Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The US and Israel Playing their Cards in the Middle East

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 26.01.2021

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, now 97 years old and having long lost his sense of the reality of international affairs, recently unleashed a new idea, menacingly declaring that a return to the “spirit” of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal would lead to weapons spread throughout the Middle East. These comments came during an interview with Dennis Ross, who has advised several US presidents on the Middle East, at an online event hosted by the Jewish People Policy Institute.

In this regard, the former US Secretary of State may be reminded, if he has forgotten, that it is not Iran but Israel that has long brought the entire region to the brink of nuclear catastrophe, with the obvious guidance and assistance of the West in possessing nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif called Israel the only regime in the region with a secret and undeclared nuclear weapons program that includes an actual nuclear arsenal, and called on Tel Aviv not only to recognize this fact, but also to abandon the deadly weapons that threaten all the peoples of the Middle East.

The possession of nuclear weapons gives the Israelis a phantom sense of military superiority in the Persian Gulf region and the entire Middle East, which allows them to carry out terrorist acts against Arab countries and Iran. Suffice it to recall the brazen assassinations of Iranian scientists and military leaders planned and carried out jointly by the United States and Israel in violation of all international laws.

And they still continue to engage in their filthy terrorist activities, without regard for the interests of other nations. The world has just learned of intense Israeli airstrikes on targets in eastern Syria in the areas of Deir ez-Zor and Albu Kamal. They were the latest in a long series of reports of Israeli attacks aimed at thwarting the Islamic Republic’s attempts to build a war machine in Syria. The airstrikes, however, stood out in light of extraordinary comments made by a senior US intelligence official, who told the Associated Press that the successful raids were due to intelligence provided to Israel by the United States. There seems to be no reason to doubt this version of events, noting the seemingly unusual recognition of the close level of cooperation between US and Israeli defense agencies in combating the Iranian presence in Syria.

The second reason these strikes stand out is an unconfirmed report by the Syrian opposition war monitoring group that at least 57 military personnel were killed, including 14 Syrian regime soldiers, in addition to Iran-backed militias, as well as dozens more wounded. Although this claim is unconfirmed, it represents a much higher number of casualties than those that usually follow such strikes.

The attack is part of an unmistakable increase in airstrikes against Iranian targets throughout Syria, the fourth known such incident in the past three weeks. These incidents include reports of a missile attack on the Syrian Research Center, also known by the French acronym CERS, north of Damascus. This center was also subject to bombing in 2018 and 2019.

In such a complex environment of this highly turbulent region, the question of establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East is increasingly being raised, which is naturally a daunting task, and success will be impossible without the goodwill of all states in the region. Experts note that one of the main obstacles to the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East is the position of Israel – the country refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, citing threats from Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. Tel Aviv believes that many threats come from a variety of countries in the region, so if it does not possess nuclear weapons, according to Israeli politicians, this would threaten the very existence of the state. Israel has unconditional US support on this issue, and accordingly, their positions will be united. In other words, both of these states will do everything they can to ensure that Tel Aviv, with its nuclear weapons, dominates the military field of the region.

As an example, in the past, Israel has destroyed nuclear facilities in the Middle East with targeted airstrikes, assuming that they would be used for weapons production, such as the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, destroyed by the Israeli Air Force in 1981. The Israeli military also claims to have destroyed a suspected nuclear reactor in the Syrian province of Deir ez-Zor in an air raid in 2007. It is the aggressive stance of Israel, which is invariably supported by the United States — quite often to the detriment of its national interests — that makes other countries in the region, such as Iran, unwilling to give up their nuclear programs in order to somehow defend their freedom and independence and their ability to pursue their national course.

In one of his last acts, on the eve of the end of his term, President Donald Trump ordered Israel to be included in CENTCOM, the US military’s central command in the Middle East, The Wall Street Journal reported. The expansion of US CENTCOM to include Israel is the latest reorganization initiated by pro-Israel supporters to encourage strategic cooperation against Iran, US officials told the newspaper. For decades, Israel has been part of the European Command of the US Armed Forces, mainly because of historical friction between Israel and Arab countries, which are also American allies in the region covered by CENTCOM.

The move is the latest in a series of policy changes by the Trump administration before Joe Biden took office, which include increasing sanctions against Iran and declaring the Iran-backed rebel forces in Yemen a terrorist organization. A former CENTCOM commander said there is good reason to move Israel into its military command, where it becomes the 21st country in the sphere of activity, along with Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Jordan and Egypt.

But the new Joe Biden administration will also, by all appearances, take a strongly pro-Israel stance. There’s rumours that the Biden team is going to consult with Tel-Aviv before any strategy on the Iran nuclear deal is formulated. Israel’s Channel 12 lifted the veil on the fact that the new administration has already begun informal talks with Iran and is keeping Israel informed of these discussions. The new president, this source confirmed, is seeking an agreement that would prevent the Islamic Republic from producing nuclear weapons. But the question is whether it will agree to Iran’s demand to return to the original 2015 agreement, which includes lifting most restrictions on uranium enrichment by 2030.

Thus, it appears that even though Israel will not officially participate in the talks with Iran, it will determine the future agenda and the course of the discussions. On this basis, negotiations will focus entirely on the Iranian position, and Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, on which the future of the Middle East depends, will not even be brought up. This, in turn, means that peace and tranquility is unlikely to return to the region, thanks to the aggressive and selfish policies of the West, and it will be a long time before the turbulence in the countries of the area subsides.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

Biden’s Interventionist Agenda

By Stephen Lendman | January 26, 2021

Biden/Harris regime interventionist dirty tricks began straightaway in office.

Russia was targeted last weekend by made-in-the-USA rent-a-mobs in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities — more of the same likely ahead.

Instead of extending an olive branch for improved bilateral relation, dirty business as usual took precedence.

Much the same in various forms is likely against China, Iran, Venezuela, and other nations free from US control.

That’s how the scourge of US imperialism operates. No one is safe from its war on humanity anywhere worldwide.

Days before Biden/Harris replaced Trump, a large US military convoy entered Syria from Iraq.

Reportedly, it was to reinforce illegally established Pentagon bases east of the Euphrates River.

Instead of withdrawing US forces from the country as Trump once promised but never followed through on, is the Pentagon’s presence in Syria being expanded?

On day one of Biden’s term in office began, another large-scale US military convoy entered Syria from Iraq.

Syrian state media reported that a major Pentagon buildup is underway, adding:

“(A) convoy… of 40 trucks loaded with weapons and logistical materials, affiliated to the so-called international coalition have entered in Hasaka countryside via al-Walid illegitimate border crossing with north of Iraq, to reinforce illegitimate bases in the area.”

“Over the past few days, helicopters affiliated to the so-called international coalition have transported logistical equipment and heavy military vehicles to Conoco oil field in northeastern Deir Ezzor countryside, after turning it into military base to reinforce its presence and loot the Syrian resources.”

The Biden/Harris regime is infested with some of the same hawks responsible for launching aggression against Syria and Libya in 2011.

Is what’s ongoing prelude for escalating war in Syria instead of ending what’s gone on for the past decade that’s been responsible for mass slaughter and destruction?

At a Security Council Session last week, Syria’s UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari said the following:

“The new US (regime) must stop acts of aggression and occupation, plundering the wealth of my country, (and) withdraw its occupying forces, and stop supporting (ISIS and other jihadists), illegal entities, and attempts to threaten Syria’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity.”

“The American occupation forces continue to plunder Syria’s wealth of oil, gas and agricultural crops, burning and destroying what it cannot steal.”

The above remarks and similar ones when made fall on deaf ears in Washington.

US aggression in Syria continues with no end of it in prospect, the same true for Afghanistan, Yemen, and numerous other nations by illegal sanctions and other dirty tricks.

Since the US launched war on Syria a decade ago, Biden falsely blamed President Assad for US high crimes committed against the country and its people, along with illegitimately calling for him to step down.

It remains to be seen how Biden’s agenda toward Syria unfolds ahead.

According to his campaign’s foreign policy statement:

“Biden would recommit to standing with civil society and pro-democracy partners on the ground (sic).”

“He will ensure the US is leading the global coalition to defeat ISIS (sic) and use what leverage we have in the region to help shape a political settlement to give more Syrians a voice (sic).”

The US is committed to eliminating democracy wherever it exists, prohibiting it at home.

Instead of waging peace, it prioritizes endless wars of aggression in multiple theaters

ISIS, al-Qaeda, and likeminded terrorists groups were created by the US for use as proxy fighters in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

In December, the UN accused the US of obstructing Syria’s ability to rebuild, along with enforcing illegal sanctions to suffocate its people into submission to Washington’s will.

According to the UN, the US is running “roughshod over human rights, including the Syrian people’s rights to housing, health, and an adequate standard of living and development.”

What Obama/Biden began and Trump continued, Biden/Harris are likely to pursue — an agenda of endless US war on Syria and its long-suffering people, perhaps intending to escalate things ahead.

In response to Biden/Harris interventionism in Russian cities last weekend, China’s Global Times accused the US of “hyping up the protests,” adding:

“Just as global analysts have predicted, the (Dems) now in majority political power (are) not a good thing for Russia” or any other nations free from US control.

What happened last weekend shows that Biden/Harris are committed to “interventionism.”

Dems “will not miss the opportunity to interfere in the internal affairs of Eurasia, or anywhere in the world.”

On Monday, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian stressed Beijing’s “oppos(ition) (to) external interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country.”

Biden’s press secretary Jennifer Psaki expressed support for unlawful interventionism against Russia, China, and other nations, saying:

“He’s committed to stopping… abuses on many fronts (sic), and the most effective way to do that is through working in concert with our allies and partners to do exactly that (sic).”

Under both wings of its war party, the US is committed to seek regime change in all nations unwilling to sell their souls to Washington.

Biden’s entire public career included pursuit of this diabolical agenda.

He and dark forces in charge of directing his domestic and geopolitical policies are virtually certain to continue US war on humanity without letup ahead.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , , , | Leave a comment

Wisconsin Senate greenlights measure to kill governor’s statewide mask mandate & ALL Covid-related emergency orders

RT | January 27, 2021

Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled Senate has voted to end Governor Tony Evers’ face mask order, with lawmakers arguing the government overstepped its authority by extending emergency mandates without approval from the legislature.

The state Senate voted 18-13 to pass the joint resolution on Tuesday, deeming the Democratic governor’s emergency health orders “unlawful.” The bill applies not only to Evers’ most recent declaration last week, but to “all actions of the governor and all emergency orders” issued throughout the pandemic, including the statewide requirement for mask-wearing in public.

Wisconsin Republicans have blasted the emergency mandates as unconstitutional, with GOP state Senator Duey Stroebel arguing on Tuesday that “It is not ok or normal or inevitable or necessary to indefinitely suspend the lawmaking process.”

“There is no such thing as a perpetual emergency.”

Before it becomes law, the measure must also pass through Wisconsin’s State Assembly, where the GOP carries a 58-30 majority. The lower chamber is set to take up the bill on Thursday, which, if passed, would mark the first pandemic-related action taken by the legislature since April.

While Evers has insisted he has legal authority to issue multiple emergency declarations, arguing the threat of the virus changes over time, Republicans say he should have secured approval from lawmakers after his first mandate expired in May.

“Legislative oversight is rendered useless if the governor ignores the temporal limitations on the emergency powers by continuously reissuing emergency declarations for the same emergency,” the Senate resolution states, adding that Evers had “no authority” to impose mandates unilaterally after May 11, 2020.

Under Wisconsin law, legislators can halt a governor’s health emergency through a majority vote, which cannot be vetoed.

“Are we going to start saying that seatbelts, taking off your seatbelt, is a sign of independence? And therefore flying through a windshield when you get in an accident is the utmost way to exercise your liberty?” Larson said.

Democratic lawmakers have denounced the GOP-led effort to kill the mask order, which Milwaukee Senator Chris Larson called a “basic test of what government is supposed to do.”

Two Republican Senators, Rob Cowles and Dale Kooyenga, joined Democrats across the aisle in opposing the measure, with Kooyenga arguing that while he agrees Evers has exceeded his legal authority, he believes the resolution would prolong school closures. Cowles, meanwhile, said he is concerned the bill will send the “wrong message” about masks.

“I’m coming from the science point of view and from the healthcare point of view and I can’t imagine making it worse for the people who have worked their butts off to try to make this better in the healthcare community,” he said.

The new Senate resolution comes after Wisconsin’s highest court shot down Evers’ stay-at-home order in May, deeming it “unlawful, invalid, and unenforceable,” however the governor has nonetheless continued to renew other emergency measures since.

The Republican drive to end Evers’ sweeping health mandates mirrors similar efforts in other states, such as in Michigan, where the state Supreme Court ruled that Governor Gretchen Whitmer had no authority to extend emergency orders beyond April 30, when the state’s first mandate expired. Similar to arguments by the Wisconsin GOP, Michigan’s Republicans also insisted any further orders would need approval from the state house.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

US attempts to destabilize region through supporting terrorism: Iraqi MP

Press TV – January 26, 2021

An Iraqi legislator has warned against the Unites States’ attempts to disrupt peace and security in the Middle East through supporting terrorism, saying Washington is even ready to set entire Iraq on fire so it can keep its military forces in the Arab country.

Karim Alaiwi, a legislator from the Fatah (Conquest) alliance and a member of the Security and Defense Committee in the Iraqi legislature, told Arabic-language Baghdad Today warned against the policies of new US President Joe Biden towards Iraq, reminding the government that Daesh terrorists started their activities during the reign of Democrats.

“The Daesh terror group became active during the former and current presidencies of the [US] Democratic Party. Washington’s policy is to disrupt security and stability in the Middle East, especially in Iraq,” Alaiwi said.

He added, “The United States has supported and financially sponsored most of terrorist operations in Iraq, and has protected leaders of the Daesh terrorist group in many parts of the country.”

The Iraqi lawmaker highlighted that there are areas in Iraq where Daesh is still active, saying Washington is preventing military flights over those regions.

Washington, he said, is ready to “burn” all of Iraq so it will have a pretext to prolong its military presence in the Arab country.

Daesh has claimed responsibility for a rare twin bombing attack that tore through a busy area of central Baghdad on January 21, killing at least 32 people and wounding 110 others.

Yahya Rasool, the spokesman for the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, said one of the two bombers lured a crowd of people towards him in a market in the central Tayaran Square by feigning illness, only to detonate his explosives.

The second bomber struck as people helped victims of the first attack, Rasool added.

Iraq declared victory over Daesh in December 2017 after a three-year counter-terrorism military campaign.

The terror outfit’s remnants, though, keep staging sporadic attacks across Iraq, attempting to regroup and unleash a new era of violence.

Daesh has intensified its terrorist attacks in Iraq since January 2020, when the United States assassinated top Iranian anti-terror commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), along with their companions in a drone strike authorized by former US president Donald Trump near Baghdad International Airport.

Following the assassinations, the Iraqi parliament approved a bill demanding the withdrawal of all foreign military forces led by the United States from the country.

The US began the drawdown under the administration of ex-president Donald Trump, but it has said a number of troops will remain in the Arab country.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

How the FBI Created Domestic Terrorism: 80 Years of Psychological Warfare Revealed

By Matthew Ehret | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 25, 2021 

Since it has become increasingly evident that a vast extension of the Patriot Act will soon be unveiled that threatens to re-define “the war on terror” to include essentially anyone who disagrees with the governing neoliberal agenda, it is probably a good time to evaluate how and why terrorism – domestic or otherwise – has tended to arise over the past century.

If, in the course of conducting this evaluation, we find that terrorism is truly a “naturally occurring phenomenon”, then perhaps we might conclude alongside many eminent figures of the intelligence community and Big Tech, that new pre-emptive legislation targeting the rise of a new conservative-minded domestic terrorist movement is somehow necessary. Maybe the censoring of free speech, and the surveillance of millions of Americans by the Five Eyes is a necessary evil for the sake of the greater good.

However, if it is revealed that the thing we call “terrorism”, is something other than a naturally occurring, self-organized phenomenon, but rather something which only exists due to vast support from western political agencies, then a very different conclusion must be arrived at which may be disturbing for some.

But how to proceed?

Before it was revealed that ISIS was being supported by a network of Anglo-American intelligence agencies and their allies in a failed effort to overthrow Bashar al Assad, an exhaustive 2012 study was conducted by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. This study provides a convenient entry point to our inquiry.

In this course of its investigation, researchers at Fordham discovered that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 138 terrorist incidents recorded in the USA between 2001-2012 involved FBI informants who played leading roles in planning out, supplying weapons, instructions and even recruiting Islamic terrorists to carry out terrorist acts on U.S. soil. Reporting on the Fordham study, The Nation reported on this scandal stating:

“Nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. In these cases, the informants—who work for money or are seeking leniency on criminal charges of their own—have crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism.”

Of course, this trend preceded 9/11 itself as we see in the case of FBI informant Emad Salem (formerly associated with the Egyptian Military) who recorded hundreds of hours of conversation between himself and his FBI handlers which were reported publicly by the New York Times on October 28, 1993. Why is this important? Because Emad Salem was the figure who rented the van, hotel rooms, provided bomb-making instruction, tested out explosives on behalf of Mohammed Salamah and 15 other terrorists who carried out the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing which injured 1000 and killed 6 people.

Even though several large-scale military war game scenarios were conducted between October 2000 and July 2001 featuring planes flying into both the World Trade Center buildings and Pentagon, the incoming Neocon administration were somehow caught with their pants down when the events of 9/11 finally took place (conveniently at a moment that NORAD had suffered a total breakdown of their continental warning and response systems). When all flights were grounded over the coming several days, Cheney and his PNAC cohorts ensured that the only flights permitted to leave the USA was crammed with high level Saudi royals- including the Bin Laden family.

Why was this done?

As the declassified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission report went far to demonstrate, the Saudis- largely coordinated by Prince Bandar Bin Sultan (Saudi Ambassador to the USA from 1983-2005 and Bush family insider) had provided the foundation for a cover story that was carefully scripted to justify the 9/11 incident.

Whether the plot was hatched by CIA-Saudi sponsored terrorists as some assume, or whether it was a controlled demolition as hundreds of architects and engineers have testified to (or whether it was a combination of both stories), one thing is certain: The official narrative is a lie and no matter how you try to explain it, two airplanes cannot cause the collapse of three WTC buildings.

Another thing is certain: Biden was happy.

Not only did Joe Biden act as one of the most aggressive voices for the invasion of Iraq in the days following 9/11, but he even bragged publicly that John Ashcroft’s 2001 Patriot Act was modelled nearly verbatim on his own failed 1994 Omnibus domestic surveillance legislation drafted in response to the first 9/11 attack and 1994 Oklahoma City bombing.

Another important outcome of 9/11 involved the re-organization of the FBI with a focus on domestic terrorist surveillance, prevention, disruption and entrapment.

In 2001, MI5’s Chief came to the USA where then-FBI director Robert Mueller was assigned the task of carrying out this new remix of U.S. intelligence that involved re-activating many of the worst characteristics of the FBI’s earlier COINTEL PRO operations that were made public during the 1974 Church Committee hearings.

Christian Science Monitor report from May 19, 2004 cited the changes in the following terms:

“They have done a number of things to move them in the direction of an MI5,” says a person close to the changes. “They’ve created agents who are trained to have an intelligence function. They’re monitoring organizations within the U.S. that pose threats to national security … not with an eye toward prosecuting, but toward collecting and analyzing that information.”

An incredible report by investigative Journalist Edward Spannaus included a short list of some of the most extreme cases of FBI entrapment between 2001-2013 in the USA:

“One of the most egregious of these cases is the so-called “Newburgh Four” in New York State, in which an informant in 2008-09 offered the defendants $250,000, as well as weapons, to carry out a terrorist plot. The New York University Center for Human Rights and Justice reviewed this case and two others, and concluded: “The government’s informants introduced and aggressively pushed ideas about violent jihad and, moreover, actually encouraged the defendants to believe it was their duty to take action against the United States.”

The Federal judge presiding over the Newburgh case, Colleen McMahon, declared that it was “beyond question that the government created the crime here,” and criticized the Bureau for sending informants “trolling among the citizens of a troubled community, offering very poor people money if they will play some role—any role—in criminal activity.”

In Portland, Ore., it was disclosed during the trial of the “Christmas Tree bomber” earlier this year, that the FBI had actually produced its own terrorist training video, which was shown to the defendant, depicting men with covered faces shooting guns and setting off bombs using a cell phone as a detonator. The FBI operative also traveled with the target to a remote location where they detonated an actual bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the planned attack.

In Brooklyn, N.Y., in 2012, an FBI agent posing as an al-Qaeda operative supplied a target with fake explosives for a 1,000-pound bomb, which the FBI’s victim then attempted to detonate outside the Federal Reserve building in Manhattan.

In Irvine, Calif., in 2007, an FBI informant was so blatant in attempting to entrap members of the local Islamic Center into violent jihadi actions, that the mosque went to court and got a restraining order against the informant.

In Pittsburgh, Khalifa Ali al-Akili became so suspicious of two “jihadi” FBI informants who were trying to recruit him to buy a gun and to go to Pakistan for training, that he contacted both the London Guardian and the Washington-based National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, and told them that he feared the FBI was trying to entrap him. The National Coalition scheduled a press conference for March 16, 2012, at which al-Akili was to speak and identify the informants, but the day before the scheduled press conference, the FBI arrested al-Akili, charging him not with terrorism, but with illegal possession of a firearm.

The chief informant trying to entrap al-Akili turned out to be Shaden Hussain, a longtime FBI informant who had set up two earlier terrorism cases: the above-cited Newburgh, N.Y., case for which he was paid $100,000, and another in Albany, N.Y., for which his payments are not known.”

Not Only the USA

This post 9/11 practice was not isolated to the USA, as a Canadian appeals court overruled guilty sentences handed down to an idiotic couple who were caught by the RCMP before their July 2016 jihadi plot to bomb a public venue on Canada Day could occur. Why did the appeals judge overrule their sentence? Because it became clear that every single member of the operation which radicalized the young couple, trained them to make bombs and even scripted their attack were RCMP informants!

Earlier cases of controlled domestic terrorist movements in Canada saw CSIS (Canada’s Security and Intelligence Service) erase thousands of hours of wiretaps of Sikh terrorists that detonated bombs in 1984 which lead to 329 dead in the worst act of aviation terrorism until 9/11. Despite this destruction of evidence, CSIS was absolved of its sins in 2005 by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). It was also this same organization that was revealed to have co-founded the white supremacist Heritage Front in 1988, and continued to finance it with tax payer funds using CSIS agent Grant Bristol as the conduit and Heritage Front controller until at least 1994.

Anglo-Canadian intelligence controls of domestic terrorism actually go as far back as the bomb-loving Front de Liberation Quebec (FLQ) of the 1960s that set dozens of mailbox bombs across the province. Not only did the RCMP Security Services get caught red handed managing FLQ cells, spreading FLQ graffiti on buildings and even supplying explosives to the group itself, but the FLQ’s “intellectual leader” (Pierre Vallieres) was also the Editor-in-Chief of the very same magazine (Cite Libre) which was run for a decade by none other than Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau!

When major press agencies blew the whistle on the federal intelligence agencies behind the FLQ which justified months of Martial Law in Quebec in 1970, Trudeau’s right hand man (and fellow Cite Libre writer) Michael Pitfield created a new organization called the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in 1983 as a branch of the Privy Council Office in order to continue psychological operations going under a new name.

If anyone wishes to look through the voluminous RCMP/CSIS files accumulated on Pierre Trudeau’s strange connections with the FLQ and broader Fabian Society networks during the Cold War, they would be out of luck as historians were informed in 2019 that the entire Trudeau record archive were secretly destroyed by CSIS in 1989 simply because they “weren’t interesting”.

It is important to keep in mind that the RCMP’s techniques were not specifically Canadian, but were innovated by the FBI’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTEL PRO) which J. Edgar Hoover launched in 1956 in order to subvert “dangerous civil rights groups” then emerging under the leadership of Paul Robeson and Martin Luther King Jr. From the program’s inception until its nominal death in 1975, not only did the FBI infiltrate every anti-establishment grouping from the U.S. Communist Party (CPUSA), to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), NAACP to the Black nationalist movements throughout the 1960s, but ensured that its informants played leading roles in instilling internal conflict, radicalized groups towards violence and even set up leaders like Fred Hampton for assassination.

The strange case of Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers who enjoyed vast institutional support and protection after their time running domestic terrorism as leaders of the Weather Underground is something that should also be investigated. The fact that both domestic terrorists not only became affluent Soros-tied education reformers, and early sponsors of Barack Obama’s political career is more than just a tiny anomaly which can simply be dismissed. (1)

Where did Hoover’s FBI generate COINTEL PRO tactics?

To answer this question, we need to look further back to British Intelligence’s Camp X, established in December 1941 in Canada with the mandate to train American and Canadian spies under the control of spymaster William Stephenson (station chief for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in New York).

The motive for Camp X had two interconnected components:

1) Prepare the groundwork for a deeper integration of U.S.-British Intelligence in preparation for the purge of patriotic U.S. intelligence officers allied to FDR’s vision of the post-war age, and

2) Train U.S. spies in the art of “secret warfare” which included counterfeiting, psychological warfare, propaganda, counter insurgency, assassination, and infiltration of target groups.

The integration of “full spectrum” alternative warfare tactics such as MK Ultra (modelled and steered by Britain’s earlier Tavis stock clinic), media propaganda (see: Project Mockingbird) and cultural war (see: the rise of modern art and atonalism promoted by the Congress For Cultural Freedom) were but a few of the tactics that were integrated during this process, and which continue virulently to this day.

Under Stephenson’s direction and staffed with Canadian RCMP operatives, the first generation of OSS spymasters were trained; including leading figures of the FBI’s Division 5 who went onto reformulate their WWII Camp X training in the form of assassination operations such as Permindex (operated by Camp X’s Major General Louis Mortimer Bloomfield).

In Conclusion

While I could have said more about the origins of America’s Secret Police which arose under Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, or the earlier deployment of domestic terrorism by Freemasonic lodges affiliated with Albert Pike (founder of the Ku Klux Klan) in an effort to undo Lincoln’s vision for industrial restoration of the South, these stories will have to be left for another time.

For now, it is enough to state that the “war on terror” set into motion by the World Trade Center attacks of 1993 and 2001, is now expanding to target a broad spectrum of the American population who would be morally resistant to the sorts of anti-human policies demanded by Great Reset Technocrats. This dishonest effort must be exposed and rejected before those actual controllers of terrorism attain their objectives: The destruction of nation states, the imposition of a new ethical paradigm premised on depopulation and entropy.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Reflecting the Authoritarian Climate, Washington Will Remain Militarized Until At Least March

The idea of troops in US streets for an extended period of time – an extreme measure even when temporary – has now become close to a sacred consensus

By Glenn Greenwald | January 26, 2021

Washington, DC has been continuously militarized beginning the week leading up to Joe Biden’s inauguration, when 20,000 National Guard troops were deployed onto the streets of the nation’s capital. The original justification was that this show of massive force was necessary to secure the inauguration in light of the January 6 riot at the Capitol.

But with the inauguration over and done, those troops remain and are not going anywhere any time soon. Working with federal law enforcement agencies, the National Guard Bureau announced on Monday that between 5,000 and 7,000 troops will remain in Washington until at least mid-March.

The rationale for this extraordinary, sustained domestic military presence has shifted several times, typically from anonymous U.S. law enforcement officials. The original justification — the need to secure the inaugural festivities — is obviously no longer operative.

So the new claim became that the impeachment trial of former President Trump that will take place in the Senate in February necessitated military reinforcements. On Sunday, Politico quoted “four people familiar with the matter” to claim that “Trump’s upcoming Senate impeachment trial poses a security concern that federal law enforcement officials told lawmakers last week requires as many as 5,000 National Guard troops to remain in Washington through mid-March.”

The next day, APciting “a U.S. official,” said the ongoing troop deployment was needed due to “ominous chatter about killing legislators or attacking them outside of the U.S. Capitol.” But the anonymous official acknowledged that “the threats that law enforcement agents are tracking vary in specificity and credibility.” Even National Guard troops complained that they “have so far been given no official justifications, threat reports or any explanation for the extended mission — nor have they seen any violence thus far.”

It is hard to overstate what an extreme state of affairs it is to have a sustained military presence in American streets. Prior deployments have been rare, and usually were approved for a limited period and/or in order to quell a very specific, ongoing uprising — to ensure the peaceful [de-]segregation of public schools in the South, to respond to the unrest in Detroit and Chicago in the 1960s, or to quell the 1991 Los Angeles riots that erupted after the Rodney King trial.

Deploying National Guard or military troops for domestic law enforcement purposes is so dangerous that laws in place from the country’s founding strictly limit its use. It is meant only as a last resort, when concrete, specific threats are so overwhelming that they cannot be quelled by regular law enforcement absent military reinforcements. Deploying active military troops is an even graver step than putting National Guard soldiers on the streets, but they both present dangers. As Trump’s Defense Secretary said in response to calls from some over the summer to deploy troops in response to the Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests: “The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations.”

Are we even remotely at such an extreme state where ordinary law enforcement is insufficient? The January 6 riot at the Capitol would have been easily repelled with just a couple hundred more police officers. The U.S. is the most militarized country in the world, and has the most para-militarized police force on the planet. Earlier today, the Acting Chief of the Capitol Police acknowledged that they had advanced knowledge of what was planned but failed to take necessary steps to police it.

Future violent acts in the name of right-wing extremism, as well as other causes, is highly likely if not inevitable. But the idea that the country faces some sort of existential armed insurrection that only the military can suppress is laughable on its face.

Recall that ABC News, on January 11, citing “an internal FBI bulletin obtained by ABC News,” claimed that “starting this week and running through at least Inauguration Day, armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols and at the U.S. Capitol.” The news outlet added in highly dramatic and alarming tones:

The FBI has also received information in recent days on a group calling for “storming” state, local and federal government courthouses and administrative buildings in the event President Donald Trump is removed from office prior to Inauguration Day. The group is also planning to “storm” government offices in every state the day President-elect Joe Biden will be inaugurated, regardless of whether the states certified electoral votes for Biden or Trump.

None of that happened. There was virtually no unrest or violence during inauguration week — except for some anti-Biden protests held by leftist and anarchist protesters that resulted in a few smashed windows at the Oregon Democratic Party and some vandalism at a Starbucks in Seattle. “Trump supporters threatened state Capitols but failed to show on Inauguration Day,” was the headline NBC News chose to try to justify this gap between media claims and reality.

This threat seems wildly overblown by the combination of media outlets looking for ratings, law enforcement agencies searching for power, and Democratic Party operatives eager to exploit the climate of fear for a new War on Terror.

But now is not a moment when there is much space for questioning anything, especially not measures ostensibly undertaken in the name of combatting white-supremacist right-wing extremism — just as no questioning of supposed security measures was tolerated in the wake of the 9/11 attack. And so the scenes of soldiers on the streets of the nation’s capital, there in the thousands and for an indefinite period of time, is provoking little to no concern.

What makes this all the more remarkable is that a mere seven months ago, a major controversy erupted when The New York Times published an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) which, at its core, advocated the deployment of military troops to quell the social unrest, protests and riots that erupted over the summer after the killing in Minneapolis of George Floyd. To justify the deployment of National Guard and active duty military forces, Cotton emphasized how many people, including police officers, had been seriously maimed or even killed as part of that unrest:

Outnumbered police officers, encumbered by feckless politicians, bore the brunt of the violence. In New York State, rioters ran over officers with cars on at least three occasions. In Las Vegas, an officer is in “grave” condition after being shot in the head by a rioter. In St. Louis, four police officers were shot as they attempted to disperse a mob throwing bricks and dumping gasoline; in a separate incident, a 77-year-old retired police captain was shot to death as he tried to stop looters from ransacking a pawnshop. This is “somebody’s granddaddy,” a bystander screamed at the scene.

(Cotton’s claim that police officers “bore the brunt of the violence” was questionable, given how many protesters were also killed or maimed, but it is true that numerous police officers were attacked, including fatally).

Cotton acknowledged that the central cause of the protests was a just one, noting they were provoked by “the wrongful death of George Floyd.” He also strongly affirmed the right of people to peacefully protest in support of that cause, accusing those justifying the violence of “a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters,” adding: “A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.”

But he insisted that, absent military reinforcements, innocent people, principally ones in poor communities, will suffer. “These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives,” Cotton wrote, adding: “Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further.”

The backlash to the publication of this op-ed was immediate, intense, and, at least in my memory, unprecedented. Very few people were interested in engaging the merits of Cotton’s call for a deployment of troops in order to prove the argument was misguided.

Their view was not that Cotton’s plea for soldiers in the streets was misguided, but that advocacy for it was so obscene, so extremist, so dangerous and repugnant, that the mere publication of the op-ed by The Paper of Record was an act of grave immorality.

“I’ll probably get in trouble for this, but to not say something would be immoral. As a black woman, as a journalist, I am deeply ashamed that we ran this,” pronounced the paper’s Nikole Hannah-Jones in a now-deleted tweet. The New York Times Magazine writer Taffy Brodesser-Akner posted a multi-tweet denunciation that compared Cotton to an anti-Semite who “says, ‘The Jew is a pig,’” argued that “hatred dressed up as opinion is not something I have to withstand,” and concluded with this flourish: “I love working at the Times and most days of the week I’m very proud to be part of its mission. But tonight, I understand the people who treat me like I work at a tobacco company.”

Former NYT editor and Huffington Post editor-in-chief Lydia Polgreen announced, also in a now-deleted tweet: “I spent some of the happiest and most productive years of my life working for the New York Times. So it is with love and sadness that I say: running this puts Black @nytimes staff – and many, many others – in danger.” That publication of the Cotton op-ed “puts Black New York Times staff in danger” became a mantra recited by more journalists than one can list.

Two editors — including the paper’s Editorial Page editor James Benett and a young assistant editor Adam Rubenstein — were forced out of their jobs, in the middle of a pandemic, for the crime not of endorsing Cotton’s argument but merely airing it. Media reports attributed their departure to a “staff revolt.” The paper itself appended a major editor’s note: “We have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published.” In addition to alleged flaws in the editorial process, the paper also said “the tone of the essay in places is needlessly harsh and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful debate.”

There is a meaningful difference between deploying National Guard troops and active duty soldiers on American streets. But both measures are extraordinary, create a climate of militarization, have a history of resulting in excessive force against citizens engaged in peaceful protest and constitutionally protected dissent, and present threats and dangers to civil liberties far beyond ordinary use of law enforcement.

Why was the idea of troops in American streets so grotesque and offensive in June, 2020 but so normalized now? Why were these troops likely to indiscriminately arrest and murder black reporters and other journalists over the summer but are now trusted to protect them? And what does it say about the current climate, and the serious dangers it poses, that the public is being trained so easily to acquiesce to extreme measures in the name of domestic security?

We are witnessing the media and their public treat what ought to be regarded with great suspicion as not only normal but desirable, all through the manipulation of fears and inflation of threats. That does not bode well for those who seek to impede the imminent attempt to begin a new domestic War on Terror.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

Massachusetts Flu Shot Requirement Abandoned

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 22, 2021

Elizabeth Brehm, part of ICAN’s legal team, joins Del for an update on yet another win, a statewide influenza vaccine mandate that was withdrawn after being served with a lawsuit from our lawyers. Winning!

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Video | , | Leave a comment

Scientific evidence on lockdowns suggests they don’t work. The places with the highest death rates all had them

By Malcolm Kendrick | RT | January 26, 2021

The history of medical interventions tells us that often the accepted way of doing things turns out to be dreadfully wrong. I fear this is going to be the case with this so-called Covid ‘cure’.

“Paradoxically, human beings, when compelled to act, learn to justify a chosen course with an assurance unwarranted by the evidence for the course chosen.” – Bernard Lown.

I have studied the history of medicine, and medical interventions, for many years. The most extreme disasters have always followed a fairly distinct pattern. A series of steps, if you like.

Step one: We have a serious disease that is killing lots of people.

Step two: It creates great fear, and the medical profession has nothing much in place to deal with it.

Step three: A charismatic leader emerges to decree that he (almost always a ‘he’ up to now) knows how to treat it/control it, etc. This is ‘the idea’.

Step four: The ‘idea’ is enthusiastically taken up around the world and becomes mainstream thinking.

Step five: The ‘idea’ becomes standard practice.

Step six: The ‘idea’ is taught to medics and becomes accepted truth, a fact.

Step seven: Anyone who goes against the ‘idea’ is ruthlessly attacked.

There is always, of course, the possibility that the ‘idea’ is the best thing to do. This happens from time to time. However, there seems to be little or no correlation between the enthusiasm – and speed – with which ideas are taken up, and the likelihood that they are correct.

The problem, as I came to recognise, lies between step two and step four. By which I mean that a charismatic figure convinces everyone that they have the answer, before there is any evidence to support it. The person may not be charismatic, rather simply someone who has the ability to grab attention and push the ‘idea’ forward. Such as the Chinese premier.

Another thing that leads to disaster, which is of perhaps even greater importance, is that the ‘idea’ must sound like the most obvious common sense. It should trigger a response along the lines of “Yes, of course, that sounds perfectly reasonable.” Once that’s been achieved, the ‘idea’ drops neatly into people’s minds, settles down, and grows roots, creating not a ripple of cognitive dissonance.

At which point it cements itself in, and becomes difficult – even painful – to remove.

To quote the film ‘Inception’: “What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient… highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it’s almost impossible to eradicate. An idea that is fully formed – fully understood – that sticks; right in there somewhere.”

We love ideas; they make us who we are. We defend them, sometimes with our very lives.

“Why do people insist on defending their ideas and opinions with such ferocity, as if defending honour itself? What could be easier to change than an idea?” – JG Farrell.

So, yes, I have no illusions about the strength of ideas. They are so powerful, and so dangerous, that you must be very careful where you aim them. Because ideas also have a God-like power, which is that they are immortal.

The damage inflicted by medical ideas

You can kill a person who holds an idea. You can kill thousands of people who hold the same idea – but you cannot kill that idea. Unless you kill every single person who believes in it, then wipe it from the historical record, so that no-one can ever think it again. See ‘1984’.

I will give you a couple of examples of horribly damaging medical ideas. The first is the radical mastectomy. An idea first driven by William Halsted, a US surgeon from the end of the nineteenth century. He believed, as did almost everyone else at the time, that breast cancer spread locally – as did all cancers. Therefore, anything located anywhere near the cancer had to be cut away in case it had already been polluted.

With a radical mastectomy the entire breast, the other breast, muscles on the chest wall, lymph nodes, more muscles were cut out. Almost anything that could be removed without actually killing the women in the process.

The mutilated women were immensely grateful, and the surgeons proud of their expertise. They were doing a good thing, because the idea was considered to be inarguably correct. Questioning it was to be met with the response like, ‘Do you want these women to die – you heartless swine?’

Except that it wasn’t correct. Breast cancer does not spread locally. At least, when it does, it does so very slowly. The spread that causes problems, and kills women, is not local. Cancer cells get into the lymphatic system, and the bloodstream, and spread widely around the body, very early on. Often, long before the primary cancer can be detected.

Those who questioned the radical mastectomy, were attacked. Geoffrey Keynes, brother of John Maynard, tried less radical surgery in the 1920s. It did not go down well:

“Halsted’s followers in America ridiculed this approach, and came up with the name ‘lumpectomy’ to call the local surgery. In their minds, the surgeon was simply removing ‘just’ a lump, and this did not make much sense. They were aligning themselves with the paradigm of Radical Mastectomy. In fact, some of the surgeons even went further to come up with ‘superradical’ and ‘ultraradical’ procedures that were morbidly disfiguring procedures where the breast, underlying muscles, axillary nodes, the chest wall, and occasionally the ribs, part of the sternum, the clavicle and the lymph nodes inside the chest were removed. The idea of ‘more was better’ became prevalent.”

More is better… this is another of the deadly repeating themes of ‘the idea’. The idea can never be wrong, it is just that people are not doing it with sufficient vigour. If women are still dying from metastatic breast cancer, even after radical mastectomies (and they were), the answer could not possibly be that the procedure doesn’t work. The answer is that we are not being radical enough: “Hack away more, and then more.”

‘I was greeted with hands stretched out in a Nazi salute’

Another big medical idea is that of bed rest following a heart attack. It was thought, at one time, that all heart attacks were fatal. James Herrick, another US doctor, described the first non-fatal heart attack in 1912, then suggested that following such an attack, strict bed rest was important. This would take pressure off the heart and allow it a chance to heal. Again, this sounds perfectly reasonable. As described by Dr Bernard Lown, a professor of cardiology and the developer of the defibrillator:

“To a medical novice like me, the justification for enforced bed rest was persuasive. It was based on a sacrosanct therapeutic principle, the need to rest a diseased body part, be it a fractured limb or a tuberculosis-affected lung. Unlike a broken bone, which could be immobilized in a cast, or a lung lobe, which could be collapsed by inflating the chest cavity with air, the heart could not be cradled into quietude. The only approximation for a diseased heart was to diminish its workload. It was long known that during recumbency the heart rate slows and blood pressure drops, both indices of less oxygen usage and therefore of decreased cardiac work. Heart rest was therefore equated with bed rest.”

And so it became standard practice. It was simply what you did:

“Patients were confined to strict bed rest for four to six weeks. Sitting in a chair was prohibited. They were not allowed to turn from side to side without assistance. During the first week, they were fed. Moving their bowels and urinating required a bedpan. For the constipated, which included nearly every patient, precariously balancing on a bedpan was agonizing as well as embarrassing.

“Because world events might provoke unease, some physicians prohibited their patients from listening to the radio or reading a newspaper. Visits by family members were limited. Since recumbency provoked much restiveness and anxiety, patients required heavy sedation, which contributed to a pervasive sense of hopelessness and depression. Around one in three patients died.”

Bed rest started as a relatively mild thing. However, as it is with almost all things, it became increasingly ‘radical’. Lown, along with his mentor Dr Samuel Levine, tried to change this. He became involved in trying to get patients up out of bed to sit in a chair:

“Little did I realize that violating firmly held traditions can raise a tsunami of opposition. The idea of moving critically ill patients into a chair was regarded as off‑the‑wall. Initially the house staff refused to cooperate and strenuously resisted getting patients out of bed. They accused me of planning to commit crimes not unlike those of the heinous Nazi experimentations in concentration camps. Arriving on the medical ward one morning I was greeted by interns and residents lined up with hands stretched out in a Nazi salute and a ‘Heil Hitler!’ shouted in unison.”

Step six: Anyone who goes against the ‘idea’ is ruthlessly attacked.

No evidence, no problem

Then, among all the other problems with ‘the idea’, between steps two and three, is one that I have not yet mentioned. It is that no study is ever done to find out whether or not the idea works. It is just conceived to be so obviously beneficial, such common sense, that there would be no point in wasting time and resources trying to prove that it worked.

No-one ever did a study to find out if the radical mastectomy improved survival. No-one ever did a study to prove that bed rest saved lives. They were both introduced on the back of absolutely nothing. In time, eventually, the folly of both was finally recognised. It took 70 years for radical mastectomy, 50 for bed rest.

Which takes us to lockdowns. The most expensive, invasive, and potentially destructive medical intervention ever attempted by humanity. Was there any evidence from anywhere, before we embarked upon them, that lockdowns would work? No, there was none. But we have the six steps on full display here.

Step one: We have a serious disease that is killing lots of people – check.

Step two: It creates great fear, and the medical profession has nothing in place to deal with it – check.

Step three: A charismatic leader emerges to decree that he (almost always a ‘he’ up to now) knows how to treat it/control it etc. This is the ‘idea’ – check.

Step four: The ‘idea’ is enthusiastically taken up around the world and becomes ‘mainstream thinking’ – check.

Step five: The ‘idea’ becomes standard practice – check.

Step six: The ‘idea’ is taught to medics and becomes accepted truth, a fact – check.

Step seven: Anyone who goes against the ‘idea’ is ruthlessly attacked – check.

Does it work? Have lockdowns worked? You can pick and choose countries to support the case that it does and dismiss any evidence you don’t much like. Unfortunately, once you introduce a medical intervention that affects everyone, everywhere, you have lost the possibility of carrying out a controlled experiment of any sort.

Despite the lack of any randomised evidence, most people are absolutely convinced that lockdowns work to control the spread of Covid-19. They point to various countries, e.g. New Zealand, Norway, Australia and Taiwan, to prove their case. They always have a ready explanation as to why countries that underwent lockdown still have high death rates and vice-versa.

The ‘idea’ has become the truth. Its proponents now demand that those who doubt the efficacy of lockdowns prove that they don’t work. It is not the job of those suggesting lockdowns don’t work to prove that they don’t, it is the job of those promoting them to prove that they do.

The starting point for any scientific hypothesis is for the proponents to disprove the null hypothesis. Demanding that those who believe something may not work prove that it doesn’t is to turn the scientific method upside down. You can never prove a negative.

The null hypothesis, by the way, is that there is no difference between two things. Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) in medicine are designed to prove, statistically, that there is an actual difference between doing A and B. This is how science is done, how research is done.

We must look carefully at the death rates

Unfortunately, it is not possible to do a controlled trial with Covid-19. The possibility of doing any randomised study was lost very early on. Which means that we are instead forced to rely on observational studies. We can look at country X, that did Y, and see how it compares with country Z that did not do Y.

Or we can look at two countries that did Y, to see how they compare. Or two countries that did not do Y. With Covid, of course, no two countries did exactly the same thing. Not even the four ‘countries’ within the UK. So any observations become more difficult to rely on due to this ‘confounding variable’.

In some UK countries, six people could meet up, while in others it was eight, or two households, or only one household etc. In some, restaurants were open, in others they were shut – at varying times. From a scientific perspective, it’s a mess.

Anyway, to simplify things, let’s look at the 10 countries around the world with the highest death rate from Covid. That is, deaths per million population (I have left out countries with a population of less than one million, such as Monaco, or Liechtenstein, because a few deaths here or there can distort the death rate considerably)

What did they do differently, and what did they do the same? These countries all locked down, relaxed them, then brought in tighter lockdowns at various times. Looking only at first lockdown dates:

Belgium first locked down on March 18, 2020.

Slovenia first locked down on March 20, 2020.

Czechia first locked down on March 16, 2020.

The UK first locked down March 23, 2020.

Bosnia-Herzegovina first locked down March 16, 2020.

Italy first locked down March 9, 2020.

North Macedonia first locked down March 18, 2020.

The USA is highly federal and different states took different approaches – seven states did not issue lockdown orders: Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. In those seven states, the death rate from Covid averaged at 1,280 per million, versus 1,254 as the US average.

In comparison, New Jersey first locked down on March 21, 2020, and its current death rate is 2,310 per million. New York locked down on March 12 – its current death rate is 2,130 per million. These states have the highest Covid related deaths in the US.

Bulgaria first locked down on March 13, 2020.

Hungary first locked down on March 28, 2020.

All countries locked down, Italy first, Hungary last. As you can see, the date of first lockdown is unrelated to the death rate. The other stand-out facts are that these are all countries with majority Caucasian populations. They are all in the northern hemisphere.

People will say, ah, but what about variables, such as population density, age distribution, number of tests done… etc, etc (there are dozens to choose from)? In the end, you can only rely on two things – did a country lock down and what is the death rate from Covid? These are the inescapable facts, everything else can be twisted to suit any argument.

If I were thinking of running a clinical trial where the hypothesis was that a lockdown was the best way to prevent deaths from Covid, then I would start by looking at observational data such as this.

I would find that the 10 countries in the world with the highest death rates all locked down.

I would look at the US, where the death rates in states that locked down, and those that did not, were almost the same rate (or vastly higher in the cases of New Jersey and New York), and I would conclude that the observational studies had – thus far – failed to disprove the null hypothesis. In fact, the evidence up to this point could suggest that lockdowns may actually increase the death rate.

In short, I would look for another idea.

Malcolm Kendrick, doctor and author who works as a GP in the National Health Service in England. His blog can be read here and his book, ‘Doctoring Data – How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense,’ is available here.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The Question of Masks

By Jenin Younes | AIER | January 26, 2021

I envy the reader who can reach the end of Alex Berenson’s Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and LockdownsMasks, without tearing her hair out in frustration at the absurdity of the world today, which apparently is not so different from the one that Galileo inhabited four centuries ago.

Berenson makes an airtight case (no pun intended) that there is no evidence whatsoever that surgical and cloth masks work to control coronavirus spread, and a substantial amount that they do not. Nevertheless, as anyone who has tried to discuss the topic in a blue state knows, the subject has been so politicized that to make this contention amounts to heresy.

This is the third booklet in a series, Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns. The first two focus upon the deleterious effects of lockdowns and overestimation of the virus’s dangerousness. Berenson, who used to work as a reporter at the New York Times before he became a full-time novelist, has been known from the very beginning as a coronavirus “contrarian,” and has since attained unofficial status as king of the lockdown skeptics. As his Twitter profile famously depicts him smiling sardonically with a mask under his chin, it is about time he addressed the subject.

Initially, Berenson documents the so-called experts’ notorious about-face on masks this past March. Having said for weeks that face coverings do not stop transmission of the virus, Anthony Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Surgeon General, and others, did a 180 virtually overnight. The common explanation for this sudden change is that the first message was disingenuous, and given only to prevent a mask shortage among health care professionals. Berenson eschews this interpretation, arguing that the initial message was correct, but these people and institutions succumbed to political pressure.

What is the proof that this was political? Although Berenson does not explicitly state as much, it is worth noting that former President Trump immediately defied the idea of mask-wearing, as did many of his supporters, which I believe led to the extreme reaction in the opposite direction among Democrats and liberals.

Berenson points out that immediately, when mere weeks and months before Americans had been told not to wear masks, newspapers and magazines began publishing “insufferably arrogant” pieces portraying those who resisted mask-wearing as cretins, narcissists, and even sociopaths. This plays into the idea, held by many in this country, that those who are not on their side politically are fundamentally different, morally inferior, or perhaps even evil. Thus, to suggest that people who resist masks are narcissists or sociopaths fits squarely into the narrative that the political other is less-than.

But the real evidence lies in the fact that, contrary to the dogma that has taken root in American society, especially in Democratic circles, there is simply no scientific substantiation for the claim that masks, as they are worn in everyday life, protect either the wearer or those who encounter her. In Berenson’s words, “The evidence that face coverings do any good turns out to be even more porous than the masks themselves.” In my opinion, were the subject not so politically fraught, it is unlikely that the scientific evidence would be ignored.

Berenson describes the studies that evaluate whether surgical and cloth masks protect the wearer, and his verdict will, at this point, be unsurprising. Theoretical evidence establishes that surgical and cloth masks “offer next to no protection” because the virus typically travels on particles so small that in order to provide protection, the material must be fine enough to catch nearly all aerosols and droplets.

Apart from N95 respirators, which also are more effective because they are fitted to the individual’s face, masks are not made from such material. Not only are N95s expensive, but worn properly, they are “suffocating, uncomfortable, and difficult to tolerate for long durations.” Thus, as a practical matter, if non-medical professionals are going to wear face-coverings for an extended time period, they will be standard cloth or surgical masks.

The yet stronger proof, from randomized controlled studies (RCTs) — the “gold standard” in science – is overwhelming that these masks are not effective. As Berenson explains, research from Hong Kong and Vietnam found no evidence that surgical masks reduce influenza transmission, and evidence that cloth masks increase rates of infection, respectively.

The first large RCT, conducted in Denmark specifically to assess the utility of masks against SARS-CoV-2, found no difference in rates of infection between those who wore and those who did not wear masks (I have previously analyzed the distortion of the study’s results, especially by the New York Times and other center-left publications).

As for the proposition that masks may not protect the wearer but do protect those around her, again, “masks have almost no chance of catching most of the particles we exhale” because of the particles’ size, as explicated in a paper published in the Lancet. (From a logical standpoint, I have never found the concept that masks can protect those around the wearer though they do not protect her to be persuasive: either the mask functions as a barrier or it does not, although I am not a scientist and perhaps am missing something).

Berenson notes that the author “did not go so far as to call masks useless – a near impossibility in the current environment – but he was lukewarm at best on their value to protect other people even in the most obvious case, when they are worn by symptomatic cases in hospitals.”

Similarly, on June 5, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a paper stating that “widespread use of masks by health people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are other potential benefits and harms to consider.”

Again, given the political climate, the WHO “chok[ed] out” a tepid endorsement of mask usage: “Governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings.”

Berenson compellingly dispels the myth that observational studies prove masks’ efficacy, such as the much cited salon in Missouri where two hairdressers who had coronavirus symptoms wore masks and did not infect 139 clients. As Berenson notes, there are countless other explanations for this result. For example, maybe the salon had good ventilation, or maybe the hairdressers were not very infectious. Despite the lack of scientific and intellectual rigor underlying it, this anecdote served as the rationale for many jurisdictions’ mask mandates.  Moreover, the remaining observational data points staunchly in the opposite direction: worldwide, rising cases are not correlated with mask usage.

As anyone who has become embroiled in the mask debate knows well, the next question is always, why not wear one, since we don’t know for sure and there’s a chance they help? As Berenson argues, government directives should be supported by some evidence.

It has not been disproven that five-minute headstands prevent coronavirus spread, but most of us would see a problem with government requiring us to stand on our heads for five minutes a day just in case. Put otherwise, allowing the government to make rules without adequate evidence they are effective creates substantial danger that it will issue arbitrary directives to give the appearance of doing something.

Furthermore, as Berenson explains, masks are not harmless. He details two 2013 decisions from Canadian arbiters, addressing a challenge to hospital rules requiring nurses to wear masks if they had not been vaccinated against influenza. Both arbiters found in the nurses’ favor, and determined there was limited or no evidence that demonstrated the “utility of masks in reducing transmission” and substantial harms, including discomfort and skin irritation.

Although Berenson does not discuss this, widespread, long-term mask usage may cause significant psychological damage, especially to children and babies and even more so to those with disabilities such as autism. Even the New York Times acknowledged that masks likely impede children’s cognitive development, despite reaching the irrational conclusion that such harm is inevitable.

One of Berenson’s most critical points is that there is now substantial evidence that the coronavirus is very rarely, if ever, spread by asymptomatic individuals. The belief that asymptomatic transmission was one of the primary forces driving coronavirus spread propelled lockdowns and universal mask requirements in the spring.

If only symptomatic people spread the virus, then there is no justification whatsoever for quarantining and masking healthy populations: all that societies must do is ask people exhibiting symptoms to stay home.

Several large, recent studies have established that asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus is exceedingly uncommon, if it occurs at all; the WHO has also recognized this fact. Of course, these studies have been entirely ignored by the media. Those who have staked their personal and professional reputations on the efficacy and necessity of lockdowns and mask mandates cannot now acknowledge having made such a grave, crucial error.

Berenson ends by theorizing that mask mandates appear to reflect “an effort by governments to find out what restrictions on their civil liberties people will accept on the thinnest possible evidence . . . Today, we must wear masks. Tomorrow we’ll need negative Covid tests to travel between countries. Or vaccines to go to work.”

As I have written in the past, I agree resoundingly with Berenson’s conclusion, although I tend to blame governmental incompetence and refusal to concede error as well as more nefarious motives.

Of course, the media is at fault too, with publications and television channels such as the New York TimesWashington Post, CNN and MSNBC promoting a blindly pro-lockdown, pro-mask ideology, at the same time discounting the evidence pouring in from all corners of the earth that lockdowns do not work as long- or medium-term solutions while they are destroying millions of lives, and masks are ineffective. Even now, with a vaccine available, the New York Times is publishing articles arguing that the supposedly deadlier new strain of the virus means that countries must lock down harder and longer; Australia expects to keep its borders closed through the end of 2021, if not longer; and the United Kingdom has indicated it will remain in lockdown until at least July.

Berenson sees the writing on the wall. Until a substantial portion of us stand up and make clear that we will not tolerate being stripped of life, liberty, property, and dignity, our governments will continue to inflict these repressive measures.

Jenin Younes is a graduate of Cornell University and New York University School of Law. Jenin currently works as an appellate public defender in New York City.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 2 Comments

Unelected Biden/Harris Regime to Wage War on Civil Liberties

By Stephen Lendman | January 26, 2021

On Friday, White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki said the following:

The Biden/Harris regime “will confront (violent extremism) with the necessary resources and resolve (sic).”

“We are committed to developing policies and strategies (to) confront this threat (sic).”

Biden’s DNI will conduct a “comprehensive threat assessment, coordinated with the FBI and DHS on domestic violent extremism (sic).”

“As a part of this, the NSC will undertake a policy review effort to determine how the government can share information better about this threat, support efforts to prevent radicalization, disrupt violent extremist networks and more (sic).”

“(R)elevant parts of the federal government (will be involved) to enhance and accelerate efforts to address DVE (domestic violent extremism) (sic).”

“This focus (will address) evolving threats, radicalization, the role of social media, opportunities to improve information sharing, operational responses and more (sic).”

“The January 6th assault on the Capitol and the tragic deaths and destruction that occurred underscored what we have long known.”

“The rise of domestic violent extremism is a serious and growing national security threat (sic).”

“Congress should immediately pass legislation to make domestic terrorism a federal crime (sic).”

At a time when the only domestic and foreign threats are invented, not real, the stage is set for making the repressive Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act the law of the land.

Much more of the same likely coming is reminiscent of what happened post-9/11 — the mother of all US sponsored false flags to that time.

In its immediate aftermath, Bush/Cheney launched a war OF terror on invented enemies at a time when no real ones existed.

Abroad it was against nonthreatening Afghanistan, Yemen and Iraq.

At home, it was against Muslims and other invented enemies of the state because no real ones existed then or now.

It was against fundamental constitutional law by trampling on the Bill of Rights.

The 2001 Patriot Act created the crime of domestic terrorism for the first time.

It unlawfully targeted anti-war global justice demonstrations, environmental and animal rights activists, civil disobedience for justice denied, and dissent for the same reason.

Does the Biden/Harris regime intend more of the same to eliminate what remains of greatly eroded freedoms?

Supported by media press agents, nonviolent pro-Trump Capitol Hill protesters are considered “domestic terrorists (sic).”

Rent-a-mob anti-Trump extremists bussed in for what happened on January 6 are considered freedom fighters by elements in Washington wanting remaining ones eliminated altogether — including speech, media and academic freedoms, along with the right of public assembly to petition US authorities for redress of legitimate grievances.

Big Media are on board for what may end a free and open society in the US — cheerleading for what demands denunciation.

The NYT called for addressing “domestic terrorism” that will target its victims, not state and Big Media supported perpetrators against Trump and others opposed to how US dark forces operate.

Biden/Harris regime DNI-designee Avril Haines should be confronted and challenged for supporting targeted assassinations, torture, and other lawless actions.

Victoria Nuland for under secretary of state for political affairs is an unindicted war criminal.

So are others nominated by Biden for high level posts, figures likely to be involved in perpetrating domestic and/or foreign state terrorism against US enemies.

The neocon/CIA linked Washington Post expressed support for combating domestic and foreign terrorism — that’s committed by the US and its imperial partners, not innocent victims falsely blamed for what they had nothing to do with.

Biden/Harris are beginning their tenure with a bang against, not for, what just societies hold dear.

Perhaps before their tenure ends, today’s America may no longer exist.

What replaces it may be full-blown tyranny — on the phony pretext of combatting threats to national security that exist only in the nation’s capital by hardline extremists running things.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | 1 Comment

When Fascism Comes, It Will Be Wearing a Mask

By Ron Paul | January 25, 2021

Almost immediately after his inauguration, President Joe Biden began creating new government dictates via executive orders. Many of these executive orders concern coronavirus, fulfilling Biden’s promise to make ramping up a coronavirus-inspired attack on liberty a focus of his first 100 days.

One of Biden’s executive orders imposes mask and social distancing mandates on anyone in a federal building or on federal land. The mandates also apply to federal employees when they are “on-duty” anywhere. Members of the military are included in the definition of federal employees. Will citizens of Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where US troops are or will be “spreading democracy” be happy to learn the troops shooting up their towns are wearing masks and practicing social distancing?

Another one of Biden’s executive orders forces passengers on airplanes, trains, and other public transportation to wear masks.

Biden’s mask mandates contradict his pledge to follow the science. Studies have not established that masks are effective at preventing the spread of coronavirus. Regularly wearing a mask, though, can cause health problems.

Biden’s mask mandates are also an unconstitutional power grab. Some say these mandates are an exercise of the federal government’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. However, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to regulate interstate commerce. The president does not have the authority to issue executive orders regulating interstate commerce absent authorization by a valid law passed by Congress. The Founders gave Congress sole law-making authority, and they would be horrified by the modern practice of presidents creating law with a “stroke of a pen.”

Just as important, the Commerce Clause was not intended to give the federal government vast regulatory power. Far from giving the US government powers such as the power to require people to wear masks, the Commerce Clause was simply intended to ensure Congress could protect free trade among the states.

Biden also signed an executive order supporting using the Defense Production Act to increase the supply of vaccines, testing supplies, and other items deemed essential to respond to coronavirus. The Defense Production Act is a Cold War relic that gives the president what can fairly be called dictatorial authority to order private businesses to alter their production plans, and violate existing contracts with private customers, in order to produce goods for the government.

Mask and social distancing mandates, government control of private industry, and some of Biden’s other executive actions, such as one creating a new “Public Health Jobs Corps” with responsibilities including performing “contact tracing” on American citizens, are the type of actions one would expect from a fascist government, not a constitutional republic.

Joe Biden, who is heralded by many of his supporters as saving democracy from fascist Trump, could not even wait one day before beginning to implement fascistic measures that are completely unnecessary to protect public health. Biden will no doubt use other manufactured crises, including “climate change” and “domestic terrorism,” to expand government power and further restrict our liberty. Under Biden, fascism will not just carry an American flag. It will also wear a mask.

Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute

January 25, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

New York Times touts ‘How to Blow Up A Pipeline’ as a ‘new way to think’

Book argues ‘strategic acceptance of property destruction & violence has been the only route for revolutionary change’

Climate Depot | January 25, 2021

NYT’s Tatiana Schlossberg (the daughter of Caroline Kennedy): How to Blow Up a Pipeline author Andreas Malm “argues that there should be room for tactics other than strict nonviolence and peaceful demonstrations — indeed, he is a bit contemptuous of those who offer strategic pacifism as a solution — and notes that fetishizing nonviolence in past protest movements sanitizes history, removing agency from the people who fought, sometimes violently, for justice, freedom and equality. Sure. But the problem with violence, even if it’s meant only to destroy “fossil capital,” is that ultimately it’s impossible to control.”

Climate Depot note: The website of the publisher of the book, Verso books, asks, “why haven’t we moved beyond peaceful protest?” The publisher website explains: “[How to Blow Up a Pipeline author Andreas] Malm argues that the strategic acceptance of property destruction and violence has been the only route for revolutionary change.”

“Andreas Malm makes an impassioned call for the climate movement to escalate its tactics in the face of ecological collapse. We need, he argues, to force fossil fuel extraction to stop—with our actions, with our bodies, and by defusing and destroying its tools. We need, in short, to start blowing up some oil pipelines.”

New York Magazine climate reporter David Wallace-Wells, also provided a featured review of Malm’s book: “If a livable world requires an all-over transformation, where and when and how do we start? Perhaps with this book, a provocative manifesto from the pioneering theorist of the climate age.” – David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth

In 2010, NASA’s former lead climate scientist also endorsed a similar sounding book. See: James Hansen declared author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’ — Book proposes ‘razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine’

2013: Video: Eco-Terror Threats Issued at Rally: Climate Depot attended: ‘We will dismantle the Pipeline’ sign prominently displayed at rally — ‘By any means necessary’

January 25, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment