Anglozionism

Out-Thought, Out-Bought, Out-Fought: Why the “9/11 Truth” Movement Failed

1 Comment

Sometimes you have to lie to others to buy time to deal with a problem. But never lie to yourself. –Lt. Gen Bernard C. “Mick” Trainor, USMC (Ret.)

By Alan Sabrosky, Editor VT

I have cited my late friend “Mick” Trainor’s words elsewhere, and kept them in mind since he said them to me in the late 1980s.They ought to be graven in granite in the minds of everyone of good heart in public life. They are also an indictment of the “9/11 Truth” movement as a whole, which tried to speak the truth about this atrocity to the people as well as to those in power, but increasingly lied to itself about the effect it was having. It finally ended in complete failure, lacking only a decent funeral oration.

An Overview

It gives me no pleasure at all to write these words. I personally came to the movement late in 2009, then met many excellent people and worked with many fine editors at a time when overt censorship was still minimal. The best of the “Truthers” shared one thing in common: they were right that the US Government explanation of the 9/11 attacks was singularly flawed, in whole and in all its major parts. But they – and I include myself here – were never able to convey that message in a politically significant way to enough of the American public to matter.

The net effect is that despite innumerable articles, speeches, seminars, videos, protests and the like by tens of thousands of activists, the 20th anniversary of 9/11 came and went with barely a whimper. It was preceded by the collapse of the 9/11 lawyers effort in New York City on which so many had staked their hopes, and the dismissal of Richard Gage – the founder of the seminal “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” – from his own organization by his own board. It is tragic enough when evil triumphs, which is what the real planners and perpetrators of 9/11 did. It is even worse when the collapse of the efforts to expose them and to bring them to justice ends in farce.

So Why Did We Fail?

Even posing this question is certain to prompt some – perhaps many – to assert that they are still fighting, and as long as they do, they have not yet lost. This assumes that effort without effect matters, and perhaps in a metaphysical sense, it does.

But nothing we have done to date has produced a corresponding result. We went from Bush to Obama to Trump to Biden, and each administration saw a continuous growth in Jewish influence within the government and in Israeli power (which was a major goal of 9/11, after all). Trump was easily the most pro-Israel president in my long (80 years) memory, which took some doing, and Biden’s administration is cast in the same mould. None ever called into question the essential elements of the original US Government case on 9/11. None even hinted in the most oblique manner that Israel abroad and the assorted mostly Jewish neo-conservatives at home had any part to play in that event and what ensued. How could they? Many of those responsible were or still are in the government.

Countering the official narrative on the 9/11 attacks and exposing the real culprits was admittedly a daunting task from the beginning. The real perpetrators – not the handful of hapless named Arabs including pilots who could not fly the type of aircraft hijacked, but the ones who wired three buildings at the World Trade Center for controlled demolition, arranged for the attack on the Pentagon which conveniently wiped out the team auditing the missing $2.3 trillion in Pentagon funds, and orchestrated the US Government support and protection apparatus for them – held all the aces. Not just what the US Government itself could and did marshal on their behalf, but virtually all of the mainstream media increasingly echoed the official 9/11 narrative. Hollywood and country music (CMT has the same type of owners as Hollywood and the networks) combined to produce movies and music reinforcing the official narrative. The wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq as part of the illusory “war on terror” both nailed that down, and later shifted focus away from 9/11 to the wars themselves – not coincidentally, another major goal of the 9/11 attacks.

So where did it all go wrong, given the mountain of evidence and analyses on the side of the “Truthers” – enough to make the mountain of evidence about actual fraud in the 2020 elections seem like a molehill? First of all, we were out-thought. We knew what we were against: the US Government case on 9/11. But we did not know how to present that case to the public in a coherent way that mattered to them – there were many (I would say too many) ideas, but no strategy. Think of the 9/11 Truth movement as a variant of China’s “Hundred Flowers” campaign in Mao Zedong’s early years in power. That one’s slogan was “let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand thoughts contend.” And when those thoughts did contend, after a while the Chinese government cut them down. It hasn’t been that gruesome (yet) for 9/11 Truthers, but the sheer number of contending – and often contradictory or mutually exclusive – ideas presented, some sensible but many not, without any overarching design meant a good deal of activity with little or no practical effect.

Our opponents, in contrast, seized the initiative from the outset, and never lost it. (I would love to meet with whoever devised their plan, and I do not mean the 1990s PNAC document on “A New American Century” – it was masterful.) Their strategy was simple: name an enemy, attack at once while people are still stunned (the long-standing “rally around the flag” syndrome), take the war home (the misbegotten “Patriot Act” and its bastard offspring, the “War on Terror”), keep reminding people of it (e.g. TSA at airports), and never ever let people forget any of the above.

To safeguard the narrative, any who question what is being done (the “Truthers”) are dismissed as quacks, derided as fools, or treated as handmaidens to the terrorists. Governance by fear is not in theory the best form of governing, but it keeps most people from rethinking just why in the hell are we doing this? And it worked – forget what happened to the “9/11 Truth” movement, which never really found an effective response – just look at how quickly the corresponding peace movement faded into insignificance.

Second, we were out-bought. It is an old saying that when money talks, everything else walks, and I expect that has been true throughout history. It certainly determined the course of the 9/11 Truth movement, and all but dictated its failure. For all their efforts individually and collectively, the Truthers were never able to garner the support of even one major individual, non-profit or corporate donor. Not one. Financing of our efforts was done on a literal shoestring, via monetizing videos or Patreon or similar pay-per-view efforts – IF they were permitted, and increasingly they were demonetized. None of the conservative billionaires or foundations supported our efforts, with anything more than a pittance – and that only rarely. Nor did Arab-Americans – especially Palestinian-Americans – step forward in support, even though they ought to have understood that pinning 9/11 on Israel and its supporters would inevitably work to their own benefit.

So why was this the case? I expect insofar as American donors were concerned, almost all – no matter which political party they preferred – supported Israel by 2001. And the more perceptive of them (or their program directors) knew, suspected or feared that a close examination of the evidentiary trail to 9/11 would lead directly or indirectly to Israel and its supporters in the United States – which would mean the wrath of the American people, would be visited on both. This they did not want. As for Arab-Americans and especially Palestinian-Americans, those I knew simply did not want to be bothered – they were safe, their investments were prospering, and that was enough.

The 9/11 planners and perpetrators, on the other hand, had a much easier task financially. The US Government and its immense resources were at their beck and call. Billionaires and multi-billion dollar individuals, foundations and corporations funded their activities and those of the organizations which supported them. The American Jewish lobby – yes, it does exist – look at the website of the “Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations” which has 51 member organizations (of which AIPAC and ADL are but two) and 3 adjunct organizations plus the SPLC – threw all of its considerable political and monetary support into the balance against the Truthers. Incidental Patreon payouts and occasional YouTube proceeds didn’t much matter against those odds. And not surprisingly, they prevailed.

Third, we were out-fought. We fought the war for 9/11 Truth as badly as the US fought the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and like the US in those places, absent a coherent strategy, we lost. The movement was infiltrated from the outset, those of us who fought the good fight knew it, but lacking any organization, any strategy, or any monetary resources, were powerless to excise or even counter them. Many Truthers seemed in all too many instances to have spent as much effort attacking or criticizing one another as we did pursuing the supposed goal of undermining the government case.

Moreover, most of us – and I am a prime transgressor here – misunderstood the proper focus of our criticism. I and many others focused on the WTC – especially WTC7 – because it was so blatantly obvious that the three towers were brought down by controlled demolitions, with the impacting planes (or whatever) serving merely as gruesome distractions from that fact. But we forgot that even if we had convinced people that this did happen, they had no way to organize and do anything about it, given the near-total subservience of the mainstream media and increasingly the social media to Israel. The proper focus should have been the Pentagon attack – convince the military then of what had happened and who had done it, and they had the means to do something about it. Today, it is probably too late: means or not, the will is mostly gone.

In contrast to this haphazard and misguided approach to working through 9/11, the “bad guys and gals” did well. We Truthers (to reuse an apt analogy applicable here] were like a thousand or more people standing in a circle, shooting arrows in all directions (and sometimes at one another) with no attention to impact or effectiveness. We told ourselves that we were firing arrows, and that more people understood why we were doing it. That we hit little or nothing never seemed to register. But our opponents were like that same number of archers in a circle shooting collectively into the center: they were on target, largely did no damage to one another – and at least marginalized the 9/11 Truth movement, and ultimately made it irrelevant. If there is anything worse than fighting and failing, it is fighting and being meaningless.

L’Envoi

So where do we go from here? It ought to be abundantly clear that simply refilling our quivers, doing more podcasts or articles or whatever, won’t work. More of the same when that same has failed in the past is never smart. Nor are we going to alter the financial framework much, and the political situation is grim: We have an America that is on the verge of social and economic collapse, overlaid by an impending Democrat party dominance of the political system for the foreseeable future. If we are lucky, there’ll be a civil war that precludes that outcome. If not, worrying about who did 9/11 and what it means will be the least of our problems.

From my point of view, anyone who wishes to pursue 9/11 Truth, should reorient their focus to the Pentagon attack. Stop this nonsense about whether the 757 really hit: the plane simply doesn’t fit, the visual damage doesn’t support such a plane impacting the building, and onsite witnesses an hour after the attack found nothing to support a that happening. Don’t waste time arguing about what it was: Simply point out that a 757 did not hit, that the named pilot who could not fly a propeller-driven Cessna could not possibly have flown a 757 if it had been there, and use that as the point of departure. That woke pansy of a Chairman JCS aside, there are still some officers who lost friends there and who still have a sense of professionalism – they are your proper target audience.

For my part, doing what I can to try and stave off the coming train wreck that is the United States is far more important. Our country, our society, our very culture is being eroded from within. Anyone who does not see impending disaster is living in a dream world. It may well be too late to avert catastrophe: 2020 was the time to do it, and faced with the choice of standing up and fighting – and I mean fighting with weapons, not words – conservative patriots did nothing. If the ship of state wrecks on the rocks and shoals, do not blame the Left – or those who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks – look into a mirror. It was our fault – not others, but ours – and none other. If you want to do better, put 9/11 on the back burner and save the country – 9/11 will still be there when the smoke clears if we win, and if we lose, it won’t matter.

Alan Ned Sabrosky (PhD, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam with the 1st Marine Division and is a graduate of the US Army War College.

Current Events

Many Russians Won’t Get Vaccinated. A Dog Catcher Explains Why

Leave a comment

By Xenia Cherkaev via The Bulletin

A riddle from Russia: In a country where so many people have lost friends or family members to COVID-19, why is the pandemic taken so lightly? Sports festivals and international dog shows went ahead this summer as planned while crematoria overflowed with dead bodies. Masks are typically seen as an annoying formality, and people do not seem shocked by discrepant death counts. Between one state agency and another, death tallies diverge by over 200,000. How big a problem is the pandemic in Russia? In an important sense, we just don’t know.

What we do know is that the country is heading into a fourth wave of COVID-19, and while case numbers are rising, vaccination numbers are not. In 2020, Russia touted Sputnik V as the world’s “first authorized COVID-19 vaccine” and launched an effective export campaign: international vaccine sales garnered over $700 million in the first eight months of 2021. But inside the country itself, only about 30 percent of the population is fully vaccinated, and most people don’t want to be. The Levada Center, an independent polling agency, repeatedly finds that over half of the people they survey claim not to be afraid of contracting COVID-19. Denis Volkov, Levada’s director explains: “[E]ven though people are concerned, and even though they see their friends and relatives dying around them, many are still not ready to be vaccinated because they do not believe the authorities.”

To confront this deep well of anti-vaccine attitudes, authorities have tried car raffles, cash prizes, and local vaccine mandates. But they face an uphill battle in a country where people tend to view laws in terms of whose special interests they serve. They’ll face Sergey Selivanov, for one.

I met Sergey this past August, in Ryazan—a regional capital of about 500,000 known for its military-technical institutions, a three-hour drive from Moscow. He’s a dog catcher; I’m a legal anthropologist studying the regulation of stray cats and dogs. My research isn’t specifically related to the pandemic, but it has led me to see how people work in systems of governance that they themselves find dangerously irrational. And for many people in Russia today, such irrationality extends to the official policies implemented to curb the spread of COVID-19. As Sergey and I drove around his city, I heard in his position echoes of a political sentiment I had heard throughout Russia over the previous months. He told me that he and his wife had both had COVID-19, and that it made them both horrendously sick. But he also told me that he’s against the vaccines: He doubts their effectiveness, doubts their safety, and he doubts that the government’s vaccination campaign is driven by good intentions.

Sergey’s doubt touches on news stories and social media rumors, and it grounds on his lack of faith in the fairness and trustworthiness of Russian state governance. “When someone’s trying to organize a political meeting,” he said, “suddenly there’s COVID. But when they want to hold celebratory parades—no COVID?” Vaccine hesitancy in Russia today is often traced to a total distrust of the state—and such distrust is not wholly unfounded. Sergey and I discussed the massive public festivals St. Petersburg hosted this summer as the delta strain raged, we discussed how his local clinic diagnosed his tell-tale COVID symptoms as “acute bronchitis.” We both agree that official statistics cannot be trusted. The sentiment is common in Russia these days, shared by biologists, demographers, journalists, doctors, even by St. Petersburg’s ombudsman for human rights. Not only do two state agencies publish radically different numbers, but independent analysis gives reason to doubt them both. A similar statistical murkiness and lack of transparency has delayed Sputnik V’s emergency-use approval by the World Health Organization, even as reputable studies have shown the vaccine to be effective and safe.

I am vaccinated with Sputnik. I have a high antibody count, and I haven’t been sick. Sergey is not vaccinated, and does not plan to be. He is resolutely opposed. If he were to be subject to a vaccine mandate, he told me, he might go to court. But while the question of COVID-19 vaccines often splits people into irreconcilable camps —pro and anti—I don’t think Sergey crazy for doubting. From where he stands, the vaccine is not a question of collective immunity but of legal pressure. And Sergey knows firsthand that laws today often make for unsafe and unhealthy worlds.

As a dog catcher, Sergey works within the limits of a law whose logic he himself knows to be terrible. Adopted in 2018, this Federal Law N498 is the focal point of my study, the reason that I came to Ryazan. It decrees stray dogs and cats “ownerless” animals and forbids euthanizing them. It mandates instead that such animals be caught, castrated, and released back to the streets, or else kept kenneled at the expense of regional budgets until they die of natural causes. But Canis lupus familiaris is a pack-hunting predator. Free-roaming dogs destroy private property, kill family pets, spread diseases, and terrorize and attack people. To protect themselves and their communities, people in turn often brutalize street-dogs. Sergey has a dog at work that he and his colleagues are trying to figure out what to do with: They went out on call to catch her and met neighbors who swore that they’d kill her if they saw her again near their building. “She’s a nice dog,” Sergey explained, “but she eats cats.” Sergey feels bad for the dog, for the neighborhood cats and their owners, for the whole situation. But by law, his firm must release the dog back to the place where they caught her—and laws are to be reckoned with, even when they are irrational.

As we drove, Sergey and I discussed heinous cases from many Russian regions: little children mauled to death; senior citizens dismembered and partially eaten near their own houses; grown men and women attacked, mutilated, killed. We discuss how President Vladimir Putin has claimed street dogs to be an “inalienable part of the ecological system of cities,” and how the state’s started giving out medals “for valor” to people who’ve saved their fellow citizens from packs of dogs. A retired military dog handler, Sergey is well informed of the zoonotic danger dogs pose, especially in spreading echinococcosis and rabies. He has two dogs at home. Every year, he vaccinates and deworms them and marks their vet-passports accordingly. But legally “ownerless” dogs only get one shot of the rabies vaccine before he sets them free; he couldn’t revaccinate them if he wanted. Per Federal Law N498, it is illegal to recapture a dog that’s been tagged. And perhaps “setting them free” isn’t the best way to put it: These dogs sometimes chase his car for blocks when he leaves them. So he feels bad for them too. It’d be better to put them down, he reasons—if not for this stupid law that forbids euthanasia.

For many people in Russia today, the law is a web of regulations in which they seek loopholes to safeguard themselves and their social collectives from truly terrible outcomes. Some people, like Sergey, see the irrationality of this web in regulations pertaining to animal management. Others see it in other spheres. People complain about having been coerced into voting at work. They laugh at the State Duma—also known as the “the rabid printer”—for the quality and quantity of new laws it adopts. Some people are outraged by new laws branding politically dissident citizens and independent media organizations “foreign agents.” Some are demoralized by tax and investment incentives that let corporations sell the country’s natural resources for private profit, while small Russian towns scrape by on Soviet-era infrastructure. Some are incensed by the zoning regulations and governance schemes that allow trout fisheries to pollute their waterways, landfills to be built near their towns, and their forests to be stripped of their timber. In every such case, the law is seen as something with practical force but little moral standing: not an embodiment of the commonweal, and often a threat to community interests.

Legal systems generate a certain mystical power, that, when it works, makes people believe that the rules governing our social worlds are not only compulsory but also reasonable, even righteous. But this aura of righteousness must be a quality of the legal system itself, it does not stick to particular regulations in a patchwork fashion. Facing a fourth wave of infections, top state officials have once again called for people to be vaccinated as quickly as possible. But their electorate does not believe them. For people like Sergey, there is nothing inherently reasonable about the policies through which his country is governed. So when the state speaks of vaccinations, Sergey thinks of the practical force of the law: He thinks of which regulations might force him to be vaccinated, by whose will, for whose interest, and to what personal consequence. Widespread mistrust in the government’s motives, communications, and laws extends even to policies and regulations that are perfectly sensible: People prefer to take their chances with COVID-19 instead of accepting a state-backed vaccine because they do not believe that their country is reasonably or fairly governed. And this is something that neither the bait of car raffles nor the threat of vaccine mandates will fix.

Xenia Cherkaev is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Social Anthropology at the Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg. She holds a PhD in Anthropology from Columbia University.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Pfizer and BioNTech Announces Its Vaccine Is Useless 11 Months After Dosing

2 Comments

by Alex Berenson  via: Unreported Truths

Well, that’s not how they phrased it.

But it is the only reasonable way to read their press release claiming that the booster is 95% effective.

Remember. The booster is given to people who have RECEIVED the vaccine. (That’s why it’s a booster, right?)

And when they tested a booster against a placebo in those people, they found a 95% reduction in disease in people who received the booster (for a total of 11 weeks after they received the booster, excluding the first week, because science – by which I mean because including that week would not help their results).

95%!

Where have you heard that figure before? Oh yeah, it is EXACTLY the same relative risk reduction they claimed in the pivotal trial last year, when they tested the INITIAL dose against placebo.

The only reasonable read is that the booster is providing (temporary) protection similar to the first two-dose series (temporarily) did AGAINST PLACEBO. But these are VACCINATED people.

So where’s the protection from the initial two doses?

There is ONE difference, though. The ABSOLUTE risk appeared at least two to three times higher in the vaccinated people in this trial than in UNVACCINATED people in the initial trial – 110 infections in 5,000 people in 10 weeks, compared to 162 infections in 20,000 people in about the same period.

Because vaccines work.

If you are vaccinated, get ready to take boosters forever.

By the way, the press release includes NO specific safety data.

Yay Pfizer!

 

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Lukashenko Spoke Against Mandatory Mask, Social Distancing and Vaccination

Leave a comment
by Marko Marjanović  via Anti-Empire
Lukashenko: “Why are you making fun of the people?”

I don’t want to lionize Lukashenko too much. Instead of dressing down ministers for harassing and hounding the people with brain disease idiocy, shouldn’t he have made sure it never happened in the first place? It is hard to believe that if he set clear instructions that any of the things he complained about would have happened.

Nonetheless, compared to the empty suit in Moscow, Lukashenko is a mensch indeed.

Lukashenko could have intervened sooner, but at least intervene he did. And how! — By publicly humiliating his ministers. By chewing them up in front of the entire nation. Was it a little bit theatrical and despotic? Well, I wouldn’t say no to more of this type of “despotism”. A system where top officials live in fear of public humiliation dished out by a moody tsar should they start to harangue the people too much isn’t perfect — or even necessarily a great one — but would seem to be a huge improvement on the slavery to the Great Reset that the rest of us lives under.

As said, there may be an element of Lukashenko covering his behind for allowing it to get out of hand, but at least he made the reversal and has reestablished a clear anti-mind disease line now. That is more than can be said for the Obama impersonator in Moscow who has been contented to let the virus cult ride the Russian people however it wants to.

 

 

Here is Belta’s wonderful screenplay:

At the beginning of the meeting, Aleksandr Lukashenko asked Healthcare Minister Dmitry Pinevich: “I assume that all people in attendance are healthy, right?”

After the minister replied in the affirmative, the head of state asked another question: “Have you put them into quarantine before the meeting with the president, have they done PCR tests?”

This time the minister’s answer was negative.

“How come, you have come to the head of state, (there is only one president in Belarus) and have not checked those present here? It turns out that you do not practice what you preach. I have asked you this question for a reason. You have done the right thing, because it is not how things work in our country. Although people all over the world do not meet with the president without prior quarantine,” the president said.

Aleksandr Lukashenko continued: “I asked this question because I wanted you to answer another question: if you come to the president freely, why are you giving ordinary people such a bad time?”

The head of state emphasized that throughout the pandemic not a single person who headed for the meeting with the president was asked whether he/she was vaccinated and had a PCR test done: “Kochanova was always outraged by it. She is in charge of Minsk, and the Palace of Independence is in Minsk, so this situation would make her really mad. Well, despite this indignation, she herself comes to the president without a test result.”

“Why are we putting pressure on people then? Why have you made such a big deal out of it? Why have you mobilized the police to check whether people are wearing face masks? You perform body searches not even sparing women,”Aleksandr Lukashenko noted.

In this regard, he turned to the minister of internal affairs: “I warned you. Do you have nothing else to do? Why are you breaking the law? We do not have such a law. Who are you playing along?” the head of state asked.

“So if you treat people, then treat them properly. Starting from this zone and ending everywhere on the streets. You have caused such a commotion all over the country. I think the governors have heard us. As far as I know, they in Brest have already started giving fines and coercing people to get vaccinated. I had asked you though not to allow this to happen!” the Belarusian leader said.

He noted that some experts who came to the meeting in the Palace of Independence were wearing masks. “This is their right. I do not force anyone. Tertel [the KGB chairman] never wears a mask when he comes to me. God be with him. When Pinevich arrives, he throws a mask in the reception room before entering. I do not force anyone to wear masks. This is your right,” the head of state said.

“If a person is sick, for example Pinevich gets infected with COVID-19, he will never go to the president,” Aleksandr Lukashenko noted.

He emphasized that every person living in Belarus should act in the same way. “Moreover, why are we keeping people in the dark? We do not know everything about this disease. And every person should act the way they see fit. We will talk about it now,” the president said.

“Look, they have started giving fines. Who authorized them to do this? What law says that you have the right to fine people?” Aleksandr Lukashenko raised this question again.

At the same time, he emphasized that law enforcement agencies are under-performing in the matters that are part of their job description. “Subbotin [Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Subbotin] and the minister will tell you that in Gomel Oblast cows are slaughtered at night and sold to Russia. We cannot cope with it, while the police are catching people who are not wearing masks. God forbid you fail to catch this scum [people involved in the illegal sale of meat] within two weeks! They have really gone rogue,” the Belarusian leader emphasized.

Then the president returned to discussing COVID-19 and various kinds of restrictions associated with it. “We are acting inappropriately, while forcing people to be perfect. No, Dmitry, this will not do. Go back to what we did in the first wave,” the head of state demanded.

In his opening remarks the head of state said that he was briefed about the situation in the country, including on people’s sentiments on the internet. “I have already told you about the frenzy: people are going crazy. Some are boiling over, others require action from the president. Listen, I report to people on TV on what I do every day. I can’t deal with COVID issues from morning till night. I have an entire ministry and thousands of people in white coats for that,” Aleksandr Lukashenko said.

He noted that the president must supervise a lot of issues. One of them, for example, is the situation in agriculture, harvesting, autumn field works. “I also have to deal with the issues of the sanctions that have been imposed against us. Thousands of thousands of such issues,” the head of state emphasized.

“This is childish. People got the idea that the president is not very involved in the COVID-19 issue,” Aleksandr Lukashenko said. “This is our fault, Mr Pinevich. We have put people on their toes with what we say. We put them on alert, get them worried but things have not got better. “

“We have imposed all kinds of draconian measures during this time. Did it become better? No. Mr Pinevich, we will need to focus on treatment. We will not do without it,” the Belarusian leader stressed.

Aleksandr Lukashenko explained that he does not mind people wearing masks and getting vaccinated, but treatment issues are of outmost importance. He is sure that if the healthcare system works effectively, then the problem will be minimized literally within a month. “If we focus on COVID and anti-COVID policies rather than treatment, people will start rioting. Like it has happened in Europe,” he warned.

He also cited the example of fraternal Russia: “I know how hard they have been working. They have gloves and masks requirements and what not. Still the incidence is rising. The rise is higher than in Belarus. You should look at what is happening in the world and draw the appropriate conclusions.”

Aleksandr Lukashenko emphasized that, despite his negative attitude to all kinds of restrictions, vaccination is important and he has never opposed it.

The head of state gave an example of a Minsk factory that decided to reward people for vaccination. As a result, almost the entire team has vaccinated. “Of course, I am against people buying their health, but this is the right of people and the enterprise they work for. But they were not made to do it. You can act differently not like they do in Brest Oblast imposing all kinds of restrictions and requirements. Perhaps other governors act this way too. We will look into this and get these things in check,” the president warned.

Incredible performance. Gotta love how he makes them stand like schoolboys. All that is missing is for them to be sent to stand in a corner (or be dragged off by the NKVD for the full Stalin experience).

But to be fair, words are one thing, actions another. None of this will be worth much if Lukashenko doesn’t follow through on his word and restrains the Brest governor. (Which really he should have done before it ever happened.) So let’s watch out for that.

Nonetheless, his performance leaves me optimistic. Restating the old-new line Lukashenko was clear; no compulsion! (How different that is from the Kremlin’s “All measures are good”line.)

Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko spoke against mandatory mask, social distancing and vaccination requirements as he hosted a meeting to discuss the epidemiological situation and the COVID-19 response in Belarus on 19 October, BelTA has learned.

The president stated that in the situation with the coronavirus the Belarusian society is divided on the issue of protective efforts (masks, social distancing, etc.), as well as on vaccination. “I have to warn everyone. The president has the right to make such a decision. Masks, protective measures, and vaccination will be exclusively voluntary,” he said.

Aleksandr Lukashenko suggested acting by persuasion: “I do not exclude financial rewards, although I do not approve of them. Some enterprises offer such rewards to their workers to get vaccinated. Their reasoning is simple: the fewer sick workers are, the greater gain for the enterprise will be.”

“Any methods are acceptable, except for coercion. I warn everyone – the police, public health services and others. We have no legislative basis for this. The president has not made a decision to force people to something. We need to persuade them,” the head of state said.

At the same time, Aleksandr Lukashenko noted that in some cases it would be good if people wore masks. For example, in retail outlets, in transport. “As for retail, I would pay attention primarily to cashiers. This category of workers is exposed most of all in retail sector today. They need to be supported financially as well. Spending the whole day at a cash register with a face mask on is hard,” the president said.

“I have already expressed my opinion regarding face masks, PPE, social distancing and vaccination. No pressure on people. God forbid I get information that you kick people out of retail outlets, metro or buses. Because this is already turning into a political problem. People start hating each other. This should be done only on a voluntary basis,” stressed the Belarusian leader.

The head of state is sure that there is no need to wear face masks outdoors. “People should breathe fresh air outdoors. There is no need to make people wear face masks outdoors,” he said.

As for vaccination, Aleksandr Lukashenko once again stressed that it is important to get vaccinated. “We will always live with this infection. We need to vaccinate. We need to take additional efforts in this direction,” said the head of state.

According to the president, the main population groups that should be given priority attention today in terms of vaccination are the elderly and pregnant women.

Aleksandr Lukashenko emphasized the importance of preserving the ordinary way of life for people. In this regard, he once again stressed the need to maintain a healthy lifestyle, which, among other things, helps resist viruses and other diseases. “People need to spend more time outdoors, breathe in more fresh air to get their lungs work. Then, if they contract a disease, it will be easier for them to beat it,” said the head of state.

I can’t say I’m too crazy about Lukashenko telling the police to forget about the masks in order to focus on hunting down peasants “illegally” slaughtering (their own) cows. Sadly we now live in a world where the government will force you to breathe through a piece of paper, confine you to house arrest for months on end at a minute’s notice, and forcefully inject you. Maybe one day we can slaughter our own cows without having to hide from pigs, for now I’d just be happy to be able to freely get a beer when I can pay for one.

At least Lukashenko is only a highway bandit who wants a cut of your profit on a cow slaughter, but not a demented BDSM brain patient trying to subdue you for his unhinged religion.

“God forbid I get information that you kick people out of retail outlets, metro or buses.” — I sure like the sound of that.

If there is another politician who will defy the hive-mind Stalins I do not mind him stealing every election and enthroning himself as President for Life. We do not live in democracies as it is. I would be happy to sign away the pretense of democracy for some actual, real protection of our freedoms.

If that protection takes the form of a potato-farm warlord who will fight for his people’s right not to be compelled to breathe through a piece of paper with half the ferocity that he clings to his chair then I’m all for it.

On the other hand, when you have someone like the empty coat in Moscow who is plotting to make himself a Lukashenko-style President for Life but governs as a de facto proxy for the global mind virus, I have to ask; what do the people get out of that?

The nation is supposed to tolerate him for decades and decades for what upside precisely? So he can set it up to be raped by the likes of the scoundrel Sobyanin at will? A Sobyanin in Belarus wouldn’t get a public scolding, he’d get a firing squad.

 

 

47-42 and trending down. You don’t need free elections to be Europe’s freest country, but you do need some actual f-r-e-e-d-o-m

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Breaking! NIH Admits Funding Gain-Of-Function COVID Experiment

1 Comment

Via ZeroHedge

A top NIH official admitted in a Wednesday letter that the US-funded so-called “gain-of-function” research in Wuhan, China – and that the US nonprofit which conducted it, EcoHealth Alliance – led by the controversial Peter Daszak, “failed to report” that they had created a chimeric bat coronavirus which could infect humans.

In a letter addressed to Rep. James Comer (R-KY), NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence A. Tabak cites a “limited experiment” to determine whether “spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.” According to the letter, humanized mice infected with the modified bat virus “became sicker” than those exposed to an unmodified version of the same bat coronavirus.

Daszak failed to report this finding, and has been given five days to submit “any and all unpublished data from the experiments and work conducted” under the NIH grant.

Rutgers University Board of Governors Chemistry Professor Richard H. Ebright sums it up. :

While Tabak’s letter goes to great lengths to insist that EcoHealth’s work couldn’t have produced SARS-CoV-2, it absolutely vindicates Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who Fauci repeatedly called a liar in July for accusing him of funding GoF research in Wuhan, China.

As we noted in September, proof that the US funded of GoF research was blown wide open thanks to materials (here and here) released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by The Intercept against the National Institutes of Health, revealing that EcoHealth was paid to make chimeric SARS-based Covid that they confirmed could infect human cells.

While evidence of this research has been pointed to in published studies, the FOIA release provides a key piece to the puzzle which sheds new light on what was going on.

“This is a roadmap to the high-risk research that could have led to the current pandemic,” said Gary Ruskin, executive director of U.S. Right To Know, a group that has been investigating the origins of Covid-19 (via The Intercept).

We also learned in September that 18 months before the Pandemic, Daszak applied for a grant to release enhanced airborne coronaviruses into the wild in an effort to inoculate them against diseases that could have otherwise jumped to humans, according to The Telegraph, citing leaked grant proposals from 2018.

New documents show that just 18 months before the first Covid-19 cases appeared, researchers had submitted plans to release skin-penetrating nanoparticles containing “novel chimeric spike proteins” of bat coronaviruses into cave bats in Yunnan, China.

They also planned to create chimeric viruses, genetically enhanced to infect humans more easily, and requested $14million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) to fund the work.

Daszak hoped to use genetic engineering to cobble “human-specific cleavage sites” onto bat Covid ‘which would make it easier for the virus to enter human cells’ – and included plans to commingle high-risk natural coronaviruses strains with more infectious, yet less deadly versions. His ‘bat team’ of researchers included Dr. Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as well as US researchers from the University of North Carolina and the US Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center.

Darpa refused the contract – saying “It is clear that the proposed project led by Peter Daszak could have put local communities at risk,” while warning that Daszak hadn’t fully considered the dangers involved in enhancing the virus via gain-of-function research, or by releasing a vaccine into the air.

Angus Dalgleish, Professor of Oncology at St Georges, University of London, who struggled to get work published showing that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had been carrying out “gain of function” work for years before the pandemic, said the research may have gone ahead even without the funding.

“This is clearly a gain of function, engineering the cleavage site and polishing the new viruses to enhance human cell infectibility in more than one cell line,” he said. –Telegraph

In short, after a massive drop of receipts proved that Fauci, and his boss Francis Collins, lied, the NIH itself has finally acknowledged funding Gain-of-Function research.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Why You Should Refuse Your Employer’s Regular PCR Nasal Swabs

7 Comments

Written by John O’Sullivan via Principia-Scientific

 

At Principia Scientific International (PSI) we get many emails from workers coerced into having regular COVID tests by employers or else risk losing their jobs. In this article we explain why you should refuse the test, because the nasal swabbing may be as dangerous as the unproven experimental jabs.

Did you know that there are toxic ingredients, not only in those jabs, but also on the tips of those swabs they insert up your nose?

PSI has been at pains over the last 18 months to explain about the dangers posed by the experimental ‘vaccines’ – but too little is being said about the risks from repeated swab testing. Is that, in itself a danger?

Well, yes, if these nasal swabs contain ethylene oxide and they breach the blood/brain barrier if incorrectly applied.

To illustrate the concerns, below is one such email we received:

“Hello,

I am an airline pilot based in Hong Kong and subject to continuous PCR testing via invasive nasal swabs.  To give you an idea, in the last 45 days I was subjected to 20 tests! Over the last year I would estimate having done 160 to 200 of these tests.

Whilst I’m no scientist nor doctor I suspect “sticking things inside you continuously” can’t be a good idea! Your professional opinion on this would be very much appreciated.”

To help answer such concerns, we have put together the information below. But please do your own research and never take anyone’s word – double check yourself.

First, let us begin by making it clear that – despite the assurances from jab peddlers – there has NEVER before been an approved coronavirus vaccine brought to market.

In each and every past instance, every vaccine company who tried to create a coronavirus vaccine failed in the laboratory testing phase because all the guinea pigs suffered severe adverse events and died.

What the big corporate drug companies presented to us as a new solution during the COVID19 pandemic is gene therapy rather than a traditional vaccine (serum) using modified ribonucleic acid (mRNA). Genetically modified messenger RNA is termed mRNA.

What does mRNA do? According to the pharmaceutical developers, mRNA is intended to produce instructions to our immune system to make proteins to treat or prevent disease. But let us make is clear that mRNA and RNA are not the same. (These are all verifiable with a simple Google search)

Let’s look at some of the basic Science Facts on testing:

  1. A nasal swab test is a PCR test
  2. PCR tests are for rapid DNA replication
  3. Coronavirus does not contain DNA, only RNA
  4. A PCR test cannot replicate RNA and therefore cannot detect coronaviruses

So, what are they really testing and what are people testing positive for?

In our view, there NO SCIENTIFIC basis to use a nasal PCR swab to test for COVID19. 

A sane, reasonable person would see that we have been lied to and misled about the test and should also ask: what else have they lied about?

On April 12, 2021 we reported that:

“The Académie nationale de médecine, an independent but official learned society in France, published a statement on Thursday warning that nasopharyngeal swabs used for PCR tests to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus “are not without risks” …” a growing amount of data show that “complications” can and do occur, some of them “serious.” “

Crucially, the academy reported that:

“it can also become dangerous when the swab goes too deep and is orientated in the wrong direction.”

As we stated at the top of this article, PCR tests remain the so-called gold standard of COVID-19 testing, even though the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that they should mostly be considered as an “aid for diagnosis” and that their results should be carefully interpreted according to manufacturers’ guidance and accompanied by clinical observations, among others.

Clearly, if these tests are repeated week after week, as our pilot-friend reported to us, then the risks grow exponentially, especially when normal medical protocols suggest that any such tests should be performed only on those who show symptoms.

Our concern is the risk of breaching the blood brain barrier. This is because the nasopharyngeal swab is done with a long, thin cotton swab introduced high up into the nasal cavity, often successively via both nostrils, and rotated quickly each time in order to collect a sample of cells and mucus to analyze for the “Wuhan virus” using the highly controversial PCR test, or to be used in view of an antigenic test.

Our article ‘Nasal COVID Swabs With Nanoparticles Cause Brain Damage!’ (February 17, 2021) revealed that PCR swabs may be contaminated with dangerous nanoparticles. I cited a study from Trinity College, Dublin which affirms that nanoparticles alter DNA and cause brain damage.

In the article it was re-affirmed that nasal swabbing offers no extra value in COVID19 virus testing.

“Key cause of concern is that the intrusive long swabs make contact with the delicate cellular barrier at the top of the nasal passage in close proximity to the brain. This is precisely the site which may be compromised by metal nanoparticles referred to in the Dublin study.

When these nanoparticles enter the brain their cellular messengers are released and may cause damage to the DNA of developing brain cells. We first drew wider attention to the possible insidious purpose to these nasal swabs -a completely unnecessary procedure when every law enforcement authority and doctor knows oral swabs are perfectly efficient at taking usable DNA samples – with our December article.”

In another of our articles ‘Video: Covid 19 Nasal Swabbing EXPOSED’ ( April 01, 2021) we showed a video of young British mother making the shocking discovery that PCR test nasal swabs contain a dangerous chemical known to cause cancers.

Shockingly, our governments are unconcerned that deadly ethylene oxide, used primarily to produce antifreeze, pesticide and as a sterilizing agent, is a key component in the COVID19 nasal swabs widely used on our children.

Health care workers often jokingly describe nasopharyngeal swabs – the extra-long Q-tips used for many coronavirus tests – ‘brain-scraping’ implements, as we reported in our article ‘Stop Using These Dangerous ‘Brain Scraping’ COVID Nasal Swabs!’ ( February 18, 2021).

How much worse is it that the ‘brain scraping’ is being done with a fibrous tipped swab laced with a known carcinogenic?

There simply is no technical justification to put a swab up anyone’s nose because there are plentiful saliva, gargle and breath tests which are much less invasive, let alone deliberately risk inserting deadly poison so close to the human brain.

We urge readers to refuse the have the nasal swab and insist that some other kinds of sampling be used, with the caveat that no PCR test should ever be used to determine a diagnosis of anyone who is asymptomatic of disease. This is especially so because the inventor of the test, Dr Kary Mullis, said; “Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test.”

So, why do they do it?

As with the constant fear porn, then mass masking and social distance, the whole point of the nose swab is for mindless obedience, as it violates our bodies. The nose swab is a demonstration of power, the power of a psychopathic elite to control our bodies – to dominate and violate us – both psychologically and physically.

Kevin Galalae’s new article neatly explains in more detail why the psychopathic elite do this to us. Please ensure you click on the link to the PDF at the bottom of this excerpt for all the scientific details:

PCR Tests And The Depopulation Program (By Kevin Galalae)

Ever since the Plandemic has been started, I asked myself why the authorities insist on performing as many Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests as possible, as often as possible on the same individuals, and on as many people as possible given their invasive nature and the fact that they were never meant for diagnostic but for research purposes and are therefore inaccurate and even misleading.  

The creator of the PCR test himself, Dr. Kary Mullis, has stated clearly and on many occasions that the results of the PCR tests can be easily misinterpreted to mean anything.   Well, now I know how the system is misusing them!  

The long swab inserted into the nasopharyngeal cavity all the way to the roof of the nose to collect remnants of viral RNA from the nasal mucosa, the tissue that lines the nasal cavity, damages the fascicles of the olfactory nerve, which, as it turns out, has dire consequences for human health and lifespan because the olfactory nerve is one of only two windows in the cranium through which viruses and bacteria can move from nose to brain, thus can cross the blood-brain barrier, the other one being the trigeminal nerve.    

Let me explain!

The olfactory nerve is the only cranial nerve that has stem cells which enable it to continually regenerate throughout life.  These stem cells are called olfactory ensheathing cells.  They surround the olfactory sensory axons (the appendage of the neuron that transmits impulses away from the cell body) to form the fascicles of the olfactory nerve.  In plain English, they are the cells that protect the olfactory nerve and aid its regeneration in case of damage through age or injury.  

Continue reading at:
http://stateofthenation.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/PCR-Tests-and-the-Depopulation-Program.pdf

 

Remember: The most effective treatments are logic, common sense and reason.

About John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI).  John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Analysis of US VAERS Vaccine Adverse Reactions Data – Part 1

1 Comment

by Biostatistician Chistine Cotton via


The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System VAERS is a US system for recording medical events which might (upon further investigation) be deemed to be caused by a COVID-19 vaccine.

The VAERS website states:

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S. licensed vaccines. VAERS is co-managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of adverse events (possible side effects) following vaccination.

Unlike the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency MHRA equivalent, the Yellow Card Vaccine Adverse Reaction reporting system (which has minimal data concerning the individual person experiencing adverse effects and the circumstances in which the vaccines were administered to them), the VAERS system does at least have some detail in the reports.

VAERS also provides its data in a standard comma-separated (CSV) files for importing into a standard datbase, spreadsheet or text editing programme, or by using the CDC Wonder on-line search tool. 

In contrast the UK’s MHRA system provides a confusing and often erroneous list of adverse reaction data for each of the vaccine manufacturers and this is updated by the production of a new data set. The data is not easiy searchable and the sporadic updates make it difficult for the public to compare the latest data with earlier data. The UKColumn took positive action to help the UK public gain better access to the MHRA’s own data by producing an online searchable database which can be found here – UKColumn Yellow Card Reports

Despite the better presentation of data in the VAERS system, the size of the database and the complexity of the data itself make it difficult for the ordinary member of the public to really understand what is the real significance of the vaccine adverse effects recorded. In addition, since the VAERS system is quick to state a ‘Disclaimer’ concerning the validity of its own data in respect of vaccine advers effects, the public are once again presented with confusing, or even misleading data, when attempting to identify the actual health risks presented by vaccines.

The VAERS Disclaimer states:

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA’s multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.” If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same scientific limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.

VAERS US

French Biostatistician, Christine Cotton, recently began her own research and analysis of the VAERS vaccine adverse effect data, to establish a better understanding of what the real risks of vaccination are and their particular nature and probability.  To do this she downloaded the raw VAERS data so as to evaluate it line by line. Shocked by what she discovered Christine began to speak out on her own data and findings with a view to informing the wider public of the real risks of vaccinations against the benefits claimed.

In a valuable and informative interview with UKColumn, Chrisine Cotton divided a presentation of her work into two parts. Part 1 begins with an introduction to herself and her professional work as a biostatistician. This is followed by a detailed analysis of the complex procedures and regulations required of pharmaceutical companies in developing new vaccines. The results of her analysis of the procedural and regulatory steps taken to introduce COVID-19 emergency vaccines led Christine to conclude that it was simply not possible to develop, test and unleash the suite of COVID-19 vaccines on the US and world population, in a manner and timeframe which met all the then existing public health and vaccine safety constraints, checks and regulations. In short the development and vaccine roll-out was just too fast to justify the vaccine safety and efficacy claims made.

Christine concludes from her analysis of the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination programme and the VAERS data itself that the vaccines carry significant health risks to all members of the public be they children, grown adults or the elderly. Within this cross section of society additional risks are identifyable for pregnant women and their babies. The risks deserve special attention when it is realised that they include life changing disabilities and even death.

Analysis of US VAERS Vaccine Adverse Reactions Data by Biostatistician Christine Cotton Part 2 focuses on the identification of key vaccine adverse health risks within the body of the VAERS data. Her findings make stark reading against the continuing claim by the US government and US Public Health agencies that vaccines are safe and that their benefits outweigh the risks.

Christine Cotton is joined in both Part 1 and Part 2 of her interview by Dr Anne-Marie Yim and former State Registered Nurse Debi Evans, both of whom are assisting Christine in her work and findings. Dr Anne-Marie Yim is French and of Cambodian origin. She holds a doctorate in organic chemistry from the University of Montpellier, France. She worked as a researcher at the University of Michigan in cancer research, particularly in proteomics (the large-scale study of proteins), and was awarded a research prize in 2001 for her work in identifying membrane proteins, awarded by the Office of Technology Transfer at the University of Michigan.

She has expertise in protein chemistry, with a focus on disulfide bridges in cysteine derivatives and the radical enantioselective synthesis of amino acids both in the homogenous and the supported phase, as she did her thesis in the Laboratory of Aminoacids, Peptides and Proteins at the University of Montpellier, now the IBMM, Max Mousseron Institute.

When highly qualified Biostatisticians such as Christine Cotton question the accuracy of data and statistics collected to protect public health from vaccine adverse effects, and also question the efficacy of vaccine development and safety testing procedures, we should all pay heed. It appears that both the US VAERS vaccine adverse effects data base and the UK’s MHRA Yellow Card vaccine adverse reactions system are being used to reassure the public that vaccines are safe. The reality is that the data suggests otherwise. 

Please watch Analysis of US VAERS Vaccine Adverse Reactions Data by Biostatistician Christine Cotton Part 1 and Part 2 to be better informed of the risks versus the claimed vaccine benefits. 

Anglozionism

Bravo Marko! Kudos, Well Said

1 Comment

Russian Cops Brutally Drag Sobbing Granny From A Bus Because She Wasn’t Vaccinated — VIDEO

Pigs presume to lecture her and scream at her. Painful to watch.

New Normal Goon SquadsRussian Faucism
Marko Marjanović 
 

The woman tried to get on an intercity bus on the Kumertau – Ufa line, without documents confirming that she had been vaccinated. At the same time, she ignored the repeated demands of the station workers and law enforcement officers to leave the bus, thereby delaying the departure of public transport, the department reports. [Link]

I wonder if the Comrade [from] Alabama, (Moon of Alabama – n.ed.) who has since gone all but quiet on everything COVID, but who in early 2020 was promising apocalypse for anyone who did not lock down with utmost severity including kidnapping COVID-positive children from their parents, is going to send a letter to the Russian mercenary cops congratulating them on work well done in brutalizing and humiliating elderly citizens?

Or perhaps it is going to be the early “COVID believer” Saker ( faux White Russian – n. ed.), who has interrupted his 18-month moratorium and ban on discussing anything related to COVID fascism, in order to publish and promote wishy-washy BS on how in Russia the government and the people are ultimately joined in a common struggle against the virus, marked by mutual trust:

Street revolts are not happening in Russia. This is not happening in China. There are relatively few ZoneB countries where this is happening and the main difference is the cohesion of citizen and state. Where there is no cohesion, there is break-down. Western governments have proven themselves to be enemies of their citizens.

The second main difference simply is trust.

Here is the most spectacular difference. The western countries started fighting their people. How dare they be susceptible to a virus but oh boy, what a crisis capitalism opportunity this is.

The other ¾ of the world started fighting a virus and supporting their people.

Utterly hilarious and laughable stuff and downright criminal to peddle it. There is plenty of revolt in Russia, it just doesn’t take the form of street protest. What else is one of the lowest vaccination rates in Europe, but a form of revolt against the state religion of COVID mind disease? 

There is also plenty of government overreach, of brutality, of Draconianism, of humiliation, pressure, coercion, repression, gaslighting, and of concealing and massaging the numbers.

Russia isn’t a place that is marked by a high level of popular trust in the government, but a place that is marked by an extraordinarily high level of cynicism for the government and the state. The level is so high that it spills into government offices themselves and the police force which is itself jaded and cynical. The real reason Russia isn’t a fully-blown COVID-Stalinist hellhole is that its own police force does not truly buy into the cretinisms of the COVID sacrificial cult that Saker subscribes to, but are only enforcing it in a lazy and mercenary fashion just sufficient to protect their paychecks. Such a hypocritical police force and bureaucracy do not allow the high leadership to wage an effective war against the populace in practice, but such a war definitely already exists on the books, and will only be ramped up in the coming winter months. (Saint Petersburg just announced a QR-code regime that doesn’t accept negative tests.)

As it escalates we will be on the side of Russian grandmas and the Russian people. Will Saker? Or will he stay true to form and keep mum, only to interrupt his silence here and there to pontificate from his restriction-free, DeSantis-run Florida on how the COVID Faucism in Russia really isn’t all that bad, and how the people, “albeit grumbling”, largely accept it anyway and find it for the best?

Here is a video of a different Russian granny who last month defied a different kind of bandit:

You know what is sad? The elderly woman who bravely resisted the mugger was ultimately assisted by a passerby, but the courageous woman who stood up to the Russian COVID Rouge was then repressed by the police.

However, even the brave Moscow grandma will now find herself in house arrest if she is one of the two-thirds of the over 60s who want none of the jab Putin is peddling and remain unvaccinated.

As Putin has instructed his Spokesman to signal, but is too cowardly to be heard saying himself:

“All measures are good. Any measures that can encourage more people to get vaccinated are good.”

So three hurrays for the Russian police! Without them who would drag unvaccinated Russian grandmas from intercity buses? They should expect a medal in the mail from Putin shortly for a job well done in “encouraging more people to get vaccinated”. Next, tune in for the cops arresting an unvaccinated grandpa for walking a dog farther than 100 meters from his towerblock, or having the guile to get his groceries in a store that is only the 2nd closest to his towerblock entrance. 

Anything to not have to get an actually honorable job. Then again, in a QR-coded, lockdown realm it’s better for you that you don’t.

Sorry granny, you thought you lived in a free country
Western Hegemony's Collapse

The Killing of Gaddafi 10 Years Ago

2 Comments

Richard Medhurst

Richard Medhurst is a British journalist born in Damascus. Owing to his coverage of international relations, US politics, the Middle East and Julian Assange extradition he has built a successful YouTube channel and hosts a program on Press TV.

FILE PHOTO: Libya’s leader Muammar Gaddafi attends a celebration of the 40th anniversary of his coming to power at the Green Square in Tripoli September 1, 2009. © REUTERS / Zohra Bensemra

Muammar Gaddafi led his nation to become the wealthiest in all of Africa. A decade after his demise, it is riven by tribalism, terrorism and slavery, all because the West could not allow an Arab leader to succeed.

There was never really an ‘Arab Spring’ in Libya the way there was in Egypt or Tunisia. Protests were much smaller, and as time went on to show, the biggest players turned out to be extremist groups and foreign actors, each trying to get a slice of the country.

NATO’s bombing of Libya and support for rebels seeking to overthrow Gaddafi had little to do with wanting the country to prosper. Under the guise of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’, the Western military alliance helped murder one of the Arab world’s most prominent leaders in order to steal Libya’s resources and protect Western hegemony. Later on, as part of Operation Timber Sycamore, the CIA would find additional utility in Gaddafi’s ousting: funnelling Libya’s stockpiles of weapons and ammunition over to Syria to arm Al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups.

Seldom discussed in the news anymore, Libya has become a shadow of its former self, ravaged by 10 years of war and chaos. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the other war criminals who orchestrated its destruction don’t want you to know how badly it’s doing.

From thriving nation to ‘failed state’

Known for his extravagance, Gaddafi boasted a security detail of female bodyguards, lavish outfits, and long, dramatic speeches. He also transformed Libya from one of the poorest countries on Earth into a rich, self-sufficient state, all while managing a tribal society in a country home to the largest oil reserves in Africa.

During his 42 years in power, he increased the country’s literacy rate from 25% to 88%. Libyans enjoyed free healthcare, free education, and a high standard of living. Basic necessities such as electricity and gas were cheap, and the country was guaranteed a strong social safety net and welfare programs.

Libya is 90% desert. Gaddafi sought to provide fresh water to all Libyans for consumption and agriculture – an endeavor in which he succeeded. He built the world’s largest irrigation project, the ‘Great Man-Made River’ in the 1980s. Boasting the world’s largest pipe network, it provides 70% of all the fresh water in Libya. Gaddafi called it the “Eighth Wonder of the World”. Costing over $25 billion, the project was entirely self-financed, without any loans or credits from foreign banks. Libya had grown to be a very wealthy country and had no external debt.

NATO bombed the Great Man-Made River in July 2011, destroying key civilian infrastructure: a war crime.

The United Nations’ Human Development Index provides a summary measure of health, education and income. In 2010, Libya was ranked number one in Africa, and 53rd out of 189 countries and territories. Today, its ranking has sunk from 53rd to 105th worldwide.

After the NATO-backed ‘revolution’, Libya has none of these nice things anymore. There are constant power cuts. The healthcare system has collapsed. There is no infrastructure. The standard of living has plummeted, and after 10 years, Libya doesn’t even have a functioning central government.

In March this year, a government of national unity was formed, after a ceasefire brokered in October 2020. While it has largely held until now, and elections are scheduled for December, infighting persists, and whether anything comes of this process remains to be seen.

Instead of an abundance of water, gold and oil in a thriving country with great infrastructure, Libya now has open slave-trade markets. Smugglers and human traffickers take advantage of migrants and refugees passing through to Europe, selling them off into bondage. Rival tribes and political factions fight over oil and other precious resources, determined to seize power for themselves. Meanwhile, pockets of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), Al-Qaeda and other jihadist fighters lurk in the shadows, plaguing the war-torn country and its neighbors – groups who wouldn’t have dared establish a presence in Gaddafi’s Libya.

Once a prosperous nation, since his fall, it has been taken over by terrorists, opportunists and thieves, and has plunged into chaos. This is what has become of Libya these last 10 years. This is what NATO created.

One of Gaddafi’s best speeches was in 2008 in Damascus, at a meeting of the Arab League. Rebuking the violent invasion of Iraq, he offered Arab leaders a stark reminder of what befell Saddam Hussein, whom the US once considered an ally against Iran.

“An entire Arab leadership was executed by hanging, yet we sit on the sidelines. Why? Any one of you might be next.”

Chuckling at his words, other Arab leaders would have done well to take heed of Gaddafi’s warning, for, indeed, the US would come for Syria and Libya next. And just three years later, Gaddafi himself would be brutally killed at the hands of NATO-backed rebels.

Anti-imperialist, pan-Arabist and pan-African: Why Gaddafi had to fall

The late Libyan leader supported independence and national liberation movements right across the world, including groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Irish Republican Army, the Black Panther Party, and many more. In the 1970s, he tried to merge Libya with Egypt and Syria to form a unified Arab state. In 2009, he proposed that African nations adopt a single currency: the gold dinar. The Libyan Central Bank, which was 100% state-owned, had reserves of 144 tons of gold that he intended to use for this purpose. Gaddafi proposed that African countries buy and sell their resources exclusively in this new pan-African currency. This would enable them to transition away from the US dollar and the Central Africa (CFA) franc – a colonial currency used in 14 countries and controlled entirely by France.

This was Gaddafi’s biggest sin. In wanting African nations to adopt a single currency, to control their own resources and have true independence, he posed a threat to Western monetary hegemony, so he had to go.

Western governments were well aware of this plan. A look at the emails of then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, show discussions around Gaddafi’s gold reserves and his plans for a single currency. It became clear to the West that African countries switching away from the US dollar or CFA franc, and controlling their own currency and monetary policy, would undermine American and French influence over Africa. It would weaken the Western monopoly over African resources and the international banking system, rendering neo-colonial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund less effective in manipulating developing nations.

Not that we needed further confirmation; but written clearly in those emails was evidence that this plan to provide an alternative to the CFA franc “was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.”

Sarkozy decided to bomb Libya because he knew full well that West African and Central African countries abandoning the CFA franc would minimise France’s sphere of influence over its ‘former’ African colonies and fulfil its “desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production” – that is, plunder Libya’s wealth.

Gaddafi foresaw this in 2011, when he said, “There is a conspiracy to control Libyan oil and to control Libyan land, to colonize Libya once again.”

All this is a stark reminder that NATO couldn’t care less about protestors and the ‘Arab Spring’. Claims of “respect for democracy” were merely a cover story to protect Western interests and steal Libya’s resources, leaving the country in chaos and crawling with terrorists, just like Iraq and Syria.

Nothing could be more emblematic of how evil the entire affair is, than Hillary Clinton literally jumping for joy on hearing of Gaddafi’s demise, after he was brutally sodomized, lynched and executed by NATO-backed rebels. “We came, we saw, he died,” she said.

Killed for his success

Gaddafi was always a thorn in the side of Western colonial interests. His greatest ‘crime’ was wanting real independence, threatening US and French monetary hegemony, and the international banking system.

Now people look at Libya and label it a ‘failed state’, but Gaddafi’s Libya was not a failed state. It was Africa’s wealthiest and most prosperous nation – a thriving, flourishing state until the West deliberately destroyed it in 2011.

Apologists for Western imperialism love dismissing the achievements of other countries and labelling their leaders dictators, but the truth is, Libya was much better off under Gaddafi. It had oil, gold, water and resource independence.

History is littered with African, Arab and Latin leaders, killed by the United States, for daring to make their countries better and seeking to challenge Western hegemony. Gaddafi is no exception.

There is nothing the West hates more than an Arab leader who opposes imperialism, Zionism and wants his country, and other Arab and African countries, to be self-sufficient. That is why NATO murdered Gaddafi.

Anti-White Racism

Walmart Claim the U S is a “White Supremacy System”

1 Comment

by Christopher F. Rufo via City Journal

Walmart Inc. has launched a critical race theory training program that denounces the United States as a “white supremacy system” and teaches white, hourly wage employees that they are guilty of “white supremacy thinking” and “internalized racial superiority.”

According to a cache of internal documents I have obtained from a whistleblower, Walmart launched the program in 2018 in partnership with the Racial Equity Institute, a Greensboro, North Carolina, consulting firm that has worked extensively with universities, government agencies, and private corporations. The program is based on the core principles of critical race theory, including “intersectionality,” “internalized racial oppression,” “internalized racial inferiority,” and “white anti-racist development.” Since the program’s launch, Walmart has trained more than 1,000 employees and made the program mandatory for executives and recommended for hourly wage workers in Walmart stores. When reached for comment, Walmart confirmed that the company has “engaged REI for a number of training sessions since 2018” and has “found these sessions to be thought provoking and constructive.”

The program begins with the claim that the United States is a “white supremacy system,” designed by white Europeans “for the purpose of assigning and maintaining white skin access to power and privilege.” American history is presented as a long sequence of oppressions, from the “construction of a ‘white race’” by colonists in 1680 to President Obama’s stimulus legislation in 2009, “another race neutral act that has disproportionately benefited white people.” Consequently, the Walmart program argues, white Americans have been subjected to “racist conditioning” that indoctrinates them into “white supremacy,” or the view “that white people and the ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and actions of white people are superior to People of Color and their ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and actions.”

Following the principle that “diagnosis determines treatment,” the Walmart program seeks to create a psychological profile of whiteness that can then be treated through “white anti-racist development.” Whites, according to the trainers, are inherently guilty of “white privilege” and “internalized racial superiority,” the belief that “one’s comfort, wealth, privilege and success has been earned by merits and hard work” rather than through the benefits of systemic racism. Walmart’s program argues that this oppressive “white supremacy culture” can be summarized in a list of qualities including “individualism,” “objectivity,” “paternalism,” “defensiveness,” “power hoarding,” “right to comfort, “and “worship of the written word”—which all “promote white supremacy thinking” and “are damaging to both people of color and to white people.”

The training program recommends that “discussions about racist conditioning” should be conducted in racially segregated “affinity groups,” because “people of color and white people have their own work to do in understanding and addressing racism.” Walmart employees who are racial minorities, in the framework of the training program, suffer from “constructed racist oppression” and “internalized racial inferiority.” Their internal psychology is considered shattered and broken, dominated by internal messages such as “we believe there is something wrong with being a person of color,” “we have lowered self-esteem,” “we have lowered expectations,” “we have very limited choices,” and “we have a sense of limited possibility.” Minorities thus begin to believe the “myths promoted by the racist system,” develop feelings of “self-hate,” “anger,” “rage,” and “ethnocentrism,” and are forced to “forget,” “lie,” and “stop feeling” in order to secure basic survival.

The solution, according to Walmart’s program, is to encourage whites to participate in “white anti-racist development”—a psychological conditioning program that reorients white consciousness toward “anti-racism.” The training program teaches white employees that ideas such as “I’m normal,” “we’re all the same,” and “I am not the problem” are racist constructs, driven by internalized racial superiority. The program encourages whites to accept their “guilt and shame,” adopt the idea that “white is not right,” acknowledge their complicity in racism, and, finally, move toward “collective action” whereby “white can do right.” The goal is for whites to climb the “ladder of empowerment for white people” and recreate themselves with a new “anti-racist identity.”

Walmart’s training program seems a study in opportunism. For years, activists have attacked the company’s business practices; the critical race theory program helps the giant retailer shift blame to forces beyond its control. As the company denounces “white supremacy culture”—with components including “objectivity,” “individualism,” and “hoarding”—its entire nine-member top executive leadership, except technology chief Suresh Kumar, is white, and its top six leaders made a combined $112 million in salary in 2019. Chief executive officer Doug McMillon, whom the whistleblower described as a “true believer” in critical race theory, hopes to export woke ideology to every Fortune 100 company through his role as chairman of the Business Roundtable.

The formula is clear: American executives, among the most successful people on the planet, can collect accolades and social status by promoting fashionable left-wing ideologies. Meantime, their hourly workers, making between $25,000 and $30,000 yearly, are asked to undergo dishonest and humiliating rituals to confront their “white privilege” and “white supremacy thinking.” McMillon gets the social justice credit; his workers pay the price.

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.