Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

An Extraordinary Unsolved Murder in Washington D.C.

In the matter of SETH RICH, the FBI asks for 66 years to release his laptop contents Nov 5 DNC Staffer Seth Rich, murdered on July 10, 2016

By John Leake | Courageous Discourse | November 5, 2022

“A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.” —James Madison

As an investigative author I’ve often dealt with the extreme frustration of making federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and state Open Records Act requests. So often, it seems that federal and state agencies don’t want to release the information, delay in responding, and then cite multiple exceptions to the law in order to justify keeping the information secret.

I therefore felt sympathy for my fellow Texan, Brian Huddleston, when I saw the recent Epoch Times report that his FOIA request for the information found on Seth Rich’s laptop is being thwarted by the FBI, which asked the judge who ruled in Huddleston’s favor to grant the Bureau 66 years to fulfill the request.

Readers of this Substack may find the FBI’s request reminiscent of the FDA’s request for 55 years to release COVID-19 vaccine data. Given the unfortunate reality of human mortality, one wonders what public interest will be served 55 or 66 years from now, apart from satisfying the curiosity of historians who aren’t yet born.

The murder of Seth Rich—in the middle of one of the most brutal presidential election years in history—has always struck me as an example of the authorities NOT investigating a matter of public interest. The mainstream media and half the country were so blinded by partisan passions that they couldn’t see the grounds for suspecting that the young man’s murder was politically motivated. Just a few hours after the incident occurred—before there was any time to perform an investigation—the Metropolitan Police Department announced that the murder appeared to be a “botched robbery.”

Since Seth Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016—12 days before Wikileaks published embarrassing DNC e-mails—there has been much speculation that he could have been the source because he was upset about how the DNC had treated Bernie Sanders. A good investigator wouldn’t speculate about the crime, but he would certainly notice that, statistically speaking, the murder is extraordinary.

Seth Rich was shot in the back near his apartment building, and though he was carrying a valuable watch, wallet, and cell phone, these were not taken by the assailant. Perhaps it was a botched robbery, as the Metropolitan Police Department quickly announced, but shooting a guy in the back without taking his valuables is not typical of armed robbery. Other robberies in the same neighborhood around the same time followed the conventional pattern of the assailant threatening the victim and demanding his or her valuables instead of opening fire on the victim.

In the year 2016, there were 135 homicides in Washington D.C., which has a resident population of 672,000, which comes to approximately one murder per 5000 residents— a dramatic decline from the city’s murder rate in the early nineties. Incidentally, the Metropolitan Police conducted an analysis of homicide for the years 1998-2000—after homicide rates had dropped significantly—and concluded that the primary motives were

1) Argument/conflict

2). Drug related

3). Revenge/retaliation

4). Robbery

5). Gang related.

During this period, homicides were not equally distributed throughout the city, but were concentrated in particular neighborhoods. 92% of the victims were African Americans 3.2% were Hispanic and 3.2% were white. Though one must consider the possibility that homicide trends in DC have changed since 2000 (apart from merely decreasing in numbers) it’s notable that, of the currently unsolved homicides in Washington DC in the year 2016, Seth Rich is the only white victim in a city that is now 44% white.

Julian Assange has always insisted the DNC e-mails were leaked and not hacked. Former NSA technical director William Binney has also insisted that if the DNC e-mails were hacked, it would be child’s play for the NSA to establish the precise routing of the hack, which indicates that the e-mails were more likely leaked by an insider.

Regarding motive, a good investigator would consider the hypothesis that Seth Rich was murdered NOT in retaliation, but to eliminate him as a witness that the DNC e-mails were leaked by an insider and not hacked by Russians. Almost immediately after the embarrassing e-mails were published, the DNC vehemently proclaimed it was Russian hackers who were responsible, though no evidence has been presented to support this accusation.

Regarding the assailant: A good investigator would consider the hypothesis that he was contracted to murder Rich but knew nothing about his target or the motive for killing him. This hypothesis is consistent with Rich being murdered as he approached the entrance to his home—that is, the contract killer was provided only with the address and a photograph of his target.

Another notable aspect of this crime has been the extremely emotional tone of press reporting from the same reporters who so passionately embraced the Russian meddling story. The mere suggestion that Seth Rich’s murder was politically motivated prompted these same people to angrily denounce this (perfectly reasonable hypothesis) as “wild, right wing conspiracy theory” and to demand that reporters cease and desist from exploring this hypothesis.

And yet, given that the crime remains unsolved, why not explore this hypothesis?

November 6, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

Second wave of refugees leave Lebanon as repatriation process continues

The Cradle | November 5, 2022

A new group of Syrian refugees left Lebanon on 5 November under protection from the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and the Directorate of General Security, as part of the current repatriation process carried out between Beirut and Damascus.

The refugees departed for Syria from the northern Lebanese border town of Arsal. This is a continuation of the process, after the first wave of 1,200 Syrian refugees left Lebanon on 26 October.

Syrian media reported that the refugees began to arrive in buses via the al-Dabousiyah border crossing, and will be returning to their homes in the areas formerly under the control of extremist groups.

Lebanon’s Directorate of General Security is continually processing the submitted requests of Syrian refugees who wish to return to their country.

On 25 October, the head of General Security, Major General Abbas Ibrahim, emphasized during a press conference that the repatriation process is fully voluntary, and will not “force any displaced to return” to Syria.

Ibrahim added that Lebanon only seeks to reduce the social and economic burden it carries, and made sure to reject the unsupported western claims that the repatriation process is involuntary.

Last month, a source told The Cradle that the Syrian government has been very cooperative in the process of repatriating the refugees, but that it “will take a lot of time and effort” before it is completed.

The source added that the western-led international community “does not agree” with this repatriation process and has so far “refused to help.”

The western disapproval and accusations of forced repatriation reinforce the belief held by some people that western countries, most notably the US, wish to prevent Syrian refugees from resettling in their country in order to maintain instability in Syria.

In November of last year, Lebanon’s Foreign Minister, Abdullah Bou Habib, said: “We are facing some difficulties from the West because they say that they do not want these refugees to return to Syria for reasons related to their position on the Syrian government.”

November 5, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Some States Say ‘No’ to Coronavirus Shots Mandate for Students Despite CDC’s Childhood Vaccine Schedule Change

By Adam Dick | RonPaul Institute | November 2, 2022

In October, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee voted to add yearly experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots to the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule. Many state governments have a history of looking to this CDC schedule to guide their imposing of shots mandates for students.

Which states will follow along to mandate the newly added shots? As we start the month following the committee’s vote, it is good to take a look across the country to see what different state governments have done to protect against or welcome the CDC schedule’s addition of these yearly shots that have proven to be neither safe nor effective and that are asserted to target a threat that has been long known to pose a miniscule risk of serious sickness or death for children. Young adults in college have also tended to be at very low risk, though you wouldn’t know it from the draconian policies many universities imposed in the name of countering coronavirus.

Compounding the absurdity and detestability of including the coronavirus shots in the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule is that the much-hyped coronavirus that people were worried about during the coronavirus scare is long gone. What is not gone is the risk of serious sickness or death from the shots.

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo advised well when he posted the following at Twitter last week:

Parents, don’t hold your breath… CDC & FDA abandoned their posts. Keep sticking with your intuition and keep those COVID jabs away from your kids.

Unfortunately, when faced with a shots mandate for school attendance, many parents may, against their better judgment, give in to the pressure and authorize their children being given the shots. Older students at universities that have more commonly imposed coronavirus shots mandates since last year have faced similarly terrible pressure to take the shots.

The good news is that, according to tracking by the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), 21 state governments have taken at least some action to prohibit mandating coronavirus shots for students. Still, even where state governments have taken action against mandated coronavirus shots for students, there is in many cases room to make that protection against pushing these shots on students both stronger and broader.

Check out NASHP’s map of America where you can see information regarding states standing up against or supporting mandated coronavirus shots for students. Put the cursor over a state to find out some details regarding a particular state’s policy on mandating the shots.


Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.

November 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Judge rejects Biden regime’s request to delay depositions in social media censorship lawsuit

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | November 5, 2022

A US District Judge has rejected a request to delay the deposition of top officials in President Biden’s administration in the lawsuit filed by Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general, alleging censorship collusion between the Biden administration and social media companies.

District Judge Terry Doughty rejected a request for a partial stay of the deposition orders he approved for top officials in the current administration. Government attorneys requested a partial stay for the deposition of three officials pending a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The government wants the appeals court to vacate part of the deposition orders for deputy assistant to the president Rob Flaherty, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and Jen Easterly, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency director.

In their request for a partial stay, government lawyers argued that, “high-ranking governmental officials would be diverted from their significant duties and burdened in both preparing and sitting for a deposition, all of which may ultimately prove to be unnecessary if the Court of Appeals grants.”

Judge Doughty rejected the request because the government failed to show that the officials would be irreparably harmed by the depositions. According to the judge, being diverted from “significant duties” does not qualify as irreparable harm.

However, the plaintiffs could be irreparably harmed by the partial stay because they allege that the government violated their  rights, Doughty argued.

Quoting a ruling from another case, Doughty said, “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

“The Court finds that both the public interest and the interest of the other parties in preserving free speech significantly outweighs the inconvenience the three deponents will have in preparing for and giving their depositions,” Doughty added.

Following the ruling, the three officials will be deposed in December, unless the appeals court approves the government’s writ of mandamus on November 7. The writ requests the court to reverse the deposition orders for the three officials.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

November 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

FBI is ‘rotted at its core,’ Republican lawmakers say

RT | November 4, 2022

America is no longer a country where citizens are afforded equal justice under the law, as guaranteed by their Constitution, because the nation’s top law enforcement agency has been corrupted by politicized leadership and a “woke, leftist agenda” being imposed from the top, Republican lawmakers have claimed.

The allegations were contained in a 1,050-page report released on Friday by Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee. The report, which was based on information gathered from 14 FBI whistleblowers who came forward to expose a pattern of misconduct, argued that the agency was “rotted at its core.”

“Quite simply, the problem — the rot within the FBI — festers in and proceeds from Washington,” the report said. “The FBI and its parent agency, the Justice Department, have become political institutions.”

The report detailed such abuses as a secret partnership in which the FBI receives private information on conservative users from Facebook, without seeking their consent or going though the legal processes that would normally be required to tap such data.

Whistleblowers also alleged that the FBI “looked the other way” on dozens of attacks against anti-abortion groups, even as the agency sent heavily armed teams of officers to arrest pro-life activists at their homes for alleged violations of selectively enforced crimes. Parents who spoke out at school board meetings over controversial policies were targeted by investigators as alleged terrorists.

At the same time, former FBI official Timothy Thibault “shut down” a probe into the overseas business dealings of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and attempted to keep the case from being reopened, the report said. Thibault openly displayed his political bias in social media posts that included his official title.

“America’s not America if you have a Justice Department that treats people differently under the law,” Representative Jim Jordan, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox News on Friday. “It’s supposed to be equal treatment under the law. That’s not happening, and we know it’s not happening because 14 brave FBI agents came to us as whistleblowers and told us what exactly is going on here.”

The report also accused the FBI of inflating statistics on domestic extremism to help fuel a narrative promoted by President Joe Biden’s administration. FBI employees who have conservative views are being purged from the agency, it claims.

Republicans argued that the FBI was plagued by a “systemic culture of unaccountability,” as well as “rampant corruption, manipulation and abuse.” The agency’s shift toward “political meddling” has allegedly pulled resources away from legitimate law enforcement duties. For instance, one whistleblower claimed that he was told after the January 2021 US Capitol riot that child sex-abuse cases were “no longer an FBI priority and should be referred to local law enforcement agencies.”

November 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption | , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Activist groups’ tanking Twitter profits – Musk

RT | November 4, 2022

Twitter owner Elon Musk has accused “activist groups” of “trying to destroy free speech in America” by pressuring advertisers to boycott his platform even though he hasn’t changed any policies. The billionaire took to Twitter to complain about the “massive drop in revenue” on Friday.

The platform is losing money “due to activist groups pressuring advertisers, even though nothing has changed with content moderation and we did everything we could to appease the activists,” Musk tweeted, calling the situation “extremely messed up!”

“They’re trying to destroy free speech in America,” he wrote.

Musk held a Zoom call on Tuesday with representatives from the Stop Hate for Profit Coalition, a pressure group led by the ADL that has organized advertiser boycotts of social media platforms over perceived weaknesses in keeping out “hate speech.” Representatives from the NAACP, Color of Change, the Asian American Foundation, and the George Bush Presidential Center were also reportedly present, among others.

The coalition was able to secure all three of its “immediate requests” from the Tesla tycoon, according to multiple members and Musk himself.

He promised not to replatform banned accounts before the midterm election results were certified or before a “clear process” had been devised, and vowed to keep in place “election integrity” measures. Additionally, Musk agreed to form a “content moderation council” that would include representatives from the ADL and other coalition members with “diverse” viewpoints.

Despite appearing to bring the self-described “free speech absolutist” to heel, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt hinted that further controls might be necessary in a statement released following the call. He insisted “much more needs to be done to reduce lies and hate on Twitter” and said backtracking on previous progress was “not an option.”

A few Twitter users had suggestions for how Musk might deal with the pressure campaign.

“Name and shame the advertisers who are succumbing to the advertiser boycotts,” Mike Davis, co-founder of the Internet Accountability Project, tweeted, suggesting Musk’s followers engage in a “counter-boycott” against them.

More than three quarters of 2.7 million respondents agreed that advertisers should support free speech over political correctness when polled by Musk on Wednesday.

Musk fired the board of directors and several high ranking executives upon taking over as CEO last week. However, he has attempted to reassure advertisers that the site would not become a “free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequence” under his watch.

November 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Canada’s Bill C-11 explained: A chilling law that lets the government censor user-generated content

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | November 3, 2022

Canada’s Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) is one of several recent attempts by Western governments to crush online speech while claiming that they support free expression.

The bill is being pushed by Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez — a politician who believes that unregulated speech “erodes the foundations of democracy.” And it has the full support of Canadian Prime Minister  — a world leader who previously said freedom of expression isn’t “freedom to hate.”

The Trudeau regime first attempted to pass a version of this bill in 2020. However, this bill (Bill C-10) failed in 2021 after mass pushback over the way it attempted to censor online speech.

After Bill C-10 died, Pierre Poilievre, the current leader of the Canadian Conservative Party of Canada who was serving as a Member of Parliament (MP) in 2021, warned critics of Bill C-10 to “make sure that we’re ready the next time Trudeau and his team come for our freedom of expression.”

And just one year later, Trudeau and his team did just that by resurrecting Bill C-10 and renaming it Bill C-11.

The bill gives Canada’s communications regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), increased powers to regulate “programs” — a definition that applies to almost all forms of audio-visual content that are uploaded by Canadian citizens.

It will empower the CRTC to set content promotion and demotion rules for Canadian content and require platforms to make financial contributions towards Canadian content.

As with most censorship bills, Bill C-11 uses freedom of expression as a red herring and claims that the bill will be “applied in a manner that is consistent with…the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings”

But the bill is so restrictive that even censorship-loving YouTube has warned that the bill will harm creators and creators are considering leaving the country if it passes.

Here are the main things you need to know about Bill C-11:

It empowers government regulators to censor user-generated content

When pushing Bill C-11, Rodriguez has implied that it won’t apply to user-generated content by repeating the phrase “platforms are in, users are out.” However, the actual text of the bill gives the CRTC vast powers to decide whether almost any piece of user-generated content uploaded by Canadian users falls under the scope of the bill.

Section 4.2 of the bill states that the CRTC “may make regulations prescribing programs in respect of which this Act applies.”

And while the CRTC is expected to consider three factors when making these regulations, Dr. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, notes that these factors are only considerations that the CRTC can simply ignore.

“Much like the lip service the Commission has given at times to policy directions, the CRTC is free under the bill to confirm that it ‘considered’ the factors in setting the regulations and adopt a different approach,” Geist said.

The bill itself empowers the CRTC to indirectly censor any content that falls under the scope of Bill C-11 by imposing conditions on Canadian apps, social media platforms, and websites.

One of the most controversial conditions the CRTC can impose is a condition related to “the presentation of programs and programming services for selection by the public, including the showcasing and the discoverability of Canadian programs and programming services, such as original French language programs.”

This condition lets the CRTC decide whether content that falls within its scope should be boosted or demoted on Canadian apps, platforms, and websites. And according to Geist, this condition could result in platforms that host user-generated content being forced to demote content and apply warning labels to a wide range of lawful content.

It may target a wide range of apps, platforms, and websites

While most of the discussion around Bill C-11 has focused on how it will impact user-generated content on social media, the potential scope of the bill is actually much wider because it doesn’t contain any provisions that limit its scope to just social media platforms.

And an early government memo on Bill C-10 (the Bill C-11 predecessor) acknowledged that the Canadian government wanted to target audiobook services such as Audible, podcast apps such as Pocket Casts and Stitcher, music streaming services such as  Music and Amazon Music, sports streaming services such as DAZN and MLB.tv, video streaming services such as Netflix and Disney+, niche streaming services such as BritBox, websites such as the BBC and TVO, gaming platforms such as PlayStation, home workout apps, and more.

It will limit the reach of independent Canadian creators

Even if the CRTC doesn’t use its Bill C-11 powers to push for the demotion of lawful content, any presentation or discoverability conditions that are imposed on apps, platforms, or websites are still likely to limit the reach of independent Canadian creators and boost mainstream media outlets.

According to Geist, the current rules for determining whether a piece of content is “certified Canadian content” are “geared toward well-established productions that fall outside the digital first world” and it’s unclear whether content from independent, digital first creators even qualifies as certified Canadian content. This means that content from large Canadian media outlets is much more likely to be selected for prioritization when any Bill C-11 presentation and discoverability conditions are imposed.

Geist argues that “the impact will be incredibly damaging to digital first creators, who may find their content effectively de-prioritized in their own country based on Canadian legislation as implemented by the CRTC.”

Even if independent creator content is selected for prioritization, the way Bill C-11’s presentation and discoverability conditions force Canadian content on users who aren’t necessarily interested in the content is likely to result in lower engagement rates. These reduced engagement rates will result in algorithms recommending Canadian content less frequently outside of Canada and ultimately reduce the reach of independent Canadian content in non-Canadian countries.

It will give Canadians an inferior online experience

The way Bill C-11 forces Canadian content into the feeds of Canadian users also has a detrimental impact on their online experience. Instead of being able to fill their feeds with interesting content from their favorite creators, Canadians will have a certain amount of potentially irrelevant content forced on them by the CRTC’s requirements.

Not only does the bill prevent Canadians from being able to fully control and customize their feeds but it also makes it more time-consuming for them to find non-Canadian content. Even if Canadian users take explicit steps to seek out non-Canadian content, the requirements of Bill C-11 will continuously push a pre-determined amount of Canadian content into their feeds.

In addition to this, Bill C-11 could reduce the number of apps, platforms, and websites that are available to Canadians because the high cost of compliance may result in some companies pulling their services out of Canada.

Furthermore, Canadians will likely have to pay more to access subscription-based apps, platforms, and websites that fall under the scope of Bill C-11 as the affected companies pass on the cost of compliance to users.

It could create privacy issues for independent Canadian creators

Bill C-11’s discoverability conditions could create privacy issues for independent Canadian creators because the only practical way for these creators to verify that they’re Canadian would be to hand over sensitive personal information.

Canada’s federal privacy commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, admitted this would be the case during his appearance before a Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

“Discoverability conditions could nonetheless potentially require the adaptation of existing algorithms that rely on personal information or the analysis of personal information to determine whether user-generated content is Canadian,” Dufresne told the committee.

And these privacy restrictions aren’t limited to algorithms. The more personal data companies hold, the more devastating the privacy impact is on their users if there’s ever a data breach.

It disproportionately impacts small platforms

Most large apps, platforms, and websites have significant data harvesting capabilities, utilize advanced algorithms, and generate billions of dollars in revenue. These resources make it relatively easy for these platforms to comply with Bill C-11’s requirements to identify Canadian content, prioritize Canadian content in a way that’s compliant with CRTC orders, and make their financial contributions towards the production of Canadian content.

However, smaller platforms with more rudimentary technology and less revenue will find it harder to abide by the requirements of Bill C-11. Some may even find the cost of compliance to be so prohibitive that they’re left with no choice but to pull out of the Canadian market altogether.

The potential privacy issues associated with Bill C-11 could also harm smaller platforms that are attempting to differentiate from their Big Tech counterparts by offering a more private experience for their users. These platforms could be forced to start collecting personal information to comply with the bill’s discovery conditions, and in doing so, lose their competitive advantage over the tech giants.

Stay up to date with Bill C-11

Despite the major problems with Bill C-11, it has already made its way through the Canadian House of Commons and it’s on the verge of passing the Senate. However, there are some members of the Senate that oppose the bill and hope to kill it before it becomes law.

You can read the full text of Bill C-11 here.

You can track the progress of Bill C-11 here.

November 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The Biosecurity State With James Corbett & Meryl Nass

Good Morning CHD | November 3, 2022

Good Morning CHD is a daily news show by Children’s Health Defense TV bringing you the latest health freedom news.

Contact us at GoodmorningCHD@childrenshealthdefense.org

November 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

New Zealand says “misinformation” and Covid policies seen to be “infringing on rights” could fuel extremism

A secret service initiative

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | November 3, 2022

New Zealand authorities have released a guide to help people identify signs of violent extremism.

The secret service says they are usually closely monitoring between 40 to 50 potential terrorists, adding that most used to be motivated by their white identity or by religion – but in the past six months a third group has supposedly emerged; those motivated by politics, particularly around Covid.

“Recognizing a potential warning sign and then alerting New Zealand SIS or police could be the vital piece in the puzzle that ultimately saves lives,” NZSIS Director-General Rebecca Kitteridge said.

“To pay attention and to be alert so that if they see or hear about something that seems off, that worries them and concerns them, they might have a look at this information to say ‘does this indicate to me that this person is actually on the road to committing an attack.’”

The Director-General mentioned Covid specifically, adding that a growing number of people are also concerned about infringement on rights.

“So it could be the Covid measures that the Government took, or it could be other policies that are interpreted as infringing on rights and it’s a kind of what I describe as a hot mess of ideologies and beliefs fueled by conspiracy theories,” Kitteridge said.

Prime Minister  also had comments:

“It would be wrong to imply that we have this significant surge in threat in that regard – are there individuals who subscribe to a particular ideology that may border and dip into violent extremism? Yes,” she said.

On the topic of online misinformation, Ardern said, “it’s not about censorship,” adding “It’s about equipping people to identify when they may be subject to misinformation, making sure we’re building our resilience in our young people to be able to identify it… and to create trusted sources where people know they can go.”

November 3, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

All Those Responsible Must Pay a Price for Terrorising and Harming the People They Are Meant to Serve

BY DR GARY SIDLEY | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 2, 2022

I belong to a privileged generation. Not that I was raised in affluence; far from it. Born in 1958, to a mother who worked all her life as a weaver in the textile industry and a father employed as a maintenance mechanic at the local factory, I lived on a council estate for the first decade of my life. Money was tight, holidays were basic and infrequent, and treats – in the form of confectionary – were rare, usually restricted to a Turkish Delight chocolate bar each Sunday evening. Although I never realised it until I was 62, I was, however, part of a cohort who possessed something sacrosanct, something so very precious and – deplorably – something future generations may never enjoy again: individual freedom.

To be clear, the world I have lived in has been far from perfect. My era has been one incorporating fundamental inequalities and injustices, widespread poverty, discrimination and – particularly in my young-adult years – a recurring risk of physical assault. But despite this context, each of us took for granted a range of basic human rights: to meet with whomever we wished; to leave our homes whenever we chose; to eat whatever we wanted; to express opinions others might not agree with; to take risks, make mistakes and learn sometimes painful lessons; to wear whatever we wanted; to work to improve our career prospects and earn more money to enhance our lives and those of our families; and to decide what drugs and other medical interventions to accept. When cheap flights emerged in the 1970s and 80s, the whole world became wonderfully accessible.

My perception (probably a naïve one) of successive Labour and Conservative Governments was that, although often inept and guilty of policy errors, they broadly sought to improve the lives of their citizens and could at least be relied upon to protect us against external malignant forces. Furthermore, it seemed that the life-spans of our elected politicians were dependent upon keeping us – their constituents – satisfied by acting primarily in the interests of U.K. citizens.

But 30 months ago, this illusion was shattered.

I knew something was awry as early as February 2020. By March the same year my early-warning detector would not rest. While the media, politicians and the science ‘experts’ informed us – incessantly – that a uniquely lethal pathogen was spreading carnage across the world, and unprecedented and draconian restrictions on our day-to-day lives were essential to prevent Armageddon, I wasn’t buying it. I formed the view that a momentous event, unparalleled in my lifetime, was unfolding, but it was not primarily about a virus.

Why, at that point in time, did I recognise that something sinister was underway while almost everyone else I met seemed to be swallowing the dominant narrative? It is a difficult question to answer. Perhaps my time in the early 1980s as a psychiatric charge nurse in an NHS hospital, occasionally interfacing with the ‘infection control’ department, gave me insight into how this professional group operate. Although well-meaning, their advice regarding how to minimise the spread of contagion on a ward often seemed impractical, revealing an apparent inability to see the bigger picture. Or maybe my in-depth knowledge of risk assessment (gleaned in my doctoral thesis during my time as a clinical psychologist) had impressed upon me how woefully inaccurate we are in gauging the relative threat levels posed by various hazards inherent in our environment. What I did know for sure was that Big Pharma – arguably the most corrupt industry in the world – would exploit the emerging ‘crisis’ for its own ends. And how right I was.

The list of state-driven human rights abuses we have endured under the pretence of ‘keeping us safe’ and the (ominous) ‘greater good’ is long: prohibition of travel; confinement in our homes; social isolation; closure of businesses; denial of access to leisure activities; de-humanising mask mandates; directives (scrawled on floors and walls) dictating which way to walk; an arbitrary ‘stay two metres apart’ rule; exclusion from the weddings and funerals of our loved ones; the seclusion and neglect of our elderly; school shutdowns; children’s playgrounds sealed off with yellow and black tape; muzzled children and toddlers; students denied both face-to-face tuition and a ‘rites-of-passage’ social life; and coerced experimental ‘vaccines’ that turned out to be more harmful and less effective than initially claimed. Equally egregious were the strategies deployed to lever compliance with these restrictions, namely psychological manipulation (‘nudging’), pervasive censorship across the media and academic journals and the cancellation and vilification of anyone brave enough to speak out against the dominant Covid narrative. All-in-all, a state-driven assault on the core of our shared humanity.

As the state-orchestrated infringement of our basic human rights continued, I felt compelled to act in ways that were far outside of my comfort zone. The 61-year-old man who had never been on a protest march until summer 2020, and who had innocently assumed that most of society’s leaders were decent people who tried to do what was right, had changed. I found myself walking with tens of thousands of others along Regent Street, London, screaming “Freedom!” I pushed “Back to Normal” leaflets through the letterboxes of hundreds of my neighbours. I stood on the corner of our local shopping street with a placard held aloft stating, “Say No To Vaccine Passports”.

Throughout 2020 and 2021, I struggled to find reasons for the irrational, masochistic Covid restrictions and the ubiquitous infringement of our basic human rights. My explanations evolved. Initially I clung to the ‘panic and incompetence’ rationale, that our governments had been spooked by the images coming out of China – remember the videos of people falling dead in the streets – and the mono-focused, blinkered and catastrophic prophecies of our so-called epidemiological experts. As the atrocities persisted, this explanation was rendered inadequate, and it morphed into an ‘opportunistic agendas’ account where activists – promoting green aspirations, digitalised IDs, social credit systems, a cashless society, universal income, a biosecurity state – had exploited the anxieties associated with the emergence of a novel respiratory virus. By 2021 these conclusions, in turn, seemed insufficient to explain the persistence of the horrors we were enduring and it – belatedly – became clear that globalist and ‘deep state’ powers were at work, striving to realise their inhuman aspirations. My further reading about the activities of World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the European Union, the World Health Organisation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, Anthony Fauci and Big Pharma, and others, confirmed this emerging conclusion.

As the Covid event fades from media attention (replaced by a focus on similarly dehumanising and totalitarian responses to environmental threats, the war in Ukraine and the imminent cost-of-living crisis) it is intriguing to reflect upon its residual effects.

I continue to mourn what I have lost, a process associated with a complex mix of fluctuating emotions. For two years, our Government, aided and abetted by state-funded scientists, denied us opportunities for fun and human connection, stymied our freedoms and orchestrated a systematic campaign to coerce us to both accept experimental ‘vaccines’ and to slavishly cover our faces with cloth or plastic. Consequently, I feel anger and disgust towards many of our politicians, epidemiological ‘experts’ and behavioural scientists who were complicit with this shameful period in our history. And I now distrust all sources of information, whether it be the media, the ‘scientific’ world or public health experts. Without an anchor for truth, I float – incredulous – in an ocean of mainstream-generated misinformation.

My 60-plus years of naivety have been shattered. I believe only those few who have shown selfless integrity throughout the Covid debacle. Also, I am now sceptical about much of the green agenda: state-funded scientists lied to us about Covid so why wouldn’t they show the same self-serving dishonesty about the climate?

Closer to home, it is clear my life has changed. I feel disappointment and irritation towards many people who I previously respected and liked, such as friends who colluded with the catastrophically damaging Covid restrictions because of fear, ignorance or a desire to avoid hassle and condemnation. Many relationships are now more distant. On the rare occasions we meet there is often an ‘elephant in the room’, and when the Covid issue is touched upon I typically feel frustrated that many do not want to consider the implications of what has been inflicted upon us.

I feel similarly towards mental health colleagues who, for years, I had stood alongside and respected, collectively fighting the tyranny of biological psychiatry (its human rights infringements, coercion, overuse of drugs and vilification of those who questioned them) but who failed to recognise a much bigger tyranny when it emerged in 2020. While a handful of this anti-psychiatry lobby did soon recognise the totalitarian threat inherent to the Covid response, most bought into the dominant narrative. Heated disagreements ensued with a few, followed by ongoing mutual resentment; for most we just avoid each other.

But the residual effects of the Covid debacle are not all negative. New friendships have emerged with people from across the political spectrum. Based on a mutual respect, enduring bonds have formed with fellow sceptics both locally (through the Community Assembly and the Stand in the Park initiatives) and nationally via joint endeavours in HART, Smile Free, and PANDA. And it was uplifting to recently discover – via a chance meeting in the local pub – that the family I had lived across the road from for the last seven years, yet had rarely spoken to, had always been as sceptical as me about the dominant Covid narrative.

Furthermore, I have noticed that my behaviour has changed in subtle ways. I now make more of an effort to smile and gain eye contact with – unmasked – strangers. Similarly, when greeting acquaintances, I’m more inclined to hug or shake hands as compared to pre-2020 levels of bodily contact. (Non of that fist-bump and elbow-touch nonsense for me.) It’s as if I’m striving to compensate for the human connection deficit that we’ve accrued over the last 30 months. Or perhaps I’m making a defiant metaphorical one-finger salute to any onlookers who still adhere to the risk-averse and dehumanising dominant Covid narrative?

While we continue to drown in a sea of propaganda, censorship and coercion, who knows what the future might hold?

One thing is for sure: We must never forget what the political leaders and public health specialists inflicted upon us. Whether the reason was weakness, groupthink, conflict of interest or unadulterated corruption, the miscreants must all be held to account and pay a price for terrorising the people they are meant to serve. This assertion is not fuelled by a primitive desire for retribution – well, not primarily – but by an expectation that, if the guilty are not named and shamed, the same totalitarian impositions will be repeated again and again.

The conviction sheet is a long one. It includes political leaders at home (Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer, Nicola Sturgeon, Mark Drayford) and abroad (including Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Joe Biden and Jacinda Ardern); Bill Gates and his various funding agencies; SAGE scientists who danced to the tune of their academic and political paymasters; the behavioural science ‘nudgers’ at the helm of the worldwide psychological manipulation strategy; the professional organisations that have manifestly colluded with the state-driven tyranny (including the British Medical Association and the British Psychological Society); the conflicted drug regulators (such as the MHRA); the powerful, profit-driven pharmaceutical companies, deploying their financial clout to influence health policy decisions; and the mainstream media, who have slavishly peddled the dominant Covid narrative while dismissing alternative viewpoints.

To successfully expose the wrongdoings of such powerful individuals and institutions is a big ask. Realistically, only bottom-up resistance and protests from millions of ordinary people could achieve this aim, and in this regard there are reasons for optimism. Truth will – eventually – reveal itself. Despite the ongoing censorship and manipulation, public dissent to the attempted imposition of a biosecurity state is becoming increasingly visible. Masking in the community is – at the time of writing – practised only by an eccentric minority. The net harms of Covid restrictions are more widely recognised. Ordinary citizens increasingly claim they will not be locked down and separated from their loved ones ever again. And – perhaps more importantly – the ‘safe and effective’ vaccine narrative is crumbling, as indicated by more and more people rejecting the jabs.

If we do not wish to live in a ‘transhuman’ society devoid of personal freedoms, where our day-to-day decisions – where we go, what we say, what we eat, how we spend our money, what drugs we ingest – are determined by the state’s version of the ‘greater good’, we must all continue to show visible dissent to the globalists’ new world order.

Together, I believe we can defeat the biggest threat to Western values witnessed in my lifetime. And even if we don’t succeed, history will show that at least we tried.

Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign. He blogs at Coronababble

November 2, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Senator Dick Durbin says free speech doesn’t protect “misinformation” that downplays political violence

The statement itself is misinformation

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 2, 2022

“Free speech does not include spreading misinformation to downplay political violence,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who also is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tweeted – referencing an alleged “uptick in hate speech” since Elon Musk took  private.

“Misinformation” is protected by the .

The uptick that Senator Durbin is referencing was a bot campaign that Twitter suggests was used to troll the platform and the media as soon as Musk took control of the company.

Senator’s Durbin’s comments followed Twitter CEO Elon Musk tweeting a link to an article containing claims about the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul.

Musk posted the link in response to a tweet by Hillary Clinton that contained a link by the Los Angeles Times. She wrote: “The Republican Party and its mouthpieces now regularly spread hate and deranged conspiracy theories. It is shocking, but not surprising, that violence is the result. As citizens, we must hold them accountable for their words and the actions that follow.”

While posting the link, Musk wrote: “There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye.” Musk deleted the tweet after about six hours. However, it already had over 100,000 likes and 28,000 retweets.

Musk did not explain why he deleted the tweet.

He has initially claimed to be a “free speech absolutist.” However, in a statement to advertisers after he became Twitter’s new owner, he said that the platform will not become a “free-for-all hellscape.”

November 2, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe threatens to Jail Dr. Jackie Stone for prescribing off-label Covid treatment

World Council for Health | November 2, 2022

Dr Jackie Stone, MD is a globally respected medical figure known for saving lives and pioneering treatment options during the Covid era. Rather than being revered for saving lives, Dr Stone is currently being threatened with a custodial sentence for treating her patients.

At a time when fear was gripping the world, Dr Stone did not sit by the sidelines. Instead, she sprang into action, ultimately reducing suffering and death in Zimbabwe by using widely available, innovative, and safe tools like ivermectin and colloidal silver. Dr Stone then worked tirelessly to share her findings with healthcare professionals around the world.

Despite her success, medical institutions the world over have neglected the opportunity to learn from Dr Stone and honor her noble work. Instead, the Medical Council is attempting to punish her.

Dr Stone has had the following four charges laid against her:

  1. Contravening section 135 2 (a) of the Health Professions Act (Pertaining to Advertising)
  2. Contravening section 92 of the Health Professions Act (Practicing without a license)
  3. Contravening section 99 of the Health Professions Act (Practicing from an Unlicensed Health Institution)
  4. Contravening section 29 of the Medicines and Allied Substances Control Act (Use of specified [banned] substances)

Because both ivermectin and colloidal silver are not on Zimbabwe’s list of banned drugs, she was found not guilty of both charges 1 and 4 on Friday, September 23. Dr Stone maintains that she is being charged with crimes that do not exist.

The World Council for Health calls on Zimbabwe’s president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, to intervene, liberate, and honor hero and world-renowned practitioner, Dr Jackie Stone.

Those wishing to advocate on Dr Stone’s behalf can contact President Emmerson Mnangagwa by sending an email here or on Twitter. Dr Stone’s next appearance in court is scheduled for Thursday, November 3.

A peaceful demonstration has been organized in South Africa in support of Dr Stone on Thursday morning.

November 2, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment