Aletho News


What it’s like to be vaccine injured in 2023

A Better Way to Health with Dr Tess Lawrie | January 26, 2023

We are in the final week of Covid Vaccine Victim Awareness month. If you knew about this campaign, consider yourself well informed. As you know, raising awareness of the most pressing issues of our time is extremely challenging.

It is hard enough trying to inform people about the WHO’s power grab, or Covid injection risks, or safe, effective treatments like Ivermectin. Indeed, the video I shared last week about the husband who smuggled ivermectin to his wife in a chocolate bar has already been removed by YouTube, who apparently deemed this first-hand account as ‘medical misinformation’. Fortunately, you can still view it here.

All that is hard enough. But perhaps the greatest challenge of all is getting governments, medical establishments and Big Pharma to acknowledge one of the most marginalised groups in society today: the men, women and children harmed by the Covid-19 injections, and their bereaved.

Could this be because those supposedly best placed to help them are the ones with everything to lose by doing so?

Governments are failing to acknowledge the vaccine injured properly because to do so would be political suicide. Having pushed and pressured and bullied people into taking the jabs, any administration that then admits it has harmed its own people will have to face severe consequences.

Big Pharma won’t acknowledge them, not least because they are a direct threat to their bottom line.

Most hospitals, universities and other research establishments and clinical care settings won’t acknowledge them because they don’t want to risk losing their funding from, you guessed it, Big Pharma and government.

Doctors won’t acknowledge them because the pain of participating in the biggest crime in medical history may be too much to bear and that, having taken the shots themselves, they may realise that they may have put themselves and their families at risk of injury too.

As if that’s bad enough, many vaccine-injured people are being ostracised by their own families and communities.

Thus abandoned, the vaccine injured have been left to fend for themselves.

In the last two years, the injured have resorted to funding their own investigations into finding treatments that work. They have come together to form support groups – groups like UK CV FamilyVaccine, Injured, Bereaved UK and React 19. These groups collate their own research, reach out to doctors and politicians and government committees, asking again and again for help.

But there’s a problem here. They are in pain, exhausted, and beset by strange combinations of symptoms that are both debilitating and at times, terrifying. You need energy, vigour and stamina to fight government and its corporate sponsors – and for those injured, this is in short supply. Despite that, they fight. With dignity and grace, they keep going.

Last week, vaccine injured people and the bereaved travelled to London for a peaceful rally to raise awareness of vaccine injury. They gathered outside BBC Broadcasting House, then walked in a memorial procession through the streets to 10 Downing Street.

I imagine that for many, to make a trip like that cost them a lot. I imagine that many went home and have been in bed ever since, trying to recover from the mammoth effort it took just to be there, holding a white rose, taking space in a public place to show the world we are real, not rare, and we need your help.

Here is a powerful video that was put together by someone called Alice the Journalist. It opens with speeches, then moves to the procession, as people made their way to Downing Street. Watch the faces of passers-by in the film, from about 4:20 in: their expressions of shock and sadness are telling. You can almost see the penny start to drop for these people.

We know that vaccine injury is real, not rare – but those of us who know this, need to spread the word as much as we can. Because the more visible it becomes, the more it intrudes into public conversation, the harder it’s going to be for governments to ignore.

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Why Net Zero is nonsense: a briefing document for opponents

By Robin Guenier | TCW Defending Freedom | January 26, 2023

I’m increasingly alarmed at how all the UK’s major political parties are committed to the Net Zero policy. If implemented, it will have appalling consequences for the economy and for most people, few of whom understand the quite simple issues involved. I have therefore put together a ‘briefing document’ which marshals three arguments that I hope may contribute to curtailing the policy before it’s too late.

1. It’s unachievable. Many vehicles and machines (used for example in agriculture, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, mining and construction) and products (eg concrete, steel, plastics, fertiliser, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, paints, adhesives and asphalt) essential to our lives and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives, and there are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. The complex engineering, reliability and cost challenges of establishing a Net Zero grid and the vast scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of material and space are required because the ‘energy density’ of wind and sun is so low) make it most unlikely that the UK could generate sufficient renewable electricity for current needs, let alone for the mandated electric vehicles and heat pumps. In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough technical managers, engineers, electricians, plumbers, mechanics and other tradespeople (probably over a million) to do the many tasks that would be essential to achieve Net Zero.

2. It would be socially and economically disastrous because: (a) the UK’s all-renewable energy project doesn’t include a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun, so millions of people, especially the poor and vulnerable, would be put at serious personal risk (including death) from electricity blackouts; (b) our crippled economy would be tipped deeper into decline by enormous additional costs and energy unavailability, further blighting our poor industrial productivity; (c) China essentially controls the supply of materials (in particular so-called rare earths) needed for renewables, so the UK would increase its already dangerous dependence on it, putting our energy and overall security at serious risk, and (d) the vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables would have appalling environmental and human consequences affecting in particular fragile ecosystems and some of the world’s poorest people – not least as a result of Chinese  human rights abuses.

3. Above all, it’s pointless. Most major non-Western countries – the source of more than 75 per cent of CO2 emissions and home to 84 per cent of humanity – don’t regard emissions reduction as a priority and, either exempt from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing and will continue to increase for the foreseeable future whatever the UK (the source of less than 1 per cent of global emissions) may or may not do. It therefore makes absolutely no sense for Britain to pursue this unachievable and disastrous policy.

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

‘There is another Ukraine’ – exiled opposition leader

RT | January 26, 2023

The exiled former-leader of Ukraine’s largest opposition party still considers himself a Ukrainian citizen and lawmaker, and is building a team of like-minded people to represent those he claims are suppressed by the current government in Kiev. Speaking to RT, Viktor Medvedchuk claimed that President Vladimir Zelensky is a dictator sacrificing the country on behalf of Western powers.

When Zelensky claims Ukraine is united, he omits that this unity was forced at gunpoint, Medvedchuk asserted. He formerly led the, now banned, Opposition Platform – For Life party which won the second largest number of parliamentary seats in Ukraine’s 2019 elections. It advocated closer ties with Russia and rejected Kiev’s pro-NATO stance.

There are many people who disagree with the current government in Kiev, who represent “another Ukraine, not that of [WWII Nazi collaborator Stepan] Bandera, one that has nothing to do with the statements and policies of neo-Nazism pursued by Zelensky,” he added.

Today’s Ukraine violates every provision of its own constitution, Medvedchuk argued, and “ceased to be independent and sovereign” after the February 2014 coup, when it “passed completely under external control of the West.”

Zelensky first placed Medvedchuk under house arrest, then sent him to a “dungeon” run by the Ukrainian SBU security service, where the opposition politician said he was exposed to “constant psychological pressure and humiliation.” In September 2022, he was flown to Poland, and then to Türkiye, where he was handed over to Russian authorities.

Contrary to popular misperception, he said, he was not traded for the leaders of the neo-Nazi “Azov” regiment who surrendered in Mariupol. They were exchanged for captured Russian soldiers, Medvedchuk explained, while he was traded for “ten foreign mercenaries who fought in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.”

Kiev has accused Medvedchuk of treason and of secretly obtaining Russian citizenship. He rejects both claims as false, saying the “falsified charges” related to his legitimate mediation on behalf of the Ukrainian government with the breakaway Donbass regions and Moscow in 2014-15. About 1,500 Ukrainian POWs came home as a result of his efforts, he noted.

“I remain a citizen of Ukraine,” Medvedchuk insisted, adding that Zelensky had no right to revoke his passport, a move he dismissed as “completely reckless and I would say insane.” If he wanted to get a Russian passport or move to Russia, the politician said, he would have done so years ago. “But I did not leave. And I did not surrender.”

“Zelensky is the kind of man who thinks mainly about PR when it comes to any affairs of state,” Medvedchuk said. “This government tries to hide reality from the people and disguise its actions, which are not in the interest of Ukraine or the Ukrainian people.”

It is Britain that controls Zelensky and Kiev, much more than the US, Medvedchuk claimed, adding that London spearheads the push by the collective West to make Ukraine a springboard against Russia.

The goal of the West is to “stir up some kind of confrontation within Russia, processes that can weaken the Russian leadership,” which is what Zelensky is trying to do, Medvedchuk told RT. However, “it is clear that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia, due to well-known factual circumstances.”

Watch the full interview here.

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Video | , | 1 Comment

Changing Your Mind Is A Strength Not A Weakness

A Better Way to Health with Dr Tess Lawrie | January 24, 2023

This is a story about the value of standing your ground, and never letting THEM (The Hierarchy Exploiting Medics) dupe you into believing they have power over you. Truth wins out.

On 30th September 2021, I gave an invited academic lecture at a philosophical institute in Bath called Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution (BRLSI). As the General Medical Council (GMC) states in its letter to me:

“The Institution is an independent charity that promotes science, literature and art to the City of Bath; tickets for its lectures can be bought by both member and non-members of the Institution.”

The title of my lecture was ‘Covid and the State of Evidence-based Medicine’ and I covered what I knew at the time about early treatments for Covid, as well as the emerging evidence on the Covid-19 vaccines suggesting serious safety issues. I have alluded to this talk and associated investigation in a previous Substack article.

There were probably not more than forty people in the room, with a number attending via Zoom too. Towards the end of the talk, a man’s voice came loudly through the microphone, facilitated by whomever was controlling the Zoom permissions, drowning out mine, and declaring that I should be ashamed of myself for what I had said.

The lovely organiser of the meeting was suitably embarrassed, but it was clear that his feelings were not shared by his masked and furious medical colleague, who had clearly facilitated the heckler’s dramatic outburst. The colleague later denied access to the lecture recording, which was never more widely published as is usually the case for these events.

A couple of months later I was notified by the GMC that I was under investigation for “misconduct” in relation to my lecture at the BRLSI, the allegations being that I “denied the safety of Covid-19 vaccines and spread misinformation about Covid-19 treatments”. The GMC investigation was opened to determine whether I had made “inaccurate and/or misleading comments about Covid-19 and Covid-19 vaccines”.

I received excellent advice from Solicitor Philip Hyland who responded to the GMC quite simply on my behalf pointing out that “taken at its highest there is a substantial body of medical opinion that supports what Doctor Lawrie is saying.”

This week I received the outcome of the GMC’s investigation, which is “closure of the case with no action”. In its letter to me, the GMC noted that:

“During the investigation the GMC obtained a video copy and transcript of the Lecture. During the initial part of the Lecture Dr Lawrie presented her views on the evidence on ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19, later in her lecture Dr Lawrie presented her views on vaccines.

“It was established during the GMC investigation that the advertisement for the Lecture stated that Dr Lawrie was an external consultant to the World Health Organisation, a clinical practice guideline expert, and that she was Director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd and Ebmcsquared CIC. The Ebmcsquared CIC website states that it was established by Dr Lawrie as a ‘a non-profit company in March 2021 in response to the tremendous need for independent and objective health care research and provision, arising out of the Covid-19 health emergency.’

Dr Lawrie’s comments

On 10 February 2022, Dr Lawrie’s representatives submitted that ‘taken at its highest there is a substantial body of medical opinion that supports what Doctor Lawrie is saying.’

Reasons for our decision

As case examiners we must decide whether there is a realistic prospect of establishing that a doctor’s fitness to practise is currently impaired to a degree justifying action on his or her registration.

This test has two parts.

  • We must decide if the allegations are serious enough to warrant action on the doctor’s registration.
  • We must also consider whether the allegations are capable of proof to the required standard, namely that it is more likely than not that the alleged events occurred.

In making decisions, we should have regard to the GMC’s objectives. These are to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public; promote and maintain public confidence in the profession; and promote and maintain proper standards and conduct for members of the profession.

Doctors are entitled to hold and express personal views, however they also have an overriding duty to patients and to uphold the public’s confidence in the profession. In the absence of expert or other evidence capable of proving that Dr Lawrie’s conduct was such that public confidence in the medical profession would be undermined, or that it risked the health, safety and well-being of the public, or that it undermined proper standards and conduct for members of the profession, we agree that there is no realistic prospect of establishing evidentially that Dr Lawrie’s fitness to practise is impaired to a degree justifying action on her registration.


For the reasons given above, we have decided to close the case with no action.”

To my medical colleagues out there, I do hope that this will reassure you and encourage you to speak out now.

Please remember, as the GMC letter states, that you “have an overriding duty to patients and to uphold the public’s confidence in the profession”, which is unequivocally at an all-time low. We know how busy you are, that you had little time to do your own investigations, and that being at the frontline of what was communicated to be a deadly pandemic was probably terrifying. We know you were told that the Covid-19 vaccines were safe and effective.

However, now that you know the Covid-19 vaccines are not safe and effective, that they are not the same as traditional vaccines, that there are unprecedented numbers of adverse drug reactions (ADR) reported to the official ADR databases, and that Covid ‘boosters’ are systematically destroying people’s immunity not ‘boosting’ it, please stand up for the truth, uphold your Hippocratic Oath, and do what is right. It is a strength not a weakness to be able to change one’s mind when new information comes to light. We have been waiting for you, now please stand up together with us. There’s undoubtedly a better way forward for health and wellbeing!

A few next steps you can take as a doctor

For doctors in the UK, you will find that is a good starting point for peer learning and support.

Please find further reassurance in this article about GMC complaints related to Dr Aseem Malhotra’s BBC interview in which he called for a halt to the Covid vaccination programme. This interview has been viewed over 20 million times and counting.

If you are considering leaving the NHS and starting private practice, I encourage you to register as a practitioner on World Council for Health’s new community platform, Source. This is an online platform connecting local people with doctors and other health professionals in their area. Registration is free – the only condition is that you agree to abide by the Better Way Charter. We receive requests every day from people seeking doctors they can trust: allow us to direct them to you via Source.

Lastly, everything I said at BRLSI on 21 September 2021 about ivermectin and the safety issues with Covid injections is as applicable now more than ever. I will present an updated version of this lecture, ‘Covid and the State of Evidence-based Medicine’ at the ‘Harmonising Modern Medicines with Natures Remedies’ conference in The Philippines in February. Perhaps I’ll see you there!

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Supporting the vaccine injured and bereaved

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | January 25, 2023

On Saturday 21st January 2023, the vaccine injured and bereaved gathered with people who support them in marches across the UK organised by Truth be Told. The London march saw thousands of protestors who began at BBC broadcasting house before a silent memorial procession. White roses were then thrown over the railings into Downing Street. Speakers included Andrew Bridgen MP, many vaccine injured individuals and those who have been trying to help amplify their voices like Mark Sharman, former ITV and BSkyB executive, who funded and produced the film Safe and Effective a Second Opinion.

Those campaigning for better compensation without huge barriers and delays have found themselves in conflict with those who want to stop vaccination completely. It is in the interest of the former to downplay the numbers affected and the latter would benefit from a larger number. There is nothing to be gained by such conflict when both sides are trying to hold politicians to account and struggling to do so. While data is suppressed it is not possible to quantify the extent of harm but the extent can’t remain hidden forever. Whatever figure is finally put on it, it will be too high for an intervention that many of the injured did not need and which was oversold in terms of its ability to prevent infection. Whatever figure is reached, those who are injured deserve compensation and the companies who have profited do not deserve indemnity.

January 25, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

COVID Vaccines ‘Opened the Floodgates’ for New Wave of mRNA Vaccines for Livestock

The Defender | January 19, 2023

Several new government – and industry – funded studies are underway to develop mRNA vaccines for livestock, part of the massive expansion of the animal vaccine industry projected to be worth $26.12 billion by 2030.

Researchers at Iowa State University are undertaking a project funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop mRNA vaccine technology to prevent bovine respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

Pharmaceutical company Zoetis developed an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for animals that was administered to animals at zoos throughout the country.

And researchers in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service experimented with vaccinating captive-bred black-footed ferrets against COVID-19. They also experimented with social distancing and quarantine of ferrets.

Third generation vaccines,” including DNA, RNA and recombinant viral vector vaccines, are not only administered to livestock — but they also are being developed for companion animals and wild animals.

peer-reviewed study in the journal Viruses last year reported, “The successful application of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 has further validated the platform and opened the floodgates to mRNA vaccine’s potential in infectious disease prevention, especially in the veterinary field.”

Citing the need for biosecurity, in September 2022, the New South Wales (NSW) government fast-tracked the world’s first mRNA vaccines for foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy-skin disease, in a five-year multimillion dollar deal with U.S. biotech company Tiba Biotech.

Announcing the deal, Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional NSW Paul Toole said:

“I have now written to vaccine manufacturers to take up my challenge to develop both vaccines ready for use and manufacture in NSW by August 1 next year.

“COVID-19 demonstrated to us that all possible avenues in developing vaccines must be explored and we will leave no stone unturned.”

Dugald Saunders, NSW minister for agriculture, emphasized how important it was to “protect [NSW’s] livestock sector” and said the agreement with Tiba Biotech to create mRNA vaccines, “would be a game-changer for the industry.”

But experts have raised concerns. Holistic veterinarian Dr. W. Jean Dodds, told The Defender in an email:

“Not enough is known at this time if mRNA vaccines can generate any long-term effects on reproduction or lifespan of domestic farm stock.

“As livestock become part of the human and animal food chain, we need to be sure that no abnormal cellular or molecular changes to the animal could be induced by this type of vaccine.”

‘Good health starts with biosecurity’

According to a report published last year by Grand View Research, the market for animal vaccines is expected to grow at a 9.3% compounded annual growth rate, because “the growing incidence of food-borne zoonotic diseases and increasing animal husbandry are boosting the demand for vaccines.”

The paper pointed to the potential of the mRNA platform to treat diseases like African swine fever, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, foot-and-mouth disease virus, bovine viral diarrhea virus, lumpy skin disease virus, bovine leukemia virus and peste des petits ruminants virus, among others.

A recent white paper, “The Future of Livestock Vaccines,” by researchers at the Livestock Research Innovation Corporation, Ontario, Canada, summed up the shift in thinking about animal vaccines:

“New technologies (e.g. mRNA, artificial intelligence) will have dramatic impact on the availability and effectiveness of vaccines available to producers. …

“The current COVID-19 pandemic has taught us many lessons, including the fact that the development, mass production and approval process of vaccines could be shortened from several years (or decades) to 8-9 months.”

“Good health starts with biosecurity,” the authors stated.

Iowa State teams up with Merck — with help from the U.S. government

Iowa State University and Merck last year announced a four-year strategic alliance to research “emerging technologies” in animal health.

Their joint research project to develop mRNA vaccine technology to prevent bovine RSV, as stated above, is funded in part by the U.S. government.

The study aims to develop a novel mRNA platform that is cost-efficient and thermostable in order to “open the door for vaccinating production animals with this technology.”

The project seeks to develop the platform for a bovine RSV vaccine “as a proof of principle for development of vaccines against this pathogen but also as a platform technology for other vaccines as well.”

In 2018, Merck Animal Health introduced Sequivity technology, “a revolutionary swine vaccine platform,” according to its website, to customize vaccines for various swine viruses using RNA particle technology.

The technology consists of creating electronic gene sequences for a given disease, synthesizing them into RNA, inserting them into the platform and injecting them into the animal. The RNA provides instructions to the immune cells to translate the sequence into proteins, which act as antigens.

Merck scientists developed the technology in partnership with Iowa State’s College of Veterinary Medicine.

Gates Foundation among funders of vaccines for livestock

For decades, concentrated animal feedlot operations, known as CAFOs, used antibiotics to help prevent bacterial infections from spreading through farm spaces densely packed with animals. The antibiotics also make animals grow faster.

After years of growing public concern about the use of antibiotics in meat production — particularly for the antibiotic residues they leave and their role in the development of drug-resistant “superbugs” — the World Health Organization in 2017 developed a set of guidelines and best practices on the use of medically important antimicrobials in animals raised for food.

That same year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began regulatory measures to prevent the use of livestock antibiotics for growth purposes and required farmers who wanted to use antibiotics to get them from veterinarians.

The FDA finalized that guidance in 2021.

In an effort to reduce the use of publicly spurned antibiotics and to deal with the problem of viral infections common in industrial livestock production, meat producers turned to vaccines.

“Vaccines and other alternative products can help minimize the need for antibiotics by preventing and controlling infectious diseases in animal populations, and are central to the future success of animal agriculture,” according to a 2018 article in Veterinary Research.

Animal vaccines commonly require a lower level of scrutiny than vaccines for humans.

According to a 2016 Bloomberg report, industry leaders like Elanco, Eli Lilly, Merck Animal Health and Zoetis began shifting billions of dollars of research investments from antibiotics to vaccines in advance of the 2017 FDA regulatory measures.

Experts predicted the new regulations would cause the market for vaccines to explode.

A 2022 report by Acumen showed that other major pharmaceutical companies, including Ceva, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Neogen Corporation, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Zoetis, Biogénesis Bagó and Pfizer are heavily investing in the animal vaccine industry.

“The future of our company is heavily grounded in vaccine development,” Dr. Rick Sibbel, a veterinarian who ran Merck’s technical services for cattle, poultry and swine, told Bloomberg.

The U.K.’s Department for International Development partnered with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to fund livestock vaccines around the world, the department tweeted in 2018.

That partnership included a $40 million grant in 2017 to develop new livestock vaccines. Gates Foundation funding to CGIAR, “global research partnership for a food-secure future dedicated to transforming food, land, and water systems in a climate crisis,” continues to focus on shifting livestock producers from using antibiotics to vaccines.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

January 25, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 1 Comment

US renews waiver for gas field shared by Iran and UK

Press TV – January 24, 2023

The US government has renewed a sanctions waiver for the Rhum gas field in the UK North Sea in which Iran has a 50% stake.

Iran is heavily sanctioned by the United States, but Britain’s Serica Energy which owns another 50% of the field has repeatedly secured waivers to maintain production from the field.

In a statement, Serica said it had secured another waiver extension that ensures that all companies linked to the field can provide services and goods without fear of US penalties.

“We are grateful to the UK government and regulatory authorities who have supported us in this process,” Serica Chief Executive Mitch Flegg was quoted as saying.

Serica Energy is responsible for 5% of the gas produced in the UK which is currently in turmoil over runaway prices of energy in the wake of the Ukraine war.

The UK firm expects its net production to increase by between 50 and 80 percent this year and that level of production to continue into 2025.

This would mean that the company would be producing up to 40,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, reports said.

Rhum, a gas filed located 240 miles (390 km) northeast of Aberdeen in Scotland, is one of the largest on the UK Continental Shelf.

Iran owns half of the stakes at the gas field based on a deal signed before the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The field is believed to be capable of producing more than five million cubic meters of natural gas.

Washington has imposed a series of harsh sanctions on Iran’s energy sector since 2018 when it pulled out of an international nuclear deal.

Pressure hardening

The Biden administration, however, is hardening its position. The Iraqi government is reportedly under immense pressure from Washington to stem the alleged flow of dollars into Iran.

In recent weeks, Iraq’s currency market has been wracked by turmoil after the US introduced tighter controls on international dollar transactions by commercial Iraqi banks in November.

Reports said the move was designed to curb the alleged siphoning of dollars to Iran and apply more pressure along with US sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic.

Iraqi MP Aqeel al-Fatlawi, however, said Washington was deliberately using the new regulations as a political weapon.

“Americans are using the dollar transfer rigid restrictions as warning messages to Prime Minister Sudani to stay tuned with the American interests. ‘Working against us could lead to bringing down your government’ – this is the American message,” the lawmaker said.

The price of consumer goods has increased and the Iraqi currency has taken a beating in the wake of the US restrictions.

And it has deepened anti-American sentiment among politicians in Iraq, which remains unstable nearly 20 years after a US-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.

The US is also targeting Iran’s other major trade partners. On Monday, the Biden administration’s top Iran envoy said it will increase pressure on China to cease imports of Iranian oil.

China is the main destination of exports by Iran, and talks to dissuade Beijing from the purchases are “going to be intensified,” US Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley told Bloomberg Television.

The US reimposed sanctions on the Islamic Republic and its petroleum exports in 2018 after pulling out of the nuclear agreement, with then president Donald Trump pledging that Washington was set to bring Iran’s oil exports down to zero.

That goal never realized, with Iranian sales continuing to reach the market despite the US “maximum pressure” to curb them.

“We have not lessened any of our sanctions against Iran and in particular regards to Iran’s sale of oil,” Malley said.

Iranian crude shipments have surged in recent months, including to China, the world’s biggest importer.

Malley said the US will “take steps that we need to take in order to stop the export of Iranian oil and deter countries from buying it”.

January 24, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Western ‘theft’ will backfire, Russian tycoon warns

Vladimir Potanin. © Sputnik/Alexei Druzhinin
RT | January 23, 2023

Western countries are sawing off the branch they are sitting on by confiscating Russian assets, billionaire businessman Vladimir Potanin believes.

Following the launch of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in February last year, multiple countries have frozen assets belonging both to the Russian state, and private companies and individuals to the tune of more than $300 billion.

In an interview with Russian media outlet RBK published on Monday, Potanin, the largest shareholder of mining giant Nornickel, said: “The confiscation [of assets] is a covert or overt form of theft,” and destroys “the investment climate of the jurisdiction where this is happening.”

Potanin noted that the countries comprising the ‘collective West’ had based their societies upon respect for private property.

The recent freezing of Russian assets “will backfire on them,” he said, adding that Russia should refrain from mirroring these measures.

He went on to suggest that by exercising respect for property rights, Moscow will be in a stronger moral position when it fights for its frozen assets in the West, and will send the right signals to entrepreneurs at home.

Potanin also warned against nationalizing property left behind in Russia by Western businesses – instead, the authorities need to “give the investment community the opportunity to solve this problem on its own.” He noted that the exodus of Western companies from Russia has allowed local investors to buy up assets at relatively low prices.

Potanin described the Western sanctions as “absolutely destructive and even, apparently, absolutely illegal,” and in his view, what we are seeing right now is the destruction of basic global rules.

The billionaire acknowledged that Western sanctions have put his plans for overseas business expansion on hold and have adversely affected his ability to travel the world, though he has now switched to exploring Russia instead, he added. Potanin nevertheless expressed confidence that the West “will come to their senses” sooner or later.

January 23, 2023 Posted by | Economics | , , , | 1 Comment

A top British think tank has revealed Russia’s cyberwarfare dominance over Ukraine

Why has Western media ignored its report?

By Felix Livshitz | RT | January 23, 2023

On November 30, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), an elite military think tank, and lobby group, with deep ties to the UK government, published a landmark report entitled ‘Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022’. While desperate to portray the operation as a failure, even the normally Russophobic RUSI can’t ignore Moscow’s total cyberwarfare dominance over Kiev.

Complete superiority

Buried in the document is a long section on the electronic warfare aspect of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It found that within weeks of February 24, Moscow’s forces quickly established total dominance in this sphere by deploying extensive jamming infrastructure. Once achieved, Kiev’s most sophisticated cyber systems were not only totally confused, but absolutely crippled.

Before the attack, Ukraine had for some years been receiving the best Western reconnaissance and strike drones – Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) – IMF debt could buy.

These systems, RUSI states, were envisioned to be “critical to competitiveness” in a hypothetical future battlefield, by providing “situational awareness and target acquisition” second to none. However, as it turned out, the “attrition rates” of these high-tech drones were “extremely high” from February to July due to Russian electronic warfare prowess, and thy were destroyed completely at around 90%.

“The average life expectancy of a quadcopter remained around three flights. The average life expectancy of a fixed-wing UAV was around six flights … even when UAVs survived, this did not mean that they were successful in carrying out their missions,” the report records. “UAVs could fail to achieve their missions because the requirements to get them in place … prevented timely target acquisition before the enemy displaced. Many missions failed to find targets because there was no target at the specified location.”

A “more common” means of “mission failure” was “disruption of a UAV under control through electronic warfare, the dazzling of its sensors or the denial of its navigational systems from determining the accurate location of a target.”

“In other instances, the Russians successfully struck the ground control stations of the UAV. In aggregate, only around a third of UAV missions can be said to have been successful.”

Russia’s dominance in electronic warfare had further damaging implications for the precision weapons shipped to Ukraine from London, Washington, and other Western backers too. Moscow’s cyber divisions effectively “defeated” most of the precision weapons used by Kiev.

RUSI is a prominent and highly influential firm, and its publications typically generate enormous media interest – when these reports paint Russia in an overwhelmingly negative light, and talk up the need for Moscow to be countered through highly aggressive political, diplomatic, intelligence and military postures, that is.

Unheeded prophecies

Aside from a single article in America’s Forbes magazine, this assessment has remained unacknowledged by any mainstream journalist or pundit for well over a month. It is not the first time a RUSI report has mysteriously received no recognition in recent memory. In late January, the think tank published an assessment of the value of Western arms shipments to Kiev.

It concluded there was little point in sending vehicles or weaponry of any kind to Ukraine, in the event fighting broke out with Russia, due to Moscow’s “operational art,” military doctrine, and “strategic thinking.” These long-held philosophies mean that the Kremlin and its armed forces chiefs consider battle an extension of diplomacy, and therefore leverage “superiority in long-range fires to achieve decisive effects against an opponent, which could in turn achieve strategic results.”

Among the “strategic results” sought is a battlefield where “massed ground formations in direct confrontations” are not deployed. Instead, by “inflicting enough damage to alter an opponent’s course of action, or signal that Russia’s intent is genuine, Russian strategic goals can be achieved without conflict.”

This would be secured by using long-range missiles in a “non-contact” military engagement – “the minimum level of force necessary to promote Russia’s regional goals and limit the need to deploy ground forces.” In other words, exactly what has unfolded over the course of the past year.

“Armoured vehicles, short-range anti-tank weapons and air defence systems can only be useful in one scenario, one which is likely to be preceded by a harrowing and extensive period of non-contact warfare designed to prevent the Ukrainian armed forces from operating effectively at all,” RUSI forecast. “Their use will only be possible once all initiative has been lost and the situation is unlikely to be turning in Ukraine’s favour.”

The report’s conclusion was that the weaponry the West had sent and planned to send to Ukraine “does nothing to improve Ukraine’s odds of deterring Russia, or even defending against a Russian invasion once it has begun,” and any attempt to arm Kiev was “not likely” to defend “Ukraine’s sovereignty.”

January 23, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | 1 Comment

Incentivizing Censorship: a Snitch in Every Skull

Traveling the nine circles of thought-police hell with TJ Coles, the cancelled University of Plymouth academic.

Helen of desTroy | January 22, 2023

An informational iron curtain is coming down across the West, and its architects are determined to make examples out of those who refuse to pick a side. Our Democracy™ has adopted a zero-tolerance policy for pollution of the information ecosystem, and the Thought Police are standing by to halt rogue infodemics in their tracks, lest the people lose trust in their institutions. Dr. Tim Coles, a freelance writer and postdoctoral researcher until recently at the University of Plymouth didn’t realize he was in their crosshairs until he found himself locked out of his university email account in October. Tech support was no help; department staff refused to talk to him, closing ranks and sending him a threatening email demanding he cease contact. Clearly, he had violated some unwritten law. But what?

The chain of emails that had culminated in his removal only raised further questions about why an apparent stranger whom Plymouth has refused to name – a university employee, he suspects – had complained about his writing for Australian magazine Nexus to his old PhD examiner. In a Kafkaesque turn, the complaint lacked a single concrete accusation of wrongdoing that Coles could defend himself against, instead equivocating around familiar “conspiracy theorist” tropes.

At any rate, no one had thought to consult Coles, perhaps believing him to be a disgruntled ex-student trading on his old university email rather than a researcher whose work at the university was funded by an outside trust and had nothing to do with his political writing. Rather than pause for clarification, his PhD examiner appeared to jump in with both feet, urging tech staff to help get Coles “off [the university’s] books.”

While a prolific writer on many controversial topics – US funding and training of neo-Nazis in Ukraine, the West’s neocolonial plunder of Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism, and Big Pharma’s giant power-grab under cover of Covid-19 unholy alliance of Big Pharma and Big Tech amid the coronavirus outbreak are just a few – Coles believes he ran afoul of the university censors with a series of articles about intelligence agencies blackmailing people with child sexual abuse that ran in Nexus not long before the cancellation effort began. That particular subject has a tendency to get journalists killed, and Coles wonders if his ejection from Plymouth might be a warning shot from groups displeased with his inquiries. He acknowledges, however, that the timing may be a coincidence – Hope Not Hate and other intelligence-controlled censorship advocates were apparently trying to have Nexus banned in the UK around the same time for its publication of unorthodox views on Covid-19.

While he believes the evidence in the email chain is enough to prove wrongdoing by the university, Coles couldn’t even file a complaint through the normal channels, as his inquisitors had roped the complaints department into their conspiracy by including them in the email chain. He has considered releasing the messages publicly as a last resort, but first plans to employ an outside arbitrator and give the System one last chance – more than he was given, at any rate.

Lessons from The Lobby

Dr. Coles is far from the first to be booted from a British university campus for thoughtcrime. He sees parallels between his case and that of David Miller, the University of Bristol sociology professor who was subjected to a ferocious academic inquisition and ultimately drummed out of his post in late 2021 after the Board of Deputies of British Jews deliberately misinterpreted comments he had made about Israel weaponizing Jewish students abroad. The university’s Union of Jewish Students had been attacking him for years before seizing upon the supposedly discriminatory comment, which they only heard because they had sent in an activist ’spy’ to monitor one of his classes  – ironically validating the professor’s claims better than his own arguments could have.

Like Coles, Miller was never directly confronted by his accuser, who opted for mealy-mouthed pseudo-accusations (“conspiracy theorist,” “inciting hatred”) over potentially-disprovable crimes. Like Plymouth, Bristol took the side of the accuser against its employee almost reflexively. Former Labour MP Chris Williamson, himself a victim of the Israeli lobby’s devastating smear machine, joined the Support David Miller campaign in warning that the university’s failure to stand up for the professor would only encourage “bad faith actors” to pursue further censorship.

Shortly before the lobby finally convinced Miller’s university to mount an investigation into his supposed bigotry, he observed that such pressure tactics were imported from the Israel lobby in the US and pointed out that if any other foreign lobby attempted to wage such total war on its critics, they would be “laughed out of the room.” But Coles’ experience suggests other groups have taken lessons from the Israelis – and that Williamson’s warning was prescient.

Academic “cancel culture” is a well-known scourge of American campuses, where careless tweeting costs lives and professors can be axed for using the wrong pronouns. But while most discussion of the phenomenon centers on the targeting of conservative professors, it has targeted left-wing heterodoxy with equal fury, as tenured New York University media studies professor Mark Crispin Miller discovered when a student demanded his firing via Twitter after taking offense to a discussion questioning the utility of masks in his 2020 class on Propaganda.

Like Coles and his fellow Miller across the pond, Miller was attacked by university colleagues with vague allegations of “attacks on students and others in our community,” “aggressions and microaggressions,” and “explicit hate speech” and an investigation was launched behind his back even in the absence of any specific forbidden act. Administrators went one step further and contacted all his students to remind them of the CDC’s mask guidance, lest their fragile minds have been corrupted by the conspiracy theorist in the classroom. They couldn’t fire him – he was tenured, after all – but they did their best to make his life so miserable that he would leave, forbidding him from teaching his beloved Propaganda class, and he has been on sabbatical since.

Even Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, was recently denied a fellowship at the Carr Center for Human Rights, part of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, on the basis of wrongthink – what its dean described as his “anti-Israel bias.” Roth has toed the line on foreign policy groupthink elsewhere, dutifully demonizing Putin, Assad, Trump, and so on as the needs of Empire demanded. But his refusal to ignore Israel’s increasingly bold apartheid policies got him the David Miller treatment despite years of faithful service. If Roth isn’t safe, many academics have begun to wonder, what the hell are they going to do to me?!

Will Censor for Food

While Dr. Coles questions if universities were ever really the freethinkers’ utopia so many academic misfits yearn for, there is no denying groupthink has tightened its hold in recent years. While an academic might once have been left alone to research controversial subjects on his own time so long as he didn’t embarrass his employer, this laissez-faire approach has been replaced by an administrative panopticon that is both hyper-responsive and reflexively condemnatory – a “cottage industry of shutting people down.” Censorship has been outsourced from the state and its corporate minions to “academics and think tanks who are given a well-funded government hammer so they see everything as a nail of disinformation,” Coles explains. Not simply salaried, they are financially incentivized to bag-and-tag as many pieces of “disinformation” as they can, essentially bounty hunters for inconvenient truths, enabling a much tighter, more granular control of information than was ever possible under a traditional totalitarian model.

These programs and campaigns – with names like Integrity Initiative, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Trusted News Initiative – initially appear to be independent nonprofits that just happen to share a common devotion to fighting fake news. However, their cooperation is more than superficial, with many of the same entities ultimately directing their actions as they work together to artificially muscle the discourse in the desired direction, choking off competing narratives while maintaining plausible deniability regarding their connections to the state.

In this model of soft totalitarianism, the dissident is not so much ordered to cease publishing objectionable ideas, or even threatened with execution or creative torture. He is merely subjected to mounting insults, ‘nudged’ in certain directions, and gradually stripped of resources, especially any public platform he may have had in accordance with his refusal to follow the rules. Amid this complex ballet of carrot and stick, he is constantly reminded that these are his decisions, making him (in his own mind, at least) a willing participant in his own spiritual suffocation.

Fact-checkers, once mere newsroom employees tasked with verifying the details of major stories, have been artificially elevated into a caste of gatekeepers, deemed impartial arbiters of truth even as their donor lists burst with conflicts of interest from Pierre Omidyar to Bill Gates to George Soros. This veneer of independence allows them much greater latitude than any equivalent government body, as the ignominious collapse of the US’ Disinformation Governance Board last year proved. This official Ministry of Truth, which would have operated out of the Department of Homeland Security, was a bridge too far even for the American media establishment, which had long since embraced its unofficial equivalent censoring tweets and Facebook posts to keep the world safe for democracy.

All it took to get English-speaking countries to accept the need for these newly-minted (the International Fact Checking Network was only launched in 2015) cognitive babysitters was for a few pathological liars to blame Trump’s 2016 electoral victory and Brexit on Russian disinformation. Never mind that neither hypothesis was ever substantiated, or that both have since been thoroughly discredited – unfiltered access to information has joined the lengthy list of threats to social harmony, and the fact-checkers, having tasted power, are unlikely to return to the newsroom. Given that a free press is integral to a functioning democracy, it goes without saying that any regime looking to dismantle the latter would want to get the former out of the way.

New Dawn in Old Bottles

No sooner had Dr. Coles been chased out of his university for his writing in one Australian alt-media magazine then he was engulfed in a censorship firestorm over another. An article appeared earlier this month in New Zealand news outlet Stuff excoriating bookstore chain Whitcoulls for carrying the latest edition of New Dawn, a publication which proudly bills itself as a “forum for alternative, non-mainstream ideas that question consensus reality.” Stuff’s coverage berated the bookstore for exposing unsuspecting customers to the jungle of “conspiracy theories” barely restrained within its pages (full disclosure: I have also contributed writing to New Dawn), focusing its rage on Coles’ “The curious case of Brenton Tarrant,” about the Christchurch mosque shooter.

When Whitcoulls did not immediately capitulate, “disinformation expert” Kate Hannah was called in to warn Kiwis who picked up the magazine that they were enabling “dark agendas” seeking to “destabilize liberal democracy.” Reading Coles’ article wasn’t just engaging in wrongthink, but actually committing a crime, she explained, because the article included information on how to access the illegal-in-New-Zealand helmet-cam video Tarrant recorded while shooting his way through the mosque. Just reading about where to find the video might run afoul of hate speech laws, she mused in a radio interview.

Of course, the article includes no such instructions, nor does it – as Hannah claimed – claim Tarrant didn’t shoot anyone. Coles is baffled by the disinfo expert’s disinfo, but suspects the reason they didn’t include his name (standard practice in establishment hit-pieces) in the pressure campaign is that he could justifiably sue for libel. But the mere threat of legal repercussions was sufficient to keep 99.9% of Kiwis away from the forbidden magazine, and perhaps sensing no sales in its future, Whitcoulls finally pulled the issue from its shelves.

New Zealand’s size and isolation make it a perfect experimental laboratory, and the other Four Eyes haven’t hesitated to use it as such. Nor have the Israelis, whose operation was exposed during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The 2019 shooting that launched the current touchless torture regime was preceded as such events often are by a series of odd ‘coincidences’ and foreshadowings. Just a few months before the massacre, a group of American survivors of the Parkland, Florida high school shooting visited the city to discuss “living through a tragedy” with their Kiwi counterparts; two Parkland survivors and a Sandy Hook survivor allegedly committed suicide in the months following the mosque killings. A police drill just happened to be taking place near the fleeing gunman, allowing participants to “heroically” capture him in what media dutifully described as a “hell of a coincidence.”

The speedy gun-grab that followed the tragedy left citizens helpless in the claws of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and the subsequent clampdown on the internet was unprecedented in any other western “democracy,” with prison sentences meted out for merely sharing a link. Ostensibly to prevent anyone from reading Tarrant’s manifesto or watching the curiously videogame-like footage of the killings, the rules had the effect of banning access to entire video archives, international forums, and other information resources that might have helped the country’s residents make sense of what had just been done to them, and they were designed to be copied by the other four Eyes – or any other country that should want them.

While all five Eyes adopted unprecedented controls on social media during Covid-19, New Zealand went much further than its peers in controlling the actual publication of news. In March 2020, facing rumors that lockdown was imminent, Ardern warned upstanding citizens to avoid all unauthorized sources of information, urging them to stick with the government’s official site as “your single source of truth.” The message didn’t age well – New Zealand was locked down within the week – but her point had gotten across loud and clear. Arrested while protesting Auckland’s return to lockdown in 2021 over just three “cases,” popular radio host and pandemic dissident Vinny Eastwood was only released on the conditions that he remain under house arrest 24/7 and stay off the internet – draconian requirements for a man who made his living live-streaming. He was later permitted back online, but only on the condition that he not advocate against Covid-19 restrictions – a deliberately subjective line in the sand meant to encourage self-censorship above all.

While the media establishment overflowed with praise for Ardern over her iron-fisted suppression of the population – er, pandemic – no one has thought to ask why, if the West questions all Covid-19 stats coming out of China due to government control of all information sources, they believed the numbers coming out of New Zealand. Even news sites like Stuff, which describes itself as “fiercely independent,” are actually public-private partnerships – in this case funded by the New Zealand government and the Google News Initiative, powered by the bonanza of helicopter money that was dumped on the news media in 2020 to fight the “infodemic” of Covid-19 “disinformation.” That the campaign against New Dawn was no organic outrage was clear – Coles’ article is the last in the issue, and the likelihood of an indignant civilian pawing through 70 pages of conspiracy contraband just to find something they can claim is illegal approaches zero. Its favorable result means it will likely become the blueprint for future book-burning campaigns.

But why go after a couple of obscure Australian conspiracy magazines? Especially in New Zealand, but increasingly in the US and Europe, Big Tech no longer allows the average user to stumble upon the kind of content published by New Dawn or Nexus. Even non-Google search results from once-reliable alternatives like DuckDuckGo and Brave have been scrubbed clean of all deviations from the establishment line on topics like Covid-19 or the war in Ukraine, let alone the Christchurch shooting, and as Coles remarked, the censorship is even creeping through time into the Wayback Machine, the internet researcher’s go-to that once contained archives of much of the internet dating back decades – but now increasingly turns up error pages or sloppily retconned fact-checks. However, Kiwis browsing at Whitcoulls had at their fingertips a powderkeg of new information, rendered all the more volatile by three years spent in informational quarantine. Just as a person locked down for months will see her immune system suffer for lack of outside stimulation, any novel pathogens hitting her much harder when she finally goes outside, the Good Citizen who imbibed only Ardern-approved data for three years will likely be unable to muster even the slightest argument against whatever outrageous claims she finds in New Dawn and perhaps become lost to the weak grasp of establishment propaganda forever.

There’s an easy solution to this problem, should New Zealand want to solve it. Teach children to think critically, instead of the dumbed-down “media literacy” programs being promoted by every self-proclaimed “disinfo expert” this side of PropOrNot. Thought-stopping “information hygiene” techniques (Google it! Look it up on Wikipedia!) and reflexive appeals to authority (only a scientist can interpret that study for you!) do not help an individual resist persuasion. But a population armed with the ability to recognize an official lie and dismantle it would not allow themselves to be locked down over a few cases of a disease they were almost 100% certain to survive anyway – so of course New Dawn couldn’t be permitted to question Christchurch. It is the (shaky) foundation on which Ardern’s hastily-constructed police state was built. As rumors fly about her surprise resignation on Thursday and the media establishment rends its garments over how “unfairly” this “icon of many” was treated by “far-right extremists,” it seems clear her departure will be weaponized to further crack down on the increasingly nebulous specter of “hate speech.”

Replacing Replacement Theory   

Americans who believe the New Dawn affair could only have happened in an unarmed, isolated nation like New Zealand should pay attention to what their Congress is up to. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) earlier this month introduced a bill that would criminalize the publication of “antagonism based on ‘replacement theory’” and “hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group” on social media if it can be said that the perpetrator of a “white supremacy inspired hate crime” had encountered the material before committing the crime – or that if they had encountered the material, it could conceivably have motivated them to take such actions.

Without bothering to define such critical terms as “hate speech” or even “replacement theory,” often trotted out for effect when the speaker needs to strike an emotional chord, the bill leapfrogs pre-crime to a total reversal of cause and effect. A content creator can be charged with conspiracy to commit a white supremacy motivated hate crime so long as the actual criminal can be shown to have engaged with their content before committing the crime. In fact, they don’t even need to engage with it – so long as the content could theoretically motivate a “person predisposed to engaging in a white supremacy inspired hate crime” to, well, you know. It’s completely subjective, based on what a “reasonable person” would do when no “reasonable person” would be caught dead in the same room as this bill. This means if someone reads the nursery rhyme “Baa baa black sheep” – declared ‘problematic’ nearly a decade ago for its racial overtones – then picks up an AR-15 and shoots a black family at church, the nursery rhyme writers could be charged with conspiracy to commit a white supremacy-motivated hate crime. Jackson Lee herself cited the example of “someone making a post online that catches the attention of someone who then drives to North Texas and kills 20 Mexican Americans” to make clear precisely how unhinged she is.

It’s doubtful that such a case would make it to court, or lead to a conviction if it did, but public opinion – a product of think tank fellows rather than crowds – can turn on a dime. What sorority girl getting sloshed on margaritas in an oversized Cinco de Mayo sombrero in 2012 would have thought she’d be sentenced to remedial readings of “White Fragility” in 2022? The aim is not to create more work for the official censors but to spook the target into silence with fear of what could happen. Leaving the definition of “white supremacy” open-ended allows an ever-larger spectrum of opinion to be cordoned off as toxic, banned from university campuses and social media, and finally memory-holed as unthinkable. At the same time, actual racists like Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion are invited with open arms to travel the US speaking on university campuses, swastika tattoos and all. While the Anti-Defamation League is quick to tar and feather any academic who points out Israeli war crimes, the censorship-loving Jewish organization has issued what amounts to an official indulgence for Ukraine’s biggest Third Reich fanboys.

I know what would look great with that swastika – another swastika!

Given the FBI’s penchant for crafting terrorism plots out of whole cloth, it would be a simple matter to take out all online wrongthinkers in one fell swoop under the white supremacy conspiracy law – just set up the usual militia honeypot for disaffected white boys, hand them the gear and point them at the minority in question, and make sure a manifesto is found nearby conspicuously listing the websites of every influential dissident in America. While last year’s Missouri v. Biden lawsuit proved – and the Twitter Files confirmed – that social media platforms were being used by a dozen or more government agencies to circumvent First Amendment prohibitions on state censorship, this new arrangement would eliminate even the need for that end-run, requiring only the fig leaf of Unacceptable White Supremacist Beliefs™ to justify the most egregious constitutional abuses.

“Replacement theory” – the idea that white Americans and/or Europeans are being deliberately supplanted in “their” nations by swarthy foreign hordes to suit nefarious ruling class purposes – first entered the mainstream discourse when Tarrant, who titled his manifesto “The Great Replacement,” supposedly set out to kill as many Muslims as possible because they were out-breeding Europeans. Tarrant’s manifesto would have gotten quite a few people in trouble as white-supremacy conspirators, many of them dead – it includes poems from Dylan Thomas and Rudyard Kipling, memes, Wikipedia articles, and an infamous passage explicitly citing black conservative commentator Candace Owens as his ideological inspiration. Tarrant and copycats like Payton Gendron (the Buffalo supermarket shooter and friend of the FBI whose manifesto borrowed liberally from Tarrant and others) have helped transform the epithet “conspiracy theory” from CIA-sponsored smear to precursor of violent extremism, though they couldn’t have done it without UNESCO, the World Jewish Congress, and the Council of Europe, who recently joined forces to remind humanity that “conspiracy theories cause real harm to people, to their health, and also to their physical safety.”

Europe has taken the legal lead in equating conspiracy theory to terrorism, banning author David Icke from the entire Schengen Area last year because his scheduled speech at a peace rally in the Netherlands posed a potential “threat to public order.” Rather than stand up to the police state, the media eagerly flew to its side, quoting “experts” who sagely opined that the “danger” posed by Icke’s “conspiracy ideology” was both clear and present and could inflict “lasting harm” upon the country. This is in keeping with the refrain the WHO has kept up all alongside Covid-19 – that a deadly “infodemic” is spreading through sharing unapproved information about the virus, and that good citizens refrain from posting conspiracy theories online because words are equivalent to violence. This is a central part of children’s “media literacy” classes, aimed at building the perfect content filter directly into the child – because Big Brother can’t be everywhere. The idea is to graduate a generation for whom privacy is alien, dissent is criminal, obedience is a competitive sport, and turning in your parents for wrongthink is second-nature, all justified by the vague nonspecific crisis that has been looming in the background since they were born.

The censorship of New Dawn, the university witch-hunts against Dr. Coles and both Millers, the absurd white supremacy conspiracy bill, are all symptoms of the same totalitarian virus gradually sucking the will to resist out of humanity. Just as viruses need host cells to multiply, so does this one require an army of facilitators – “fake news” bounty hunters, “disinformation experts,” and the like – to smooth out humanity’s rough edges into blissful obedience. A pandemic – even an artificially-inflated synthetic one like Covid-19 – has to end, but an infodemic is forever, and this one has proven 100% fatal to human rights.

January 22, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

GMC Blinks First: Regulator Declines to Investigate Dr Aseem Malhotra Over Vaccine Warnings in BBC Interview


To paraphrase the Sound of Music song, “How do we solve a problem like Malhotra?” After receiving several complaints, the General Medical Council has decided not to investigate cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who has become a thorn in the side of the medical profession.

Professional regulators have been at the forefront of pandemic discipline, contributing to a culture of fear among practitioners. Severe action has been taken against registrants who criticise or do not comply with the official narrative. I know this from my experience as an officer of the Workers of England Union, representing members brought before the Nursing and Midwifery Council on charges of bringing the profession into disrepute. Apparently the public must be protected against nurses who don’t believe that masks stop airborne respiratory viruses, or who believe in informed consent for novel mRNA vaccines.

A significant strike against this censorial tyranny was by general practitioner Sam White last year. Dr. White was ordered, as a condition of maintaining his clinical licence, to delete his social media posts about COVID-19 and to refrain from making similar comments. Dr. White took the GMC to the High Court and won. The condition was overturned as a breach of his rights to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Whereas White was an early critic of COVID-19 policy, Malhotra is a relatively recent convert. Initially he promoted the vaccine, but when his fit and healthy father died shortly after receiving the injections, Malhotra changed his mind and began speaking out against the mass vaccination programme. His personal loss came alongside his observation in clinical practice of a marked increase in myocarditis cases (as well as blood clots and other cardiac complications). Malhotra had a review paper published on this phenomenon, and his findings of iatrogenic harm are corroborated by other medical scientists.

Malhotra has repeatedly urged suspension of the vaccination programme until the risks are better understood. He became a darling of vaccine sceptics, with his charismatic and compassionate voice doing the rounds of alt media channels and independent-minded broadcasters working for more mainstream channels (such as Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News, and Neil Oliver on GB News ). However, he was ignored by the legacy media, and it was not until two weeks ago, when he took the opportunity of a BBC interview on statins, that his call was more widely heard.

The context for Malhotra’s BBC appearance was a claim by Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty that cardiac morbidity had increased as a result of limited access to statins during lockdown. Malhotra disagreed, explaining that myocarditis is unrelated to cholesterol level, which statins are meant to control. He instead blamed the vaccines, telling the BBC presenter that this radical medical intervention should be halted. Cue outrage.

The Guardian did a particularly nasty report on Malhotra, smearing him as a peddler of an ‘anti-vax’ conspiracy theory. Numerous doctors expressed their outrage on social media, angered by the BBC giving a platform to this known sceptic, who they accused of hijacking an interview on a different topic. Some reported Malhotra to the GMC.

The GMC’s decision not to act against Malhotra is a victory for science, ethics and common sense, but we should not get ahead of ourselves. This was a reluctant decision by the regulator, as the wording of their response to the referrals shows:

We recognise that Dr Malhotra has views on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that are at odds with the national and international scientific and medical communities. We also recognise that his words are strong and there is a question around the accuracy of his statements. There is currently no evidence that Dr. Malhotra has engaged in the type of Covid conspiracy related conduct that has to date justified regulatory action.

Note here the emphasis on consensus, as if that amounts to truth. It seems that if Malhotra had followed the likes of James Delingpole or Maajid Nawaz down the rabbit hole of globalist conspiracy, he would have been in big trouble. The GMC continued:

We also feel it is relevant that Dr. Malhotra started expressing his concerns about the vaccines in late 2021 and by this time the vaccine programme was well underway with the vast majority of vaccines delivered before this time. We would suggest that Dr. Malhotra’s impact on the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the U.K. could only have been negligible.

This is the most worrying line in the GMC response. If Malhotra is right about the risks of these vaccines, the GMC should be concerned that doctors were inhibited from speaking out earlier, thereby potentially saving lives. Instead, the GMC assumes that Malhotra is wrong, and that his remarks have not stopped the biggest vaccination drive in history.

The GMC acknowledged that Malhotra has a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, although that is not an absolute right for a medical practitioner. His outspoken opinions on the vaccines, according to the GMC, are “not so egregious as to justify a public hearing and a forum for further scepticism to be aired as to aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic and response”.

This, I believe, is the real reason why the GMC has decided not to take any further action. Any proceedings would inevitably attract publicity and give Dr. Malhotra a platform to air his sceptical views. Ultimately, the truth will get out, and those who tried to hide it will be judged by history.

Dr. Niall McCrae is a former university lecturer who now works for the Workers of England Union.

January 21, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

The climate scaremongers: Gas boiler ban is one step closer

By Paul Homewood | TCW Defending Freedom | January 20, 2023

A review of Net Zero has recommended that sales of gas boilers must be banned within ten years at the latest. The supposedly ‘independent’ review was commissioned by Liz Truss in her short spell as PM, and was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore, who as Energy Minister signed the Net Zero Act into law in 2019.

The reality is that virtually nobody who owns a gas boiler is remotely interested in replacing it with a heat pump. Sales of heat pumps in the UK are running at around 35,000 a year, despite generous government subsidies, a long way short of the government target of 600,000 a year.

The reason is obvious. Installing a heat pump, with the new radiators, pipework and extra insulation required, will probably cost upwards of £20,000 for a typical home. Worse, despite the currently high cost of gas, running costs for a heat pump are still higher than a gas boiler.

In practice, a ban on gas boilers would force most people into buying conventional electrical heaters, such as storage heaters. These are cheaper to buy but hugely expensive to run; annual heating costs for a typical home are about £1,500 for a gas boiler, but would rise to £5,000 for electrical heating.

This is not the only mad policy suggestion in Skidmore’s review. He also wants all houses sold to meet EPC C by 2033. EPC is the Energy Performance Certificate, when it is estimated that only 40 per cent of houses meet this standard at the moment. Skidmore’s bright idea will force millions of homeowners and landlords to spend thousands on improving insulation against their will.

Of course, this ‘independent’ review is nothing of the sort. Skidmore, MP for Kingswood, is one of the bunch of extremist green Tories; he even opposed Truss’s attempts to reinstate fracking. It was inevitable that he would rubber-stamp the Net Zero agenda. A truly independent review would have critically assessed all the assumptions, costings and projections for this appalling piece of legislation. Instead we have got a report that might as well have been written by Gummer’s Committee on Climate Change. We get all the same platitudes that we have read many times before in CCC handouts – how cheap renewable energy is, millions of green jobs, how we will all be better off by 2050 (we have to take Skidmore’s word for this), how we must not fall behind the rest of the world in the race for Net Zero.

I have searched the report comprehensively, and cannot find a single reference to the costs which will have to be borne in the medium term by the public, things like heat pumps, insulation and electric cars. These costs will be unaffordable for most households, and will act as a brake on economic growth in the same way as high energy prices are doing now. Nobody cares about how well off they may be in 30 years’ time, and certainly won’t believe anybody who tells them he does know. But people do know that current policies will be extremely expensive.

Neither is there any quantification of the massive costs which will be incurred for upgrading electricity grids and distribution networks, and building hydrogen storage and infrastructure. Or the reliance on unproven carbon capture.

Nor is there any critical assessment as to how the country can run predominantly on intermittent wind and solar power, albeit backed up by nuclear power. Instead Skidmore seems simply to accept the pie-in-the-sky projections of the National Grid, calling for more wind and solar power.

The report does mention CCC estimates of the need to spend £50billion to 60billion a year by the early 2030s. As it points out, most of this will come from private sector investors, who will want high returns. Skidmore does not mention that it will be the poor old consumer who will end up paying for all this. It is no surprise that big business is queuing up for its share of the money pot.

Since its very inception, the Net Zero Act was enacted as a ‘good idea’, without any plan as to how it could be carried out, or a clearly costed budget. This review should have been an ideal opportunity to row back, putting the whole thing on the back burner while these fundamental issues were addressed. Sadly it is a chance missed.

Is climate change killing off the puffins?

Another go-to scare story for climate alarmists is that Atlantic puffins are at risk from global warming. It is a story that comes around every year as regular as clockwork.

According to a recent report in the Telegraph,  70 per cent of Europe’s puffins could be lost in the next 80 years, because of ‘stormy weather caused by climate change’. Naturally no evidence is presented to prove that stormy weather is increasing, probably because it isn’t!

Far from dying out, puffins have been thriving off the Pembrokeshire coast on the islands of Skomer and Skokholm. There are more puffins there now than at any time since the 1940s, when numbers peaked before the population crashed.

Skomer Island Puffin Count

Although there are an estimated 10 million puffins breeding along Europe’s coastline, it has been reported that some populations are declining around the North Sea. But the cause of this is not climate change, but something much more basic – the industrial fishing of sand eels, which make up most of the diet of puffins during their breeding season. If climate change was a factor, we would be seeing the same decline on Skomer.

Less fish available for adult puffins means underfed pufflins, which are less likely to make it to adulthood.

In 2020, 238,000 tons of sand eel were harvested by fishing vessels in the North Sea, all of which goes to Danish oil and fishmeal processing factories. Danish vessels have the largest share of the fishing quota, landing 72 per cent of the catch. Both the EU and Denmark claim that fishing quotas are adequate to maintain the sand eel population. But as is always the case with the EU, vested interests trump any other considerations.

The link between sand eel fishing and seabird populations is well established. A study in 2014 found that ‘the UK’s internationally important seabird populations are being affected by fishing activities in the North Sea. Levels of seabird breeding failure were higher in years when a greater proportion of the North Sea’s sand eels, important prey for seabirds, was commercially fished’. It also noted that seabirds breeding on the UK’s western colonies are faring better than those on the North Sea coast.

But don’t expect the EU to shut down Denmark’s fishmeal industry. It’s much easier to blame climate change!

January 21, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | 3 Comments