could not develop their local oil and natural gas resources. While in the West the private market provides investments for energy production, Africa is dependent on public finance to develop energy and on World Bank loan guarantees to create conditions to attract foreign investors.

In prioritizing of emissions reductions over poverty reduction, the World Bank promotes relatively expensive electricity systems, which deliver less energy access to Africa than fossil fuel based systems. Unreliable renewable electricity, especially off-grid solar, does not provide sufficient power for Africans to lift themselves out of poverty. Partial electricity can power a lamp or charge a phone, but not industry, water pumps and refrigeration, which are necessary for poverty reduction and modern medicine access.

Thus, due to the policy of promoting solar over fossil fuel derived power, many of the world’s new electricity users do not have full electricity access. The US and other World Bank funders should not allow the World Bank to count partial electricity provision as access to power.

In Africa, the World Bank no longer promotes policies for provision of baseload power in electricity supply, in order to avoid admitting that Africa needs fossil fuels. There is no large-scale stable electricity without baseload power.

The World Bank also regularly lists climate change as a main factor affecting Africa’s economy and development while not mentioning the continent’s lack of energy, which of course is a much more significant factor affecting its prosperity.

The World Bank and other Western institutions retreat from fossil fuel finance has created a significant geopolitical opportunity for China. China is willing to finance fossil fuel projects in Africa and the developing world and reap the strategic benefit of control of energy infrastructure in many countries.

Bessent’s predecessor at Treasury, Secretary Janet Yellen issued guidance to the World Bank and associate multilateral banks to stop funding for fossil fuels projects in 2021. It is time for Secretary Bessent to reverse this policy and lead the World Bank back to its mission of poverty alleviation.

Prof. Brenda Shaffer is an energy expert at the U.S. Naval Post-graduate School. @ProfBShaffer

October 12, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Burkina Faso rejects GMO mosquitoes: Bill Gates-backed anti-malaria project suspended amid controversy

By Willow Tohi – Natural News – 08/30/2025 

On August 23, Burkina Faso’s military government ordered the suspension of the Target Malaria project, a research initiative funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation aimed at combating malaria. The decision came after growing concerns from local and international critics about the project’s potential unintended consequences and ethical implications. Amid a wave of anti-Western sentiment and doubts over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the move has significant implications for global health and biotechnology efforts in Africa.

Key highlights of the decision

    • Burkina Faso has ordered the Target Malaria research team to halt all activities and destroy all genetically modified mosquitoes.
    • The suspension reflects growing distrust of foreign-funded initiatives in Burkina Faso, a country that has shifted closer to Russia and Iran since a 2022 coup.
    • Critics argue that the genetic modifications pose unknown risks to public health and ecosystems.
    • Despite prior approvals from national biosafety agencies, the project faced mounting public resistance.
    • The decision marks a significant setback for genetic approaches to malaria eradication in Africa.

A decade-long experiment

Target Malaria, launched in Burkina Faso in 2012, was a research consortium led by Imperial College London. The project sought to use genetic modification to control mosquito populations and reduce malaria transmission, a disease that claims over 600,000 lives annually, primarily in Africa.

In 2019, Burkina Faso became the first country in Africa to release genetically modified mosquitoes into the wild. These mosquitoes were engineered to produce predominantly male offspring, aiming to curb population growth by spreading specific traits through wild mosquito populations. The project received financial backing from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the largest private funders of global health programs.

Regulatory approval, public resistance

The Target Malaria project had received approval from Burkina Faso’s National Biosafety Agency (ANB), the National Environmental Assessment Agency (ANEVE) and the country’s Health Research Ethics Committee. Communities in selected field sites, such as Souroukoudingan in Houet Province, had also signed off on the releases.

On August 11, 2025, one small-scale release of non-gene drive genetically modified male bias mosquitoes took place successfully, in accord with terms and conditions of the ANB and ANEVE permits. However, despite these clearances, the initiative drew mounting criticism from civil society groups.

A clash with military priorities

The suspension reflects broader tensions between Burkina Faso’s military-led government and Western-backed NGOs. Since seizing power in 2022, Captain Ibrahim Traoré’s administration has increasingly sought to limit foreign involvement in domestic policy, particularly projects tied to high-profile Western philanthropists such as Bill Gates.

Ali Tapsoba, a leading member of the Coalition for Monitoring Biotechnological Activities in Burkina Faso (CVAB), said, “The problem is the solution proposed by Target Malaria, which consists of eliminating the vector using gene-drive mosquitoes.” He added, “This technology is highly controversial, unpredictable and raises ethical concerns. More specifically, the impacts of gene-drive organisms on health and ecosystems remain unknown and potentially irreversible.”

Critics further highlighted that the modified mosquito strains originated in laboratories in Europe, raising questions of scientific neo-colonialism and external influence. In its defense, Target Malaria stressed, “The IRSS team, as part of the Target Malaria project, has operated since 2012 in compliance with the national laws of Burkina Faso. We have engaged actively with the national authorities and stakeholders of Burkina Faso and remain ready to cooperate.”

International reactions and implications

The decision to suspend the Target Malaria project in Burkina Faso has reverberated internationally, particularly among those involved in global health and biotechnology efforts. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, has been embroiled in controversies over some of its initiatives, with advocacy groups accusing it of promoting genetically modified crops and industrial agriculture models that benefit large corporations while sidelining smallholder farmers.

A turning point in biotechnology and public health

The suspension of the Target Malaria project in Burkina Faso marks a significant victory for those skeptical of biotechnological interventions. This move highlights the deep ethical, environmental and political concerns surrounding such projects, especially in regions with a history of foreign exploitation. As Burkina Faso reasserts its health sovereignty, the decision raises critical questions about the true motivations behind such biotechnological solutions. The involvement of figures like Bill Gates, who have significant financial stakes in these technologies, further fuels suspicions. While Gates’ foundation claims to advance global health outcomes, the potential for these technologies to enrich developers at the expense of the communities they serve cannot be overlooked. This decision is a clarion call for more transparent and community-led approaches to public health, ensuring that the interests of the most vulnerable are not sidelined in the name of progress.

August 31, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 1 Comment

Iran blasts ICJ vice-president’s ‘blatant bias’ toward ‘Israel’

Al Mayadeen | August 16, 2025

Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi has sharply condemned what he described as a “shocking breach of judicial ethics,” accusing International Court of Justice (ICJ) Vice-President Julia Sebutinde of openly siding with “Israel”, an entity currently facing multiple cases before the Court.

He warned that such “blatant bias” undermines the ICJ’s integrity and violates the core principle of judicial impartiality.

Gharibabadi’s comments follow Justice Julia Sebutinde’s controversial remarks defending her dissenting opinion in the ongoing Israeli genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Sebutinde, the only judge to oppose provisional measures against “Israel”, has now further stoked anger with a public speech that critics say confirms long-standing suspicions of personal bias and ideological alignment with Zionist narratives.

“There are now about 30 countries against Israel… the Lord is counting on me to stand on the side of Israel. The whole world was against Israel, including my country,” she declared on August 10 at Watoto Church in Uganda.

Speaking during the launch of the Golden Legacy ministry for members aged 55 and above, Sebutinde added, “I will never forget the day the judgment came out. Even though the government was against me, I remember one ambassador saying, ‘Ignore her because her ruling is not a representation of Uganda.’ The media ran this to fuel more anger and sentiment. Such sentiments can only come from the pit of hell.”

Her speech, laced with religious justification and inflammatory rhetoric, has intensified scrutiny over her role at the court, especially given the gravity of the charges brought against “Israel” by South Africa.

Controversial dissent at ICJ

Justice Sebutinde stood alone among the 17-judge panel at the ICJ, voting against emergency measures directing “Israel” to prevent and punish incitement to genocide in Gaza. Her lone dissent drew widespread condemnation and triggered accusations of both political and religious bias, particularly due to her openly expressed Zionist leanings.

Ugandan officials moved quickly to distance themselves from her stance. Uganda’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Adonia Ayebare, clarified in January: “Justice Sebutinde’s ruling at the ICJ does not represent the Government of Uganda’s position on the situation in Palestine. Uganda’s support for the plight of the Palestinian people has been expressed through our voting pattern at the United Nations.”

Public reaction in the region has been overwhelmingly critical. A Kenyan social media user wrote: “Judge Julia Sebutinde is such an embarrassment to her country and a disgrace to humanity. She didn’t just vote against South Africa’s petition; she voted against reason and morality, justice and freedom, love and compassion. She voted against the very soul of humanity.”

South Africa’s genocide case

On December 29, 2024, South Africa filed a case against “Israel” at the ICJ, accusing it of committing genocidal acts during its military campaign in Gaza. The case prompted global attention, with legal experts and rights advocates calling it a historic test of international law.

Uganda’s Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vincent Bagiire Wasswa, reinforced the government’s position, saying, “She made an independent decision that was being misconstrued to be a decision of Uganda. The comments were to make clear that her decision was independent.”

Adding another layer of controversy, Sebutinde revealed that at the time of her dissent, she was also seeking election as ICJ vice-president. She claims she was hesitant to continue due to public backlash but said she was “compelled by God” to go through with it.

She added that a fellow judge later told her she had been elected because of her “character and independence.”

“So whatever the devil had planned for me, God turned it around. This happened a day after the verdict,” she added

Critics argue that such remarks, invoking divine guidance in judicial matters and portraying dissenters as influenced by “the devil”, raise serious questions about her suitability for one of the highest judicial offices in the world.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

Foreign investors disappear from US Treasury auctions, as China borrows at the lowest rates ever

Inside China Business | August 10, 2025

A staggering $11 trillion in US government debt needs to be borrowed or refinanced over the next 12 months.

Treasury Department officials are faced with painful choices, whether to borrow at very high rates, locked in for ten years or longer? Or instead borrow for one year or less, but at massive volumes?

Foreign governments and pension funds are also showing far less interest in absorbing new US government bonds, and are demanding ever-higher yields to compensate for inflation and policy risk.

China’s government, however, can borrow at far below half the rate Washington pays, across all maturities. And Chinese companies are paying the lowest interest rates in their history to access new capital. That represents a long-term structural advantage to Chinese policymakers and industry.

Closing scene, Hong Kong South China Morning Post, China cuts US Treasury holdings for third month amid trade war, debt ceiling fears https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-ec…

Zerohedge, Yields Spike After Very Ugly, Tailing 30Y Auction Sparks Steepening Fears https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/yie…

ZH, Very Ugly, Tailing 10Y Auction Sees Slide In Foreign Demand, Plunge In Bid To Cover https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ver…

ZH, Ugly, Tailing 3Y Auction Sees Worst Foreign Demand Since 2023 https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ugl…

Managing Risk in the Face of Historic U.S. Debt Refinancing https://www.tradingcentral.com/market…

What Is Happening with Mortgage Interest Rates? https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/wh…

How the Federal Reserve Actually Affects Mortgage Rates https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance…

Wall Street Journal, Trump and Bessent Bring New Style to Managing America’s Debt https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing…

Banking on the Belt and Road: Insights from a new global dataset of 13,427 Chinese development projects https://docs.aiddata.org/ad4/pdfs/Ban…

China 10-Year Government Bond Yield https://tradingeconomics.com/china/go…

What do falling Chinese yields tell us? https://www.dws.com/insights/cio-view…

X, Corporate borrowing costs in the US have never been lower than China’s today https://x.com/UnHedgedChatter/status/…

August 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Video | , , | Leave a comment

In numbers: Arab people don’t want to normalize with ‘Israel’

Al Mayadeen | July 27, 2025

Almost 80 years after Israeli occupation of Palestine, the great majority of the Arab public refuses to normalise with “Israel”, with fresh polling data revealing a dramatic decline in support for normalization after the Israeli war on Gaza following October 7, 2023.

According to the latest Arab Barometer surveys conducted between 2023 and 2024, support for Arab normalization with the Israeli regime has plummeted to historic lows. In none of the eight surveyed West Asian and North African countries did public backing exceed 13%.

The Arab Barometer’s Wave VIII surveys, which covered Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Palestine, and Tunisia, showed a consistent regional downturn in normalization sentiment. Morocco saw a drop from 31% in 2022 to 13% post-October 7; Lebanon from 17% to 12%; Iraq from 14% to 13%; Mauritania from 8% to 4%; and Jordan from 5% to 3%.

Prior to the 2020 normalization accords, support for normalization with “Israel” was already limited. In a 2018–2019 survey, Sudan recorded the highest level at 32%, while Yemen had the lowest at 5%.

‘Israel’ is the primary regional threat

Across the region, “Israel” was most frequently cited as the leading threat to regional stability. Lebanon had the highest perception at 79%, followed by Palestine at 63%, Egypt at 54%, Jordan at 42%, and Morocco at 27%.

In Egypt and Jordan, younger respondents were notably less likely to see “Israel” as the main threat, while in Palestine, the younger demographic showed heightened concern.

Protest movements

Public sentiment against normalization translated into protest activity across the region, per Foreign Affairs. In April 2025, Morocco’s largest labor union urged the government to prohibit the entry of such ships into Moroccan waters and organized a series of protests in solidarity with Gaza.

Jordan experienced daily protests since October 7, with authorities recalling their ambassador from “Israel” and enforcing a ban on the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Kuwait, where protests were restricted, 84% of citizens boycotted pro-Israel companies, 62% donated to Gaza, and many shared solidarity messages online.

Low favorability of ‘Israel’s’ allies, too

Public sentiment toward Western allies of “Israel” deteriorated sharply. Approval of the United States dropped by 23 points in Jordan and 19 in Mauritania. France’s favorability fell 20 points in Lebanon and 17 in Mauritania.

The United Kingdom experienced the steepest decline in Morocco, with a 38-point drop. In contrast, China saw a significant boost in public opinion: 16 points in Jordan, 15 in Morocco, 10 in Iraq, and 6 in Lebanon.

The Arab Barometer Wave VIII data was collected across nine countries between September 2023 and July 2024, with most surveys completed by March 2024. This timing means the findings do not capture Arab public opinion following several significant regional developments, including “Israel’s” war on Lebanon and later on Iran, and the Israeli aggression on Syria.

The survey data therefore represents public sentiment during the initial nine months following October 7, 2023, but predates these subsequent escalations that may have further influenced regional attitudes toward “Israel.”

July 27, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian Cybersecurity Gains Traction in Global South and East – Deputy Foreign Minister

Sputnik – 01.06.2025

Russian cybersecurity solutions have become increasingly sought after by countries in the Global South and East amid the growing discreditation of most leading Western IT firms, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin told Sputnik.

“In the field of information and communication technologies, we possess significant capabilities — from legislation and law enforcement practices to extensive experience and developments in ensuring ‘digital sovereignty,’” he said.

According to the senior diplomat, Russian companies are offering cybersecurity solutions that are in high demand among nations in the Global South and East.

“This is largely due to the fact that many leading Western IT corporations have discredited themselves,” Vershinin noted.

He pointed out that there have been recurring revelations about Western companies ignoring the laws of the countries in which they operate, embedding hidden “backdoors” in their products — often for the benefit of intelligence agencies — and carrying out politically motivated directives from Western governments.

“All of this is, of course, being noticed by our partners in developing countries, who are increasingly leaning toward supporting our depoliticized and impartial approaches and initiatives in the ICT sphere on multilateral platforms,” he emphasized.

June 1, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

Senegal to expel all foreign troops – PM

RT | May 21, 2025

Senegalese Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko has declared that all foreign military personnel stationed in the country must withdraw by the end of July.

French troops remain the only foreign military presence in Senegal, operating under a 2012 defense partnership agreement. As part of a phased withdrawal, France officially transferred control of the Rear Admiral Protet naval base in Dakar to Senegalese authorities on May 15. This follows the earlier handover of the Marshall and Saint-Exupéry facilities in March. The remaining bases are scheduled to be transferred in subsequent phases.

Speaking to Burkina Faso’s national broadcaster RTB on Monday, Sonko said that since his administration came to power nearly a year ago, it had taken a number of steps to assert national sovereignty.

“We have notified all countries that have military bases in Senegal that we demand a complete withdrawal. There will be no more foreign military bases on Senegalese territory,” he stated.

According to the prime minister, the withdrawal process is already underway. He confirmed that one foreign military base was vacated just two days prior to the interview and stressed that the handover of another facility would be completed by the end of July.

Sonko framed the move as a normal assertion of sovereignty, stating that Senegal has “a national army, defense and security forces. We think we are able to ensure our own safety.” He also called on other African nations to take greater control of their own destinies.

In November 2023, Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye called the presence of French troops “incompatible” with national sovereignty. His newly elected administration has taken a firm stance on scaling back France’s military footprint in the country.

Several West African nations, including Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, have severed all military ties with France in recent years, citing frustration with French-led counterterrorism efforts and a desire to seek out alternative partners like Russia.

May 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Net Zero Fades As the Deluded Cling to Its Fantasy

By Vijay Jayaraj | Townhall | May 9, 2025

The grand vision of “Net Zero” initiatives – by which emissions of carbon dioxide magically balance with expensive and futile capture and storage systems – have long been sold as the redemption arc for humanity’s profligate modern ways. Yet, like a poorly scripted dystopian thriller, the holes in this plot are glaring.

Net Zero was always a fragile concept. It rested on shaky and illogical assumptions: that wind turbines, solar panels and “green” hydrogen could reliably replace fossil fuels, that governments could redesign economies without unintended consequences, that voters would accept higher costs for daily necessities, and that developing countries would sacrifice growth for climate targets they had no hand in creating.

None of those fantasies held. Countries did not decarbonize nearly at the speed promised, even though climate bureaucracies clung to the illusion. Long-range targets, five-year reviews and international pledges lacked common sense and defied physical and economic realities. The result? An unaccountable machine pushing impractical policies that most people never voted for and are now beginning to reject.

If Net Zero were a serious endeavor, its architects would confront the undeniable: China and India are more than delaying their decarbonization timelines – they’re burying them. Why has this been ignored?

China and India – responsible for more than 40 percent of global CO2 emissions in the last two decades – are accelerating fossil fuel use, not phasing it out. In Southeast Asia, coal, oil and natural gas continue to dominate. Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are building new electric generating power plants using those fuels. These countries understand that economic growth comes first.

Africa, too, is pushing back. Leaders in Nigeria, Ghana and Senegal have criticized Western attempts to block fossil fuel financing. African nations are investing in exploitation of the oil and gas reserves.

If Asia represents the global rejection of Net Zero, Germany and the U.K. are poster children of the West’s self-inflicted wounds. Both nations, once hailed as Net Zero pioneers, are grappling with the harsh realities of their green ambitions. The transition to “renewables” has been plagued by economic pain, energy insecurity and political backlash, exposing the folly of policies divorced from facts. When the war in Ukraine cut off energy supplies, Germany panicked. Suddenly, coal plants were back online. The Green Dream died a quiet death.

Trump funding cuts likely will accelerate the fall of Net Zero’s house of cards. The president’s decisions to slash financing for international and domestic green programs has severed the lifeline for global climate initiatives, including the United Nations Environment Program. Trump also vowed to redirect billions from the Inflation Reduction Act – Biden’s misnomered climate law – toward fossil fuel infrastructure.

The retreat of Net Zero interrupts the flow of trillions of dollars into an agenda with questionable motives and false promises. Climate finance had developed the fever of a gold rush. Banks, asset managers and consulting firms hurried to brand themselves as “green.” ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investing promised to reward “climate-friendly” firms and punish alleged polluters.

The fallout was massive market distortions. Companies shifted resources to meet ESG checklists at the expense of fiduciary obligations. Now the tide is turning. The Net Zero Banking Alliance comprising top firms globally has been abandoned by America’s leading institutions. Similarly, a Net Zero investors alliance collapsed after Blackrock’s exit.

Perhaps the fundamental failure of Net Zero was political. Permission was never sought from taxpayers and consumers who would pay the costs and suffer the consequences of an always ill-fated enterprise. Climate goals were set behind closed doors. Policies were imposed from above. Higher utility bills, job losses and diminished economic opportunity became the burdens of ordinary families. All while elites flew private jets to international summits and lectured about the need to sacrifice.

A certain lesson in the slow passing of Net Zero is this: Energy policy must serve people, not ideology. That truth was always obvious and remains so.

Yet, some political leaders, legacy media and industry “yes-men” continue to blather on about a “green” utopia. How long the delusion persists remains to be seen.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

May 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

Sights set on Somaliland: The threat of a total US–UK–Israeli takeover

By Kit Klarenberg – The Cradle – April 3, 2025

In recent weeks, Somaliland has drawn unprecedented attention from western media. As Israeli and US officials scramble to find a destination to forcibly relocate Gaza’s population, the globally unrecognized breakaway territory is increasingly floated as a potential solution.

Multiple mainstream reports suggest Tel Aviv and Washington are making quiet overtures to Hargeisa. On 14 March, the Financial Times revealed:

“A US official briefed on Washington’s initial contacts with Somaliland’s presidency said discussions had begun about a possible deal to recognize the de facto state in return for the establishment of a military base near the port of Berbera on the Red Sea coast.”

Somaliland’s President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi has made international recognition his central foreign policy objective. Since the territory declared independence in 1991, no country has recognized it as a sovereign state. But late last year, before entering the White House, US President Donald Trump made the surprise announcement that he intended to officially recognize Somaliland, which would make Washington the first foreign capital to do so.

For the internationally isolated statelet, the prospect of a permanent US military footprint, which would shield the East African statelet from Somalia’s endemic instability, is no doubt enormously appealing, especially as it would be attached to official recognition of statehood by a major global power.

Search for a new ‘Nakba’ 

From Washington’s perspective, the deal would yield far more than just a convenient dumping ground for displaced Palestinians, evicted to make way for Trump’s fantasized “Gaza-Lago.” Somaliland’s strategic location on the Red Sea makes it an ideal staging post for operations against Yemen.

A current map of the Horn of Africa

Such a move would grant the US a critical new foothold in the Horn of Africa at a time when American and French forces are being ejected from countries across the continent at breakneck speed.

It could also serve as a counterweight to China and Russia’s expanding presence in northern Africa. Beijing established its first overseas military base in neighbouring Djibouti in 2017, and has since emerged as an aggressive critic of western policies in the region – while also welcoming Iranian naval vessels at its ports.

The strategic utility of recognizing Somaliland is not lost on Washington’s foreign policy architects. Project 2025 – a sprawling, right-wing policy blueprint by the Heritage Foundation, intended as a roadmap for Trump’s second term—explicitly advocates “[countering] malign Chinese activity” in Africa. It specifically recommended “the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the US’s deteriorating position in Djibouti.”

Another neocolonial outpost

Keep in mind that Trump’s interest in the territory was made public well before Somaliland was floated as a relocation site for Gaza’s 2.4 million Palestinians. In November 2024, former British defence secretary Gavin Williamson announced he had held “really good meetings” with Trump’s “policy leads” on the matter, expressing confidence that recognition was on the horizon.

Williamson has long been an ardent advocate of Somaliland’s independence, regularly undertaking all-expenses-paid trips to the breakaway territory, and receiving honorary citizenship for his lobbying efforts.

Williamson’s interest exposes a rarely acknowledged truth: Somaliland is, in practice, a modern British colony. Though it claimed independence from Somalia in 1991 and was formally granted independence by Britain in 1960, the territory remains under London’s shadow.

Should Palestinians be forcefully relocated there, they would be trapped in yet another open-air prison – under the watchful eye of British-trained security forces with a long history of violent repression.

‘ASI Management’

In April 2019, British government contractor Aktis Strategy abruptly declared bankruptcy, leaving staff unpaid and suppliers out of pocket, despite having secured tens of millions of pounds from the UK’s Foreign Office for “development” programs across Africa and West Asia.

The Somaliland Chronicle published a detailed exposé on the company’s collapse, which came while it was overseeing a “justice and security sector reform project” in the statelet.

Official records reveal that between 2017 and 2022, London allocated over £18 million (around $23.5 million) to that project alone. It was one of many UK-financed schemes in the breakaway region that placed Somaliland’s state architecture – government, military, judiciary, prisons, police, intelligence – under effective British management.

Internal files reviewed by The Cradle lay bare the extent of this control.

One document details how notorious British intelligence cutout Adam Smith International (ASI) provided “ongoing training and mentoring” to Somaliland’s National Intelligence Agency and Rapid Response Unit, while managing the territory’s forensics services, border surveillance, and even prosecution procedures via the Attorney General’s Office. The British-created Counter-Terrorism Unit was established in 2012 with Foreign Office funds – “under ASI management.”

Elsewhere, ASI boasts of its “proven history of establishing close professional relationships” with senior government, armed forces, police, “security sector,” and Ministry of Defense officials. One file notes the contractor “deployed ex-UK military advisers” to train Somaliland’s army and coastguard intelligence units, “[mentoring] senior officers in leadership, management, and military doctrine,” and even drafted legislation later adopted as law.

Meanwhile, British contractor Albany Associates focused on teaching Somaliland’s leaders the mechanics of propaganda and information warfare. Its mission: to train ministers and senior officials to generate a “steady flow of information” and proactively manage the media, in order to counter independent outlets.

It was noted that “unsatisfied public demand for information” from the government “on nationally significant events” gave independent information sources significant influence locally, which was to be countered at all costs.

In Somaliland, public distrust of their government was fueled by frequent arrests of journalists and media shutdowns, so Albany’s role was to consolidate state control over information – ensuring one narrative, “one voice,” no dissent.

An official document reviewed by The Cradle

A prison camp in waiting 

While ASI touted its reforms, documents from another contractor – Coffey International – presented a more candid picture. Somaliland’s military, the files noted, was “the largest and most costly institution of state,” yet evaded oversight, with its funds likely diverted for opaque ends. Accountability for military abuses was virtually nonexistent.

The police, meanwhile, had “a history of applying disproportionate force,” and no “dedicated public order unit.” Coffey proposed creating one within the Special Protection Unit – a paramilitary force protecting foreign organizations and their staff. At the time, the unit had no mandate for crowd control or responding to peaceful protests.

That July 2015 document recommended Somaliland police be trained in the UK by the National Police, covering human rights, crowd engagement, and first aid. The aim: instill “proportionality, lawfulness, [and] accountability” throughout Somaliland’s police forces. Yet if this training occurred, it had no visible impact.

In late 2022, mass protests erupted in the contested city of Las Anod. Somaliland forces responded with lethal force, killing dozens. The crackdown escalated, and in 2023, Somaliland’s military indiscriminately shelled the city. Amnesty International described the attack as “indiscriminate,” targeting schools, hospitals, and mosques, displacing hundreds of thousands and killing scores.

This is the context in which Somaliland appeals to Israel and its western patrons: a brutal, British-run security apparatus capable of extinguishing any form of dissent – ergo, the perfect dumping ground for Gazan refugees. If Washington establishes a base to launch strikes on Yemen, Palestinians could also be held hostage – literal human shields – to deter reprisals from the Ansarallah-aligned armed forces.

One can only hope this depraved plan collapses as swiftly as earlier US–Israeli schemes to expel Gazans to Egypt or Jordan.

The real question now is whether Somaliland’s leaders are desperate enough for international recognition to trade their 34 years of independence for total US–UK–Israeli military, political, and security hegemony.

April 3, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Foreign Aid Suspension Unnerves Washington, not Recipients. Part 1

By Simon Chege Ndiritu – New Eastern Outlook – April 2, 2025

On January 20th, 2025, Donald Trump paused US foreign assistance for 90 days. This move was followed by the suspension of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), through which most US foreign assistance was channeled.

The ‘Donor’ Protesting

Surprisingly, the recipients ignored this suspension, leaving Washington to protest it, which shows that parties in Washington have been the chief beneficiaries of this aid. Meanwhile, some in the recipient countries do not perceive the suspended assistance as worth bemoaning but replacing and moving on. While Trump has repeatedly accused other countries of ripping off the US through aid, using the term ‘development assistance’ to refer to this money that is never used to build roads, bridges, power plants, or buildings is quite ironic. It shows that ‘development’ means something else to Washington. According to USAID’s localization report released in 2023, over 90% of its money went to its international partners in and around Washington.

Therefore, only 10% reaches targeted communities, and some end up funding opium production and pedophile-run children’s orphanages, among others. The US and Western Europe frame Africa as surviving on aid, which is only a colonial ploy. In response to Trump’s suspension, some Kenyans recognized that America’s foreign aid helps Washington and that the US is an unreliable partner. Surprisingly, Kenyan media coverage recognizes the need to move on from Washington’s posturing and find sustainable funding sources.

Trump’s Cutting Funds for Contractors in Washington

Some Kenyans have been baffled by Trump’s suspension of aid, noting how it gave Washington unsolicited influence. For instance, an opinion sent to Kenya’s Daily Nation after Trump’s suspension revealed that the sender was baffled by the White House, since the aid gave the US soft power and influence. The opinion email proceeded to suggest that Trump’s America is cash-strapped due to its senseless tariff war with China. Noteworthy, the US received funds from Europeans before passing the bulk of it to Washington-based contractors, emphasizing the importance of this aid to America. It has been an open secret that Western aid helps the donors and not the recipients. Trump’s move will adversely affect American businesses, even as noted by an FP article from May 2022, which revealed that foreign aid was funding a bubble in Washington.

Therefore, his suspension runs against his America First Policy; this drastic move must be informed by a more significant concern for the US empire, such as China. An article authored by Nicholas Okumu, a Kenyan orthopedic surgeon for the Star Newspaper, steered clear of Trump’s actions, and their motivations and focused on how Kenya should respond. Okumu observed that American aid has always been a tool for political leverage and economic self-interest, insisting that Kenya should seek sustainable ways of funding its projects instead of relying on Washington’s unpredictable and ineffective assistance. US aid only yields minimal tangible benefits for Africans, as it is fashioned to prioritize American commercial interests, for instance, by awarding contracts to US firms and undermining industries in recipient countries.

US Aid’s Vicious Cycle

Issuing the US development assistance, including the part disbursed through USAID, starts by leading the audience into a tunnel vision of how the country is planning an extensive (supposedly) altruistic program to alleviate pressing challenges in poor countries. At this stage, audiences are not informed that Washington created the challenge or wants to enrich its contractors without addressing the problem. For instance, details that Washington’s Pentagon had bombed Al-Shifa pharmaceutical manufacturing company in Sudan in 1998, hence preventing millions from accessing health supplies, are hidden. The aid ends with money being spent in Washington and nothing being achieved for recipient communities, even while a justification for an enormous investment is created. Washington does not care if people access medical supplies, but whether its contractors can benefit from purporting to supply them.

A good example may include the repeated cycle of USAID’s Global Health Supply Chain Cycle. The first cycle, conceived in 2015 and worth $9.5 billion, ended without substantial results and was used in 2024 to justify a new one worth $17 billion. In the beginning, Washington’s media machine told audiences how USAID planned the Global Health Supply Program, which was designed to solve the problem of lifesaving health supplies being inaccessible to poor countries. The empty hype in this endeavor may have been detected in the statement that the project was supposed to “shake up global health contracting,” meaning the primary interest was not to alleviate supply problems but to award a massive contract to the main contractor, Chemonics International.

The project’s value of $9.5 billion had been dispensed three years later and was spent on fraud and inefficiencies. After 2017, the main contractor received a deadline extension and an additional $2 billion without delivering substantial results. An investigative report found that Chemonics International’s procurement reviewers had made up figures to report that 80% of the contracts had been delivered. Thirty-nine people had been indicted with fraud, but the main contractor escaped with a slap on the wrist by paying only $3.1 million to the justice department. Therefore, Washington’s aid benefited a contractor who used a façade of delivering aid to other countries. To attest to the failure of the first project cycle, which started in 2015, USAID launched a similar $17 billion project, dubbed NextGen, by signing contracts for delivering ‘lifesaving supplies around the globe.’ It is Ironic for anyone to think that Washington, which bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 and a trauma hospital in Afghanistan in 2015, really cares whether people can access medical suppliers. Noteworthy, most countries are unable to produce medical supplies because America’s big Pharma monopolizes them through patents.

Going Forward

USAID has always been tied to procuring from the US, making recipient countries fail to develop industries that can organically respond to local challenges. For instance, American laws mandate that food aid be purchased from American farmers and delivered using American-flagged vessels, which means farmers in the recipient countries lose business. Similarly, other industries that receive aid from the US can also collapse, which limits Africans’ development. The deleterious effects of the US aid programs can explain the donors’ insistence on issuing them out, meaning that Africans should not view Trump’s suspension of aid as a tragedy. Instead, it is an opportunity for reflection on how American aid should be replaced, since it is ineffective and unreliable. The US will permanently halt its aid when it does not stand to gain. Therefore, African governments must seek ways to finance their projects without relying on Western aid.

April 2, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

THE KENDRICK COVID ENQUIRY (As I humbly call it)

By Dr. Malcolm Kendrick | February 18, 2025

Part One (a): Are the facts, facts?

‘The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate and contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.’ – John F. Kennedy

I do not think that anyone can write about Covid without first recognising that the facts, may not actually be ‘the facts.’

My trust in medical research has been gradually draining away for the past forty years or so. I am uncertain how much remains. I do not have a handy ACME ‘trustometer’ to slap on my forehead, but I sense my levels are certainly below fifty per cent – and falling. I shall let you know when they reach zero.

There was certainly a rapid drop during Covid. Accelerated by the emergence of ‘fact checkers.’ If a group of people could be more ironically named, then I would love to hear of them. The idea that someone can be an officially verified ‘checker of the facts’ is so inimical to science that they should have been laughed out of existence the moment they appeared. Sadly not. Soviet Union anyone?

Richard Feynman believed that the very definition of science is the process of questioning, and that scientists must be sceptical. Or, as he once said. ‘Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.’ I have regularly been ‘accused’ of being a professional sceptic. My reply is usually ‘thanks, I consider that a great compliment. You, on the other hand …’

As I delved into medical research papers over the years, one painful reality emerged. Which is that you need to be wary of the findings contained therein. I came to learn that, at least in certain cases, I only needed to look at which institution the research came from and who the authors were, to know which ‘camp’ they were in. At which point I could tell you everything the paper was going to say – to paraphrase. ‘We have found that everything we previously said was absolutely correct.’  No need to read it.

Of course, this only works for areas I have been studying for many years, where the terrain is very familiar. Give me a paper on quantum physics and I would have to read the whole damned thing. Then accept that I have not the slightest idea what they are talking about.

In the world of Covid research, two camps emerged very rapidly. There was ‘establishment’ camp, or the ‘accepted narrative’ camp and the ‘alternative’ camp’. Or, as I initially thought of them, the roundheads and the cavaliers [English civil war analogy – for my overseas readers]. As far I could tell, fact checkers were fully paid-up supporters of the roundheads.

Which meant that you could write an article wildly overestimating the infection fatality rate, and nothing would be said. The fact checkers would rouse themselves momentarily, then airily wave it through. However, dare to suggest the Infection fatality rate was lower than the mainstream view, and all hell would break loose. Or, at the beginning of the Covid sage, dare to suggest that the Sars-Cov-2 emerged from a biolab in Wuhan. ‘Off with his head’.

It didn’t take too long before I decided to rename the two camps the ‘Faucistas’, and the ‘Partisans.’ Although I know there should not be two sides in a scientific discussion. We are not at war. Those who question, and probe, have a vital role to play in science.

They, we, are trying to ensure that the accepted ideas are as robust as possible. If the mainstream facts are correct, they will resist all assaults. If they cannot resist, they should wither and die, to be replaced by something far stronger. Or at least that is how I hope it works.

This is a slightly long-winded way of saying that, when it comes to Covid the first thing you have to do with any ‘fact’ is to ask where it came from. A Faucista, or a partisan. Then apply the ‘Kendrick bias constant’ to determine its validity. A figure that only exists in my head, and even I am not sure what size it is, which way round it goes, or how to use it.

You also need to accept that research is often far from clear cut, and the findings may simply be … wrong. Twenty years ago, John Ioannidis published his seminal paper called: ‘Why most published research findings are false.’ It is one of the most widely read medical research papers, ever.1

‘There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false …  Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.’

The prevailing bias. I like that term. Perfectly polite yet still damning.

Was he correct, are most research findings false? Well, he has his own biases, as we all do. I still like to believe that the majority research can be relied on, at least to some extent. Boring, but reliable – yet still boring. However, there are areas where he is right about the influence of prevailing bias. Places where findings are more likely to be false than true.

I believe that Covid became one such area very quickly. Within a matter of weeks, you were a Faucista – the group which certainly had the support of the vast majority. Or you were a partisan. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.

I believe the polarisation in this area was so rapid and intense in large part because of the huge amount of money that was getting burned, and the need to justify that cost. The UK spent around four hundred billion pounds (~$500Bn) on Covid measures. Maybe even more – I think it was more. Enough to fund the NHS, in its entirely, for three years. The figure from the US was ‘officially’ four point six trillion. Four …point …six …trillion … gasp, thud.2 

In addition to the money, there was the unprecedented disruption of everyday life. Far greater than anything seen outside a full-scale war. There was also the damage to children’s education and everyone’s mental health. The other diseases left undiagnosed and untreated, the massive debt and residual damage to public services, the clampdown on human freedoms …  The list is long. More harm than good? That is the question.

A huge amount was at stake. So many reputations, both scientific and political, became bound to the ‘accepted narrative’ camp. If the narrative went down, so did they, with all hands-on deck. Thus, all the measures taken had to be found worthwhile, or at the very at least, excusable. ‘It was all very difficult, no-one knew what was going on. We had to do something … A big boy made me do it.’

Very rapidly, the Faucistas built themselves a mighty citadel, bristling with armaments, and fact checkers. Everyone within that citadel became hair trigger sensitive to the slightest perceived ‘enemy’ touch. Ready to react with ruthless bombardment. Along with personal attacks on whoever stated them.

The Great Barrington Declaration for instance, which proposed focussing protection on the elderly, and allowing the virus to take its course in younger populations. Where the risk of death was exceedingly low. This was universally condemned. Along with its authors. Here is one press release, out of many, many…

20 public health organizations condemn herd immunity scheme for controlling spread of COVID-19.

‘If followed, the recommendations in the Great Barrington Declaration would haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives. The declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement… What we do not need is wrong-headed proposals masquerading as science.’3  

‘Unnecessarily sacrifice lives… Wrong-headed proposals masquerading as science …’ Who dares pop their head over the parapet after such attacks? Only the brave, or foolhardy. As for debate … you must be joking. I was invited to talk at an anti-lockdown rally in September 2020, in Edinburgh. I gave a talk. The organiser was threatened with five years in jail. Luckily that has all gone very quiet.

Sweden, alone amongst European countries, decided not to lockdown, or perhaps you could call what they did lockdown ‘lite’. Schools, restaurants and bars remained open. People travelled on public transport. This approach, too, was universally condemned. It was stated that Dr Tegnell (chief epidemiologist) and Stefan Löfven (the prime minister), were…

‘… playing Russian roulette with the Swedish population,” Carlsson said. “At least if we’re going to do this as a people … lay the facts on the table so that we understand the reasons. The way I am feeling now is that we are being herded like a flock of sheep towards disaster…

… Leading experts last week were fiercely critical of the Swedish public health authority in an email thread seen by state broadcaster SVT, accusing it of incompetence and lack of medical expertise.’4

But the Swedes held out. Which took some nerve, whilst their own medical experts were screaming blue bloody murder in the background. Things changed. Now the accepted wisdom is that the Swedish people effectively locked themselves down, without being told to. Being such a great public-spirited people. ‘Oh yes, I think that fully explains their figures … ahem, don’t you?’

Why this change in outlook? From outrage to a widely accepted explanation, and a collective shrug. I suspect it may be that, in comparison to other European countries, Sweden ended up with a death rate below that of:

  • Bulgaria
  • Hungary
  • Bosnia Herzegovina
  • North Macedonia
  • Croatia
  • Montenegro
  • Georgia
  • Czechia
  • Slovakia
  • San Marino
  • Lithuania
  • Greece
  • Latvia
  • Romania
  • Slovenia
  • UK
  • Italy
  • Poland
  • Belgium
  • Portugal
  • Russia

They were within touching distance of Spain, Ukraine and France and – just to mention another Nordic country – Finland. Certainly, a long way below the US.

If lockdowns needed to be so harsh, or even instituted at all, why was Sweden not at the very top of this, and every other list? Answer, whisper it … Because lockdowns were ineffective? ‘Off with his head.’

No, don’t be silly, it is because the Swedes locked themselves down. And here is the evidence … [insert non-existent evidence here]. Memo to self. Just saying a thing does not make it true.

‘Overall, there’s no evidence that Sweden had a “voluntary lockdown”. Mobility changed far less there than in most other Western countries.’ 5

But what was it that drove the lockdowns around the world?

The Covid  Infection Fatality Rate?

The accepted narrative around Covid developed very rapidly. It is a highly contagious and deadly disease with an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of close to three per cent – you may have forgotten that figure. Perhaps you were unaware it ever existed.

The WHO provided an early estimate that eleven million Americans may die, discussed as part of a masterful essay by Jay Bhattacharya. One of the authors of the Great Barrington declaration, and now director of the National Institutes of Health. Oh, the irony. 6

The worldwide population is approximately eight billion. Using the initial WHO figures we would have seen two hundred and fifty million deaths. Equivalent to the Spanish flu – which is where I suspect the 3% figure was initially plucked from. Hospitals around the world would be overwhelmed. Millions would die if we did not act fast and hard. Something had to be done.

That ‘something’ was lockdowns. It included the widespread use of masks, restriction on travel, closed borders, closed schools, closed entertainment venues and restaurants, workplace closures, social distancing, test and trace, the rush to bring out vaccines, and so on. These actions became unquestionable and inseparable. All of them had to be equally defended.

Trying to get a handle on the Infection fatality rate

The three per cent IFR figure was downgraded rapidly and ended up hovering at around one per cent – or thereabouts. An IFR of one per cent means that, if one hundred people become infected with the SarsCov2 virus, then one will die. Is this … was this, does this remain a fact? At the start of Covid I became obsessed with trying to work out what the Infection Fatality Rate might be. Does it really matter?

I believe it drove everything. The 1% IFR is, to quote from Lord of the Rings: the one ring that finds them, and in the darkness binds them. If the IFR was 1%, then I think everyone can just about manage to assure themselves that all their actions were justifiable.

An IFR of 1% would have meant nearly three million deaths in the US, and well over half a million in the UK. Yes, it might not have been the Spanish flu, but ‘things’ obviously had to be done?

What about half a per cent? At this level the argument begins to look pretty damned shaky. An IFR of half a per cent, or below, would be the iceberg that sank the great lockdown ship Titanic. This, the IFR, is probably the most important fact that we need to establish.

Can we ever know the infection fatality rate of Sars-Cov2?

I know that most people would love a concrete fact here. Confirmation that the IFR of Covid was 0.213, or 0.934, or whatever. But I don’t think that is possible. Concrete facts here are very difficult to find. Or at least, facts that you can rely on. Read journal A you get one figure. Read journal B, and you get another. I can give you a thousand figures.

It also does very much depend on the age you are looking at. In the age group, nought to nineteen, the IFR was 0.00003% – in the first scientific paper that comes up on a Google search. That is three per million.

In the UK there are approximately twelve million in that age group. Which means that Covid may have resulted in thirty-six deaths. If, that is, everyone of that age ended up infected.7 Almost the same number who drown yearly – in that age group.

Moving back to the overall fatality figure rate, Imperial College London (ICL) in late 2022 concluded that it was 1.15%. But we already know which camp Neil Fergusion and the ICL was in. They were the original Faucistas. In this study they found that everything they said previously was absolutely correct. By the authority of … them.8

A well-known, and reasonably reliable worldwide resource is Worldometer, which kept a running count of Covid cases and deaths from every country. It stopped counting in April 2024. The grand totals on Worldometer, now frozen in time, were that there had been seven hundred million coronavirus cases worldwide, with almost exactly seven million deaths. Which represents an IFR of precisely one per cent. 9

My goodness, independent verification that Neil Ferguson and Imperial College were bang on with their modelling. Well, Ferguson did predict an IFR of 0.9% but what’s 0.1% between friends. And if we look at China on Worldometer, it tells us we had almost exactly five hundred thousand cases, with five thousand deaths. Again, an IFR of one per cent, bang on.

Case closed? Hang on, you might wish to probe a little deeper into, for instance, the Chinese figures. According to Worldometer, the population of China is around one point four billion and there were five hundred thousand reported cases of Covid. Which means that one in three hundred people caught Covid [precise figure 0.36%].

In comparison, sixty per cent of the population in Greece caught Covid. Which is two hundred times greater. This seems a remarkably large difference. The sort of difference you may struggle to believe.

What of the death rates? China ended up with four deaths per million of the population. A figure very similar to DPRK (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), which had three deaths per million. Strange that.

In Greece, on the other hand, they had four thousand deaths per million. One thousand times higher than China.

As for total deaths.

  • Greece: with a population of ten million had 37,869 deaths.
  • China: with a population of one point four billion had 5,272 deaths.

Personally, I find one of these figures to be more believable than the other.

Turning back to the overall figures from Worldometer. There were just over seven hundred million reported cases of Covid in total. Which means that around 9% of the world’s population became infected. Seven hundred million out of eight billion.

This is a very long way off the ninety per cent figure that Neil Ferguson predicted in his model. He predicted 90%, Worldometer says 9%. Once again, a bit of an echoing gap.

If Worldometer is right, and only 9% of the population did become infected, and the IFR was 0.9%, the UK would never have seen five hundred thousand deaths – as predicted by Neil Fergusion in his hugely influential model.

His model was, essentially.

IFR 0.9%, percentage infected 90%. Population of the UK 69m:

69,000,000 x 0.9% x .9 = 558,900

However, if only 9% become infected, this figure falls by a factor of ten:

69,000,000 x 0.9% x .09 = 55,890

This is not a great deal more than a bad flu year.

Returning to the age group nought to nineteen, if only 9% of them became infected we would have seen four deaths instead of a possible thirty-six. Which would have made school closures and the social isolation of children virtually indefensible. Sorry, leave out the word virtually.

As you can gather, the overall rate of infection, and the IFR, are intimately linked when it comes to the overall impact of an infective disease. An issue little discussed. But do you think it might be important? Answer… yes.

Which facts are facts?

At this point I suppose I need to ask. Do you believe that the coronavirus figures collated by Worldometer are ‘facts?’ Or do you believe some of them are, and others are not. In which case, which ones would you like to believe. To quote the late, great, singer songwriter John Martyn. ‘Half the lies you tell me are not true.’

Wherever you look, there is uncertainly, and disagreement. Completely different facts and figures can be found everywhere. When it comes to IFR, John Ioannidis came up with an IFR figure of 0.23% for higher income countries.10

Nature published a figure ranging between 0.79 – 1.82% (for higher income countries). The average between 0.79 and 1.82 is 1.3%.11 As you have worked out for yourself, 1.3% is nearly six times more than 0.23%.

Which IFR is correct? Which is a fact? And why did the Nature study only look at higher income countries? Surely lower income countries should have fared worse – in that they could not afford to lockdown, and did not, and the standard of medical care would have been significantly lower, so more should have died?

I suspect lower income countries were ignored because, on paper, they all had very low death rates. Or very low reported death rates anyway. Just to choose a lower income African country at random … Chad. They reported one hundred and ninety-four covid deaths out of a population of seventeen million. Which is eleven deaths per million. In fact, according to Worldometer, Covid passed Africa by.

How could this be? In most higher income countries people of African origin were significantly more likely to die than the surrounding population. In the UK, Black British had a mortality rate of 273 per 100,000. Whereas those identifying as White, had a rate of 126. Less than half.12  [Figures from the office of national statistics, and as you may have noticed these figures demonstrate and IFR of 0.273% for Black British, and 0.126% for White British].

Given this, it is difficult to argue that Black Africans, in Africa, were genetically protected, in some way. Although, it has to be added that the average age in African countries is significantly lower than in, say, the UK – and that would have had an impact on Covid related deaths – although nothing that could remotely explain the reported figures.

I also lean towards Ioannidis because I believe him to be a well-established objective seeker of the truth. He has long been a thorn in the side of what I shall call, politely, ‘official narratives.’ Other researchers, and journals, have a strong tendency towards those twin curses of human thought. Confirmation bias and groupthink. As for the fact checkers, which figures do you think they prefer? The higher, the better.

Which leads us inevitably to the question who, or what facts, do you choose to believe … or not believe. In later articles I will tell you what I believe to be the most probable IFR for Covid. And I will tell you why this figure is reasonably accurate.

Before we reach that point, I want to highlight some more of the many issues that make it difficult to be certain about anything. There are so many of them. Just to list a few important ones:

  • PCR testing – how accurate is it/was it?
  • False positive, false negatives. Did they raise, or lower, the IFR?
  • How do you determine if someone died of Covid – or simply died with Covid?
  • How many times were people infected – and how much would this affect the IFR?
  • Could you be exposed to Covid, and brush it aside, without becoming ‘infected’ or raising detectable antibodies?
  • The impact of continuing to count Covid deaths for more than three years – over the lifespan of many different variants – did this create an artificially high IFR?
  • What protection did vaccination provide?
  • Financial benefits of diagnosing Covid, did this lead to overdiagnosis?
  • Could aggressive treatment have been damaging, and possibly fatal?
  • How many people reported they had Covid, when they did not?
  • Which countries may have been economical with the truth about their Covid statistics?
  • Does the Sarv-Cov2 virus exist?

Each of these issues represents a minefield, with conflicting ‘facts’ stretching to the far horizon. Each of them capable of shifting the IFR significantly – downwards.

Does this mean we can never really know what happened with Covid? Even to answer such a superficially straightforward a question as how many died is tricky. Indeed, most facts about Covid tend to crumble when you apply a little pressure. But I think we can navigate a course, or sorts.

Next. Starting with an easy one. Does the Sars-Cov-2 virus exist? Easy …?

1: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1182327/

2: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106647

3: https://www.bigcitieshealth.org/newsroom-great-barrington-declaration/

4: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/swedish-pm-warned-russian-roulette-covid-19-strategy-herd-immunity

5: https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-myth-of-swedens-voluntary-lockdown/

6: https://www.jospi.org/article/88046-dr-jay-bhattacharya-reveals-stanford-university-s-attempts-to-derail-covid-studies?ref=truth11.com

7: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+0.00003%25+per+million&oq=what+is+0.00003%25+per+million&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQBhhA0gEJMTUxNTlqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

8: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/

9: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

10: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/340124/PMC7947934.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

11: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-022-00106-7

12: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-to-31-december-2020-report

February 22, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »