Songwriter: Bradley James Skistimas
Publisher: Seven Places Music (ASCAP)
Label: Baste Records
Lyrics:
Well there ain’t no rock and roll Ever since they sold out Rolling Stone All the words that were sung in the past Will never feel the same when we’re looking back All the old men sitting in their make up chair With their gold record walls really couldn’t care All the fame feels the same when you’ve had enough So they don’t bother standing up
And there ain’t no peace and love Ever since the sixties kids grew up All the drugs and the girls and the cash After all the songs it was gone in a flash All those bad boy rebels and the attitude What a show, we didn’t know that none of it was true Only self serve anti-establishment We were all so innocent
Because there ain’t no rock and roll
And the blues has lost it’s soul
All the punks gave the man control And every pop star’s bought and sold No, there ain’t no Ain’t no rock and roll
And there ain’t no Joni, no Bob No one stuck around for their protest job All the stars and the big pharma whores Shilling for a check from their corporate chores All the actors say what they’re paid to say While the fans take the blame All the once cool fools that were me and you Well they pushed us all away
Because there ain’t no rock and roll
And the blues has lost it’s soul
All the punks gave the man control And every pop star’s bought and sold No, there ain’t no Ain’t no rock and roll
And there ain’t no Boss, no Queen Never was a rage against the damn machine No there ain’t no fighter in the foo No more rockin’ in those free world shoes All the high strung Neil Young wannabes Yea their silence has been deafening All the suits lick the boots of the government What they sang they never meant
Because there ain’t no rock and roll
And the blues has lost it’s soul
All the punks gave the man control And every pop star’s bought and sold No, there ain’t no Ain’t no rock and roll
In this way, “we the people” have been reduced to economic units to be bought, bartered and sold by all and sundry.
On a daily basis, Americans have been made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to navigate an increasingly technologically-enabled world.
Those intimate details, in turn, have become the building blocks of massive databases accessed by the government and its corporate partners in crime, vulnerable to data breaches by hackers, cyberattacks and espionage.
For years now, and with little real oversight or restrictions, the government has been compiling massive databases comprised of all manner of sensitive information on the citizenry.
Biographical information. Biometric information. Criminal backgrounds. Travel records.
The government has also, with little oversight and few guidelines, been adding to its massive trove of data on Americans by buying commercially available information (CAI) from third-party sources. As a report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence revealed:
“[Commercially purchased data] can reveal sensitive and intimate information about the personal attributes, private behavior, social connections, and speech of U.S. persons and non-U.S. persons. It can be misused to pry into private lives, ruin reputations, and cause emotional distress and threaten the safety of individuals. Even subject to appropriate controls, CAI can increase the power of the government’s ability to peer into private lives to levels that may exceed our constitutional traditions or other social expectations.”
In other words, this is the diabolically sneaky way in which the government is attempting to sidestep the Fourth Amendment, which requires that government agents have probable cause and a warrant before spying on Americans or searching and seizing their private property.
It’s bad enough that the government is building massive databases comprised of our personal information without our knowledge or consent, but then they get hacked and we suffer for it.
Earlier this year, for instance, several federal agencies, state governments and universities were targeted in a global cyberattack that compromised the sensitive data of millions of Americans.
Did that stop the government’s quest to keep building these databases which compromise our privacy and security? Of course not.
In fact, the government has also been selling our private information. According to Vice, Departments of Motor Vehicles in states around the country have been selling drivers’ personal information “to thousands of businesses, including private investigators who spy on people for a profit.”
Where there’s a will, there’s a way, and the government has become a master at finding loopholes that allow it to exploit the citizenry.
This is just a small part of how the government buys and sells its citizens to the highest bidders.
The why is always the same: for profit and power, of course.
Welcome to the age of surveillance capitalism.
Have you shopped at Whole Foods? Tested out target practice at a gun range? Sipped coffee at Starbucks while surfing the web? Visited an abortion clinic? Watched FOX News or MSNBC? Played Candy Crush on your phone? Walked through a mall? Walked past a government building?
Incredibly, once you’ve been identified and tracked, data brokers can travel back in time, digitally speaking, to discover where you’ve been, who you’ve been with, what you’ve been doing, and what you’ve been reading, viewing, buying, etc.
Once you’ve been identified in this way, you can be tracked endlessly.
No one is spared.
In this regard, we are all equals: equally suffering the indignity of having every shred of privacy stripped away and the most intimate details of one’s life turned into fodder for marketers and data profiteers.
This creepy new era of for-profit surveillance capitalism—in which we’re being listened to, watched, tracked, followed, mapped, bought, sold and targeted—is made possible with our cooperation.
All those disclaimers you scroll though without reading them, the ones written in minute font, only to quickly click on the “Agree” button at the end so you can get to the next step—downloading software, opening up a social media account, adding a new app to your phone or computer—those signify your written consent to having your activities monitored, recorded and shared.
Think about it.
Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to influence and/or control you.
With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time.
If anyone else stalked us in this way—tailing us wherever we go, tapping into our calls, reading our correspondence, ferreting out our secrets, profiling and targeting us based on our interests and activities—we’d call the cops.
Unfortunately, the cops (equipped with Stingray devices and other Peeping Tom technologies) are also in on this particular scam.
It’s not just the surveillance and the buying and selling of your data that is worrisome.
The ramifications of a government—any government—having this much unregulated, unaccountable power to target, track, round up and detain its citizens is beyond chilling.
Imagine what a totalitarian regime such as Nazi Germany could have done with this kind of unadulterated power.
Imagine what the next police state to follow in Germany’s footsteps will do with this kind of power. Society is definitely rapidly moving in that direction.
We’ve made it so easy for the government to stalk us.
Government eyes see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.
Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.
Chances are, as the Washington Post has reported, you have already been assigned a color-coded threat assessment score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about your potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether you’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.
In other words, you might already be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals (so they can be rounded up and detained in times of distress) who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the police state’s dictates.
The government has the know-how.
As The Interceptreported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.
Surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people—weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands, especially when the government can listen in on your phone calls, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home—add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence.
This is the creepy, calculating yet diabolical genius of the American police state: the very technology we hailed as revolutionary and liberating has become our prison, jailer, probation officer, stalker, Big Brother and Father Knows Best all rolled into one.
It turns out that we are Soylent Green.
The 1973 film of the same name, starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, is set in 2022 in an overpopulated, polluted, starving New York City whose inhabitants depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation for survival.
Heston plays a policeman investigating a murder, who discovers the grisly truth about the primary ingredient in the wafer, soylent green, which is the principal source of nourishment for a starved population. “It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people,” declares Heston’s character. “They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food.”
Oh, how right he was.
Soylent Green is indeed people or, in our case, Soylent Green is our own personal data, repossessed, repackaged and used by corporations and the government to entrap us.
We, too, are being bred like cattle but not for food.
As the insidious partnership between the U.S. government and Corporate America grows more invasive and more subtle with every passing day, there’s virtually no way to opt out of these assaults on your digital privacy short of being a modern-day Luddite, completely disconnected from all technology.
What we desperately lack and urgently need is an Electronic Bill of Rights that protects “we the people” from predatory surveillance and data-mining business practices.
Without constitutional protections in place to guard against encroachments on our rights in the electronic realm, it won’t be long before we find ourselves, much like Edward G. Robinson’s character in Soylent Green, looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted without those thoughts, words and activities being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.
“CITIZENFOUR” is a documentary about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. It came out in 2014, but it’s even more pertinent today than it was then
In January 2013, when documentary film director/producer Laura Poitras received an encrypted email from a stranger who called himself “Citizen Four”
In June 2013, Poitras flew to meet Snowden at the Mira Hotel in Hong Kong, together with columnist Glenn Greenwald and Guardian intelligence reporter Ewen MacAskill. After four days of interviews, Snowden’s identity was made public at his request
Today, Snowden’s warnings ring truer than ever. Artificial intelligence now scours social media, podcasts and videos for key words identifying “anti-vaxxers,” for example. It doesn’t even matter if they agree with what you’re writing or saying. The mere inclusion of certain words will get you axed from the platform
Next, the plan is to eliminate privacy altogether by requiring a digital identity to access the internet
“CITIZENFOUR” is a documentary about U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden. It came out in 2014, but it’s even more pertinent today than it was then, so if you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so.
The Snowden story began in January 2013, when documentary film director/producer Laura Poitras received an encrypted email from a stranger who called himself “Citizen Four.” Snowden reportedly chose this codename “as a nod to three NSA whistleblowers who came before him: Bill Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe and Thomas Drake.”
Poitras had already spent several years working on a film about monitoring programs in the U.S., and had been placed on a secret watch list after her 2006 film “My Country, My Country,”1 a documentary about Iraqis living under U.S. occupation. In his initial email, Snowden wrote:
“Laura. At this stage, I can offer nothing more than my word. I’m a senior government employee in the intelligence community. I hope you understand that contacting you is extremely high risk and you’re willing to agree to the following precautions before I share more. This will not be a waste of your time …
The surveillance you’ve experienced means you’ve been ‘selected’ — a term which will mean more to you as you learn about how the modern SIGINT system works.
For now, know that every border you cross, every purchase you make, every call you dial, every cell phone tower you pass, friend you keep, article you write, site you visit, subject line you type, and packet your route, is in the hands of a system whose reach is unlimited, but whose safeguards are not.
Your victimization by the NSA system means that you’re well aware of the threat that unrestricted secret police pose for democracies. This is a story few but you can tell.”
Summary of Snowden’s Journey
In June 2013, Poitras flew to meet Snowden at The Mira Hong Kong, together with columnist Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill, an intelligence reporter for The Guardian. After four days of interviews, Snowden’s identity was made public at his request.
Within two weeks, the U.S. government demanded Snowden’s extradition. Facing prosecution in the United States, Snowden scheduled a meeting with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and applied for refugee status.
He managed to depart Hong Kong, but became stranded at the Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow when his passport was canceled. There he remained for 40 days, until the Russian government finally granted him asylum.
The Greatest Weapon of Oppression Ever Built
The U.S. government implemented Stellar Wind, a program to actively — and illegally — spy on all Americans within days of the 2001 9/11 attack. Ten years later, in 2011, construction began on a NSA data center in the Utah desert. It’s now the largest surveillance storehouse in the U.S.
In his correspondence, Snowden warned Poitras that “telecommunication companies in the U.S. are betraying the trust of their customers.” Through Stellar Wind, all phone calls and text messages were being intercepted and stored, and the Stellar Wind program has only expanded from there.
The NSA not only intercepts American citizens emails, phone conversations and text messages, but also Google searches, Amazon.com orders, bank records and more.
“We are building the greatest weapon for oppression in the history of man,” Snowden wrote, “yet its directors exempt themselves from accountability … On cyber operations, the government’s public position is that we still lack a policy framework. This … was a lie.
There is a detailed policy framework, a kind of martial law for cyber operations created by the White House. It’s called ‘Presidential Policy Directive 20’ and was finalized at the end of last year.”
Linkability, the Key to Control — and Entrapment
As explained in the film, a key aspect of control through surveillance is the linkability of data. One piece of data about you is linked to another piece. For example, your bus pass can be linked to the debit card you used to buy the pass. Your debit card is also linked to all other purchases.
With two key pieces of information — WHERE you went on a given day, and WHEN you made purchases, they can determine who you spoke with and met up with by linking those data points with those of other people who were in the vicinity at the same time. And that’s without even using your cellphone data.
When all these various data points are aggregated — location data, purchases, phone calls, texts, social media posts and more — you end up with a collection of metadata that tells a story about you. However, while the story is made up of facts, it’s not necessarily true.
For example, just because you were standing at a particular street corner does not mean you had anything to do with the crime that was reported on that same corner at the time you happened to be there. The problem is, your data could be used against you in that way.
The January 6 prisoners are a perfect example of how bits and pieces of data can be misused. Many have now spent years in jail simply because their cellphone data showed them as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
State Power Versus the People’s Power to Oppose That Power
When asked by Greenwald why he decided to become a whistleblower, Snowden replied:
“It all comes down to state power against the people’s ability to meaningfully oppose that power. I’m sitting there every day, getting paid to design methods to amplify that state power.
And I’m realizing that if the policy switches that are the only thing that restrain these states were changed, you couldn’t meaningfully oppose [them].
I mean, you would have to be the most incredibly sophisticated tactical actor in existence. I’m not sure there’s anybody, no matter how gifted you are, who could oppose all of the offices and all the bright people, even all the mediocre people out there with all of their tools and all their capabilities.
And as I saw the promise of the Obama administration be betrayed … and in fact, [how they] actually advanced the things that had been promised to be sort of curtailed and reined in and dialed back … As as I saw that, that really hardened me to action …
We all have a stake in this. This is our country, and the balance of power between the citizenry and the government is becoming that of the ruling and the ruled, as opposed to the elected and the electorate.”
A Decade Later Snowden’s Words Ring Truer Than Ever
“I remember what the internet was like, before it was being watched, and there’s never been anything in the history of man like it,” Snowden said.
“You could have children from one part of the world having an equal discussion, where they were sort of granted the same respect for their ideas and conversation, with experts in a field from another part of the world on any topic, anywhere, anytime, all the time.
It was free and unrestrained. And we’ve seen the chilling of that, and the changing of that model towards something in which people self police their own views. They literally make jokes about ending up on ‘the list’ if they donate to a political cause, or if they say something in a discussion. It’s become an expectation that we’re being watched.
Many people I’ve talked to have mentioned that they’re careful about what they type into search engines, because they know that it’s being recorded, and that limits the boundaries of their intellectual exploration.”
Today, after the extreme ramp-up of censorship, surveillance and harassment we’ve endured since the COVID pandemic began, Snowden’s warnings ring truer than ever.
Artificial intelligence now scours social media, podcasts and videos for key words identifying “anti-vaxxers,” for example. It doesn’t even matter if they agree with what you’re writing or saying. The mere inclusion of certain words will get you axed from the platform.
Snowden’s worst fears have indeed come true, and today most people have come to realize just how dangerous this kind of blanket surveillance can be. Countless individuals whose only “crime” was to share their story of how the COVID shot ruined their lives have had their posts censored and social media accounts shut down.
Canadians whose only “crime” was to donate a few dollars to a peaceful protest had their bank accounts frozen. Small companies and nonprofit organizations with the “wrong” viewpoints have had their online payment services cancelled, effectively strangling their ability to make a living and keep the operation going.
Others have been debanked without recourse, including yours truly. My CEO and CFO and all of their family members also had their accounts and credit cards canceled, apparently for no other reason than the fact that they work for me. In other words, guilt by association.
Will the Internet as We Know It Disappear in the Next Year?
I recently posted an interview with investigative journalist Whitney Webb in which she talks about the next steps in the ramp-up of tyranny. The World Economic Forum has warned we may face a cyberattack on the banks before the end of 2024. That means we almost definitely will, seeing how they like to announce plans ahead of time.
Such a cyberattack will not only destroy the current banking system and usher in programmable central bank digital currencies. It will also eliminate privacy online by requiring everyone to have a digital identification tied to their ISP.
The principles of “know your customer” (KYC) will be imposed on everybody for everything, and anything that doesn’t have that will be made illegal under National Security justifications.
Essentially, what we’re looking at is a cyber Patriot Act, which will allow for the unfettered surveillance of everyone’s online activities, and the ability to restrict or block access to the internet. As noted by Webb, “The internet as you know it will not exist after this happens.”
The goal is to surveil all online activity in real time and have AI perform predictive policing to prevent crime before it happens. At that point, all bets are off. Data points alone may land you behind bars. Thought-crimes will also have ramifications, potentially resulting in the seizure of private property and/or removal of “privileges” previously understood as human rights.
A Global Infrastructure Has Been Built
During their first meeting with Snowden in Hong Kong, he explained that a global infrastructure, built by the NSA with the cooperation of other governments, was already in place. That was 10 years ago, so you can imagine how it’s grown since then.
At that time, that network was already automatically intercepting every digital communication, every radio communication and every analog communication. This blanket siphoning of data allows the NSA and others that have access to the network to retroactively search an individual’s communications, even if all they have is a single identifier. Snowden explained:
“So for example, if I wanted to see the content of your email … all I have to do is use what’s called a selector, any kind of thing in the communications chain that might uniquely or almost uniquely identify you as an individual.
I’m talking about things like email addresses, IP addresses, phone numbers, credit cards, even passwords that are unique to you that aren’t used by anyone else.
I can input those into the system, and it will not only go back through the database … it will basically put an additional level of scrutiny on it moving into the future that says, ‘If this is detected now or at any time in the future, I want this to go to me immediately,’ and [it will] alert me in real time that you’re communicating with someone. Things like that.”
According to Snowden, the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has “the most invasive network intercept program anywhere in the world.” That program, Tempora, intercepts all content, in addition to metadata, on everything and everyone.
Snowden also describes the “SSO,” which stands for Special Sorters Operations. The SSO passively collects data across networks, both in the U.S. and internationally. Domestically, this is done primarily through corporate partnerships.
“They also do this with multinationals that might be headquartered in the U.S. whom [they can] just pay into giving them access,” Snowden said. They also do it bilaterally with the assistance of other governments.
You’re Being Spied Upon Everywhere
Snowden also pointed out some of the many ways in which you’re being spied upon by the digital devices around you. As just one example, all VoIP phones, which transmit calls over an IP network such as the internet, have little computers inside of them that can be hot mic’d even if servers are down. As long as the phone is plugged in, someone can use it to listen in on your conversations.
Within days of their first meeting in Hong Kong, Greenwald and Poitras were publishing stories about the NSA’s illegal blanket spying domestically and internationally. CNN Live reported:
“Another explosive article has just appeared, this time in the Washington Post … that reveals another broad and secret U.S. government’s surveillance program.
The Washington Post and The Guardian in London reporting that the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading internet companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple.
The Post says they’re extracting audio, video, photographs, emails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.”
Greenwald also made numerous live news appearances. In one, he stated:
“In 2008, they eliminated the warrant requirement for all conversations, except ones that take place among Americans exclusively on American soil.
So they don’t need warrants now for people who are foreigners outside of the U.S., but they also don’t need warrants for Americans who are in the United States, communicating with people reasonably believed to be outside of the U.S.
So … the fact that there are no checks, no oversight about who’s looking over the NSA’s shoulder, means that they can take whatever they want, and the fact that it’s all behind a wall of secrecy, and they threaten people who want to expose it, means that whatever they’re doing, even violating the law is something that we’re unlikely to know until we start having real investigations and real transparency into what it is that the government is doing.”
Beyond Transparency
At this point, we’re beyond merely needing transparency. The intent to surveil and control every move we make and thought we express is now being openly expressed.
We can just assume that any digital devices can and probably are collecting data on our activities and whereabouts, and that those data are nowhere near held private and can be used against us in myriad ways.
Everyone must now choose between freedom and enslavement, and the option to choose freedom is rapidly closing.
Today, a decade after Snowden broke the dam of secrecy around the global surveillance scheme, we have but one choice left, and that is to actively reject that system by changing how we live our day to day lives. Everyone must now choose between freedom and enslavement, and the option to choose freedom is rapidly closing. Putting off making that choice is itself a choice.
Rejecting the control system means reverting back to “dumb” appliances and devices to the extent you’re able. It means getting savvier about privacy technologies such as deGoogled phones and computers2 that cannot spy on you. It means using cash as much as possible and rejecting CBDCs and digital tokens. As noted by Whitney Webb in the interview I linked to earlier:
“There’s a huge need for to divest from Big Tech as much as possible, and it needs to happen quickly, because the choice is either participate in the system being designed for you by crazy people and become a slave, or don’t become a slave. And if you don’t want to be a slave, you have to invest now in Big Tech alternatives, unless you want to live a completely analog life …
The easiest route is to go the slavery route, and that’s how they’ve designed it on purpose. The whole selling point of that system is that it’s convenient and easy. So, obviously, it’s going to take some work to go the other route, but the future of human freedom depends on it so I think it’s a pretty easy choice.”
The narrative of an Anthrax bioweapons attack is again in the “news cycle” and remains prominent on the CDC website.
A November 15, 2023 CDC news brief updated advice for healthcare providers in preventing and treating anthrax should a “wide-area aerosol release of B. anthracis” occur.
CDC has classified B. anthracis as a “category A” organism of concern because an attack with B. anthracis would happen via aerosolized exposure. How does the CDC know that any attack would be in an aerosolized form? Does the CDC have a crystal ball? The CDC did seem to know the problems of the COVID19 vaccines before they were distributed:
Americans need to be prepared for the possibility that they may feel a little unwell after they get a coronavirus vaccine, if one is authorized. – CDC Prevention Advisory Committee, November 23, 2020.
Appearance of small welts or sores that are itchy.
Confusion or dizziness
Cough
The sore developing into a blister that turns into a skin ulcer.
Nausea and loss of appetite ( if the infection is through ingestion).
Swelling in the neck area.
Headache & fatigue
Sweats
Shortness of breath
Diarrhea accompanied by severe abdominal pain.
If exposed to the CDC anthrax antigen, the CDC recommends Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), suggesting immediate vaccination and antimicrobial therapy (Ciprofloxacin and Doxycycline are first-line options). The CDC says a new and improved anthrax vaccine became available in 2019. However, on July 20, 2023, the U.S. FDA approved a neweranthrax adjuvanted vaccine, Cyfendus for use in adults 18-65 exposed to anthrax as a countermeasure. Where there is one countermeasure there are always more.
A 2000 report published in Experimental and Molecular Pathology titled, “Antibodies to Squalene in Gulf War Syndrome,” described symptoms including severe headaches, nausea, muscular pain, joint swelling, short term memory loss, night sweats, depression. Autoimmune conditions ranged from fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, autoimmune thyroid disease, chronic fatigue syndrome to malar rashes, chronic headaches, non-healing skin lesions, musculoskeletal disorders (ALS), among others.
US District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that it was illegal for the federal government to mandate anthrax vaccinations. Judge Sullivan banned the Pentagon from forcing military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, and part of Asia and Africa to get the anthrax shots without their prior consent. The military could not require the vaccine until the FDA approved it for the specific use of inhaled anthrax. – Hill & Ponton Disability Attorneys, Dec. 2020, updated
In general, adjuvants, such as squalene are added to vaccines (flu shots) to hyper-stimulate the immune system. They are designed to stimulate antibody creation and remain in the body for a prolonged reaction. The new class of adjuvants are comprised of phospholipids (surfactants), which also happen to make up the membrane of every human cell. Using recombinant DNA technology, phospholipids are combined with recombinant proteins and engineered in a way to be structurally and functionally identical to their natural counterparts. As such, the body can create antibodies to its own tissues in an attack of the Self.
A Little Anthrax History
B. anthracis (anthrax) was discovered in 1875 by the German physician and one of the founders of microbiology, Robert Koch (1843-1910) who developed Koch’s Postulates. He also discovered the deadly toxins cholera and tuberculosis, then was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1905.
Anthrax had also been produced in a Russian lab since before the 1920s. In May 1926, the first report of a new anthrax strain with enhanced virulence was filed, resulting in a 100% increase in mortality. By 1930, Germany had a bioweapons facility. By 1935, the Russians had developed a human anthrax vaccine.
Today, many countries have developed weaponized anthrax through genetic manipulation using bacteria and insects. According to the NIH, Russia created anthrax by introducing an “alien gene” into the highly toxic Baccillus Anthracis bacteria. The new NIH version of anthrax is resistant to antibiotics.
They used an alien gene and genetically altered bacterial immunological properties to produce a deadly pathogen to Humans. Where did they get an alien gene from? A UFO crash perhaps? Negotiations with other beings? Your guess is as good as mine….I found a patent with a method for removing plasma (DNA) from Bacillus anthracis bacteria using CRISPR/Cas9 system and it’s owned by China. This is how they get Mycoplasmas.
— Ariana Love, ND Nov. 23, 2021
The process that began before 1950 is called Cross-Species-Genomics. Its purpose? “To generate disease models.” In other words, to produce the deadly biowarfare agent for use in vaccines. The science reveals that deadly agents do not cross the species barrier unless genetic modification is used in a lab setting. A 2002 study in the Journal Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology states:
The assessment of species barriers has relied on the development of a clinical disease in inoculated animals. On this basis there is a highly efficient barrier limiting transmission…
After 1979, the Soviet’s preferred a bioweapon of inhaled anthraxdue to undifferentiated symptoms that resemble a cold or flu. This version was genetically attenuated sometime before 2006 by the NIH.
British SIS intelligence reports from 1924 confirmed the use of anthrax shells (with a capacity of 2 liters/shell), bombs, and mortars.
In the April 2021 Journal Nature, the study, “Adjuvantng a subunit COVID-19 vaccine to induce protective immunity,” the reference to Alhydrogel is listed under Adjuvant Formulations and immunization:
Alum (Alhydrogel 2%) was purchased from Croda Healthcare (batch 0001610348)
According to a 2021 study in Molecular Cell, Anthrax is developed to “regulate gene expression by binding to DNA sequences and modulating transcriptional activity through their effector domains.” So Anthrax has more than one function.
The reason to be aware of any possible aerosolized anthrax bacterium spore release is to know the natural remedies that exist so you have a choice between consenting to an experimental vaccines and prescribed pharmaceuticals or natural options.
As a disclaimer, nothing suggested in this article is intended to replace consulting with a medical expert if you have a medical problem. Everyone should take responsibility for his or her own health and do your own research. That said, the following herbs and foods are commonly known remedies to help enhance the immune system, your built-in defense system, and can be incorporated in or with meals.
Garlic displays potent anti- anthracis activity, according to the 2021 Journal of Ethnopharmacology. So start thinking of your favorite garlic dishes to create in the kitchen. Alternatively, you can make a tea. Peel and crush into a fine paste with water. Mix paste in two glasses of warm water. Drink in two doses: morning, before bedtime. Continue for 10 days.
Oil of Oregano
Homeopathic anthracinum – super-diluted and potentized extracts of the anthrax bacteria itself to boost immunity on a nanoscale.
Herbs:
Wintergreen essential oil – for discomfort in bones, muscles and joints. Add a few drops to olive oil and apply to the soles of the feet. You can also add 3-5 drops to a bath.
White Fir – oxygenates with antiseptic properties known for us in disease caused by bacteria. Mix essential oil with olive oil or use essential oil as aromatherapy.
Thyme and Melissa (lemon balm) – Fill a capsule with 12 drops of Thyme and 1 drop of Melissa.
Spruce – essential oil has oxygenating properties with support to the nervous and respiratory systems.
Idaho Tansy – stimulates the immune system. Can be applied topically against infection or on wounds.
Savory and Oregano oil – both herbs are potent anti-microbials.
Astragalus root powder Chaparral power Tea – Mix 2 teaspoons of each herb in 2 glasses of warm water. Strain and add organic honey. Drink twice during the day.
Echinacea – boil 2 tsp. root powder in two glasses of water. Strain. Drink twice daily for a week or more.
Last week the United Nations Development Program officially launched their new initiative promoting “Digital Public Infrastructure” (DPI) around the world.
The “50in5” program – so-called because it aims to introduce DPI in fifty countries in the next five years – began with a live-streamed event on November 8th.
For those of you unsure what “Digital Public Infrastructure” is, the 50in5 website is quite clear:
Digital public infrastructure (DPI) – which refers to a secure and interoperable network of components that include digital payments, ID, and data exchange systems.
There’s nothing new there, for anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention. Digital identity and digital payment systems are self-explanatory (and we’ve covered them before). “Data Exchange Systems” essentially means national governments will share identity and financial records of citizens across borders with other nations, or indeed with global government agencies.
The key word is “interoperable”.
As we have written before, the “global government” won’t be one single health care system, identity database, or digital currency – but dozens of notionally separate systems all carefully designed to be fully “interoperable”.
As well as being a project of the UNDP, UNICEF, and the Inter-American Development Bank, the 50in5 is funded by various globalist NGOs and non-profits including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and (indirectly through an NGO called “Co-Develop”) the Rockefeller Foundation.
The eleven counties taking part in the program so far are Bangladesh, Brazil, Estonia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Moldova, Norway, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Togo. A careful spread from every continent, including first, second, and third-world nations.
It is a list noteworthy for including NATO, EU, and BRICS members. Interesting implications on supposed “multipolarity” there.
In related news, on the exact same day the 50in5 program launched, the European Parliament and Council of Europe agreed on a new framework for a region-wide European Digital Identity (eID) system.
The revised regulation constitutes a clear paradigm shift for digital identity in Europe aiming to ensure universal access for people and businesses to secure and trustworthy electronic identification and authentication. Under the new law, member states will offer citizens and businesses digital wallets that will be able to link their national digital identities with proof of other personal attributes (e.g., driving licence, diplomas, bank account). Citizens will be able to prove their identity and share electronic documents from their digital wallets with a click of a button on their mobile phone.
India, another BRICS nation, has been at the forefront of DPI development for years, and now articles are appearing in publications like Forbes, claiming “India Has A Digital Infrastructure, America Needs One”.
At the same time, China is making strides toward ending online anonymity, while Western politicians like Nikki Haley say we should be doing the same.
As the world focuses on Hamas and Israel, the global re-organization phase of the Great Reset is just quietly going about its business. Building a net and waiting to tighten it.
Hey, Larken Rose here, and whether you completely despised Donald Trump or totally adored Donald Trump, you’ll probably be offended by this video either way. Because the two sides, the sides that are going, ‘Rah, rah, rah’, put him on the throne. And the side that’s going, ‘anybody but him on the throne’ are falling for the exact same game. And it’s worth explaining the phenomenon and how, oddly enough, both sides are examples of — they’re driven by good intentions but they’re driven into playing an inherently, immoral and destructive game known as politics.
Now the thing that the leftist media just has complete tantrums about is the same thing that makes a lot of people like Donald Trump. It isn’t principle because he doesn’t have any. It isn’t being pro-freedom because he isn’t.
It’s the fact that he doesn’t appear as a normal politician. He speaks with disdain and disrespect towards a bunch of power-happy psychos. And lots of people like that and go ‘Rah, rah, rah’ about that, as well they should.
I think, accidentally, the best thing Trump is doing is tearing down the apparent respectability of the entire system. I don’t at all mind that he talks down to them and constantly insults them. What’s kind of hysterical is that anybody imagines that he’s any different. He isn’t. He’s one more clown in the clown show.
But I wanted to at least give a little sympathy to the people falling for the Trump pitch because most of them are doing a common thing that a lot of people did. I remember doing it myself with Ross Perot. It shows how old I am. Basically imagining into his words things that I wanted him to believe in. Things, agendas that I wanted him to push, whether it matched or not.
So lots of people love Trump because they picture him as an outsider, which he’s not. They picture him as anti-establishment, which he’s not. And they hallucinate that he’s in favor of freedom, which he isn’t.
But the fact that he talks down to them and is insulting, and is sort of funny in the process, and you so rarely see that among politicians, that excites a bunch of people. Like, ‘Yeah, you tell ’em!’. And they’re not — they’re just emotionally riled up because they’re so sick of the lukewarm tomato soup BS crew — that both parties have cranked out as politicians for decades and decades and decades and decades — that by comparison, they think, here’s Trump, he says it like it
Well, no, he doesn’t, but he says it bluntly and insultingly. And that’s refreshing to a lot of people, which is kind of weird and kind of understandable. Because the fake respectability that politics has received for so long, including in the mainstream or formerly mainstream media, is sickening. Like we’re supposed to treat these people like, oh, there are lords and masters and they’re above reproach. And no, there are a bunch of corrupt, lying psychos. And the fact that Trump points that out and says so, gets a lot of people excited. And then they want to believe that he is fundamentally different, even though he’s not and he’s never given any reason to think he’s fundamentally different. Because he isn’t.
He openly adores literal dictators. He single-handedly pushed the worst federal gun control in my lifetime by telling the lawyers, not even going through Congress, something that conservatives would have flipped out if a Democrat president did this. Which is ‘I’m just going to tell the lawyers rewrite the definition of machine gun and make it include bump stocks. So now I’m just making several hundred thousand Americans into felons overnight by changing the wording of a regulation. Because I said so.’ That’s what Trump did. And if Biden had done that, all of the conservatives would have flipped out. But their own favorite clown did it. So they’re like, ‘Well, he was bullied into it or he had to or it’s not that serious. It’s just bump stocks.’ They make excuses for it, which is exactly what the other side does.
So if you’re going ‘Rah, rah, rah’ for Trump, because you think he’s anti-establishment, I commend you for being anti-establishment. I can’t commend you for being very observant because he’s not anti-establishment. He appointed all the same warmongers. He appointed all the same bankers, all the same parasitic control freaks. And he talks a little bit different.
Donald Trump IS professional wrestling. And he’s literally been involved in professional wrestling. He was the thing that they brought in to get attention back on politics because nobody cared. You have a bunch of lukewarm, boring politicians on both sides. Nobody was paying attention. Nobody cared. Voter rolls were going way down. They needed to shake it up by fabricating a fake drama.
So in comes Donald Trump with all his bluster and bravado and arrogance — and just all the qualities — including the ones that were sort of good? — which is that he dared to bash the system. I mean, he did it sort of incoherently and inconsistently. But at least he showed them, he showed them libtards by calling out how horrible they really are. Yeah, good for him.
Here’s the problem. Literally, every single historical tyrant you can think of, rose to power by bashing an injustice that was there before them. And in almost every case, it was a real injustice. You know, Hitler was right to condemn the — like the Treaty of Versailles and the way Germany had been treated after World War I and stuff like that. That was a just complaint. And that’s why people said, ‘Rah, rah, rah, we want him’. They didn’t say ‘Rah, rah, rah, we want him to kill a bunch of people or, like, bring in fascism and violently dominate everyone’. They went ‘Rah, rah, rah’ because they were so sick of what was happening, that if somebody came along who pretended to be something different, they didn’t bother looking closely at what he was actually proposing. Well, as long as he’s against that thing that we all don’t like.
And the same thing with the czars in Russia and the Soviet Union, and Mao and the feudal lords or whatever you want to call them in China, and the injustice there. We’re going to bring in communism to save the day. Every single time tyrants come to power, it’s because they’re bashing, usually rightfully bashing, some past injustice, or present injustice when they’re in the process of bashing it. That’s all Trump did.
And people were so sick of the liberal collectivist establishment that they decided, well, the enemy of my enemy must be my friend. And they didn’t bother. It was so much wishful thinking. They didn’t bother looking closely and realize Trump is literally a New York liberal. And he’s been pretty open about that. He’s literally buddies with the Clintons and that whole crowd. And he knows how to put on a show, à la professional wrestling, literally being involved in professional wrestling.
He knows how to put on a show to get people’s attention by bashing his enemies — the ones he pretends are his enemies and totally aren’t. ‘Lock her up. Lock her up.” Then the moment he’s elected. ‘Well, she’s been through enough.’ He never meant a word of it. He didn’t care. He’s buddies with them. He puts on a show and you fall for it because you’re eager to have somebody in power who’s against the establishment. So eager that you’ll ignore everything he actually says and actually does.
And what he proposed and did was slight tinkerings with the authoritarian game, adding some here, pretending to oppose authoritarianism over here — to the point where people are going, ‘Rah, rah, rah’, he’s putting tariffs on a bunch of things. ‘Yeah, he’s really sticking it to China.’
The US government can’t tax China. Do you understand that? The US government cannot tax China.
If there is trade between people in China and the US, they can tax the transaction going to the American or coming from the American. Tariffs are taxes on Americans. Always. You can’t tax foreign countries. Wnd you can say, ‘Well, it’s an import tax’. Yeah, who’s importing it? The people here! You import something from China when you’re already here. To stick a tax on that or to stick attacks on exports, you’re taxing Americans.
So you had a bunch of people going, ‘Rah, rah, rah, hooray for Trump because he’s taxing us more’. And they didn’t recognize that, because they were so into the mentality of ‘at least he’s anti-establishment and he’s against China and he’s against Russia and he’s against the libtards’. And no, he’s just one more person playing the game. And that’s why Trump is Trump. It’s because he is a very good bullshitter. Well, I can’t even say he’s very good at that. He’s just convincing enough to have gotten his way in a lot of different ways throughout his life, and to dupe a bunch of people into thinking he’s pro-freedom.
What has he said that’s pro-freedom? ‘I believe in taking guns first and going through due process second.’ What would your reaction have been if Biden said, ‘Yeah, we’re going to disarm you first and then maybe we’ll do due process second’? All conservatives would have flipped out. Donald Trump said that, live and in front of a bunch of cameras. What was your excuse? And that was talking about the red flag laws where, ‘Oh, some anonymous somebody said this person might be a danger. Let’s send in armed thugs of the state to violently disarm that person and then later we’ll go through due process and see if it was at all necessary or justified.’ That was the context. That is 100% anti-constitution, anti-second amendment and pro-dictatorship. Where you start by forcibly disarming people. Later we’ll decide whether we should have.
And so many conservatives go, ‘Well, yeah, but the other side is worse’. And that’s the problem. If you’re not thinking in terms of principles, then all they have to do to get you to cheer for a warmongering power-happy psycho is run him against the slightly worse warmongering power-happy psycho. Or what appears to you as slightly worse. And that’s why people fell for it.
And so the good news is that the enthusiasm behind Trump demonstrated sort of an inherent rebelliousness in Americans. They didn’t want the established –the establishment. They didn’t want the status quo. And here was a guy coming out and pretending to bash it. They were, ‘Rah, rah, rah. Yeah, you tell him.’ And there was so much wishful thinking. They didn’t bother to look closely at what he was actually doing, which was just more of the same. It’s more of what the puppets have always done. Authoritarian garbage.
Yeah, he kept the bombing going. He kept the war going. ‘Well, he didn’t start any new wars.’ Like how far are you going to stretch to pretend he’s a good person who believes in good things.
It’s like, oh, well, yeah, that carjacker, he’s still stealing cars, but he’s only stealing cars from the same people he stole from before. So it’s good. He’s awesome. He’s a great improvement. We support that carjacker. That’s the equivalent of what Trump supporters did.
So for Trump supporters, I would say, don’t give up your rebelliousness. Don’t give up your resentment and hatred for the establishment and the status quo because they totally deserve it. Don’t give up your resentment for the socialist BS that they’re trying to impose on you. But instead of just letting your emotions carry you away, look who you’re actually supporting. And ultimately, what that comes down to is, don’t support anybody being on the throne.
If you believe in freedom, bickering over which jackboot’s going to be on your throat or which clown is going to sit on the throne, that’s not freedom. That’s not in the direction of freedom at all. Your brain isn’t even in the direction of freedom. If the entire discussion you can comprehend is which crook should we put on the throne? The only pro-freedom answer is ‘none’. Don’t have there be a throne.
And I know that’s passed what most people want to think about right now. But in the case of Trump, he doesn’t even do a… like Reagan did a really good job in his rhetoric of bashing authoritarianism, and coming right out and saying government is not the solution, government is the problem. And saying all sorts of cool things like that. And then whether he knew it ahead of time or he was sort of cajoled or tricked into it, he supported the insane evil completely unconstitutional war on drugs.
So gee whiz, one of the best spokespeople for limited government ever, to ever make it to the White House, increased authoritarian domination. And so did Trump. And so will everybody who ever gets there. Because you’re not going to get anywhere near there if you actually, in principle, oppose authoritarianism.
And so it’s sad to watch so many people’s hopes and enthusiasm be thrown into the Trump camp as if that is the path to freedom. No, it’s not. Look more carefully. Don’t support what you blindly wish he was. See what he actually is. See what he’s actually done. See what he’s actually said. Watch what he did in his first for years in there. And then recognize that you’re not pro-freedom.
And the fact that you’re zealously against Biden, because he’s a senile old socialist psychopath — good, keep being against that. And be against that in principle, which also means being against Trump, who also push the free handouts that caused the inflation. Yes. And he did it first. And he was smart enough to do it when he knew the inflation would hit after he wasn’t there anymore. Trump did it, then Biden did it, then the inflation hit. Trump was pushing for bigger socialist handouts after that ridiculous debacle. He was also with his, with his lispy… he was pushing the same crap.
It was under his administration that that slimy little troll Fauci was pushing the propaganda. What did he do? Well, you half the time, sort of pretended, to almost be against it. That cannot be. You can’t make it that easy to trick you into cheering for your own subjugation and victimization and then be baffled by why we aren’t free.
We’re not free because you fall for crap like that. You think Trump is pro-freedom when he hasn’t even pretended to be. And Vivek Ramaswamy, however the hell you say his name, he’s the next salesman of pro-freedom authoritarianism. He’s actually way better at it than Trump as far as trying to express actual principles, but he doesn’t have any. He’s absolutely a statist authoritarian. And he’s doing the same thing of ‘I’m going to bash certain forms of authoritarianism that I think you’re against and you’re opposed to’. So you go, ‘Rah, rah, rah. Put him on the throne.’ And then you’re sort of going to downplay or ignore it when he mentions all the authoritarian domination that he’s in favor of. You’re bickering over what style of fascism you want imposed on you, instead of thinking from principle.
So as for your rah, rah, rah, anti-establishment — good, keep doing that. Only actually do it. Actually do it consistently. Not by supporting Trump, another puppet in the clown show, but by actually supporting principles that don’t match what any politician is ever going to tell you.
If you’re still looking for a political solution, you’re doomed.
So having bashed the Trump supporters, let me focus on the political left and Trump derangement syndrome. And that totally is a thing where they completely flip out. And the irony is they’re flipping out at somebody pretending to be anti-establishment who isn’t. So both sides are pretending that, ‘Ah, this is this radical, extreme change.’ No, it isn’t. Not in any way, shape or form was Trump radical on anything ever. He was this lukewarm, you know, finger to the wind, constantly seeing what would get him approval and him praise and him money. That’s all he has ever cared about.
And anyone paying any attention should be able to see that Trump cares about Trump. Nope, that’s the whole list. Just Trump. That’s all he gives a shit about is himself, his glory, his power, his money. He makes that as obvious as anybody could possibly make it. Like, could the narcissism and ego be any more obvious and blatant than the way he openly talks in front of the cameras. And if you’re trying to imagine him to be an advocate for principles instead of just an advocate for Trump, that’s just your imagination. That’s just your wishful thinking.
But let’s get back to the opponents of Trump who completely flip out at things that aren’t even significantly different. And they have to do that. They have to have tantrums at Trump because what are they even going to pretend to be for? Biden? This senile old corrupt racist? By the way, there’s way more of a basis to call Biden a racist than Trump. Like by a lot. If you look at the legislative history of what Biden has actually voted for and pushed, yeah, there’s a whole lot more basis to actually call him racist than, ‘oh, Trump has lots of white supporters. So he must be a white supremacist’ or some stupid logic like that. I have plenty of complaints against Trump, but him being a racist is like the dumbest.
That’s just the accusation they throw at everybody they don’t like. ‘You’re racist and a fascist.’ He is kind of a fascist and he openly adores dictators. So there’s that. But the racist part, you just made up.
Biden, there’s even less of an attempt to pretend he has any principles. He doesn’t believe in anything except the political machine. It’s all he’s ever been. He’s a cog in the wheel, in that giant machine of evil domination and parasitism known as the federal government. That is what Biden is. And they’ve gotten away with it so long that they take corruption… They’re not even trying anymore. Like Hunter and the stuff he’s been doing. Just so blatantly obvious. Like they didn’t even try to hide it because they thought they’d get away with it. And they knew, probabl, that the media was going to cover for them, which they did. The media lied their asses off to try to cover corruption.
And that’s the dead giveaway. Whether you’re talking about the media or just leftists in general supporting Biden, if they can do things that obviously corrupt and evil. and you’re going to look the other way because ‘well that other guy is even worse’, not only are you just as bad as the people who fell for Trump’s BS, you’re the same thing. You’re the exact same thing.
Trump supporters and Biden supporters are mirror images of each other. They’re both supporting old crooked, slimy, corrupt, power-happy, half senile, slime balls. And their excuse is, ‘Well, the other one is even worse’. Well gee, how did we get to a point where, like, two of the worst people in the world are the choices for president of the United States? And before that, it was Hillary versus Trump.
How do you think we get to the point where 300 and some million people are told to choose between the wicked witch of the west in Hillary and this egomaniac, arrogant lying piece of boop, Trump? Why is that what ended up? Because you keep falling for it. You keep voting for corrupt crooks and doing the comparison game and saying, well he’s not as bad as the other guy, so I’m going to vote for him.
Now, what I’m actually scared of is someone coming along who doesn’t suck at propaganda. And Trump is good at propaganda for an unthinking, emotion driven, angry audience that’s just so mad at the left, which I can understand. You should be left. They’re evil in doing evil things. But they’re so emotionally angry that they’re like, ‘Anybody who’s on our side say how bad they are. Good, you have our support’. Okay. Well, who is he? What does he believe? Well, he’s a self-absorbed narcissist who doesn’t believe in anything except himself. Yeah, that’s going to turn out great.
But the liberals who are just constantly having tantrums, and like obsessed with January 6th. It’s one of the funniest and saddest things I’ve ever seen. ‘January 6th, oh we have to have hearings about it.’ It was a tantrum. It was a frat party tantrum. And they’re talking of this, ‘Oh, this was an attempt to overthrow the government’. No, when there’s an attempt to overthrow the government, you’ll know it because they’ll show up with guns. And they won’t stay between the velvet ropes. But they have to blow it ridiculously out of proportion. Because what else do they have? It’s like, well, our guy is, we don’t know what he thinks. You can’t form a complete sentence. So there’s a problem with that. And even before that, there was never a principle. It was just he, he changed his positions on everything. You can go back and see the videos of Biden floundering on literally every single thing — because he’s going to say whatever he thinks will get him votes and get him public support because that’s what politicians do, including Trump.
So the political left, all they have is hatred of Trump. That’s all they have to hang on to. And it’s not like they know that on a conscious level. But, subconsciously, none of them are like Biden, he’s so brave and principled and he really cares. Nobody believes that. Nobody believes that. Biden is never… And same thing with Kamala, that babbling, cackling imbecile. Nobody believes she gives a crap about anybody but herself. Like, they’re not even putting up good actors in this puppet show anymore. And some people are still falling for it. Thankfully a lot of people aren’t.
Now let me try to give a little bit more credit to the political left, which, man, that takes a serious effort sometimes. But they look at Trump and say, ‘Oh, he’s going to start World War III’. It’s like, well, we’re on the way to World War III and who’s is in the White House now? When people are that scared — like when people are told over and over again, he’s a racist and a fascist and all these horrible things and they don’t bother to check — you can see the outcome. There’s tons of conservative pundits who do interviews with angry liberals and go like, ‘Okay, can you give me example of his racism?’. Dead silence. No example. They have no idea. They just heard other people say it about them. And that’s been true of the political left forever. And now they throw the label, racist and fascist at everybody. I mean, look at Trudeau up in Canada, which is just laughably stupid. ‘So, you don’t like us destroying your lives? Well then you’re misogynist and a racist and fascist’ to the truckers. What are you talking about? We just didn’t want you ruining our livelihoods. How did that get — and how did like homophobe get in there? Like, yeah, you must hate gay people because you want to earn a living. Okay. Not sure how many flying leaps of logic it takes to get that from there to there.
But they’ve become so desperate it’s ridiculous. All they have is throwing the labels. The thing is their followers believe it. When they get terrified. And so you get ridiculous spectacles like the Antifa, which is short for anti-fascist, which is kind of ironic because they’re the most fascist movement there is in this country. Literally, ‘we’re going to violently’ — they use the exact tactics of Hitler’s brown shirts. ‘We’re going to violently attack people, try to silence anybody who disagrees with us and label them as horrible evil people’. It’s just ridiculous because they don’t think in principles either.
What I would really ask people to do, and I know it’s a big ask because it requires people turning down their fricking emotions long enough to think, be clear in your own head about what it is that you actually want. What do you actually want? If policy were up to you. You’re the king on the throne now and they decided, yeah, these candidates are all horrible. They’re taking you and you’re putting on the throne. You can do whatever you want. What are you going to do? Is it freedom? Is it using the violence of the state to control people and limit what they can say and do? Is it using the violence of the state to rob everybody to fund a welfare state or to fund a huge military and a police force?
Whatever you want to do to the people, if you had the power, that’s what they’re going to do to you. Because you’re not going to be the one on the throne. It’s going to be somebody else. If you supported having a throne, and the amount of power that you would have used on people, and then it gets used on you and you complain about it, you’re a giant freaking hypocrite. If you’re a Republican, you’re a giant freaking hypocrite. If you’re a Democrat, you’re a giant freaking hypocrite. Because what every single statist does is say, ‘I want government force used to impose my values and my preferences and serve my interests by way of government power’. Then the next day they’re saying, ‘Hey, no fair, they’re using government power to force their interests and their priorities and their values and their preferences on to me’. Well, gee frickin’ whiz, that’s what the game is, the game that you agreed to, the game that you supported.
And this is a point I’ve made before. I’ll end on this. There is no such thing as political corruption, or I should say it’s redundant. Political corruption is redundant. There isn’t any other kind of politics.
The people who use the violence of government and call it politics to get what they want at the expense of other people’s freedom and prosperity, they call it “a representative republic doing the will of the people”. And the people on the losing end who say, ‘Hey, that’s not what I wanted’ and ‘You’re using their violence against my interests and my values. That’s corruption!’. They’re the ones who are right.
The fact that you might be the recipient, the beneficiary, from corruption doesn’t make it not corruption. Corruption is all politics and government will ever be. It’s all it can ever be.
Fricking George Washington said it. Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force.
When you try to vote a person in, it’s because you want them to use force to force your agenda and your preferences onto the rest of the world. And then you act all shocked and offended when they do the same thing to you. And if you win, you go, ‘Yeah, we’ll show them. We’ll forcibly control them’. A few years later, they win and you’re going, ‘Hey, they’re forcibly controlling us’. Shut up. Until you advocate freedom for everybody, just shut the hell up.
If you’re supporting Trump, you’re supporting authoritarian mass extortion and domination. If you’re supporting Biden, you’re supporting mass authoritarian extortion and domination.
If you’re on the losing end of the game, tough crap, you deserve it because you legitimized that game. You said it was okay. You said you wanted that. You just wanted the violence used in a different direction so that you’d win and they would lose, instead of them winning and you losing.
The thing is, there’s only one way for humanity to win, which is stop advocating violent authoritarian domination. And that means do not support Trump. Do not support Biden. Do not support Vivek or DeSantis or any other clown that says, ‘If you give me power, I will do the right thing with it’. No, they won’t ever. Have they ever? No. And you can point to a thing. ‘Well, he did slightly less abuse’. Oh, goody. We got a slave master who only whips us half as much as the slave master before. Is that any closer to freedom? No. On a practical level. Okay, we’re suffering a little bit less. Rah, rah, rah. That doesn’t make you free. Just means your master is a little bit nicer to you.
And this is something that a lot of people, Trump supporters, Biden supporters, everybody else, they need to recognize that their own goodness is being used to trick them into supporting evil with them as the victim of it. You are supporting your own extortion and subjugation every time you vote, every time you rah, rah, rah, for any political candidate. I don’t care what party. And it’s really frustrating to watch.
Once you’re outside of the game and you recognize how it works, it’s frustrating to watch a bunch of well-intentioned people on both sides, screaming at the top of their lungs how much their guy needs to wield basically unlimited power to boss people around and take their stuff. And they don’t get that the politicians are just sitting back, they’re laughing their asses off, probably hanging out and having parties together like Trump and the Clintons used to. They don’t care. They’re both getting your money. They’re both controlling you while you bicker and hate each other.
And if you actually want something different, Trump isn’t it. Biden certainly isn’t it. If you actually want something different, you have to be able to comprehend something different than bickering over which clown is going to be on the throne for the next how many years.
So yeah, if you want freedom, you have to change what’s inside your own head. Because if you’re playing politics, you don’t even want freedom. You’re not even advocating freedom yourself. And if you expect government to advocate freedom when none of the people voting for it, including you, believe in freedom, you’re going to be waiting a while — like forever.
So I guess that’s about it. By the way, if you want sort of a rude slap in the face, fun allegory, fun and disturbing and traumatic allegory of how the political system actually works and what people are falling for, I highly recommend you watch The Jones Plantation at jonesplantationfilm.com.
I’m not saying either of you are bad people. I mean, yeah, there’s some bad people out there. Most Republicans, most Democrats, they mean well. They think they’re doing the right thing and they’re empowering evil in the process without even knowing it.
So my question to you is, do you care enough to pause long enough to reexamine your own assumptions and your own words and your own beliefs and your own actions to see if you might be accidentally empowering evil? Because you are.
An investigation by The BMJ into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, found multiple deficiencies in the system, including the revelation that the government runs two systems — one for the public, and a private back-end system that contains all of the corrections and updates, including deaths that occurred after an initial injury.
When Dr. Robert Sullivan collapsed on his treadmill three weeks after his second COVID-19 vaccine in early 2021, he fell into a “nightmare” ordeal that he said exposed glaring deficiencies in the nation’s vaccine safety monitoring system.
But like others interviewed in a recent investigation by The BMJ, Sullivan hit barrier after barrier when trying to submit and update his report.
Almost three years later, still grappling with debilitating symptoms, Sullivan’s experience highlights the systemic problems with the U.S. adverse events monitoring system run jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
From doctors unable to file reports to disappearing data, limits on transparency and lack of resources to follow up on concerning vaccine reactions, experts warn VAERS is failing to detect critical safety signals.
According to one of those experts — VAERS researcher Albert Benavides, whose experience includes HMO claims auditing, data analytics and revenue cycle management — VAERS’ failure isn’t accidental.
Like others interviewed by The BMJ, Sullivan experienced limited follow-up after submitting his VAERS report. He received only a temporary report number months after his initial submission.
A physician named “Helen” (pseudonym) told The BMJ that fewer than 20% of concerning reports get follow-up, including many deaths she reported.
In consultation with Benavides, an audit by React19 found that 1 in 3 COVID-19 vaccine adverse events reports in VAERS were either not posted publicly or were deleted. React19 is a nonprofit that collects stories of people injured by the mRNA vaccines.
According to The BMJ, of those queried by React19, “22% had never been given a permanent VAERS ID number and 12% had disappeared from the system entirely.”
Benavides, who publishes the VAERSAware dashboards documenting many of the problems with VAERS, said there is even deeper dysfunction in the VAERS system — from inventing symptoms to deleting reports.
“VAERS does not publish all legitimate reports received,” Benavides told The Defender. “They throttle publication of reports. They even delete legitimate reports.”
For a system dependent on voluntary engagement, these restrictive policies keep critical data hidden, according to Benavides.
In 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contracted with Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) to review the VAERS system. In 2010, HPHC filed its r report, which determined that 1 in 39 people experienced vaccine injuries and that only around 1% of vaccine-related injuries or deaths are ever reported to VAERS.
The CDC, which operates under HHS, scuttled the study, refused to take calls from the researchers and declined to upgrade the VAERS system when a new, much more effective system was developed.
‘Blind spots are self-created’
VAERS “collects reports of symptoms, diagnoses, hospital admissions, and deaths after vaccination for the purpose of capturing post-market safety signals,” according to The BMJ.
But the limited transparency of VAERS data presents barriers to proper analysis, according to The BMJ’s investigation and researchers like Benavides.
The public — including doctors and other report submitters — can access only incomplete initial reports, not updates with vital details.
This means outcomes like death are often excluded if the initial report was for an injury and a subsequent death report was filed.
“I made the false assumption that my conversation [with VAERS] would result in an adjustment to the publicly reported case,” Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D., told The BMJ.
Whelan, a rheumatologist and researcher at the University of California Los Angeles, in 2022 filed a report of a cardiac arrest in a 7-year-old male patient after COVID-19 vaccination.
“I assumed that, since it was a catastrophic event, the safety committee would want to hear about it right away,” Whelan said. But nobody called him or requested an update after his submission.
“There was no mechanism for [updating] it,” Whelan told The BMJ. “The only option I had was to make a new VAERS report.” Without updates, the VAERS data showed that the boy was still hospitalized.
Whelan is one the authors of a recent critique of the Cochrane Review that concluded the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were not dangerous.
The problem with VAERS is not limited to a lack of adequate follow-up but to the incomplete and often inaccurate information found there.
“VAERS in effect allows typos, truncated lot #’s, UNK [unknown] ages, UNK vax dates, UNK death dates, etc. to pass through into publication,” Benavides said.
Benavides said specific data — including ethnicity, hospital names, attending physicians, submitter’s relationship to the patient, patient and submitter addresses, telephone numbers and emails — collected by VAERS are not published,
“Any blind spots are self-created, in my opinion,” he said.
Agencies maintain two separate VAERS databases — public gets to see only one
“There’s two parts to VAERS, the front end and back end,” stated Narayan Nair, division director for the FDA’s Division of Pharmacovigilance at a December 2022 meeting with advocates, according to The BMJ. “Anything from medical records by law can’t be posted on the public-facing system,” he said.
The BMJ investigation discovered that the FDA and CDC maintain two separate VAERS databases, one available to the public that contains only initial reports, and a private back-end system containing all of the updates and corrections.
“Anything derived from medical records by law” cannot be posted on the public-facing system, Nair told the advocates, according to The BMJ.
In an apparent contradiction to this claim, The BMJ noted the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), which collects post-marketing information on drug reactions, posts its updates publicly.
Sullivan, who met Nair years before COVID-19 and considers him a friend, told The Defender that if this “very bright, kind and caring person” could not fix VAERS, “I don’t think it’s fixable.”
CDC says it reviewed 20,000 reports of deaths — none were related to COVID shots
Withholding outcome data like deaths obscures critical safety signals, experts contend.
James Gill, a medical examiner, reported the death of a 15-year-old patient after vaccination, but the case was dismissed by the CDC despite autopsy evidence, according to the BMJ investigation.
Physician “Helen” told The BMJ that after filing reports on her medical patients, including six who had died, she received only a single request for medical records on the death and two for hospital-admitted patients.
The standard operating procedure for COVID-19 vaccine reports in VAERS, according to The BMJ, is for reports to be processed quickly and for “serious reports” to receive special review by CDC staff.
However, while some other countries have acknowledged the probable connection between the mRNA vaccines and death, the CDC, while claiming to have reviewed nearly 20,000 death reports, has yet to acknowledge a single death linked to the COVID-19 vaccines, The BMJ said.
Benavides provided The Defender examples of VAERS “deleting legitimate reports,” not just duplicates or false claims.
“VAERS even deleted dead Pfizer Trial patients,” he said, claiming that this report, for example, was not a “duplicate” and did not appear to be fake.
Benavides said:
“There are currently about 50 deaths that are not counted as deaths because the correct box is not checked off.
“There are thousands of reports and about 100 deaths in ‘UNKNOWN VAX TYPE’ in VAERS. Read the narrative to see these are clearly C19 jab-related deaths.
“There are over a thousand cardiac arrests where they are not marked as dead, and I question if they actually survived because there is no mention of ROSC [return of spontaneous circulation].”
“Why couldn’t VAERS populate the ages of these dead kids before publication?” Benavides said, pointing to this report on his website.
Physicians report only FDA-recognized adverse events
Ralph Edwards, former director of the Uppsala Monitoring Centre and until recently editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, told The BMJ the regulators may be relying too heavily on past epidemiological data, especially for new types of adverse events. “If something hasn’t been heard of before, it tends to be ignored,” he said.
Without guidance to report potential risks, doctors also face barriers. “Physicians are only willing to talk about FDA-recognized vaccine adverse events,” stated physician “Helen” in a 2021 meeting between the FDA and physicians and advocates, according to The BMJ.
Svetlana Blitshteyn, a neurologist and researcher at the University at Buffalo, New York, told The BMJ if physicians are not educated to look for a specific condition, they’re unlikely to test for it or know how to treat it.
Sullivan told The Defender he believes his experience of developing pulmonary hypertension after taking the mRNA vaccine is one such safety signal the CDC and FDA are overlooking — a condition he believes many athletes have unknowingly developed.
Sullivan co-authored a paper of his and one other similar case of post-vaccine pulmonary hypertension. According to the paper:
“Pulmonary hypertension is a serious disease characterized by damage to lung vasculature and restricted blood flow through narrowed arteries from the right to left heart. The onset of symptoms is typically insidious, progressive and incurable, leading to right heart failure and premature death.”
“Athletes are canaries in the coal mine,” Sullivan told The Defender, speaking of the unusual numbers of athlete deaths since the rollout of the vaccine. Sullivan thinks that those with superior physical conditioning, like him, stand a better chance of survival with early detection.
However, he said, “Athletes will get echocardiography, and it will be essentially normal. The only way to tell for sure is to do a right-heart catheterization” that can identify the anomaly.
Sullivan believes the lives of many athletes could still be saved if the reporting system recognized and investigated the signal — and said he would be happy to join a project dedicated to this goal.
He also told The Defender he believes many of the sudden deaths reported in the 25- to 44-year-old age group are a result of this hidden condition.
‘The buck stops with the CDC for reforms’
Critics point to choices by the CDC as compounding VAERS’ passive design and understaffing issues.
Despite over 1.7 million reports since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, staffing was not boosted accordingly, according to statements the CDC made to The BMJ.
A Freedom of Information Act request by The BMJ revealed Pfizer has nearly 1,000 more full-time employees working on vaccine surveillance than the CDC. Records showed in 2021, Pfizer on-boarded 600 additional full-time employees to handle the volume of adverse reports and planned to hire 200 more.
Physician “Helen” in The BMJ article called for an end to the “negative feedback loop” whereby the FDA fails to list adverse reactions because passive surveillance systems like the FDA’s don’t display them, while at the same time, because of that lack of disclosure, “physicians are blinded to the adverse reactions in their patients, and thus aren’t reporting them.”
“The buck stops with the CDC for reforms needed to open up data,” Benavides told The Defender, adding several suggestions that could immediately improve VAERS:
“Revert back to pre-January 2011 when VAERS did append initial reports with follow-up data, including death. Take off the arbitrary 30-minute time limit to file a report before getting kicked off. Make the process easier to submit follow-up data.”
When asked why the incompetence of VAERS had been allowed to continue for so long, Sullivan told The Defender, “Because of the lack of product liability” for the vaccines “and the surge to defend economic interests.”
Sullivan said he’d like to see the following changes to the system:
Pharmaceutical advertising banned.
Pharmaceutical company revenues devoted to advertising instead be spent on R&D.
The tax money collected on pharma profits be directly sent to victim injury funds.
Yale cardiologist takes on study of COVID vaccine injuries
Benavides said he spoke with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) Monday and is also in discussion with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to address the concerns with VAERS, including the under-publishing of reports.
“That’s a long overdue prospect and it would be incredible to actually get some analysis by that committee,” he said.
Another bright spot comes from news reported in The BMJ’s investigation that Dr. Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist and researcher at Yale University, has been recruiting members of React19 to study their vaccine injuries.
“We are working hard to understand the experience, clinical course, and potential mechanisms of the ailments reported by those who have had severe symptoms arise soon after the vaccination,” Krumholz told The BMJ.
Sullivan told The Defender that medical science is “just beginning to catalog the damage to the heart” from the vaccines but that “in order to treat something, you have to diagnose it” — and that, because of the shortcomings with VAERS, “we have yet to scratch the surface of that.”
Sullivan, now almost three years into his ordeal, is outliving his initial prognosis.
“I have a grim diagnosis hanging over me, but I’m optimistic because I’m still here,” he said. “I had something bad happen to me, but I’ve met so many amazing, wonderful people along the way who are just interested in truth.”
“I’m going to live the best and most productive life I can with the time I have left,” Sullivan said, helping others who “have this cloud hanging over their future.”
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” ~ General Smedley Butler
I don’t need your civil war It feeds the rich while it buries the poor Your power hungry sellin’ soldiers In a human grocery store
~ Guns N’ Roses – Civil War
Whether it is a distinguished general who came to his senses in 1935, after doing the bidding of the monied interests by initiating conflict throughout the world to fill their coffers with blood money, or a rock & roll star fifty years later writing a hit song about the exact same theme, the song remains the same. The wealthy always benefit from war, the poor always die in their wars, and politicians are bribed to continually foment conflict, hate, and railing against whoever their puppet masters choose as the enemy of the moment. This is not a recent development, it has spanned centuries, just the sums of money feeding the military industrial complex are now astronomical.
The 20th Century began with Butler doing the bidding of the monied classes in South America, Mexico, and Europe, disguised as keeping America safe for democracy – the usual propaganda fed to the masses when they are running their racket. Just as Edward Bernays clearly laid out in his 1928 book – Propaganda – that the world is run by an invisible government who manipulate the minds of the masses to do as they are told, Butler unequivocally described why we are perpetually at war and who benefits from perpetual warfare. The invisible government/insiders run this world and have always run this world. Once you reconcile yourself to this fact, you will be well on your way to understanding all of the major events happening in the world today.
“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War.” ~General Smedley Butler
It seems many more millionaires and billionaires have been created since World War I, the war Wilson promised not to enter. What a coincidence the Federal Reserve was created in shadowy back rooms on a secretive island in 1913 by men constituting the invisible government (bankers, corporate executives, corrupt politicians), just before the outbreak of the Great War. Of course, it was only great for the bankers, arms dealers, and corporations getting rich off the blood of the 20 million innocent soldiers and civilians who died to fill up their war chests with gold. Once the politicians, bankers, and connected corporations had the ability to use a central bank to print fiat and fund their wars for eternity, we’ve had over a century of total war.
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” ~ Ron Paul
“War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.” ~ George Orwell
The moneyed classes profit from warfare no matter who wins. But even better, they profit the most when no one wins and the war is perpetual. Perpetual war equals perpetual profits. The United States has not been invaded by a foreign enemy since the War of 1812. The $1.8 trillion allocated to the Department of Defense in 2023 exceeds the GDP of most countries in the world and is a self sustaining mechanism where politicians: approve the trillions in blood money while promoting chaos and war around the globe; become multi-millionaires from bribes accepted from the corporations enriched by the military industrial complex; accelerate the downfall of America by enslaving future generations in chains of unpayable debt; and then convince the poor to become cannon fodder in their bloody game of thrones.
“Every war, when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” ~ George Orwell
The propagandists for the military regime always need a “bad guy” to justify their wealth generating wars. First it was Hitler, even though corporate leaders like Ford admired and profited from his rebuilding of Germany. Then it was the generic “communist” which was used by the war profiteers to justify Korea and Vietnam. Keeping the world safe for democracy and corporate profits, at the cost of only 100,000 American lives and several million natives. Evidently a beneficial trade-off for the American Empire and the military industrial complex, warned about by Eisenhower.
The modern day “homicidal maniacs”, who threatened the peace that the American Empire has spread at the point of a gun and demanding use of their fiat currency, have included: the Ayatollah Khomeini when fighting our ally Sadaam Hussein, until Sadaam Hussein became the “homicidal maniac”; Soviet leadership in Afghanistan fought by our ally Osama bin Laden until bin Laden became the “homicidal maniac” blamed for 9/11; Muammar Gaddafi when he dared not fall in line regarding the USD; Bashar al-Assad when gas pipelines were needed to keep profits flowing; Vladimir Putin for revealing U.S. and Biden family corruption in Ukraine; and now Hamas because they tired of living in the open air Israeli prison of Gaza.
None of these “homicidal maniacs” has ever threatened the American homeland with invasion or meaningful attack. But they did provide justification for the Patriot Act, a never ending War on Terror, doubling of military spending, sacrifice of American lives for nothing more than oil and mammon, and creation of new eternal enemies across the globe (aka blow back). You see the regime propaganda media declare we are running low on bombs, missiles and military hardware because we’ve sent over $100 billion worth to their anti-Putin puppet Zelensky (with 10% for the big guy), and now we need tens of billions more to give to Netanyahu to aid in his genocide of Palestinians. What if the trillions spent on destroying things and killing people over the last seventy five years had been used for productive purposes?
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
The arms dealers who keep the war machine killing are more than happy to ramp up production to support the ongoing Ukraine debacle and now the powder keg in the Middle East which threatens to explode into World War III. Imagine the corporate bonuses if we get ourselves a new world war. Politician’s coffers will be filled with blood money. And if the neo-cons can just get China to attack Taiwan, champagne corks will be popping all over Washington DC. Since the Biden/CIA provoked Ukraine war began in early 2022, defense contractor stocks have soared (BAE Systems: +100%; Lockheed Martin: +36%; Northrup Grumman: +32%; General Dynamics: +26%), while the overall stock market was down 8%. It’s good to be the kings of war.
Our dementia ridden puppet president let the truth slip last week by saying these wars are good for the economy. And by good for the economy, he means good for the bankers, mega-corporations, military industrial complex, and the bank accounts of politicians bought off by war loving donors. What it is not good for are the bank accounts of average Americans, as relentless inflation created to wage these wars destroys their purchasing power as they spiral towards impoverishment. It’s not good for the poor who enlist and get to shed their blood for no good reason at all. It’s not good for the innocent civilians across the globe killed by the promoters of endless war and declared collateral damage by the likes of Dick Cheney, Lindsay Graham, Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton and Nikke Haley. It’s not murder if you are waving the flag of neo-con justice.
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” – Voltaire
The absurdity of allowing rich men to decide millions should die for a fake cause in order to sustain their wealth, power and control, infuriates me and is why I hold out little hope for a positive outcome to this Fourth Turning. How could so many be so obtuse as to not see what is happening right in front of their eyes? I have no animosity towards average Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, Iranians, Syrians, Turks, Palestinians, Israelis, or anyone on this earth trying to live normal lives. It’s the rich and powerful rulers of countries, kingdoms, and empires who I despise. Despite having no personal quarrel against anyone, the shadowy psychopaths in suits behind the curtain use religion and psychological manipulation to convince the masses they should hate and kill an enemy they are instructed to loathe and fear.
“What is absurd and monstrous about war is that men who have no personal quarrel should be trained to murder one another in cold blood.” ~ Aldous Huxley
Whether it was World War II or what is playing out before our very eyes today, the song remains the same. Rich man’s war, poor man’s fight.
Most have not come to the realization we are already in the midst of World War III. It began in the spring of 2022 when Boris Johnson was instructed by the globalist cabal to stop Zelensky from signing an agreed upon treaty between Russia and Ukraine to end the conflict. There was billions in war profits to be made and the opportunity to bleed Russia of financial resources. When this disastrous venture, which has killed 600,000 innocent victims, began to run out of steam and the enthusiasm of clueless dolts with their “Support Ukraine” lawn signs began to wane, miraculously Hamas attacked Israel. How convenient for the war machine.
World War II started in September 1939, but Americans set the date at December 7, 1941. In reality, the U.S. was already at war in 1939, as we supplied the UK with arms and financial support, while provoking Japan into attacking through economic sanctions. It is exactly the same situation today. We have been at war with Russia for over a year through our puppet proxy, the actor Zelensky. We are now at war in the Middle East through our Israeli proxy point of the spear. None of this is declared, but anyone with critical thinking skills knows we are calling the shots. What the military industrial complex is now actively seeking is a new Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, or 9/11. They need a horrific event to usher in World War III. They are gathered in black masses, plotting death and destruction, while feeding their insatiable desire for mammon.
Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerer of death’s construction
In the fields, the bodies burning As the war machine keeps turning Death and hatred to mankind Poisoning their brainwashed minds Oh lord, yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor, yeah
So here we are, on the edge of Armageddon, waiting for the next shoe to drop. I don’t believe a word my government tells me. I consider those who are running this country, whether they be “elected” politicians, shadowy billionaires constituting the invisible government, or the globalist cabal seeking a new world order, to be my sworn enemies. When they initiate the false flag, designed to falsely generate the patriotic spirit of the masses and mobilize them for war against the enemy of their choosing (likely Russia, China or Iran), I will not be obeying, complying or sacrificing my three sons as cannon fodder for their evil agendas and wars for profit. The only ammo fired by my family in this coming conflict will be at any government thug attempting to invest my sons in their wars. That is my red line and I will die defending it. Time to prepare for the real war against the real enemy.
My hands are tied The billions shift from side to side And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
My hands are tied For all I’ve seen has changed my mind But still the wars go on as the years go by
The virus never yet’s been found
Yet theories based on naught abound
Handy tool, device of ghouls
Another fearful trick to fool
Big bang too, a deft device
Explaining cause with bad advice
“God” works well too, to ‘splain away
With Myst’ry kept at deft abay
To understand is just control
The ego knot, the little troll
Thrives on knowing this and that
That nuisance gnat, the little brat
Show me where this self resides
Lest this contraction be but pride
Illusion traps are woven spells
Made real by other ‘magined selves
Hard to believe? Of course it is
That selfsame self within you lives
Programmed, reinforced at will
Behold our whirled, and hence the ill
Nature not, it’s doing fine
A mirror of the deft design
But humans? Man, what happened here
We bit the apple – now the fear
We can’t let go and trust what Is
Everything is now our biz
The hyperactive fearful self
Will not let go, and that’s called hell
Zen Gardner is an impactful and controversial author and speaker, whose personal story has caused no small stir amongst the entrenched alternative pundits. His book You Are the Awakening met rave reviews and is available on amazon.com. You Are the Awakening examines the dynamics of the awakening to a more conscious awareness of who we are and why we are here – dynamics which are much different from the programmed approach of this world we were born into. Zen Gardner does not currently offer public contact details.
When I discovered this study several years ago and wrote the following extensive piece on it, the study was a bolt from the blue, a complete devastating shocker.
It still is.
It is more than enough to topple the whole vaccine empire.
Honoring the work of the study co-author, Dr. Antonietta Gatti, Catherine Austin Fitts wrote, “Not long after the publication of this revolutionary study, tax authorities raided and investigated Dr. Gatti’s and [her husband] Dr. Montanari’s laboratory and private home—an all too usual method of intimidation.”
THAT was the “scientific follow-up.”
In a nutshell, Dr. Gatti’s 2017 study showed an incredible amount of contamination, in a whole host of traditional vaccines. The contamination was in the form of tiny nanoparticles, mostly metallic, and obviously highly harmful and dangerous.
Before reading my summary and analysis of that study—here is an updated communication from Dr. Gatti I received a few days ago. It describes, in a stark and disturbing fashion, what has been happening to her, her work, and her laboratory. This is chilling:
“At the end of last year, our laboratory no longer had the financial capacity to continue its research. The proceeds from the few analyzes requested by private individuals yielded enormously less than what the research cost us. Then, there were two possibilities: close everything or set up a foundation by giving away everything that belonged to us, hoping to find some sponsors. After all, all initiatives, even the most bizarre, find someone willing to contribute financially. Why not a foundation that does fundamental research on health? So, we opted for the latter choice, and the Nanodiagnostics Foundation was born.”
“But, after almost a year, not a cent has arrived. In short, no company, no private citizen, no institution is willing to contribute.”
“Many people continue to demand results and ask questions to which they have no answers from the institutions or their doctors, but, if it is a question of parting from some money, the silence is absolute.”
“It is clear that our work is a threat to billion-dollar businesses that are not exactly clear, at least for most people. For this reason, the most absurd and incredible slanders are invented to our detriment.
Not being able to dispute our scientific results, there are those who publish, usually anonymously, that we earn enormous sums of money, even giving the impression that the Foundation belongs to us, when it should be known that foundations do not belong to anyone, and no one can profit from them. And this is when we have donated everything that belonged to us, and we work for free.”
“Another tactic is trying to isolate and discredit us with lies. What the University of Bologna did a few days ago, the university where I graduated, then specialized and taught, is a small example.”
“A few months ago, that university asked us if we were willing to accept [a] student… who would prepare her graduation thesis with us. We agreed and agreed with the student on how to proceed. A few months passed, then, a couple of weeks ago, when the University authorities realized that the student would work with us, they sent us a message of a few lines in which they informed us that what we do (and which I had taught at that university) was of no interest to them (which, in a way, is true, although very far from the mission of the University). Needless to say, my letter to the Rector asking for explanations remained unanswered.”
“And it is also useless to say how difficult it is to publish the results that we continue to obtain, and which are not liked by those who financially maintain the medical journals, on whose scientific nature I prefer not to comment. For twice the Editor after the publication of an article (on vaccines and on SIDS) asked to retreat [sic] them. Only the work of the Robert Kennedy Jr lawyers stopped the request.”
“[Paper:] Novel chemical-physical autopsy investigation in sudden infant death and sudden intrauterine unexplained death syndromes” (click here)
“Just for your information, in spite of all difficulties, we are now dealing with very critical topics: spontaneously aborted babies, analysis of the brains of infants who died in cots (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, aka SIDS), analysis of what falls from the sky (e.g., recently hail never seen before), food, etc. All this can only be fought with personal discredit.”
“We haven’t had any visits from the regime for a long time. For them it is enough to monitor our computers and phones. The rest is done by ‘volunteers’. As for other scientists, no one deals with our topics in full. It must be realized that doing so represents a risk that is obviously preferable not to take.”
“As long as we can manage, we will continue to work. If, however, no sponsor materializes (idle chatter and empty promises are not only useless: they are a waste of time,) we will have no other option than to declare defeat, a defeat that belongs to the whole world and, above all, to the children who do not deserve the fate they are suffering.”
“…I give some details of our Foundation Nanodiagnostics (click here)…”
IF YOU CAN, PLEASE DONATE TO Dr. Gatti’s vital work at the above website.
Here is my original article on Dr. Gatti’s vaccine-contamination study:
Dangerous nano-particles contaminating many vaccines: groundbreaking study
“The Lung,” Second Edition: “Nanoparticles [are] comparable in size to subcellular structures…enabling their ready incorporation into biological systems.”
A 2017 study of 44 types of 15 traditional vaccines, manufactured by leading global companies, has uncovered a very troubling and previously unreported fact:
The vaccines are heavily contaminated with a variety of nanoparticles.
Many of the particles are metals.
We’re talking about traditional vaccines, such as HPV, flu, Swine Flu, Hepatitis B, MMR, DPT, tetanus, etc.
To begin to understand some of the destructive effects of contaminating nanoparticles in vaccines, here is the groundbreaking 2017 study:
International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination
Volume 4 Issue 1
January 23 2017
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination
Antonietta M Gatti and Stefano Montanari
(Paper archived here and here)
“The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines…”
Are the study authors leaving the door open to the possibility that the contamination is intentional?
“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity…they induce an inflammatory reaction.”
“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas…But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect…due to a nano-bio-interaction…can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way…It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA…”
“In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues…”
“Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles…could heavily impair the muscle functionality…”
“We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.”
This 2017 study opens up a whole new field: the investigation of nanoparticles in vaccines where none were expected.
Such particles are not medicine in any sense of the word.
Many legal and scientific “experts” assert the State has a right to mandate vaccines and force them on the population. But these contaminating nanoparticles are not vaccines or medicines. Only a lunatic would defend the right of the State to inject them.
Here is another section from the 2017 study. Trade names of vaccines, and compositions of the nanoparticle contaminants are indicated. Take a deep breath and buckle up:
“…further presence of micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases [all 44 vaccines], whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product…”
“…single particles, cluster of micro- and nanoparticles (less than 100nm) and aggregates…debris of Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium and Titanium; of Iron, Chromium, Silicon and Calcium particles…arranged in a cluster, and Aluminum-Copper debris…in an aggregate.”
“…the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro).”
“…particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).”
“…singular debris found in Repevax (Silicon, Gold, Silver) and Gardasil (Zirconium).”
“Some metallic particles made of Tungsten or stainless steel were also identified. Other particles containing Zirconium, Hafnium, Strontium and Aluminum (Vivotif, Meningetec); Tungsten, Nickel, Iron (Priorix, Meningetec); Antimony (Menjugate kit); Chromium (Meningetec); Gold or Gold, Zinc (Infarix Hexa, Repevax), or Platinum, Silver, Bismuth, Iron, Chromium (MMRvaxPro) or Lead,Bismuth (Gardasil) or Cerium (Agrippal S1) were also found. The only Tungsten appears in 8/44 vaccines, while Chromium (alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel) in 25/44. The investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria. As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction…occurs and a ‘protein corona’ is formed…The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since it is not recognized as self by the body.”
“…examples of these nano-bio-interactions. Aggregates can be seen (stable composite entities) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec… of stainless steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel…) and of Copper, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix…Similar aggregates, though in different situations (patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia), have already been described in literature.”
I’m sure you’ve read official assurances that vaccine-manufacturing problems are “rare.” You can file those pronouncements along with other medical lies.
“I’d like the heavy metal sandwich on rye, please. And instead of serving it on a plate, can you inject it?”
Several vital questions demanding answers spring from the findings of this 2017 study:
Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally placed in vaccines?
Does the standard manufacturing process for traditional vaccines INEVITABLY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?
New nano-technology is already being employed to create several vaccines—supposedly “improving effectiveness.” In fact, the RNA COVID-19 vaccine are a nano-type. Does this manufacturing process carry with it the unavoidable effect of unleashing a hurricane of nanoparticle contaminants?
How many cases of childhood brain damage and autism can be laid at the door of nanoparticle contamination?
And finally, where are these contaminated vaccines manufactured? The above study did not attempt to discover this. It was outside the scope of the research. It’s common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the US, vaccines or their components, are, in many instances, not produced domestically. Where does this put control of safety? In, say, China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals connected to contamination of products?
The vaccine establishment does not show the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending the questions don’t exist.
The way in which divide-and-rule tactics are continually used to create confusion and control has become increasingly evident since 2020.
More people than ever have woken up to the fact that these manufactured horizontal divisions within populations serve primarily to conceal the existence of a split which can be imagined as vertical.
This is the conflict between the ruled and the rulers, between the 99.9% and the 0.1%, between the dispossessed and the dispossessors, between the slaves and their slavemasters, between below and above, between the people and the power that oppresses them.
It can also, I believe, be understood as a conflict between life and death.
Let me explain why I say this.
Human beings are, as readers might have noticed, living entities. We come into being through the processes of nature.
In the same way that a tiny acorn contains the potential to become a mighty oak, we carry the seed of our potential within us: our “growing up”, from the embryo stage through childhood, adolescence and adulthood, is the self-realisation of that potential.
We are not machines. We don’t need to be “programmed” in order to become the human beings we were meant to become, any more than a tree needs to be taught how to sink roots or grow branches.
Ideal circumstances allow us to fulfil our innate potential, to be all that we could have been. In reality, of course, circumstances often thwart that potential: constant interference from external factors, such as society’s attempts to restrict and programme us to suit its requirements, can leave us stunted, lop-sided, frustrated, bitter and unfulfilled.
Because individual humans are living entities, groups of humans can also be living organisms.
The relationship between an individual and an organic community is a symbiotic one: the individual contributes his or her unique potential to the community and the community, in return, provides the structure, solidarity and support through which the invididual can find fulfilment.
Culture, of the authentic kind, is an expression of this natural belonging-together of individuals in a community.
Human beings and our communities form part of the wider living natural world on which we are dependent for our survival and well-being.
The understanding of our belonging to a larger living organism was part of human consciousness for hundreds of thousands of years.
We have also long had the idea of a level of aliveness above that of the physical world, an all-pervading sense of purpose and goodness that we can find impossible to name.
All of this then, is our living, our self-fulfillment, our freedom to flourish as intended by nature and the unnamable force of good.
Against it stands an entity, the entity of death, which has somehow taken over human society and sets out to destroy each and every aspect of our living.
It refuses to allow individuals to develop according to their own nature, either physically or mentally. From the moment we are conceived, it never stops monitoring, scanning and measuring us, pumping our bodies full of its toxic substances, hammering us into shape, crushing our desires, locking us down in its thought-prisons, chaining us to its concrete floor so that we can never soar high above its work-camp reality.
It thinks it owns us. It resents anything we do, say or think that lies outside its control. It doesn’t even like babies being born naturally and now wants to deny our biological reality and extend its cruel monopoly to the process of reproduction.
Its societies are dead things, in which its top-down control stamps out any possibility of choice, self-determination or the expression of a culture which comes from the shared human heart.
For the death-entity, the living world is nothing but a resource for the expansion of its poisonous power.
It parades its contempt for nature with its giant machines that rip into her flesh, with its vast and ugly industrial infrastructures that scar her face, with the defecations of its development that pollute and infect her organs.
And then, with a snigger, it justifies the next wave of its destruction with the lie that it wants to “save the planet”.
It sees no beauty in life, no value in life, no meaning in life.
In its negation of all that is good, it revels in its power to do evil.
It rubs it hands with glee as men, women and children suffer and die in their thousands, nay millions, in its spectacles of horror and then sells us back our sorrow as a ticket to its next infernal show.
That has been the story until now, in any case.
But I suspect that the death entity has now gone too far in its arrogance, surrendering the invisibility that was necessary for its deceit-dependent domination.
We are thus entering a new phase in the conflict, a long-awaited turning of the tide which will eventually see the energy of life and goodness restored to its rightful place at the centre of human existence.
Natural order – fresh, green and vital – will grow up in the ruins of the death-system, leaving humankind free to fulfil its true potential.
With legislation around the world seeking to gut encryption and online anonymity, Ramiro Romani offers an overview of what’s coming and several solutions for divesting from Big Tech products and protecting your online privacy.
The internet is about to change. In many countries, there’s currently a coordinated legislative push to effectively outlaw encryption of user uploaded content under the guise of protecting children. This means websites or internet services (messaging apps, email, etc.) could be held criminally or civilly liable if someone used it to upload abusive material. If these bills become law, people like myself who help supply private communication services could be penalized or put into prison for simply protecting the privacy of our users. In fact, anyone who runs a website with user-uploaded content could be punished the same way. In today’s article, I’ll show you why these bills not only fail at protecting children, but also put the internet as we know it in jeopardy, as well as why we should question the organizations behind the push.
Let’s quickly recap some of the legislation.
European Union
– Chat Control: would require internet services (Email, chat, storage) to scan all messages and content and report flagged content to the EU. This would require that every internet based service scans everything uploaded to it, even if it’s end-to-end encrypted. Content would be analyzed using machine learning (i.e. AI) and matches would automatically be reported to the police. This is awaiting a vote from the EU LIBE committee.
United Kingdom
–The Online Safety Act 2023: would require user service providers to enforce age limits and checks, remove legal but harmful content for children, and require scanning photos for materials related to child sexual abuse & exploitation, as well as terrorism. It would require providers to be able to identify these types of materials in private communications and to take down that content. This means providers would need visibility into messaging, even those messages are end-to-end encrypted. End to end encrypted messaging providers such as WhatsApp, Viber, Signal, and Element have indicated in an open letter that surveillance on of this type simply isn’t possible without breaking end to end encryption entirely, and have threatened to leave the UK if the bill was passed & enforced without the offending Clause 122. This bill was recently passed by parliament unchanged and will become enforceable in 2024.
United States
– The EARN IT Act 2023: would allow US states to hold websites criminally liable for not scanning user uploaded content for CSAM (child sexual abuse material). This would effectively ban end to end encryption. This bill has 22 cosponsors and is awaiting an order to report to the Senate.
– The STOP CSAM Act 2023 (Full Text): would allow victims who suffered abuse or exploitation as children to sue any website that hosted pictures of the exploitation or abuse “recklessly”, e.g. if your website was not automatically scanning uploads. Websites are already required by law to remove CSAM if made aware of it, but this would require providers to scan all files uploaded. This bill has 4 cosponsors, and is awaiting an order to report to the Senate.
– Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA): would require platforms to verify the ages of its visitors and filter content promoting self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, and sexual exploitation. This would inherently require an age verification system for all users and transparency into content algorithms, including data sharing with third parties. This bill has 47 bi-partisan cosponsors and is awaiting an order to report to the Senate.
Its important to note that the language in these bills and the definition for “service providers” extends to any website or online property that has user-uploaded content. This could be as simple as a blog that allows comments, or a site that allows file uploads. It could be a message board or chatroom, literally anything on the internet that has two-way communication. Most websites are operated by everyday people – not huge tech companies. They have neither the resources or ability to implement scanning on their websites under threat of fine or imprisonment. They would risk operating in violation or be forced to shut down their website. This means your favorite independent media site, hobbyist forum, or random message board could disappear. These bills would crumble the internet as we know it and centralize it further for the benefit of Big Tech who are rapidly expanding the surveillance agenda.
We must pause and ask ourselves, is this effort to ramp up surveillance really about protecting children?
How do companies currently deal with CSAM?
In the United States, tracking CSAM is recognized as a joint effort between ESPs (Electronic Service Providers) like Google, and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) a private non-profit established by Congress in 1984 and primarily funded by the United States Department of Justice. Unlimited Hangouthas previously reported on the NCMEC and its ties to figures such as Hillary Clinton and intelligence-funded NGOs such as Thorn. They also receive corporate contributions from big names such as Adobe, Disney, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Palantir, Ring Doorbell, Verizon, and Zoom.
Electronic service providers in the United States are already required to report to the CyberTipline (Federal statute 18 USC 2258A) if they become aware of CSAM, otherwise they may face fines or prison time. These CyberTipline reports combine offending content with additional information such as identifying the potential perpetrator, the victim, and other context that is combined and sent off to law enforcement.
Photo & content scanning measures are not required. However, several prominent companies have voluntarily implemented scanning of communications and media, such as Gmail, YouTube, Google Photos, Facebook, Instagram Messenger, Skype, Snapchat, iCloud email, and Microsoft’s Xbox. If you use these services, then your messages and media may automatically be scanned for abusive material.
Does voluntary content scanning actually help protect children?
Google began publishing a CSAM transparency report in 2021 which gives numbers on how much CSAM was identified and reported on across Google & Youtube. It includes data since 2020, with counts for how many reports were made to the NCMEC, how many different Google accounts were disabled, and how many “hashes” (photo fingerprints) were contributed to the NCMEC hash database.
It is unclear exactly when Google started creating “hashes” of its users photos, but they have contributed 2.5 million new hashes to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s Hash Database to date. Reports are published every 6 months, and we’ve seen staggering growth in all types of reports since 2020. For example, Google’s CyberTipline reports have grown from ~547,000 in 2020, ~870,000 in 2021, to more than 2.1 million reports in 2022. The first half of 2023 has shown a decline, totaling ~750,000 reports from January to June.
As seen on NCMEC’s CyberTipline Data page, Google’s reports represent a mere fraction of the total number of reports submitted to the NCMEC, which works with over 1,500 ESPs – mostly US companies. 5 electronic service providers (Facebook, Instagram, Google, WhatsApp, and Omegle) accounted for more than 90% of the 32 million reports in 2022. Around half (49%) of these reports in 2022 are “actionable”, meaning there is sufficient information for law enforcement to proceed with an investigation. Additionally, 89.9% of reports involved content uploaded by users outside of the US.
The NCMEC also reports the numbers of CyberTipline reports made to different law enforcement organizations such as Internet Crimes Against Children, Local LE, Federal LE, and International LE.
Law enforcement is not required to give any feedback on what happens with these reports and, as a result, they hardly provide feedback. Using the NCMEC’s own numbers, we can see there is little visibility on how the reports are used.
In 2022, we saw the following rates of feedback from law enforcement and other groups who received reports.
International Crimes Against Children Groups – 491,655 actionable reports resulted in 41.59% Feedback
Local Law Enforcement – 1,462 actionable reports resulted in 3.48% Feedback
Federal Law Enforcement – 1,356,988 reports resulted in 0.03% Feedback
International Law Enforcement – 13,995,567 reports resulted in 0.4% Feedback
Keep in mind, a feedback response doesn’t necessarily mean an arrest or conviction. Feedback responses could may indicate the report was closed or incomplete feedback. Also, these results are not open to the public, although a FOIA request could change that. However, these numbers make it clear that whether companies are voluntarily scanning their content or creating reports after becoming aware of CSAM – there’s no visibility on what actually happens with the reports.
Given the huge volume of reports not acted upon, forcing technology providers to automatically scan content & generate reports is not going to magically change things. It will require law enforcement to act on reports to put child predators behind bars and save children. That is, after all, what legislators say they want.
That’s not to say nothing is being done. A 2022 report of CyberTipline success stories in the United States stated that close to 714 different cases used CyberTipline reports. Only 16 of these cases explicitly reported the assistance of a service provider.
Again, out of 1.35 million actionable CyberTipline reports in the United States in 2022, there have been 714 arrests so far. Its possible there are ongoing investigations that will bring this number higher, but we can only guess without transparency. I was unable to find success stories for any prior years.
I commend these efforts to protect children from dangerous predators; however, these efforts do not necessitate automatic scanning of everyone’s messages or the gutting of encryption. Generating more reports from service providers obviously does not lead to more arrests being made. Lastly, the majority of CSAM material comes from big tech providers, many of whom are voluntarily scanning content anyways. Why enforce this requirement on every website on the internet?
If legislators around the world want to make a genuine impact on child abuse, then they should push for transparency and accountability practices for law enforcement and work to ensure that law enforcement properly investigates the millions upon millions of reports they already receive every year, and make the data available to the public.
We the people need to know that the groups responsible for investigating child abuse are doing their jobs with the processes and data already available, rather than further sacrifice our individual privacy and security for more of the same. The bills/laws in question also lack an understanding of encryption, are not technically feasible to implement, put unnecessary legal liability on technology companies, and lack evidence that the policies will improve outcomes for children.
How can the online child abuse laws across Western countries be so consistent with their practices? How did they all reach the same strategies of age verification, content filtering, and client side scanning?
The framework for this legislation has been in the works for years. One key architect of this push has been the WePROTECT Global Alliance, a merger of initiatives between the European Commission, the US Department of Justice, and the UK Government. Their first summit was hosted in 2014 and is now comprised of 97 governments, 25 technology companies, and 30 civil society organizations.
UNICEF, a member of WePROTECT, released a “model national response” which outlines many of the elements we see in these different child safety bills today. UNICEF and organizations like the US Department of Justice state that sexual exploitation of children cannot be addressed by one country, company, or organization working in isolation. Troublingly, both of those groups have a history of turning a blind eye to child abuse in their respective organizations and/or jurisdictions (see here, here, here and here for examples).
Working groups like the “Five Country” government counterparts (Five Eyes) – USA, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand– have met with the corporate executives of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Roblox, Snap, and Twitter to collaborate on guidelines such as the “Voluntary Principles to Counter Online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse” (justice.gov link). These groups are all working together, via public-private partnerships like the Global Cyber Alliance, among others, to change the face of the internet.
– an uneven response to online child safety by the tech sector; – a CyberTipline system that is overwhelmed; – anonymization of offenders; – encryption of data storage and communications; – online environments where children and adults interact without supervision or controls; – globalized, often sovereignless, platforms; – remote, often extraterritorial, storage; and – a compounding lack of public awareness of these risks.
While the issue of child exploitation online is grave and child abusers need to be held accountable – this shouldn’t come of our individual privacy and freedom. From the publicly stated perspectives of these groups, anonymization, encryption, and not allowing governments or tech companies to track all content is equivalent to contributing to child exploitation.
Ignoring the child abuse right in front of their noses
As noted earlier, many of these groups have a track record of responding very poorly to serious child abuse issues when these crimes involve their own organization or persons with political value. For instance, there have been nearly 2,000 allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitations made against U.N “Peacekeepers” worldwide between 2004 and 2016, as reported by theAssociated Press. This includes the child sex ring in Haiti from 2004 to 2007 where Sri Lankan UN “Peacekeepers” traded food in exchange for sex with children as young as nine years old.
The names of the offenders are kept confidential by the UN, and the UN puts the responsibility on member states to investigate & prosecute. UN records on these allegations are also incomplete and hundreds of cases have been closed without explanation. The United Nations even continues to send Sri Lankan peacekeepers to Haiti, despite the scandals. In the United States, we can see a similar level of accountability with the Department of Justice still withholding the client list for Jeffrey Epstein’s child prostitution ring, among many, many other examples.
The very organizations that try to convince us to give up our individual liberties for the sake of the children will completely ignore crimes against children when it suits them. Can we really trust these organizations to protect children?
The real-time monitoring of messages and outlawing of privacy will not protect children. On the contrary, it would put their communications into the hands of more third parties. The wiser choice would be to encourage parental awareness and conscious use of technology, e.g. not giving children unlimited access to mobile phones or devices and avoiding use of popular social media platforms and messengers.
If these actors truly cared about protecting children, then they would call an end to the genocide & war crimes occurring in Gaza. Instead, the US is rushing to provide aid to Israel in the form of munitions. In the UK, only 80 out of 650 MP’s have called for a ceasefire. Instead, there is more interest in clamping down on and controlling the internet, a crucial resource for all people in a time of great need.
Inter-governmental organizations are pushing towards an internet where our identities are verified and our messages are tracked. With such legislation coming our way all over the world, how can we retain any privacy?
The answer is simple – do not comply. Do not follow along with big tech companies that voluntarily follow legislative guidelines. Find ways to decentralize your use of software. Invest your time into divesting from big tech and learning alternative solutions for communications, storage, and encryption. Given the stakes, there has never been a more important time to divest from these companies and their software.
Thankfully, there are still many ways that individuals can limit their dependence on centralized software services that perform content or AI scanning. We can boycott those Big Tech companies that scan our content including Microsoft, Google, Apple and countless others. It’s just a matter of learning how to take back our technology.
At this point you might be asking:
How do we continue to find information on the internet without Google’s search engine?
Or use our computers without Microsoft’s Windows and Apple’s macOS?
Or use our phones without Google’s Android or Apple’s iOS?
Or use our browser without Google’s Chrome, Microsoft’s Edge, or Apple’s Safari? (the oligopoly of these behemoths extends everywhere.)
Solving these problems with alternative software has been the mission of my initiative Take Back Our Tech, and today I am honored to share 5 Ways To Protect Yourself from Incoming Internet Surveillance Bills with the Unlimited Hangout community.
1. Use a “free” operating system for your computer.
Traditional operating systems (“OSs”) like Windows and macOS are proprietary software, which is distinct from free software. It’s important to understand the difference between the two, as the topic will come up again. So let’s define proprietary and free software.
Proprietary software, or “non-free software,” is not available for users to study, observe, or change. As the user, you are given no rights.
For example, only the developers of Microsoft Windows can get a clear look at the code of the operating system and understand what it does. Users have no way to view the code, and verify what the program does.
In contrast, free software (also known as Free & Open Source Software FOSS) gives users rights. The Free Software Foundation, one of the leading organizations behind the Free Software movement, provides an extended definition:
“Free software” means software that respects users’ freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got them, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
Alternative operating systems based on GNU/Linux are free software. They offer many intended benefits:
Visibility into changes: Any user or developer can take a look at code updates and ensure that the operating system is not acting unexpectedly or maliciously. For instance, users of the Ubuntu OS fought back against changes that sent search results to Amazon and got the changes overturned.
More choices: Because others can modify and distribute free software at will, far more software choices exist in the free software ecosystem — choices that often outcompete and provide more value than proprietary software.
Costs: All Linux distributions are FREE as in cost. Compare this to paying for Windows activation keys.
Freedom: Your computer will not automatically track every program that you run, as does macOS, or force updates on you, as Windows does (and to which you agree in their terms of service, a document very few take the time to read).
So what are you waiting for? Throw your proprietary software in the trash and enjoy an operating system that respects your freedom and your data.
If you’re still not convinced and want to see all the ways traditional operating systems take advantage of you, read our Leap to Linux article.
If you’re interested in learning how to install a Linux-based OS, please follow #TBOT’s guide.
Here are some recommendations for free operating systems based on Linux. You can download the .iso file (in which the OS is contained) for each operating system from the following links as well as feature walkthroughs.
Once you’ve made your decision of OS you can follow the guide linked above to get it installed on your machine.
The two main choices for traditional mobile operating systems today is Google’s Android, and Apple’s iOS. These two options make up 99%+ of the global market share of mobile operating systems. With over 6.6 billion phones on earth, the data pipeline to these two companies is incomprehensibly large – they’ve got real-time data for almost every person on the planet.
Observational studies of both Android and iOS-based phones found that these devices connect back to their parent companies every 5 minutes. In addition, they collect unique device identifiers, phone numbers, locations, and other surprising info.
Although it would be too lengthy to discuss these issues in-depth in this article, if you’d like to see exactly what tracking and data collection occurs on these mobile operating systems, you can read #TBOT’s analysis here.
A few alternative operating systems have popped up in recent years that can compete with the likes of Google and Apple. These operating systems are referred to as “de-googled” operating systems, and are typically built on top of Android’s Open Source Platform (AOSP). This code is maintained by Google, but other developers have been able to build new features on top of it, and more importantly, to remove any behind-the-scenes tracking or data collection.
You can use one of these alternative operating systems today to configure your own “privacy phone.”
I recommend these three operating systems (note that each is compatible with only certain phones):
You can get more information on supported phones and the install instructions on each website.
Alternatively, if you are pressed for time or don’t want to do the research and make the tech decisions yourself, you can get a phone out of the box that comes complete with GrapheneOS and useful free software apps and communication services, through my project Above Phone.
De-googled phones use alternative app stores like F-Droid (where all apps are free software) and Aurora Store (which will allow you to download apps anonymously from the Google Play Store).
Normal Android phones also have access to these apps, but will still suffer from centralized tracking through Google Services. If you have an Android-based phone you can get started with these alternative app stores right away. Get more details on the links below:
You may be surprised at how easily you can transition to a de-googled phone — there are user friendly, private, and functional options for almost all of your app needs. You can also use apps like Uber & AirBnb, which don’t work without Google services, but there is usually a workaround, like using those services from within a web browser, or by using advanced features like GrapheneOS’s sandboxing to isolate Google Services from the rest of your phone.
3. Own your data.
If a major cyber event caused the internet to go down, how would you recover the photos/files/information you stored on cloud services? How would you get the information you needed to prepare for a survival situation?
It would be best to have this information on hand when you need it – not desperately trying to recover it in the event of a cyber disaster.
At a minimum, you should back up all of the following on your local computer instead of on the cloud service you use currently: passwords, legal documents, books, photos, reference material, and maps.
Knowledge is power. Download all the books you need in PDF format. A great site to start is PDFDrive
Need to navigate offline? Organic Maps (available on F-Droid and for Android phones) lets you download maps of most of the regions on the planet — and you can route to different locations using GPS only (which means you don’t need a SIM card in your phone).
If you use Google Drive or iCloud, now is the time to export all of your photos, videos, and documents to a local hard drive. Here’s a tutorial on how to export Google Drive files. Here’s an tutorial on how to export files on iCloud.
Are you managing your passwords in the cloud? Know that cloud password managers are not immune to hacking attempts. The best place for your passwords is in an encrypted password vault on your computer. An attacker would need not only the password vault file on your computer, but also the master password used to encrypt the vault. A collection of software called Keepass offers a cohesive way to manage and sync passwords locally on your computer and on your phone.
4. Support alternatives.
A wide range of software can serve as alternatives in the open-source software ecosystem. I’ve categorized and listed several great ones below, all of which are programs for Linux computers!
I2P: Private peer-to-peer networking layer. VeraCrypt: Open-source cross-platform disk encryption
Browsers
Ungoogled Chromium: A (fork) copy of Google’s Chromium engine with tracking removed LibreWolf: Firefox fork with improved privacy Falkon: KDE Project’s web browser
Email
Evolution: A mail client, calendar, address book, and task manager in one Thunderbird: Mozilla Foundation’s email, chat, and calendaring client Mailspring: Easy-to-use, modern mail client with integrations to major email providers KMail: KDE’s email client that supports many mail protocols
Communication
Kotatogram: Alternate Telegram client with improved offline features AnyDesk: Remote desktop / support software Jitsi: Free video conferencing Jami: Free and open-source peer-to-peer video conferencing.
Social Media
Nostr: a decentralized social media protocol PeerTube: Decentralized video broadcasting Nitter: Alternative twitter front end Invidious: Alternative YouTube front end Libreddit: Alternative Reddit front end Owncast: Self-hosted live video and web chat server
Graphics
Krita: Free and open source digital illustration program Inkscape: Professional vector-based graphics editor GIMP: One of the oldest and best- known image editors Pinta: Bitmap editor similar to Paint.NET Gravit Designer: Vector-based design app Blender: End-to-end 3D creation suite
Photography
DarkTable: Virtual light table and darkroom for photography DigiKam: Personal photo management
Video Editors
Kdenlive: The KDE project’s video editor Davinci Resolve: High-end professional video editor OpenShot: Easy-to-use, powerful video editor
Video Utilities
OBS Studio: Video recording and live streaming Kazam: Record videos of your screen Peek: Record videos and gifs of your screen Spectacle: KDE’s screenshot tool
Technical Tools
Remmina: A remote desktop client VirtualBox: Create virtual machines
Writing
CherryTree: Hierarchical note-taking application that stores multimedia notes in an encrypted database (not markdown) Trillium Notes: Build knowledge bases & graphs with this extensible note-taking application (not markdown) Joplin Notes: Create simple notes and to do lists using markdown
Reading
Foxit PDF: Feature-rich PDF reader. Sioyek: PDF reader for academic papers.
Office
LibreOffice: Most popular open-source office suite for Linux OnlyOffice: Collaborative online document editor CryptPad: Browser-based encrypted document editor HomeBank: Personal money management
5. Own your communications.
Although social messengers like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, and Facebook Messenger can be useful, many of them are not open source. Even the ones that claim to be open source often only make the front end of the application visible for inspection (that part you interact with directly), not the server-side code that is responsible for delivering messages.
Chat protocols like XMPP and Nostr are fully open source, meaning the code is available for the client and server. This is especially important because it means that you can run the server-side software yourself on a computer under your control. This is called self-hosting, and it’s crucial to censorship resistance and verifying that a software does what it says.
XMPP is over 20 years old and can support tens of thousands of users on a single server. It offers end-to-end encrypted messaging, voice calls, and video calls (as well as files and audio messages). It can be used on computers, phones, and in a web browser, and it’s also completely free to join (you can join any public server). It can even be bridged to the phone network (anonymous phone numbers without needing a SIM card anyone?).
It’s a wonder why XMPP isn’t more well known, but part of the reason could be that it’s hard to monetize (make money) on XMPP. The protocol has been used under the hood for major chat services run by big tech companies scaling to millions of users, unfortunately these big companies hid the underlying technology.
Above Phone is attempting to change this. The Above Privacy Suite offers a professional XMPP service with enhanced privacy. It comes in a bundle with 5 other privacy services.
If you want video lessons on how to use XMPP for chats, calls, and video calls, you can check out Above Phone’s webinar.
Conclusion
The internet is changing and battle lines are being drawn. On one side, government organizations have become obsessed with invading our personal communications and drastically advancing the ever encroaching surveillance state, supposedly “for the sake of the children.” Together with enthusiastic help from Big Tech, they threaten to monitor even single thought, idea, or creation you share on the internet.
On the other side are people who are not going to let that happen. We’re the underdogs, a small but growing number of people who are demanding privacy and freedom over convenience. It doesn’t have to be their way or the highway when it comes to technology, we can carve our own path, experimenting with software that is friendly and in alignment with our values. Hopefully, this guide can give you a starting point to understand your technology and places to find alternatives.
I encourage you to not only explore and use the software listed in this guide, but to support the developers with financial donations. Their projects may be the key to both surviving and thriving in the growing surveillance state.
“Why is it so difficult for virologists to simply explain basic questions about a ‘virus’ such as whether the ‘virus’ is living or dead? Why must the concept of what a ‘virus’ is change depending upon the researchers and technology of the time? What physical organism changes in concept after over a century of supposed study? The answer to all of these questions is actually fairly easy to grasp. As the researchers have never actually had any physical entities on hand in order to study, the concept of what the assumed invisible entities are was allowed to constantly change in order to suit the needs and evidence of the researchers of the time. There was no solid foundation for virology to stand upon from the very beginning in order to definitively state what the nature of a ‘virus’ truly is.”
For the greater part of the first 50 years of the 20th century, there was no agreed upon definition for what the invisible entities labelled as a “virus” actually were nor how these agents looked, formed and functioned. Some researchers believed that these entities were endogenous processes produced within the host while others envisioned them as exogenous invaders that came from outside and attacked from within. There were arguments over whether “viruses” were corpuscular in nature or whether they were a soluble liquid. Debates centered around whether these agents were alive or if they were simply inanimate and non-living. While there were researchers who believed “viruses” were a ferment or a chemical molecule of some kind, the majority believed that these invisible entities were just smaller unseen bacterium. According to biochemist and historian of science Ton van Helvoort’s 1996 paper When Did Virology Start?, the “virus” concept lacked clarity and certainty over the first half of the 20th century. However, the link between bacteriology and “viruses” was so strong at this time that these unseen entities were not considered conceptually distinct from bacteria:
“I have come to believe that, despite its widespread appearance in textbooks and journals of that era, the early concept of the “filterable virus” lacked clarity and certainty. More importantly, I also believe that during the 1930s and 194Os, the links between the study of filterable viruses and bacteriology were so strong that viruses were still considered merely another form of bacteria-not conceptually distinct, as they now are.”
The reason for these many contradictory ideas about the nature of the “virus” was a direct result of the fact that the researchers never had a physical entity on hand in order to study. The “virus” was nothing more than a fluid concept that was open to the interpretation of those who claimed to be working with them. Most of these researchers came from a bacteriological or chemistry background, and thus, they viewed the “virus” concept through their own lens and paradigms. Regardless, there was no way to actually determine the true nature of something that could not be seen or studied in reality and that only existed within the realm of the imagination.
Thus, it shouldn’t be hard to understand why virologists often have a difficult time answering simple questions such as “What is a virus?” or “Is it alive or dead?” This is exactly the argument made in the appropriately titled 2014 article Inventing Virusesby William Summers, a retired Professor of Therapeutic Radiology, Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry, and History of Medicine. While being able to define what a “virus” is should be an easy task for any virologist, simple questions about the nature of a “virus” are not ones that are simple for them to answer. In the opening of his paper, Summers asked a more subtle question about the invention of the “virus” category:
“…how generations of microbiologists arrived at the idea that some of the entities they dealt with fell into a category that differed in fundamental ways from others. In other words, how did they invent the category of “virus” as we now know it?”
Summers looked to investigate how the idea that “viruses” are a separate entity that requires its own category away from bacteriology came to be. In doing so, he admitted that our beliefs, understandings, and conceptions of what a “virus” is changes over time. This is because “viruses” are whatever a virologist tells us that they are. The concept and the nature of the “virus” was invented, and continually reinvented, by virologists as part of the normal progress of their (pseudo) science. In other words, the idea of the “virus” is able to change at any time based upon whatever a virologist wants a “virus” to be at any given moment:
“Even so, how did the category “virus” come to be recognized, and what are its essential, defining qualities? Viruses are natural objects, but our beliefs, understanding, and conceptions of them change over time on the basis of new information, new points of view, and new scientific values and standards. In a very real way, a virus is what virologists say it is. It is a product of the way virologists talk about viruses—that is, the way facts about viruses are organized in their discourse. It can be said that virologists invent (and continually reinvent) the concept of a virus as part of the normal progress of their science.”
The deliberate ever-changing concept of the “virus” shifted away from its original invention as an agent of disease transmission to its modern day concept as a genetic assembly that sometimes causes disease when it integrates into its host in order to survive. This reinvention of the concept happened in 1957 when French microbiologist Andre Lwoff took many competing and contradictory ideas and mashed them together into the modern definition of a “virus” based upon work done with bacteriophages. Prior to his reinvention of the concept, in 1953, Lwoff actually questioned whether a bacteriophage was a “virus” and wanted to know exactly what a “virus” was. He even noted that “viruses” are defined to be exogenous (coming from outside of the body) while bacteriophages are “always formed inside its host” and “could therefore be described as endogenous,” i.e. originating from within the host. In fact, Lwoff stated that “if prophage is phylogenetically endogenous, the temperate phage produced by a lysogenic bacterium must be described as endogenous,” meaning that the phage is from within the host, thus negating it as an exogenous entity in line with the definition of a “virus.” Ironically, after redefining the “virus” as a genetic code in 1957, Lwoff would ultimately warn in 1991 that virology was “in danger of losing its soul, since viruses now show a strong tendency to become sequences.” He also argued that the abundance of discoveries was causing “the very concept of virus” to waver “on its foundations,” noting that the “problem today and in future is to keep abreast of its whereabouts.”
Regardless, Summers stated that his paper was not about the “triumphant accumulation of knowledge by the heroic scientists” of the past. Rather, it was an examination of the “continual struggle to understand and organize observations.” This struggle was showcased by Lwoff’s own attempts to rationalize and combine contradictory evidence in order to create the modern genetic concept of the “virus” from an entity that did not meet the necessary requirements:
“Nobelist Andre Lwoff, perhaps in a Gertrude Stein frame of mind, famously answered “viruses are viruses” (9), but the question “What is virus?” has been notoriously fraught since the role of virus in late nineteenth-century germ theories became central to medicine, and later, in the midtwentieth-century, to biology in general. The evolution, or perhaps deliberate and continuous reformulation, of the meaning of “virus” from an agent of disease transmission in the nineteenth century to a molecular assembly with remarkable properties by the end of the twentieth century is the subject of this article. This is not a story of the triumphant accumulation of knowledge by the heroic scientists of the past so much as it is an examination of the continual struggle to understand and organize observations that challenged and made obsolete the comfortable certainties of the often recent past. This examination requires consideration of past science on its own terms, without judgment in light of present-day understanding, and it requires consideration of the context and extent of background knowledge of the particular period considered.”
This struggle to answer the question “What is a virus?” was ongoing, even in the so-called “modern age” of virology. There was no consensus as to the true nature of a “virus.” Summers shared a quote by Joseph Beard that stated that the “virus” was a fabric of concepts that had been “woven of a plethora of woof and a paucity of warp.” In weaving terms, this makes for an unstable foundation upon which to weave. Another example was of plant virologist N.W. Pirie who was considered “agnostic” (impossible to know one way or the other) on whether a “virus” was a molecule or a microbe. However, he seemed to argue that the variability in the chemical composition of the same “virus” went against the modern molecular hypothesis. Thus, we can see that there was no agreement on the nature of the “virus:”
“The construction of the virus as a living molecule in the middle decades of the twentieth century generated wide debate as to the correct answer to the question, “What is a virus?” Having rejected filterability, negative growth properties, and size as defining characteristics, microbiologists searched for new ways to think about viruses. Even at the beginning of what might be called the modern era, there was remarkably little consensus on this subject. Joseph Beard, in 1945, famously remarked, “Viruses are said to be living molecules and autocatalytic enzymes and are likened to genes and mitochondria—in short, a fabric of concepts has been woven of a plethora of woof with a paucity of warp” (quoted in 47, p. 332). N.W. Pirie, one of the pioneers in the study of plant viruses, even in 1949 was agnostic as to whether viruses were microbes or molecules. In a long review of the problem in the British Medical Bulletin (47), he argued that the variation in chemical composition reported for the same virus suggested a level of heterogeneity not compatible with the molecular hypothesis. He noted that “all the viruses purified so far have contained nucleoprotein, but this generalization may lack significance because the viruses that have been studied are a group selected to some extent on a chemical basis.”
Summers ultimately concluded that each generation of virologists will look at “viruses” in their own way and will alter the concept of the “virus” based upon the “science” of the time. Thus, the “virus” is left to be a concept that is allowed to be continually reinvented at the whims of the researchers:
“Although “viruses are viruses,” each generation of scientists looks anew at these fascinating entities in its own way, endowing them with properties, relationships, and capacities that reflect the science of the time. Truly, they are microbes being continually reinvented by their most ardent admirers.”
In his summary, Summers laid out 5 very revealing points to end his paper on. Sharing similar sentiments as van Helvoort, he stated that the “virus” concept is an unstable one that “evolved,” not due to an accumulation of facts, but rather due to an ongoing reformulation of the “virus” concept on the basis of “scientific” focus at a given time. This reinvention was determined by technological advances rather than scientific understanding. Thus, the answer as to what a “virus” is will depend upon the discourse at the time more so than the “known” characteristics of “viruses:”
The concept of a virus has not been stable and has evolved since its introduction in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
This evolution has been not a linear accumulation of facts but rather an ongoing reformulation of the virus concept on the basis of scientific focus at a given time, e.g., growth, metabolism, chemical composition, genetics, or physical structure.
The concept of a virus has particularly been determined by technological advances ratherthan scientific understanding.
The answer to the question “What is a virus?” is one that depends on the particular scientific discourse at a given time.
The discourse with respect to the physical object “virus” is based on the particular concerns and problems of interest at a given time more than on any one set of intrinsic characteristics known about viruses.
Why is it so difficult for virologists to simply explain basic questions about a “virus” such as whether the “virus” is living or dead? Why must the concept of what a “virus” is change depending upon the researchers and technology of the time? What physical organism changes in concept after over a century of supposed study? The answer to all of these questions is actually fairly easy to grasp. As the researchers have never actually had any physical entities on hand in order to study, the concept of what the assumed invisible entities are was allowed to constantly change in order to suit the needs and evidence of the researchers of the time. There was no solid foundation for virology to stand upon from the very beginning in order to definitively state what the nature of a “virus” truly is.
While Summers paper on the invention of the “virus” offers some great modern insight into the problems related to defining the nature of the invisible beast, there is a much earlier paper by prominent virologist Thomas Rivers from 1932 that details the many issues with trying to give life to the imaginary shortly after its conception. You may know Rivers due to his 1937 proclamation that “It is obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases.” This shockingly honest admittance that the essential logical criteria considered necessary in order to prove a microbe causes disease remains unfulfilled for “viruses” and continues to haunt virology to this day. As it is a rather long 18 pages that I have reproduced here, I will try to keep my commentary throughout brief. However, what Rivers highlighted as key problems in 1932 during the formative years of virology compliments Summers 2014 paper on why virologists needed to invent, and then continually reinvent, the concept of the “virus” that was dreamt up in the late 1800s.
Thomas Rivers immediately began his 1932 paper on the nature of “viruses” by admitting that, up to 1932, “viruses” were defined solely based upon their absence as well as for what they were not. “Viruses” were defined in negative terms as they were:
Invisible to ordinary microscopic methods.
Unable to be obtained via filtration.
Unable to propagate in the absence of susceptible cells.
Interestingly, things did not progress away from defining “viruses” in negative terms even with Andre Lwoff’s 1957 modern reinvention of the concept as noted by Professor Milton W. Taylor, teacher of virology and world-renowned historian from Indiana University. In a 2014 paper examining what a “virus” is, Taylor explained that Lwoff’s reinvention of the “virus” concept was also a “negative definition” that “stresses the non-cellular nature of viruses.” By Lwoff’s own words from his 1971 paper From Protozoa to Bacteria and Viruses. Fifty Years with Microbes, he defined “viruses” by the “inability to grow and to divide, absence of metabolism, absence of the information for the enzymes of energy metabolism…the absence of transfer RNA and of ribosomes and also of the corresponding information.” In other words, even by the modern definition, “viruses” were still defined by what they were not.
While Rivers attempted to define “viruses” in what he felt were positive terms of what was “definitely known” about these invisible agents, he admitted that the biological nature was still a moot question, i.e. one open to debate and challenges with no foreseeable solution or answer. Perhaps this was due to his feelings that, while there was plenty of data concerning the nature of “viruses,” the accumulated data was “distinctly lacking in quality,” and that “enough reliable data have not been acquired to establish the nature of the viruses.”
The Nature of Viruses
Thomas M. Rivers
The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York
Viruses are usually characterized by three negative properties, namely, invisibility by ordinary microscopic methods, failure to be retained by filters impervious to well-known bacteria, and inability to propagate themselves in the absence of susceptible cells. I prefer a positive characterization of the viruses, one emphasizing the intimate relation that exists between them and their host cells. The multiplication of viruses only in the presence of susceptible cells, their regeneration and production of disease in many instances in only one species of host, the marked stimulation and destruction of cells induced by their activity which on the one hand gives rise to tumors, such as Rous’ sarcoma, and on the other to vesicular lesions, as fever blisters, the intracellular pathology frequently evidenced in virus diseases by inclusion bodies, and, finally, the lasting immunity that follows the majority of virus maladies, are essential phenomena that serve to stress the intimate type of parasitism encountered in working with these active agents. Such a characterization of viruses implies much, not only as concerns their biological nature which is still a moot question, but as regards their activities about which something is definitely known.
Data concerning the nature of viruses are sufficiently adequate in quantity but distinctly lacking in quality. According to reports, some of which have come from eminent investigators, most of these active agents have been seen and have been cultivated on lifeless media. If such statements are correct, viruses are autonomous living agents, and further discussion of their biological nature should deal with their place in the scale of living entities and their relation to other forms of life. Reports of work in this field are confusing, however, particularly to the uninitiated, and critical investigators are of the opinion that enough reliable data have not been acquired to establish the nature of the viruses. Inasmuch as this is a subject of fundamental biological importance, I shall review some of the recently accumulated data regarding the size, electrical charge, purification, spontaneous generation, adaptations, elementary bodies, metabolism, immunological phenomena and cultivation of viruses that might be of assistance in the elucidation of the origin and constitution of these peculiar incitants of disease.
One of the only indirect means which early virologists could use to conclude that a “virus” was “present” in a sample was by claiming that the invisible entities passed through filters of a certain size that retained all known bacteria, thus allowing them to guess as to the size of the unseen particles. Rivers noted that a “virus” was generally accepted as “an object less than 0.2 p or 200 ppl in diameter” and that it was not capable of being seen under light microscopy. In other words, “viruses” were too small to be seen and were defined by their absence. He noted that figures regarding the size of “viruses” derived from stained preparations were apt to be inaccurate and misleading. This lines up with his 1927 statement on filtration in his paper Filterable Viruses: A Critical Review, claiming that the methods were “crude and inaccurate.”
Rivers then presented evidence for the size of eight “viruses,” which were contradictory depending upon the researchers cited. He utilized hemoglobin as a comparison and stated that if the figure for hemoglobin is incorrect (which had contradictory estimates as to its size as well), many statements concerning the size of “viruses” were also inaccurate. Rivers was dismayed that certain researchers did not account for the possibility that they might have been estimating the size of particles of degraded cells to which the “viruses” were attached. He noted that other researchers took this into consideration and that they were unable to be assured that they had been successful in obtaining the correct figures for the size of the different “viruses.” Rivers concluded that none of the figures could be accepted without reservations and that the exact size of any “virus” was unknown. The numerous contradictory results stemmed from “inadequate experimentation, careless thinking, prejudice, imperfect experimental methods, and the difficult nature of the problems.”
SIZE. The size of minute particles may be determined in several ways, namely, by direct mensuration provided the objects are capable of resolution under the microscope; by filtration and ultrafiltration if the factors that influence the passage of the particles through pores of graded diameters are known and controlled; by diffusion, and, finally, by centrifugation. All of these methods have been employed in the study of the magnitude of viruses and the results obtained will be discussed.
It is generally accepted that an object less than 0.2 p or 200 ppl in diameter is not capable of resolution under the microscope when ordinary light is used. Furthermore, it is understood that mordants and stains usually increase the magnitude of small particles. Some of the “larger” viruses, e.g., those of fowl-pox (log), smallpox, vaccinia (122, 123), and rabies, are said to be just visible after treatment with certain mordants and dyes. Consequently, one is justified in concluding that most of the viruses have a diameter of less than 200 pp and in an unstained state are not mensurable by means of ordinary light. Moreover, figures regarding their size derived from stained preparations are apt to be inaccurate and misleading. The use of light of short wave lengths makes possible the mensuration of particles smaller than 0.2 p in diameter. So far, however, this method of investigation has yielded no convincing evidence concerning the magnitude of viruses. It appears, therefore, that direct methods of mensuration only indicate that the active agents are considerably smaller than ordinary bacteria.
The sizes of at least eight viruses have been estimated by means of ultrafiltration, diffusion, or centrifugation. The results obtained for these active agents together with figures for the diameter of the hemoglobin molecule for comparison are given below.
Hemoglobin. For a number of years the molecule of hemoglobin was thought to be 30 uu in diameter. Recently, however, figures (34) derived from the results of Svedberg and Nichol’s (33) centrifugation experiments and Northrop and Anson’s (30) diffusion experiments with hemoglobin indicate that its diameter is approximately 5.5 uu. Many estimations regarding the magnitude of viruses have been based on the former figure for the diameter of the hemoglobin molecule, 30 uu. If this figure is incorrect, many statements concerning the size of viruses are also inaccurateMosaic virus. Duggar and Karrer (17) by means of ultrafiltration found the infectious particles of mosaic virus to be of the same order of magnitude as hemoglobin molecules, namely, 30 uu in diameter. Vinson (34), however, says that Duggar’s experiments interpreted in the light of recent work regarding the size of hemoglobin molecules indicates that the diameter of mosaic virus is about 5.5 uu.
Herpetic virus. Zinsser and Tang (38) by means of ultrafiltration estimated the diameter of herpetic virus to be 20-100 uu. Levaditi and Nicolau (27) in the same way found that the virus passed through membranes which retained toxins, hemolysins, complement, and serum globulins. Bedson (13), however, unable to confirm Levaditi and Nicolau’s (27) results, obtained evidence by centrifugation that herpetic virus is probably of sufficient size to be visible.
Foot-and-mouth disease virus. Olitsky and Boez (31), using ultrafiltration, found that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is 20-100 uu in diameter. Elford by means of his special membranes estimated it to be 8-12 uu.
Poliomyelitic virus. By means of ultrafiltration, Krueger and Schultz (25), in 1929, found that the virus of poliomyelitis possesses a magnitude not greater than 300 uu. In 1931, by the same means, Clifton, Schultz, and Gebhardt (16) obtained results indicating that the diameter of the virus lies below 50 uu.
Fowl plague virus. By means of ultrafiltration Andriewsky (8) secured a figure of 2.5 uu for the diameter of fowl plaguevirus, while Bechhold and Schlesinger (11) by centrifugation found it to be 120-130 uu.
Bacteriophage. According to d’Herelle (22) and Elford (19), both of whom used ultrafiltration, the diameter of the bacteriophage is approximately 30 uu. Kruger and Tamada (26) by means of purified bacteriophage preparations and ultrafiltration found it to be 5 uu, and Hetler and Bronfenbrenner (24) by means of a diffusion method estimated it to be 1.2-22.8 uu.
Rous virus. According to Zinsser and Tang (38), the Rous virus is 20-100 uu; according to Mendelsohn, Clifton and Lewis (29), 50 uu; according to Frankel (20), 10 uu. All these workers obtained their figures by means of ultrafiltration.
Vaccine virus. Levaditi and Nicolau (27) reported that vaccine virus passes through membranes impervious to toxins, hemolysins, complement, and serum globulins. Bland (15), however, from the results of his centrifugation experiments not only concluded that Levaditi and Nicolau’s findings are incorrect but that vaccine virus is probably large enough to be seen. Bechhold and Schlesinger (11) by means of centrifugation estimated that the active agent is 210-230 uu in diameter, while Yaoi and Kasai (37) working with “purified” virus found that it diffused at the rate of fuchsin particles and is, therefore, not capable of being seen.
One cannot consider the results cited above without being amused and dismayed. Many of the workers seemed in no way concerned about the possibility that they might have been estimating not the magnitude of viruses, but the size of particles of degraded cells to which the viruses were attached. Other investigators, cognizant of the difficulties of the problem! attempted to remove the viruses from such carriers. They were unable, however, to be assured that they had been successful and that they had obtained the correct figures for the size of the different viruses.
From the results of indirect methods of mensuration it is safe to conclude that viruses are small and that some of them may be exceedingly minute. If the figure of 210 uu for the diameter of vaccine virus is accurate, there is no reason as far as size is concerned to suppose that the virus is not a living organism. On the other hand, if the figures of 1.2 uu, 5.5 uu, and 8 uu for the bacteriophage, mosaic virus, and foot-and-mouth disease virus, respectively, are correct, it is obvious that these agents cannot be highly organised, because it is impossible that with such a magnitude they can consist of more than one, or at most several, molecules of protein. Unfortunately, none of the figures can be accepted without reservations. At present the exact size of
The numerous discordant results encountered in the literature dealing with the filterability, size, and visibility of viruses are probably due to inadequate experimentation, careless thinking, prejudice, imperfect experimental methods, and the difficult nature of the problems. One of the great needs at present is improvement in methods of microscopy, filtration, and purification of viruses in order that results obtained will approximate the true size of viruses and not the size of particles of other sorts on which the agents are adsorbed. It must be remembered, however, that the determination of the size of one virus will not establish the magnitude of another, because no more uniformity of dimensions should be expected among these agents than is found among bacteria and protozoa. Furthermore, it is not possible to derive proof of the animate or inanimate nature of viruses even from a correct estimation of their diameters, for, within limits as yet undetermined, life and death are not functions of size.
In this next section on electrical charges, take note once again of the range in estimates and contradictory conclusions made by the researchers. Rivers pointed out that “virus” preparations consisted principally of proteins and bits of degraded cells from the host. This meant that the electrical charge results might not be those of the “virus” particles themselves but of the other materials present within the sample. This inability to distinguish the assumed “virus” from the remaining host and foreign constituents present in the sample is the reason why complete purification and isolation of the assumed “viral” particles from the host components, which has never been achieved, is absolutely necessary. Rivers admitted that there were few experiments that were performed with “protein-free” preparations of “viruses,” and that the methods of purification did not convince him that such purified “viruses” had ever been completely separated from their carriers (i.e. host materials). Even with the modern advances in technology, this inability to completely separate “viruses” from host components was noted in a May 2020 article that stated that “to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.” Rivers concluded that the lack of purity meant that it was impossible to state definitely what electrical charge is carried by the “viruses.”
ELECTRICAL CHARGE. Most bacteria and proteins under ordinary biological conditions of hydrogen ion concentration carry a negative electrical charge. When the nature of the viruses became a question of interest, attempts were made to ascertain their behavior in an electrical field in order that it might be compared with the action of proteins and bacteria under similar circumstances.
Bacteriophage. Kligler and his co-workers (41) using a so-called “protein-free” bacteriophage found that the active agent was amphoteric in acid and decidedly alkaline solutions and chiefly negatively charged in neutral and mildly alkaline solutions. Krueger and his associates (42) stated that the bacteriophage is negatively charged between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 9.0-3.4, and positively charged at pH 3.35. Todd (48) found that the active agent carried a negative charge between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 3.36-7.6. The results of Natarajan and Hyde’s (43) experiments indicate (1) that bacteriophages for typhoid bacilli and Flexner’s dysentery bacilli are only electronegative between pH 4.9-9.3 and 5.4-9.3 respectively, (2) that small plaque coliphage is electronegative below pH 8.3, but with greater alkalinity moves to both poles, and (3) that large plaque coliphage is electronegative over a range of pH 5.4-6.1, while at a higher alkalinity it wanders to both poles.
Rabic virus. According to Glusman (40) and his associates fixed rabic virus is negatively charged over a range of pH 6.0-9.3.
Vaccine virus. Douglas and Smith (39) found that vaccine virus carried a negative charge between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 5.5-8.4. The experiments of Yaoi and Kasai (49) revealed that between pH 6-7 more virus collected at the positive than at the negative pole, and between pH 8-9 the active agent was demonstrable only at the anode.
Fowl-pox virus. Kligler and his co-workers (41) found fowl-pox virus in “protein-free” preparations to be positively charged on the acid side, amphoteric in neutral solutions, and negatively charged in alkaline solutions. According to Natarajan and Hyde (43), the active agent is amphoteric over a range of pH 6.4-9.3.
Foot-and-mouth disease virus. Olitsky and Bo& (44) believe that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is positively charged, while Sichert-Modrow (47) is of the opinion that the active agent carries a negative charge over a range of pH 7.0-8.1.
Pcliomyelitic virus. According to Olitsky, Rhoads, and Long (45) poliomyelitic virus wanders to the anode.
Rous virus. Pulcher (46) found that the Rous virus was adsorbed on electropositive and not on electronegative hemoglobins and concluded that the active agent is negatively charged.
Virus of infectious myxomatosis of rabbits. According to Natarajan and Hyde (43), the virus of infectious myxomatosis of rabbits is electronegative over a range of pH 4.9-9.3.
Herpetic virus. Natarajan and Hyde (43) found herpetic virus to be electronegatively charged only between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 7.0-8.9.
From the results of the work cited above it is obvious that most workers have found that under ordinary biological conditions of hydrogen ion concentration certain viruses in an electrical field wander to the anode. Moreover, many investigators have stated that the viruses under these conditions are negatively charged and in this respect are similar to bacteria, cells, and numerous proteins. Others, however, aware of the fact that virus preparations usually consist principally of proteins and bits of degraded cells from the host, realize that the electrical charges determined might not be those of the virus particles themselves but of their carriers, i.e., material on which the virus particles are adsorbed. It is true that a few experiments have been performed with “protein-free” preparations of viruses. But an examination of the methods of purification fails to convince one that such purified viruses had been completely separated from their carriers. Therefore, at present it is impossible to state definitely what electrical charge is carried by the viruses.
This next section is probably my favorite of the entire paper as Rivers sums up the purification problem perfectly. He started off by admitting that “virus-containing” emulsions consisted chiefly of substances unrelated to the “virus.” Thus, he stated that researchers needed to attempt to obtain the “viruses” either in a pure or in a relatively pure state as it was realized that purified “viruses” are essential for the proper study of problems in the field. These problems related to the aforementioned estimation of the size of “viruses” and the determination of the electrical charge, as well as any investigation into the “immunological” responses attributed to “viruses.” He shared a quote by Murphy who, in working to purify the Rous sarcoma “virus” through various manipulative purification processes, stated that it was “hardly conceivable that the active fraction” obtained after these processes could “carry with it through all these manipulations any living organism or virus.” Murphy felt that he was dealing with an enzyme rather than a “virus.” Rivers then backed up his own assertion from five years earlier in 1927 that “No virus had been obtained in an absoutely pure state” by reiterating that it was unlikely that a “virus” had ever been obtained in a state of absolute purity.
PURIFICATION. Inasmuch as virus-containing emulsions consist chiefly of substances unrelated to the active agents themselves, it is natural that workers should attempt to obtain the viruses either in a pure or in a relatively pure state. Moreover, it is being realized that purified viruses are essential for the proper study of problems in this field, such as the estimatlion of the size of viruses, the determination of their electrical charge, and the investigation of immunological responses excited by them. In addition to the fact that purified viruses are of practical value, it is obvious that such preparations will also be of value to investigators interested in the theoretical problem of the nature of viruses. Indeed, Murphy (52, 55) has already concluded from the results of his experiments on the purification of the Rous agent that this disease-incitant is neither a virus nor a living organism. He states, “It is hardly conceivable that the active fraction which I have thus succeeded in obtaining, a substance purified by repeated precipitations, could carry with it through all these manipulations any living organism or virus. To me the enzyme-like nature of the principle seems to have been conclusively established. . . . .” However, most workers do not believe that Murphy is justified in concluding from the results of such experiments that the Rous agent is not a virus, because at least eight other viruses, e.g., the incitants of infectious myxomatosis of rabbits (58), foot-and-mouth disease (64)) bacteriophagy (50, 56, 57), fowl-pox (56), vaccinia (66, 68)) rabies (66), poliomyelitis (65), and mosaic disease (67) have been subjected to manipulations similar to those used by Murphy and have been obtained, still active, in various states of purity.
Most methods of purification of viruses are based on the principles of precipitation by a variety of chemicals and selective adsorption and elution as used extensively in enzyme work. As yet, it is unlikely that a virus has been obtained in a state of absolute purity. Nevertheless, the results already secured are encouraging and should excite further investigations. It may be possible in this way to attain eventually a more accurate concept of the nature of some viruses. For instance, it may be shown that in certain purified virus preparations the number of nitrogen atoms for each infectious unit or particle is insufficient to warrant the supposition that the agents are living, organized structures. Krueger and Tamada (57) have already suggested this viewpoint.
While it is now stated that “viruses” require a host cell and must be cultured in order to be observed and studied, in the past, claims were made that “viruses” could be grown without cells. Rivers stated that these claims of successful cultivation on lifeless media were not uncommon, and he noted a few cases:
Frosch and Dahmen stated that they were able to cultivate the “virus” of foot-and-mouth disease on ordinary media.
Olitsky reported the cultivation of mosaic “virus” in a cell-free medium.
Eagles and McClean reported that vaccine “virus” is capable of regeneration in a cell-free medium.
Rivers ultimately decided that none of these were true examples of “viruses” being grown in cell-free media, and thus, it was chalked up to contradictory evidence that was brushed aside in favor of the prevailing belief that “viruses” are invisible and incapable of regeneration in the absence of living susceptible host cells. Rivers did note that such a state of affairs would prevent a complete definition of the nature of “viruses.” However, he believed that it was not absolutely essential to see and to cultivate the “viruses” on simple media.
CULTIVATING. In the literature of twenty years ago it is not uncommon to encounter reports in which it was claimed that viruses had been successfully cultivated on lifeless media. These reports have not been confirmed and at present such claims are rarely made. A few, however, have been made in recent years. Frosch and Dahmen (78) stated that they were able to cultivate the virus of foot-and-mouth disease on ordinary media. But the German, English, and American Foot-and-Mouth Disease Commissions were unable to confirm their work. Olitsky (91) reported the cultivation of mosaic virus in a cell-free medium. Nevertheless, upon repeating his work he (92) has been forced to conclude that true multiplication of the virus was not obtained. Recently, Eagles and McClean (75, 76) reported that vaccine virus is capable of regeneration in a cell-free medium. A careful examination of their papers, however, leaves one in doubt as to whether some of their media were cell-free, and as to whether multiplication of the virus occurred in the nutrient materials that undoubtedly contained no cells. In my laboratory (86, 90, 93) during the last four years, Haagen, Muckenfuss, Li, and I have made numerous attempts to cultivate vaccine virus in cell-free media, many of which were similar to if not identical with those employed by Eagles and McClean. None of our efforts was successful. On the other hand, the cultivation of vaccine virus in the presence of cells surviving in vitro has been more consistently successful in our hands and in Maitland’s (88) than it has been in Eagles and McClean’s.
Although the cultivation of viruses in lifeless media has not been accomplished, it is generally conceded that these agents are capable of pullulation in the presence of susceptible cells either surviving or growing in vitro. The viruses of Rous sarcoma (72), Virus III infection of rabbits (69), herpes febrilis (70), fowl-pox (77), vaccinia (79, 80, 86, 88)) rabies (94), foot-and-mouth disease (83,84,85? 89), vesicular stomatitis (73), infectious myxomatosis of rabbits (71, Sl), fowl plague (82), and probably the agents causing common colds (74) and poliomyelitis (87), have been cultivated in the presence of tissues surviving in vitro.
Moreover, the characteristic of species specificity possessed by many viruses is frequently reflected in their in vitro cultivation. For instance, fowl-pox virus (77), innocuous for mice and rats, does not regenerate in cultures of their tissues. Foot-and-mouth disease does not attack chickens and the virus (89) does not grow in cultures consisting of minced chick embryo and plasma. In addition to a species specificity, some viruses exhibit in cultivation experiments a predilection for certain kinds of cells. Fowl plague virus (82) multiplies in the presence of chick embryo skin and brain, but does not regenerate in pure cultures of fibroblasts. Foot-and-mouth disease virus (85) increases in amount when the culture medium contains minced guinea-pig embryo, but does not grow when fibroblasts or bits of heart muscle alone are present. Thus it appears that many viruses are capable of multiplication in tissue cultures and frequently retain under such conditions their species and cellular specificity. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to observe the results of further attempts to circumvent this species and cellular specificity of viruses by in vitro methods of cultivation.
A crucial experiment, if there be one, to decide the question of the autonomy of the viruses is their undisputed cultivation on lifeless media. It may be impossible, however, to accomplish such an experiment with all of the viruses, because some of them may be obligate parasites, as is the malarial organism. Thus in the quest for proof of the nature of viruses, we may find that many of them are invisible and incapable of regeneration in the absence of living susceptible host cells. Such a state of affairs will prevent, for a time at least, a complete definition of the nature of these peculiar incitants of disease. Nevertheless, we should obtain all the facts and make the most of them in the study of biological phenomena and in the better understanding and control of disease. For this purpose it is not absolutely essential to see and to cultivate the viruses on simple media any more than it is imperative to see and to know what electricity is in order to study the phenomena produced by it and to control its activity for our daily needs.
Regarding whether “viruses” are alive or not due to having their own metabolism, Rivers stated that the evidence was that they did not have any such metabolic capabilities. However, he felt that conclusions could not be drawn that “viruses” do not have a metabolism and that they are inanimate because the methods used may not have been adequate.
Adaptation of the “virus” to different hosts was used by researchers in order to state whether or not “viruses” were alive. This essentially meant drawing conclusions from using different materials and different methods in different animals while generating different results. One set of researchers viewed the contradicting outcomes as the result of a “living virus” while another set of researchers saw it as a result of the hosts response. Neither seemed to recognize the fact that it was the different experimental procedures generating different responses and results rather than the act of any “virus” adapting.
METABOLISM. Much of the discussion conc.erning the nature of viruses has centered around the question as to whether they are animate or inanimate. In this relation, one would like to know what the evidence is regarding independent metabolic activities of these active agents. Technical difficulties have hindered this type of experimentation with viruses. Nevertheless, a few investigations (95-99) have been made, the result,s of which were negative. One must not conclude from such negative results, however, that viruses do not possess an independent metabolism and are, therefore, inanimate substances, because the methods used for the detection of the metabolic activities may not have been sufficiently delicate.
ADAPTATION. Certain viruses inoculated into new hosts apparently undergo changes in some of theircharacteristics. Smallpox virus (100, 101) passed through monkeys to rabbits and calves and then back to man is no longer smallpox virus but vaccine virus, a.nd the disease, vaccinia, caused by it is not contagious as is smallpox. The incitant of yellow fever (106, 107) passed through a large number of mice by means of intracerebral inoculations loses much of its pathogenicity for monkeys when inoculated intravenously or intraperitoneally, but gains the power of producing a transmissible encephalitis in monkeys receiving the inoculum in the brain. Such phenomena are spoken of as adaptations of viruses to new hosts, and, inasmuch as adaptation is considered a characteristic of living rather than lifeless material, they have been cited by some investigators (103) as proof of the animate nature of the viruses. On the other hand, workers, who believe that viruses are products of cellular perversion, state that the changes observed in the characteristics of the active agents when they are inoculated into alien hosts are to be expected, inasmuch as mouse, rabbit, monkey, and human cells, because of intrinsic differences, may not always manufacture identical substances as the result of similar stimuli. Therefore, they contend that the changes and adaptations are not accomplished by the agents themselves but by their hosts and, consequently, are not admissible as proof of the living nature of the viruses.
As ”viruses” were incapable of being observed and studied directly, various forms of indirect evidence were utilized in order to infer the presence of these entities. One of the earliest ways to do so was by claiming that a phenomenon known as inclusion bodies was a sign that a “virus” was present. These “bodies” are aggregates of proteins seen in various tissues under microscopy that were taken as an indicator by the researchers that they were dealing with a “virus.” However, it is well-known that inclusion bodies are not specific to “viral” cases and can be found in those without a “viral” disease. They are also not found in all cases of a particular disease, can be found in those without the disease, and are even found in uninoculated cell cultures, as seen with RSV. A 1941 paper by Alfred M. Lucas stated that the “existence of an object which appears to be an inclusion body is not proof of the presence of a virus but merely an indication that a virus should be considered if no bacterial agent can be found.” What this means is that inclusion bodies are nothing more than non-specific indirect evidence used to infer an assumed “virus” if other “causes” are ruled out. This means that finding inclusion bodies is essentially meaningless as a specific sign for the presence of any “virus.” Rivers appeared to understand this as well. After presenting various contradictory interpretations and presentations of inclusion bodies by different researchers, he noted that “inclusions may arise in a number of ways and that they may or may not contain virus.” He felt that making conclusions about what these “peculiar structures” represented was “hazardous at present.”
INCLUSIONS. Within the nucleus and cytoplasm of cells injured by viruses, certain peculiar structures, inclusion bodies, are frequently observed. Although many of these bodies are of importance in diagnostic and experimental work, numerous opinions exist concerning their nature. Lipschtitz believes that the inclusions in many diseases (119) consist of compact masses of virus particles, yet he is of the opinion that such structures in measles (120) are nothing more than altered central bodies. Goodpasture (113) thinks that Negri bodies in rabies are composed of degenerated mitochondria and neurofibrils, while Levaditi (118) and Manouelian (121) consider them protozoa and designate them, respectively, Glugea lyssae and Encephalitoxoon rabiei. Goodpasture and his associates (124, 125) have demonstrated that the incitant of fowl-pox is intimately associated with the Bollinger bodies which are made up of a lipoid capsule within which numerous small coccoid bodies are embedded in a protein matrix. On the other hand, Glaser (112) has presented evidence that the polyhedral bodies, the characteristic inclusions in wilt diseases of caterpillars, consist of non-infectious crystalline protein. Thus, it appears that inclusions may arise in a number of ways and that they may or may not contain virus. Consequently, generalizations regarding these peculiar structures are hazardous at present.
The small coccoid bodies found in fowl-pox by Borrel (109) and in vaccinia by Paschen (122,123) appear to be extremely minute organisms. In fact, one is justified in asking why these bodies are not convincing evidence of the organismal nature of certain viruses. The first reason is that one cannot by morphological and tinctorial data alone determine whether autonomous life exists in such small objects. Another reason is the fact that Goodpasture, while holding the belief that the small coccoid bodies in fowl-pox (124, 125) represent the virus, stated that similar structures, seen in rabic brains (113) and considered of etiological importance by Babes (108) and Koch (114-116), are probably degenerated mitochondria. Moreover, Borrel (110) has described similar bodies in other virus diseases the etiological agents of which have been shown by ultrafiltration to be incapable of resolution by microscopic methods. Furthermore, Craciun and Oppenheimer (111)) who cultivated the small bodies of vaccinia and showed that they are closely associated with the virus, made the following statement, “We have from these studies no morphological proof of an increase in the number of granules, since they cannot readily be distinguished from other granules normally seen in tissue cultures.” Finally, mitochondria in some respects resemble bacteria. They may decrease or increase numerically within cells, and their size and shape may be altered by appropriate stimuli. At times, they actually divide. Nevertheless, mitochondria are not considered autonomous living agents. Consequently, so far as I am aware, there is no convincing evidence-the specific agglutination of virus elementary bodies (184) by antiviral sera will be discussed later-to invalidate the conception that cells under the stimulus of viruses may react by the formation of numerous small coccoid bodies uniform in size and intimately associated with the stimulating agents. One would not consider such bodies microorganisms or hold that they consist of virus alone. Therefore, in spite of definite proof that viruses are present in certain types of inclusions, doubt still exists regarding the organismal nature of the small coccoid bodies found within them.
Other features observed in pathological processes induced by viruses, e.g., hyperplasia and necrosis, are fully as important as are the inclusion bodies. The excessive stimulation of cells seen in some virus diseases, e.g., fowl-pox and warts, leads one by analogy to think of mdignant neoplasms. Undoubtedly a number of fowl tumors are caused by agents separable from cells, and, although there is no proof that mammalian tumors arise in this way, the possibility is worthy of consideration and offers an attractive field for work. The fact, however, that some tumors are produced by filterable agents is by no means conclusive evidence that all neoplasms (217) arise through the activity of such incitants.
In this next section, Rivers admitted that there was an increasing chorus of researchers who believed that “viruses” were nothing more than “merely filterable, invisible, and noncultivable elements of ordinary bacteria.” He presented many scenarios, such as:
The bacteriophage is a form in the life cycle of lysogenic bacteria.
The “viruses” of yellow fever and hog cholera are invisible forms of Leptospira icteroides and B. suipestifer respectively.
The etiological agent of scarlet fever is a filterable form of hemolytic streptococci.
The incitants of poliomyelitis, epidemic encephalitis, fox encephalitis, common colds, measles, and influenza represent certain stages in the life cycle of green streptococci.
Apparently, Rivers was unfamiliar with the fact that this bacterial life cycle process, known as pleomorphism, was observed by many researchers such as Antoine Bechamp, Günther Enderlein, Royal Raymond Rife, and later by many others with the use of dark field microscopy. That bacteria are pleomorphic entities, i.e. having the ability to assume different forms, is an established fact.
VIRUSES AS FILTERABLE FORMS OF BACTERIA. For a long time a few investigators have held that certain virus diseases are induced by ordinary bacteria. Now that attention is being focused on filterable forms of bacteria, workers in increasing numbers (128, 131, 132, 134, 135) are adopting the belief that viruses are merely filterable, invisible, and noncultivable elements of ordinary bacteria. It has been claimed, and evidence of a kind has been offered to substantiate the assertions, that the bacteriophage (165, 166) is a form in the life cycle of lysogenic bacteria, that the viruses of yellow fever (131, 134, 135) and hog cholera (134, 135) are invisible forms of Leptospira icteroides and B. suipestifer respectively, that the etiological agent of scarlet fever (134, 135) is a filterable form of hemolytic streptococci, and that the incitants of poliomyelitis, epidemic encephalitis, fox encephalitis, common colds, measles, and influenza represent certain stages in the life cycle of green streptococci (131). Without going into details of the available knowledge of bacterial life cycles and their invisible and noncultivable forms, one can say that proof of many of the claims regarding them is lacking. In fact, if certain reports are correct, some of the filterable forms of bacteria are much smaller than are many of the viruses. Kendall (131) recently stated that “egg white, filtered through Berkefeld W filters (after dilution with sterile physiological saline solution) is rarely sterile.” Such a statement raises embarrassing questions for workers in the virus field because many viruses will not pass through W filters. Since the existence of bacterial life cycles is doubtful, it seems unwarrantable to offer the presumptive filterable forms of them as evidence upon another unsolved problem, the nature of the viruses.
The thing to notice in this next section on physical and chemical agents is, once again, the often contradictory nature of the evidence presented by different researchers. One researcher would find a certain chemical that had an effect on the “virus,” while another researcher would state otherwise. Some viewed that chemical tests proved “viruses” were protozoa. Others felt that their tests proved the “virus” was an enzyme. Sanderson showed that bacteriophages were not killed by successive freezing and thawings and believed that they were unliving. However, Rivers showed that bacteriophages can be killed by repeated freezing and thawing, thus contradicting Sanderson’s interpretation. Ultimately, Rivers concluded that, regardless of the number of tests with chemical and physical agents that had been devised as criteria for the presence of life or to define the nature of “viruses,” not a single one of them was found to be satisfactory.
EFFECT OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL AGENTS ON VIRUSES. Many years ago it was discovered that bile and saponin are injurious to protozoa but with a few exceptions are innocuous for bacteria. Consequently, when the question of the nature of viruses began to attract attention, tests were made to determine what effect bile and saponin have on these incitants of disease. Many viruses, e.g., rabic virus (141, 144), were found to be inactivated and because of this fact certain workers concluded that they are protozoa. Sufficient exceptions, however, have been encountered to invalidate the test as a means either of separating bacteria from protozoa or of defining the nature of viruses. The agent causing Rous’ sarcoma (140) is more resistant to ultraviolet light than are bacteria, and Murphy (220) considers this fact as evidence in favor of his hypothesis of the enzyme-like nature of the virus. On the other hand, bacteriophage (139), the living nature of which many doubt, is just as sensitive to ultraviolet light as are bacteria. Sanderson (153), using a temperature of -78°C., found no diminution in the titer of two strains of bacteriophage subjected to 20 successive freezings and thawings. Since bacteria and cells are killed by repeated freezing and thawing, he concluded that bacteriophage must be something other than a living organism. Rivers (151) showed, however, that colon bacilli, Virus III, vaccine virus, herpetic virus, bacteriophage, complement, and trypsin are all either killed or inactivated by repeated freezing (-185°C.) and thawing and that, as might be expected, some of the agents are more resistant than are others. Hence it is obvious that destruction or inactivation of an active agent by repeated freezing and thawing is not evidence that it possesses life. The observations on heat, desiccation, oxidation, and the effect of dyes have likewise yielded no convincing evidence concerning the nature of viruses. Thus it appears that a number of tests with chemical and physical agents have been devised as criteria for the presence of life or to define the nature of viruses, but no one of them has been found satisfactory.
The spontaneous generation of “viruses” by the host is a concept that defeats the idea that these entities are exogenous outside invaders. If something like a bacteriophage can be produced by a normal bacterium without any external phage present, it shows that these entities arise from a process initiated from within the organism. Rivers noted that Hadley and his co-workers stated that it was possible to obtain bacteriophage from normal bacterial cultures by means of enforced dissociation. Thus, no external source of phage was necessary. Nobel Prize-winning immunologist Jules Bordet was able to do the same, as did other researchers. Rivers presented a few scenarios where “viral” diseases could be induced by injecting toxic substances such as tar and arsenic into chickens, as well as an instance where a tumor-producing extract could be obtained from healthy chickens. While Rivers thought that the interpretation of the evidence was potentially fundamental to biology, he excused it as being due to contamination by the researchers working in labs with similar materials as well as the possibility that “latent viruses” were hiding within the healthy hosts.
SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF VIRUSES. The origin as well as the nature of viruses constitutes a question of interest. The intimate relation between these active agents and their host cells has induced more than one investigator to view the host cell as the source or origin of viruses. Indeed, reports of experimental work have appeared leading to claims that normal cells have been induced to manufacture certain viruses. According to Carrel (156, 157), minced chick embryo mixed with tar, indol, or arsenic and injected into normal chickens in a small percentage of instances gives rise to tumors resembling Rous’ sarcoma no. 1 and transmissible by cell-free filtrates. Fischer (163) by treating cultures of normal cells with arsenic obtained on one occasion a filterable agent capable of causing tumors. Carrel was unable to confirm Fischer’s work. Murphy (52, 167), by means of a method the details of which have not been described, reported that he was able to extract a filterable tumor-producing agent from the gonads of normal-appearing Plymouth Rock roosters.Recently, Hadley and his co-workers (166) stated that it is possible to obtain bacteriophage from normal bacterial cultures by means of enforced dissociation. Although no worker in this field has claimed to have generated living organisms from inanimate matter, it appears that a few believe that they have by certain manipulations induced cells to yield substances which possess some of the attributes of life, notably that of increasing without limit.
The observations described above are suggestive, and, if confirmed and found to warrant the interpretation given them by Carrel, Murphy, Fischer, and Hadley, will prove to be of fundamental biological importance. Unfortunately, however, all of the experiments yielding the observations were actively referred to were conducted in laboratories where workers engaged in the study of agents similar to those supposedly brought into existence. In such laboratories and with such materials it is always difficult for one to rule out the possibility of contaminating normal animals, tissues, bacteria, emulsions, and filtrates. This fact has long been appreciated by workers in vaccine virus laboratories and it delayed the acceptance of the experimental transformation of smallpox virus into vaccine virus. Therefore, experiments of the nature described should never be conducted in rooms used for the study of agents similar to those for which a search is being made. The workers who believe that they have induced viruses to come into existence have not excluded the possibility of the preexistence of latent viruses or of small amounts of virus in the supposedly normal embryos, gonads, chickens, and bacterial cultures utilized in the experiments. This possibility is emphasized by Flexner’s (164) work on poliomyelitis, for he was able to demonstrate the presence of virus in the nasal washings from normal contacts. The possibility outlined is further emphasized by Andrewes and Miller’s (155) experience with Virus III in rabbits, by Cole and Kuttner’s (158) work with the salivary-gland virus in guinea pigs, and by the work upon virus carriers in general among animals, plants (168) and bacteria.
CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery): The only way you will ever see “antibodies” attacking “viruses.”
Rivers next discussed “immunity” in relation to establishing the nature of “viruses.” It is important to note that, regarding antibodies and “immunity,” researchers are utilizing one hypothetical entity in order to define another. While Rivers spoke as if the antibody and antigen concepts are established facts, he remarked that if the concept of the nature of antigens is correct, “viruses” are proteins or are closely linked to proteins. Thus, the interpretation of the nature of the “virus” rests upon the correctness of the nature of the antigen concept. He felt that the rise of these (hypothetical) antibodies that differed between host cell and antigen adduced (led one to believe) the exogenous rather than the endogenous origin of the “viruses.” Regardless, Rivers admitted that the mode of action of neutralizing antibodies was not clearly understood, and when speaking of antibodies causing flocculation (clumping together), he shared that various researchers noted the “immunological” phenomena in “virus” maladies are comparable to those induced by toxins. While Rivers felt that “immunological” observations were important, he admitted that this method of approach had not brought about a definite solution to the problem of the nature of “viruses.”
IMMUNITY. Most virus diseases lead to a marked and lasting immunity in recovered hosts. Not only are the but in their sera antibodies capable of hosts refractory to reinfection neutralizing the viruses are demonstrable. What bearing have these facts upon the nature of viruses? In the first place, it is certain that viruses are highly antigenic. Furthermore, if our concept of the nature of antigens is correct, the viruses are proteins or are closely linked to proteins. Moreover, the agents are not only antigenic, but they give rise to antibodies different from those excited by proteins of the host cells. This is true even of the bacteriophage (188). These facts have been adduced as evidence of the exogenous rather than the endogenous origin of the viruses. Thus, the antigenic nature of viruses appears to be prejudicial to the idea that they are products of cellular activity. The notion, however, that a lifeless agent may be injurious to the cell creating it and that it may induce immunological responses independent of those excited by the cell, loses some of its fantastic qualities when one considers the well-known facts that lens protein is not species specific but organ specific and that sympathetic uveitis in the uninjured eye is caused not by microorganisms but by the reaction of the body to substances derived from injured cells of the other uveal tract.
In addition to the neutralizing antibodies, whose mode of action is not clearly understood, complement-fixing antibodies and antibodies causing flocculation in virus emulsions have been described. Schultz and his associates (191-195) contend that the latter types of antibodies are not excited by viruses and that the immunological phenomena in virus maladies are comparable to those induced by toxins. In spite of their contentions, sufficient evidence has been adduced by different workers to make it more than likely that certain virus diseases lead to the production (176, 177, 180, 199) of the antibodies mentioned. Furthermore, Ledingham (184) has recently demonstrated that Borrel bodies in fowl-pox and Paschen bodies in vaccinia are specifically agglutinated by antifowl-pox and antivaccinal sera respectively. The results of these experiments indicate to Ledingham that the elementary bodies are living organisms and represent the virus. There is no reason to doubt that specific agglutinations of the bodies occurred in the manner described by Ledingham, and one cannot deny that such a phenomenon is presumptive evidence of the organismal nature of the bodies. Yet one dare not say categorically that his experiments are unequivocal evidence that the elementary bodies represent virus alone, because it has been shown by Jones (182, 183) that collodion particles treated with a variety of proteins and then thoroughly washed are specifically agglutinated by the proper antisera. Thus, the Borrel and Paschen bodies without being organisms yet having virus adsorbed on them might nevertheless be specifically agglutinated by appropriate antiviral sera.
Gye (181) states that Rous virus repeatedly injected into alien hosts excites two groups of antibodies, one of which acts on the virus itself, while the other operates on the “specific factor” derived from the host cell. According to him, either set of antibodies inactivates the virus. This fact is offered by him as further evidence of the dual nature of the causative agent of fowl tumors. Murphy (189) and Sittenfield (196-198) have reported the presence in Rous sarcoma of a substance that inhibits the action of the etiological agent, and the first mentioned worker is of the opinion that the “inhibitor” differs from ordinary virus antibodies. The presence of this “inhibitor” together with other phenomena has induced Murphy (220) to believe that immunity to the Rous agent is unlike that observed in virus maladies and lends evidence to his view that the Rous agent is not a virus. Inhibiting substances, however, have been obtained from tissues infected with viruses, for example, a substance restraining the action of rabic virus has been demonstrated by Marie (186) in the brains of rabid animals. Furthermore, Andrewes’ (172, 173) work appears to indicate that the immune responses excited by the filterable agents of fowl tumors may not be unique and may possess much in common with those encountered in other virus diseases.
From what has been said, it is obvious that immunological phenomena are playing an important role in discussions concerning the nature of viruses. As yet this method of approach has not brought us to a definite solution of the problem.
Rivers finished up his review on the nature of “viruses” by presenting the various differing interpretations on the concept of the “virus.” These invisible entities were regarded as either:
Living contagious fluids
Oxidizing enzymes
Protozoan parasites
Inanimate chemical substances
Minute living organisms (related to bacteria)
Rivers noted that depending on the researchers, the rabies “virus” was either an enzyme, a parasite, a protozoon, or an unknown living organism. He stated that researchers were divided over whether bacteriophages were an inanimate agent or a living organism. The fowl-pox “virus” was thought of as either a protozoan parasite, a nucleoprotein poison manufactured by “infected” cells, or a minute coccoid organism capable of regeneration in parasitized cells. The agent associated with Rous sarcoma was either animate, a living organism mixed with an inanimate substance, an enzyme-like substance, or a transmissible mutagen.
Rivers highlighted these numerous competing concepts in order to show how radically different the ideas concerning the nature of “viruses” are from one another. He then proceeded to explain the main conceptions of “viruses,” with the first two scenarios explaining how a stimulus induces a normal cell to create a substance X, which may either remain free or become closely bound to a part of the cell. In Rivers’ third example, which he considered the most popular, X is a minute living organism that enters cells, multiplies, and produces disease. Thus, there is a distinct difference where X is considered an inanimate substance that results from cellular perversion in the first two scenarios, while X is viewed as an autonomous organism in the last scenario. Regardless of the scenarios that Rivers provided attempting to explain “viral” formation, he admitted that there was no unequivocal evidence of the validity of any of these concepts.
CONCEPTS OF THE NATURE OF VIRUSES. A review of the data by means of which one arrives at a concept of the nature of viruses has been presented. Now it will be interesting to see what notions certain workers have concerning some of them.
Beijerinck (202) considers the virus of mosaic disease to be a living contagious fluid; Woods (228), an oxidizing enzyme; Goldstein (212), a protozoan parasite; Vinson (67), an inanimate chemical substance. Most workers, however, believe that it is a minute living organism.
Hijgyes (216) is of the opinion that the incitant of rabies is an enzyme or “alternatively, that the tissues themselves might spontaneously become virulent as the result of changes in their chemical composition.” At one time Remlinger said, “The rabies virus, which is at once filterable, diffusible and capable of reproducing the disease from case to case, appears to occupy a place midway between the microbes and the diastases.” Recently, however, he (221) has published an article on the evolution of the parasite of rabies. Levaditi (118) and others (121, 225) have presented evidence in favor of the idea that the causal agent is a protozoon. The majority of investigators hold the concept that the incitant is a living organism whose nature is not definitely known.
Numerous workers believe that the bacteriophage is an inanimate agent, while others are convinced that it is a living organism. Ideas, however, concerning the nature of the inanimate transmissible substance or the animate organism vary. For details of the different concepts one is referred to papers by Twort (226, 227), d’Herelle (103), Bordet (203), Bronfenbrenner (95), Burnet (206), and Hadley (165, 166).
The incitant of fowl-pox has been described by certain investigators as a protozoan parasite. Sanfelice (222, 223) suggested that it is a nucleoproteid poison manufactured by infected cells. Borrel (log), Goodpasture (124, 125), and Ledingham (184) hold that it is a minute coccoid organism capable of regeneration in parasitized cells.
Rous and others are prepared to entertain the idea that the causal agent of Chicken Tumor No. I is animate. Gye (215) believes that it consists of two factors, one of which is a living exogenous organism, the other an inanimate specific factor derived from infected cells. Murphy (52, 55), at one time, spoke of the Rous agent as an enzyme-like substance. Recently, however, he (220) has compared it to filterable substances capable of transforming melitensis (204,205) into paramelitensis organisms and of converting one type specific pneumococcus (201) into another type specific form. In regard to the matter he says (22O), “Thus we have a group of agents, products of specialized cells capable of conferring the peculiar type quality to undifferentiated cells of the same species which, in turn, may produce the active factor and transmit this to their descendants.” For this type of agent he proposes the name transmissible mutagens.
Sufficient ideas concerning the nature of viruses have been cited to illustrate how radically some differ from others. Many of them, particularly the ones dealing with the origin and reproduction of inanimate substances that behave in a manner similar to that of living organisms, lack precision. In a general way, however, the different concepts can be arranged in groups and it seems advisable to state and to portray diagrammatically several of the popular ones.
According to one conception, certain stimuli produce changes within cells that are inherited by daughter cells. Once the mutations occur, cells of the new type continue to be formed though the stimuli disappear. No agents separable from the cells are demonstrable, and immunological phenomena in this type of disease differ from those observed in virus maladies. Ordinarily this idea of the causation of disease and the concepts concerning the nature of filterable viruses are not grouped together. Yet in some respects they are not dissimilar and many hold the view that malignant neoplasms arise in some such way. See figure 1.
Another notion is that appropriate stimuli induce normal cells to make a substance x which is closely bound to parts y of the cells. Thus an xy complex is formed. This complex, separable from the cells, yet capable of inciting its own production by them, either passes directly into daughter cells, or, having become extracellular, enters another set of normal cells. The xy complex is antigenic, and cells freed from it presumably become normal again. See figure 2.
Still another idea is that certain stimuli incite normal cells to produce a substance x which is not closely bound to parts of the cells, X, separable from cells, yet capable of impelling its formation by them, either passes directly into daughter cells, or, having become extracellular, enters a new group of normal cells. X is antigenic and cells freed from it presumably become normal again. See figure 3.
Finally there is the concept most generally held that x is not a product of the perverted activity of cells but is a minute living organism. X enters cells, multiplies, produces disease, is separable from cells: and is antigenic. Cells freed from it presumably become normal again. At times, x is absorbed by particles y of host cells and evidences of an xy complex are obtained. See figure 4.
For practical purposes it makes little difference which one of the last three concepts is accepted. Theoretically, however, x of the second and third conceptions is quite different from x of the fourth. In the second and third, x, a product of cellular perversion, is an inanimate agent, while in the fourth it is an autonomous organism. No unequivocal evidence of the validity of any of the concepts has been adduced.
Rivers concluded by acknowledging the confused state of the evidence concerning “viruses,” noting that this confusion had made it exceedingly difficult to define their nature. He felt that the easiest way out of their dilemma would be to accept “viruses” as minute organisms. However, Rivers warned of quickly accepting presumptive evidence as “viruses” may be either minute organisms, forms of life unfamiliar to us, inanimate transmissible incitants of disease, or all of the above.
Conclusion
The confused state of our knowledge of the viruses at the present time makes it exceedingly difficult to define the nature of these active agents. The easiest way out of the dilemma, however, would be the acceptance of the presumptive evidence that viruses are minute organisms. Yet the easiest way and the one that best fits the experiences of the day may not be the right one. Furthermore, excessive skepticism and the habit of too readily accepting presumptive evidence are equally productive of sterility. Unless viruses represent a form of life unknown to us, proof of their living nature would not be a striking discovery. If, however, some of them are not animate, absolute proof of such a fact would be of fundamental biological importance. Therefore, care should be exercised that immoderate skepticism on the one hand, and the mental satisfaction secured by accepting presumptive evidence on the other, do not dull our efforts to obtain a better understanding of the viruses, some of which may be minute organisms, while others may represent forms of life unfamiliar to us, while still others may be inanimate transmissible incitants of disease. In any event, we are face to face with the “infinitely small in biology,” and, if there be a sharp demarcation between life and death, then scientists, investigating the nature of viruses, are working near the line that separates infinitely small living organisms from inanimate active agents.
From these two presented articles from two different points in time in the history of virology (Rivers in 1932 and Summers in 2014), it should be clear why it is difficult for virologists to define the nature of the “virus.” Researchers needed to invent, and then continually reinvent, the nature of the “virus” as the foundation that virology is built upon is conceptually weak. It is full of contradictions that have cracked the very infrastructure that was put in place. There were never any submicroscopic entities that were being studied by the various researchers over the last century. As there were no “viruses” to study and characterize, there was no agreement at all amongst the various researchers as to the nature of the invisible concept crafted inside of their minds. They had tricked themselves, through shoddy indirect pseudoscientific evidence, into believing that they were studying something real based upon lab-created effects without an identifiable cause. This is why the “virus” has been continually defined for what it isn’t, rather than for what it supposedly is. The magical “virus” skirts the line between life and death, microbe and molecule, enzyme and ferment. It is unlike anything else seen in nature, and for this very reason, its nature remains mysterious and incomplete. This should be the very first clue that there is nothing scientific about the “virus,” as science only deals with the natural world and its phenomena, not the supernatural. However, within the supernatural realm is where the “virus” concept will remain, ready and waiting to be reinvented upon the arrival of the latest technology for the next best indirect measurement. This will be utilized to continue fooling the researchers, as well as the public that blindly trusts in them to know better, that these fictional entities exist in nature, when, as Thomas Rivers kindly pointed out, “viruses” have never once been observed there. Thus, the nature of the “virus” will continue to remain merely an invention of the imagination of the most ardent admirers of these invisible boogeymen—the virologists.
It is time to revisit the England-wide NHS prescription data regarding one particular category of psychiatric drug prescribing. In a previous post specifically on ADHD drugs, a shocking 15% year-on-year rise in ADHD drug prescriptions for 2022 was noted. Within the first two quarters of 2023, the previous increase has already been exceeded by over 2.5%. It now stands at an almost 18% increase for the same period, compared to 2022.
And this is the year-on-year increase. Looking at current levels compared to a long-term trend, it is even more staggering. For almost 9 years, since 2012, prescriptions of drugs used for ADHD remained fairly close to the long-term trend (within a 5% window). In 2022, that trend was broken with a 10% divergence, but in 2023 it disconnects from it completely. A 25% divergence from a steady long-term trend must signal a radical change in the userbase. What is happening?
In economics, there is the law of supply and demand. As the price increases, supply rises while demand declines. Conversely, as the price drops, supply constricts while demand grows. CCHR UK has been scrutinising the demand side of the equation, while the media has been keen to underline the supply side. Journalists tend to write about drug supply shortages as if they are occurring within a status quo of demand. An 18% year-on-year increase, and a 25% divergence from a long-term trend, is anything but a status quo.
In recent media articles, there was an obvious omission. The media failed to mention that demand has – somehow and without too much explanation – exploded. What brought about such a demand?
It should be recognised there are no physical or biological tests that can be carried out to support the existence of ADHD. None. There are no tests. Pontificating psychiatric authors have however taken regular human behaviour and redefined it as a so-called mental ‘disorder’ which has been accepted without inspection.
This isn’t a new concept. Sets of emotional and behavioural characteristics were redefined as far back as 1987 when ADHD was literally voted into existence. This however is not science. It’s consensus. It’s psychobabble. Considering the law of supply and demand, there has been a tremendous increase in the supply of psychiatric rhetoric, opinions and assumptions that have brought about a greatly-increased demand for ADHD drugs.
Furthermore, the prescribed drugs can have serious consequences, that include some of the following side-effects:
abdominal pain
aggression
depression
dizziness
drowsiness
hallucinations
headaches
insomnia
loss of appetite
moodiness
nervousness
psychosis
restlessness
seizures
stunted growth
suicidal thoughts
violent behaviour
weight loss and ‘zombie’ appearance
While there are many discerning people who question the unscientific psychiatric modus operandi, there are many who accept psychiatric labels like ADHD without inspection. Not so long ago, psychiatrists brazenly used the ‘chemical imbalance’ theory to push ADHD. That theory has been debunked but the statistics represent that more people must be accepting the label for the prescribing rates to continue to rise.
At the end of the day, being fully informed is the key policy. If people reply on the psychiatric narrative, they won’t be fully informed. Don’t be fooled by psychiatric rhetoric.
It’s been a while since we’ve heard of any strange happenings on planet Earth’s strangest place, Antarctica, but just when you think everyone has forgotten about that continent’s strange connections to Herman Goering, Rudolf Hess, Buzz Aldrin, Patriarch of Moscow Kirill III, or Obama Secretary of State (and current Bai Den Dzhao “Climate Change Tsar) John Ketchup Kerry, something comes along that makes one think that, once again, something is “up” down there. Indeed, there is in this article shared by S.D. something that caught my attention, and makes me go “hmmm”; see if you can spot it:
Now granted, China has been in Antarctica for a while, and like everyone else “down there,” it has been conducting all sorts of research. One can only assume that they have an interest in the neutrino detector down there, and a host of other things as well. But I have difficulty imagining that the Chinese Communist Party’s interest is purely scientific, just as I have a tremendous difficulty that Herman Goering’s interest was purely scientific and that he was just sponsoring a glitzy science project. Of course, we had the “commerce and lubricants” explanation for Goering’s interest (and the British raising the subject of Antarctica with Rudolf Hess after the latter had flown to Britain on his infamous and ill-fated peace mission, a topic unfortunately too long and weird to get into here, but if you’re interested, see my book Hess and the Penguins). Then there was Admiral Byrd’s Operation High Jump, which was quite literally a fully-fledged combined arms operation which invaded the continent, but oddly, did so by landings everywhere but where the Nazis had explored.
And now the Chinese are sending a little flotilla of two icebreakers and a cargo ship to build yet another research facility there. So what is it about the place that attracts the attention of fascist Germany, communist China, and capitalist America, and why are the cover stories explaining that interest so laughably transparent? From “we need lubricants and can get it from whaling” (Nazi Germany), to “we need to test our new military equipment and combat capability under Arctic conditions, and we need to do it down there even though our access to the Arctic via Alaska and Canada is so much easier” (the Americans and Operation High Jump), to “we need to monitor neutrinos” (pretty much everyone), to “what I saw down there was pure evil” (allegedly from Buzz Aldrin), to “I need to personally check out climate change” (Ketchup Kerry, when interrupting a diplomatic junket in 2016), and now to Communist China, which, according to the article in search of its own explanation, is offering this one for your consideration:
Work on the first Chinese station in the Pacific sector began in 2018. It will be used to conduct research on the region’s environment, state television reported.
China has four research stations in the Antarctic built from 1985 to 2014. A U.S.-based think tank estimated the fifth could be finished next year.
The facility is expected to include an observatory with a satellite ground station, and should help China “fill in a major gap” in its ability to access the continent, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said in a report this year.
The station is also well situated to collect signals intelligence over Australia and New Zealand and telemetry data on rockets launched from Australia’s new Arnhem Space Centre, it said.
China rejects suggestions that its stations would be used for espionage.
Oh those clever, nasty, sneaky Chinese! Why, they’re building a fifth station in Antarctica because they need to spy on arch-rivals Australia and New Zealand!
As explanations go, this one is right up there with Reichsmarschall Goering’s “we need lubricants from whales” and Admiral Byrd’s “we need to test equipment in Arctic conditions” explanations for sheer brassy and ultimately nonsensical chutzpah. Now, I have no difficulty imagining that the Chinese would want to spy on Australia and New Zealand. They spy on everyone else, so why should Aussies and Kiwis get an exemption? And I have no doubt that Antarctica would be an ideal place from which to listen in. But my problem is that the Chinese probably already havethat capability to listen in, and that building yet another base in Antarctica seems to be a rather cost-ineffective way to do so: why not just launch another geo-synchronous satellite in orbit over those recalcitrant Aussies and Kiwis, and save some money? So, assuming that the “environment” and “listening in” explanations offered by the article are true, then what about the south pole gives such a unique perspective on the planet’s environment, and more importantly, who is really the target of those eavesdropping efforts? Since the American corporation Raytheon announced its own presence on the continent, that would be a possible target. Or maybe it is “someone else”? Is someone sending messages in the aurora australis?
Who knows? But it is perhaps telling that the Chinese, whatever their motivations, appear to be in a hurry to complete that fifth Chinese Antarctic “research station.”
Of course, there’s a final possibility, namely, that an Antarctic research station, as the article avers, could help monitor Australian space launches… but it could just as easily monitor comings and goings from and to the planet that might be taking place down there….
“…more people look for salvation through relationship than in houses of worship. One may even suggest that romantic love has replaced institutional religion as the greatest motive power and influence in our lives…the search for love has replaced the search for God.”
Half of all first marriages end in divorce; as do two-thirds of second marriages, and nearly three-quarters of third marriages. Most non-marital relationships also end in separation. Of the relationships that do last, many are unhealthy and unhappy. Most relationships, in other words, fail. In some cases it is infidelity, abuse, or a clash in personality, beliefs, values, or life-plans that causes a relationship to fail. Many times, however, it is the result of one, or both partners, burdening the relationship with the fantasy that it will cure all their personal problems. This belief that a romantic relationship will unlock a life of happiness and fulfillment, the psychiatrist M. Scott Peck called the myth of romantic love. And in this video, we explain how belief in this myth destroys one’s capacity to cultivate the healthy and realistic love that sustains fulfilling relationships. For as M. Scott Peck writes:
“The myth of romantic love tells us that when we meet the person for whom we are intended…we will be able to satisfy all of each other’s needs forever and ever, and therefore live happily forever after in perfect union and harmony…While I generally find that great myths are great precisely because they represent and embody great universal truths…the myth of romantic love is a dreadful lie…as a psychiatrist I weep in my heart almost daily for the ghastly confusion and suffering that this myth fosters.”
The myth of romantic love is pervasive in popular culture; countless shows, movies, plays, books, and songs are centered around the theme of a lost and lonely individual who finds the perfect romantic match, and thereafter experiences a life of happiness and fulfillment. The psychologist James Hollis called this perfect romantic match the Magical Other. And he suggested that as traditional sources of meaning such as religion, family, and community have eroded, the pursuit of the Magical Other has intensified – as many people today deify romantic love and view it as the central source of life’s meaning. Or as Hollis wrote in The Eden Project: The Search for the Magical Other:
“One of the false ideas that drives humankind is the fantasy of the Magical Other, the notion that there is one person out there who is right for us…a soul-mate who will repair the ravages of our personal history; one who will be there for us, who will read our minds, know what we want and meet those deepest needs; a good parent who will protect us from suffering and, if we are lucky, spare us the perilous journey of individuation… Virtually all popular culture is fueled by…the search for the Magical Other.”
In addition to popular culture promoting the idea that a Magical Other can save one from suffering and make life meaningful, the search for the “Magical Other” often stems from a childhood lacking in sufficient parental love, affection, and attention. A child who does not receive steady and dependable caregiving tends to develop into an adult afflicted with feelings of insecurity, a fragile identity, and pervasive feelings of emptiness. Such an individual often attempts to fill the emotional void by anchoring their sense of self in a relationship, and by seeking a romantic partner who can assume the role of a maternal or paternal figure, or as Hollis writes:
“The search for reflection from the Magical Other is also the dynamic of narcissism, which manifests in the adult who as a child was insufficiently mirrored by a loving, affirmative parent.”
In the early stages of a relationship, it can appear as if one has found their Magical Other. With dopamine and oxytocin flooding the brain, and with evolved mating instincts playing tricks on the mind so as to increase the probability of reproducing, the experience of falling in love is rife with illusions – the primary of which is the idealization of the significant other. The faults and flaws of the partner are ignored or glossed over as eccentricities which only add to their charm. The novelty of the other, coupled with their perceived perfection, engenders deep feelings of infatuation, happiness, and euphoria, which can breed the illusion that life is now complete. Furthermore, one’s ego boundaries collapse as one psychologically merges with the partner, just as in early infancy one was psychologically merged with the mother. “In some respects the act of falling in love is an act of regression.”, observed James Hollis. Or as the M. Scott Peck wrote regarding this experience:
“The unreality of these feelings when we have fallen in love is essentially the same as the unreality of the two-year-old who feels itself to be king of the family and the world with power unlimited. Just as reality intrudes upon the two-year-old’s fantasy of omnipotence so does reality intrude upon the fantastic unity of the couple who have fallen in love…One by one, gradually or suddenly, the ego boundaries snap back into place; gradually or suddenly, they fall out of love. Once again they are two separate individuals.”
When reality intrudes upon the illusions of falling in love, the romantic partner, rather than being a Magical Other, is revealed as being human, all-too-human. Seen without rose colored glasses, their faults, flaws, rough edges, and bad habits grow apparent. The partner does not always make one happy, meet one’s needs, or fulfill one’s expectations; and so, in place of sustained infatuation and happiness, at times there are feelings of indifference, disappointment, and even disdain. These feelings are a normal component of long-term relationships, for as M. Scott Peck writes: “…real love often occurs in a context in which the feeling of love is lacking, when we act lovingly despite the fact that we don’t feel loving.” (M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled)However, for individuals enthralled to the myth of romantic love, the conclusion of the honeymoon period, and the awareness of the widening gulf between their fantasy of who they want their partner to be, and who they really are, can be a troubling experience. Or as James Hollis writes:
“Why don’t you make me feel good about myself?” we ask, usually unconsciously but sometimes straight out. “Why don’t you meet my needs?”…What a disappointment, how unromantic – the Other was not put on earth to serve or take care of me, protect me from my life!”
“…if I do not see and love my partner as a real person in the real world, if instead I elaborate a fantasy about him or her, using the person merely as a springboard for my imagination and my wishes, then I am doomed sooner or later to resent the actual person for not living up to my fantasies.”
So long as one remains captured by the myth of romantic love, and chained to search for the Magical Other, one dooms their relationships from the start. Holding onto the expectation that a romantic partner should be the primary source of life’s meaning leads to resentment and mounting pressures that either strain or break the relationship. A pathological dynamic can also develop. The individual in search of the Magical Other manipulates and controls their partner in the attempt to mold them into their idealized image; while the other partner, fearful that they will be abandoned, hopelessly strives to live up to this fantasy by submissively devoting almost all their time and energy to satiating the other’s every desire, wish, and need. Or as Hollis writes:
“[The search for the Magical Other] accounts for the fact that so many couples move from naive relatedness to the joustings of power. If you do not act as I wish, I shall bring about your compliance by my actions. I will control you, criticize you, abuse you, withdraw from you, sabotage you…And so, through tactics of dependence or anger or control, mixed with emotional and sexual withdrawal, one [of the partners] tries to force the Other back into one’s original, imaginary mold. Seldom are these attitudes and behaviors conscious.”
To avoid the unnecessary suffering that plagues so many relationships, it is critical that we discard the myth of romantic love, abandon the search for the Magical Other, and rather than seeking salvation in someone else’s affection, concentrate on cultivating self-love. For as the psychologist Nathaniel Branden wrote:
“The first love affair we must consummate successfully is the love affair with ourselves. Only then are we ready for other love relationships.”
“If being loved is your goal, you will fail to achieve it. The only way to be assured of being loved is to be a person worthy of love, and you cannot be a person worthy of love when your primary goal in life is to passively be loved.”
One of the most effective ways to find the motivation to cultivate self-love is to recognize and accept the fact that we are, and always will be, inescapably alone. We are born alone, die alone, and though the boundaries which separate us from others can be bridged, they can never be transcended. “We are each of us, in the last analysis, islands of consciousness—and that is the root of our aloneness.”, observed James Hollis. Relationships come, and either through breakup, divorce, or death, they end, but what always remains is our individual journey – the magnum opus of our life.
“The ultimate goal of life remains the spiritual growth of the individual, the solitary journey to peaks that can be climbed only alone.”
Focusing on expanding our skills, pursuing excellence in a vocation, cultivating enriching hobbies, sculpting our mind and body, creating a network of inspiring friends, seeking adventures, and devoting ourselves to rewarding goals – this is how we make our solitary journey meaningful, and therein cultivate self-love. And with sufficient self-love, we do not need a relationship to thrive, and, paradoxically, this is when we are at our most attractive and capable of cultivating a healthy relationship that is based on the following foundation of realism: A romantic partner can support us and enrich our journey, just as we can support and enrich theirs. However, to use a relationship to flee the burdens of our existence and to look to another person to provide us fulfillment, is to damage the relationship and cripple ourselves with infantile dependencies. The earthly salvation that we seek can only be found by cultivating and affirming our individual journey; it cannot be found in the arms of another.
“Those vested deeply in the idea of romance will no doubt protest, but then they will remain enslaved to the pursuit of the illusory Magical Other.”
“…it is the separateness of the partners that enriches the union. Great marriages cannot be constructed by individuals who are terrified by their basic aloneness, as so commonly is the case, and seek a merging in marriage… Two people love each other only when they are quite capable of living without each other but choose to live with each other…Genuine love not only respects the individuality of the other but actually seeks to cultivate it, even at the risk of separation or loss.
“But in the bright light of truth and honesty, this has been only offensive and unrestrained aggression. Zionism is not Judaism, it is a tyrannical political cult bent on power, control, and the elimination of Palestine in favor of a singular ‘Jewish’ State.. Zionism is colonialism, pure and simple, a political/nationalist movement, formed and plotted for the purpose of taking over lands of the peoples in that region, and by any means necessary. This plot was decades in the making, with deals solidified with Nazi Germany, the U.K., and the U.S. According to Jewish historian, Ilan Pappe, ‘Zionist leaders were well aware that implementing their project would necessitate the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian population…”
[…]
“People have the ability to live together in harmony, but governments have no ability to live in peace, because the only mission of ‘authority’ is to attain power and control by any means necessary in its rule based only on the dominance of others. Reclaim the higher ground as individuals, and completely eliminate and destroy all forms of government and rule, as war is their health, fear, violence, and killing are their tools, and elimination of dissent is their only means of survival…”
I wish I could say that this world of genocide, democide, torture, terror, and slaughter of innocents was something new, but of course it is not. The story of mankind is one of horrible brutality, and it is never-ending. The latest atrocity is the ethnic cleansing and slaughter of innocents in Palestine, and the majority are children. This is the purposeful slaughter of Palestinians at the hands of the Zionists; this after 75 years of ruthless savagery levied against them. My comments here are in no way meant to support Hamas, or any State, government, or terrorist organization, but then that is repetitive, as all States, governments, terrorists, and those who control them, are cut from the same cloth, and are pure evil. That is the nature of all States, organized ruling governments, and criminal terrorists.
Because of the history of man, many would think that his natural state would be that of evil, and given what has occurred over thousands of years, one might be justified in accepting this conclusion, but I think it is much more complicated than it appears. On the other hand, one comment I hear consistently, at least by Americans, is that most people are basically good. I think this incorrect as well, so where does that leave us? It seems to me that the natural state of man, at least psychologically, is more sympathetic and peaceful than is evident, but the stoking of hate and division by very nefarious forces, and the purposeful instilling of great fear, has been voluntarily accepted by the majority, and this has caused constant turmoil among nation-states, leading to horrendous nationalism. Because of this intentionally structured antagonism among peoples, constant war has been the result, and this has led to a common behavior that would be best described as dual hatred. What is meant by this statement, is that governments and rulers are certainly evil, but due to the intentional instilling of nationalism, the majority supports State evil due to false ‘patriotism,’ apathy, and fear; this greatly enhanced by the collectivist nature of nationalism.
We live in a ‘modern’ world where the bulk of populations, if given the opportunity to do so, will more than not, choose non-aggression, but they are willing to turn their heads in the face of brutality, war, and carnage instead of facing the truth. Human nature is fickle, and a spectacle of inverted logic. When one is confronted with a death of friend or family, there may be a cry of agony. When a small group of innocents is mercilessly slaughtered by horrendous means, torment may occur. But when thousands or millions are murdered by States and their armies, a heavy fog of indifference takes over the psyche, and a cloak of silence spreads, covering the crowd. One might say that this is just a protective mechanism, but in reality, by remaining silent, it is an acceptance of evil, which is in and of itself, evil. Until this is understood, evil will reside not only in those who perpetrate this terror, but also in those who stay silent and support or condone it.
First and foremost, there is no real war between Israel and Palestine, there is only war against Palestine. There is no war against Hamas, at least not in any conventional sense, because Hamas was created, built, funded, and supported by the Zionist Israeli government and Mossad, with the assistance of the U.S. government and the CIA. This is also true of groups like ISIS and al Qaeda. The Palestinian people have no military, no navy, no tanks, no rockets, and no arms. They are virtually helpless civilians, mostly children, locked inside a completely walled concentration camp, that is heavily guarded by the Israeli military and Mossad. They are relegated to throwing rocks at Israel’s world class military that consists of advanced weaponry that qualifies as the third most powerful military in the world. This is a slaughter and genocide of these people for political, geopolitical, and monetary purposes, and is nothing more than intentional, unbridled, and inhuman wrath against a persecuted population.
What is so confusing is that this torturous brutality, land and property confiscation, mutilation, starvation, and humiliation by Zionists against Palestinians, has gone on relentlessly for the past 75 years under the guise of a false claiming of a long-inhabited territory; all in the bogus name of defense of a forced Zionist State. But in the bright light of truth and honesty, this has been only offensive and unrestrained aggression. Zionism is not Judaism, it is a tyrannical political cult bent on power, control, and the elimination of Palestine in favor of a singular ‘Jewish’ State.. Zionism is colonialism, pure and simple, a political/nationalist movement, formed and plotted for the purpose of taking over lands of the peoples in that region, and by any means necessary. This plot was decades in the making, with deals solidified with Nazi Germany, the U.K., and the U.S. According to Jewish historian, Ilan Pappe, “Zionist leaders were well aware that implementing their project would necessitate the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian population.”
This is a very deep and complicated subject matter, and this short essay is obviously not meant to be an historical accounting of Zionism, but it is vitally important to understand the background of this heinous movement that is not what it has always been falsely portrayed to be. There is no innocence in Zionism, as would be true of any brutal and violent nationalist movement.
The bottom line is this: We are witnessing the unrelenting genocide of a people at the hands of the world powers. It is being sold as a defensive effort due to aggressive terrorism by Hamas, an Israeli created organization, used as a patsy, whether accepted or not by the casual observer, to allow for the long-planned and final elimination of all Palestinians from their homelands. But it is so much deeper than this implies. The West, especially the United States government, the CIA, the U.S. military, and the entire U.S. military industrial complex, among many other Fascist corporate partners, are in full support of this genocide. What this means, is that the U.S. population, the masses if you will, are complicit as well in this inhumane, immoral, and brutally evil plot to slaughter and murder an entire people. They are after all, at least a majority, condoning it through taking sides, and allowing the funding of this murderous rampage with their own tax dollars stolen by the government they support.
Geopolitically, this becomes a springboard for regional or world conflict, all for the purpose of continuing the drive toward a one world government; a secret global governing cabal, which has the one goal of attaining total power and control of all populations. Depending on the agendas sought, the involvement of powers due to this plot, could include Russia, China, Iran, the entire Middle East, the U.S., the U.K., and all of NATO. One can just imagine the carnage possible in the future due to what is deceptively claimed to be a struggle between only Israel and undefended Palestine. It is anything but that, but by framing this as a localized regional conflict, the masses of plebiscites will take sides, thus allowing the rulers and their enforcement monsters, to assume a much larger aggression, and one that will affect everyone on earth.
How can any accept this horror? How can any not speak against it, and refuse to support any factions and nation-states, instead of embracing the plight of all innocent victims, regardless of sides? Condemn all who harm the innocent. Condemn the governments and rulers, and their murderous armies, who stoke and perpetuate this violent assault on civilians. People have the ability to live together in harmony, but governments have no ability to live in peace, because the only mission of ‘authority’ is to attain power and control by any means necessary in its rule based only on the dominance of others. Reclaim the higher ground as individuals, and completely eliminate and destroy all forms of government and rule, as war is their health, fear, violence, and killing are their tools, and elimination of dissent is their only means of survival.
“We will expel the Arabs and take their place. In each attack, a decisive blow should be struck resulting in the destruction of homes and the expulsion of the population.”
David Ben-Gurion: Zionist and first Prime Minister of Israel–Letters to his son, 1937
As soon as I began writing about COVID in the spring of 2020, I made the case that SARS-CoV-2 hadn’t been proved to exist.
I then met Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey. I became aware of the work of Stefan Lanka. They were making a wide challenge about viruses in general:
No actual isolation; no proof of existence; instead, a parade of false claims and obfuscations from official sources.
A few years later…and the number of serious researchers who are coming to the same conclusion has expanded significantly. (You can find links to some of these researchers at Christine Massey’s Substack page )
The new work isn’t just a repetition of the original challenge to official authority. It attacks fake viruses from a number of angles. The shocks keep coming.
This story isn’t going away. It’s building.
It reminds me of the vaccine story. When I first started writing about dangerous and ineffective vaccines, in 1987, there were dozens of writers, present and past, who had covered similar ground—going back many decades. But that was nothing compared with…
The strength of that story now, in 2023, after the catastrophe of the COVID vaccines.
This is what I believe is going to happen to the fake virus story—against even longer odds. I say “longer,” because the proofs that viruses aren’t real by any scientific standard will undermine and detonate the very center of the medical cartel, which is all about germ theory.
Germ theory is marketing. The marketing of (toxic) drugs and vaccines for thousands of so-called distinct diseases, each supposedly caused by a unique germ.
When that fiction falls, the whole house collapses.
Going back as far as the beginning of the 20th century (and farther), another paradigm about disease emerged. It came to be called “holistic.” Probably not the best label. But the idea was: look at the whole body, the whole person. Look at body processes as connected and inter-related. Understand disease and health in those larger terms. Include environmental effects—basic sanitation, pollution, toxic chemicals, nutrition, the rise of the middle class out of poverty.
Something needs to be pointed out here. The holistic paradigm is a very difficult approach, in terms of making it pay off in real cures. It always has been difficult. Thousands of methods have been suggested. Many of these tend to mirror the medical strategy: find magic bullet solutions, take short cuts. Market them. Claim temporary fixes are permanent.
Treating the body and the person as a whole, taking in the mind-body connection—this is by no means a walk in the park.
Therefore, sooner or later, many people, discouraged, fall back on medical answers and germ theory.
The work of the no-virus pioneers provides an absolutely essential antidote to that surrender.
Because what are people surrendering to? The convenient fiction that viruses are everywhere, causing separate diseases. Convenient fiction was how viruses were willed into existence in the first place:
Doctors couldn’t cure their patients. So they looked for “something that was missing.” A hole in their hypotheses. And they claimed they found it.
Tiny particles no one had ever seen. No one had ever isolated. “This is the key. This is the great discovery.” It was a self-serving fairy tale. An excuse for treatment failure.
It kicked off millions of efforts to assure one and all that viruses were real. Marketing, parading as science.
Where were these viruses being discovered? In proprietary labs. No civilians permitted. Doors locked. Only the experts could understand the details of their own isolation of the tiny particles.
The particles which had been fantasized into existence.
We’re actually looking at a magic-myth story. Explorer-knights (doctors, researchers) are searching for an invisible dragon object which is crippling the population. These heroes finally corner it and isolate it and go to work decimating it and all its variants.
But the real ending to that story is now being provided by the multiplying number of independent researchers, who are proving the invisible dragon object was never cornered or identified or isolated.
Instead, the so-called explorer-knights made up, invented, fabricated the idea of the object to begin with.
That’s the magic. Sleight of hand. That’s the myth. Secret lab procedures that, when exposed, turn out to assume what they’re trying to prove. Also known as circular reasoning.
The whole story has come unglued.
For now, I’ll conclude with this analogy. A group of elite researchers claim that, 49 trillion light years from Earth, there is a flaming star the size of the Milky Way. At the center of that star, buried within a supernatural vault, there is a tiny, tiny purple man with green toes and orange hair who is causing all trouble and all destruction circulating throughout the universe. He’s there. He’s been “isolated.”
Given that incredible tale, would you expect, would you really expect there can be ANY sort of test which would prove the existence of that tiny man?
Could ANY test be produced that would be authentic?
So, in the case of the wild virus fairy tale, are we looking at proofs of existence and isolation that need to be improved, in order for us to accept them?
Or are we, instead, looking at the tiny purple man, about whose existence there are no possible proofs at all?
Because the story is so absurdly outrageous.
I’m thinking we’re dealing with the tiny purple man. And this may be the next chapter in the no-virus revelation:
The original concoction of viruses was so crazy, every so-called proof is going to be circular, mindless, and futile.
Yesterday, October 28, 2023, Reiner Fuëllmich’s attorney, Dagmar Schön, joined Elsa Schieder for an update on the situation regarding Reiner’s arrest. (Follow Elsa at her Truth Summit substack for updates.)
Below the video, you will find a summary with excerpts from the interview. This interview was a pre-scheduled group chat that Elsa has set up for those interested in staying updated on Reiner’s situation.
Below the summary. you will also find an email address that can be used to contact Reiner (via Dagmar Schön).
In the interview, Dagmar shares what she actually knows thus far from the facts. Dagmar and Elsa also share perspective on the psychological/consciousness interplay in all of this and the unique characters of those involved.
Dagmar makes it clear that Reiner’s legal team has not made a public statement about the charges in the case because they have just received all the paperwork detailing the charges.
~ Kathleen
Summary with excerpts prepared by TCTL. Timestamps are approximate.
Following a greeting by Elsa, Dagmar shares an update on Reiner’s situation.
00:00:40
Dagmar met with on Reiner on Monday and Tuesday of last week. On Monday, her colleague, Katja Woermer, was also there. Dagmar describes Reiner as being in good spirits and looking well. She explains that she and Reiner have been friends for a very long time and that this is important because he can trust her.
Dagmar moves on to describe the series of events around his arrest, as they unfolded.
Dagmar:
“So Reiner was arrested in Frankfurt on October 12th on a warrant dated March 15th, this year, ’23, which had been an European arrest warrant since May 24th. First it was a normal warrant, and then from end of May it was a European warrant.
“Yes, that was an excellent means of coercion, this arrest warrant. Nevertheless, unfortunately, not enforceable in Mexico since Mexico is not part of the EU.
“And therefore, the enlightened citizen asks himself, how could Reiner Fuëllmich be arrested then? Was he really arrested only in Frankfurt or perhaps already in Tijuana?
“I wish that many first class lawyers, the stars among the international law experts, would engage with this case and send us their analysis. This case must cause concern among all lawyers worldwide.
“Mr. and Mrs. Fuellmich had lost their German passports. They had reported this to the consulate in Tijuana and applied for new passports with a new visa. On October 12th, they were registered at the consulate to pick up their new temporary passports and visas.
“The consul himself wanted to receive them at the airport. However, it was not the consul who was waiting at the airport, but six officials from the Mexican Immigration office who were only looking for Reiner Fuëllmich, and took him in. After that, there was no escape for him anymore.
” He found himself in state custody. The only question is which state? It may be that the obvious answer to this is not the right one at all. This is a question that many experts in international law should look at very closely. Which state was acting here?
“Normally, no one is expelled from Mexico because they no longer have a valid visa, especially if they didn’t have one because their passports had been lost, and they had just applied for and were supposed to get a new one. It was the case with Mrs. Fuëllmich. She got visa and passport without any problems. She could stay in the country and was not taken into custody.
“Reiner Fuëllich was first flown to New Mexico, and from there by Lufthansa to Frankfurt. There, he was met by the German police upon landing. And one day later on October 13th, the grounds for this action, the European arrest warrant, was disclosed to him. His two lawyers, Katja Woermer from Essen and I from Munich, both were present.
Reiner was accompanied on the flight from Mexico to Germany by two Mexicans, one of whom spoke English. Reiner asked him… (He’s a person who talks with everyone you know. You know him.) And asked him, who actually pays for these flights because that was quite a costly action which was taken here. You know, three flights from Mexico to Germany and then two flights back for the two Mexicans. The answer, one could guess, was Germany. Germany has paid for these flights.
“The question for the experts of international law is, therefore, could there be a legal basis for the actions of the German public prosecutor’s office in Göttingen? Is it the determined state for such an action or was it an illegal kidnapping, as some international articles have already suggested.
“The public prosecutors office in Göttingen based his arrest warrant on a criminal complaint filed by three young Berlin lawyers, two of whom were even members of the Corona Committee — had been…”
[…]
“…This criminal complaint is 30 pages long and is indeed a remarkable piece of writing, but not because of its legal brilliance. Prosecutors to whom we gave it to read were surprised that an investigation had been initiated at all on the basis of this document and the accusations formulated in it — other prosecutors told us.
“These facts also fueled a suspicion Reiner Fuëllmich’s arrest may have been motivated by political, rather than legal, considerations.
“We need international support through articles, legal analysis and also financial support. In fact, the money that Reiner Fuëllmich is accused of collecting is not with him but, hard to believe, with the person who filed a criminal complaint — at least with one of them. Because over one million euros were transferred to his account, which actually had to be transferred to an account of Reiner Fuëllmich. There he should have been transferred to, but he somehow managed that it was transferred to his account. It’s a bit [of] a complicated thing. So this is not easy to explain in this situation.
“The criminal complaint is dated on September 2, 2022. September 2, 2022 was exactly the day on which Viviane Fischer, together with Wolfgang Wodarg, announced Reiner’s departure from the Corona Committee, into the camera, allegedly because of financial irregularities.
“So it was 30 pages long, this complaint. That means nobody could write this in one day, so they have probably worked on it for several weeks already. So communicating with Reiner and, behind his back, they were planning his execution. It’s amazing.
“And all people who somehow he still considered as friends. Anyone who has watched the Corona Committee since 2020 could see that Reiner Fuëllmich did 90% of the work here. Because during this time he also created a network of international lawyers and initiated various class actions.
“If he had billed his legal work, which he certainly could have done, he would probably have been entitled to far more than the 700,000 euros that he’s now being accused of being illegally collected by him.
“Everyone who knows Reiner knows that his work is not about money and fame. He received a lot of letters in which people confirmed that he has saved their lives — actually really their lives — with the Corona Committee during the Corona measures. And it’s really what we should keep in mind.
“This one person wrote in a comment, I think it was on the Bittel broadcast. ‘Reiner carried us through dark times. Now we carry Reiner.’
“I hope that many people hear this and follow it.”
00:13:00
Dagmar now takes questions from the participants. The first question was about how Reiner spends his days in jail. There were other follow-up questions in this segment, asking for comparisons with US legal system, Reiner’s access to current global news, etc. Detailed answers to these questions can be found in the video.
Dagmar:
“How he spends his days? I mean, you know we didn’t really talk about this because we had so many other things to talk. But when we came on Monday, he had already written nine pages — handwriting — the whole history of the Corona Committee again. You know, a summary of all the incidents. And I think… you in these jails, you have a strict schedule during the day. And you get — at six o’clock in the morning, your day starts and then breakfast and then, you know, like the days they also go pretty fast.
“And I think Reiner has a lot to think about and to reconsider. And I feel that’s even the very positive thing on this.”
00:18:00
Dagmar was questioned about whether she’ll be making future appearances on Bittel TV (where the first announcement about Reiner’s situation took place). She said she would not be appearing again at Bittel.
A question was asked about whether there is an estimate of timing in terms of future court appearances.
Dagmar:
“No, we have to apply for, to check this situation with a judge. But first we have to look at the files we got. You know, we just got them now. And we have to look in the files. And then we can apply.
“Because we first have to know what is there — what they think that is their proof. And then we can apply and then we will see. I mean, in our view, they would have to let him go very quickly. That’s Katja’s and my opinion because it has no valid…
“It’s a civil conflict between persons who made a private company. So usually this has nothing to do with criminal law. And that’s a big indication that it’s a political case. And we will see how long they will keep him…”
00:27:00
A question was asked about the process that put Reiner in jail before he has been convicted of anything and whether or not he can get out on bail.
Dagmar:
“Of course, you’re innocent until there’s a summons. But if there’s some accusation and there’s a danger that you escape the power of the judiciary, you know, they can put you in jail. And that’s why they — because he was in Mexico they couldn’t get to him. So nowadays they — of course, there’s a danger that he might go back to Mexico. So it’s difficult to get him out.
“But I think they want to show something, you know, and do some some example for other people who try to keep their head out of the window and say something about the truth and what’s going on. But they do all the time already you know, with doctors.
“And so we just have to see that we get him out as quickly as possible. But state power is quite a power, you know. They can basically do what they want…”
00:29:00
Questions were asked about writing letters to Reiner, public support for Reiner and getting more publicity for his situation.
“I mean, you know you can write letters but it will take quite a while until they’ll reach him. Because they told me in the jail last week if you send them to the jail then they first go to the court. And then they are checked. Every letter from outside will be checked and then they go back to jail. Yeah, so it takes probably weeks until he gets it.”
00:30:00
A question was asked about public support for Reiner in Germany.
“I have not seen it yet…
“So I think send him your invisible support, you know, with prayers and I think he really feels that. He at least says so. And I think he’s also in a good shape because so many people are giving him this support. So the most important thing is now that he can soon talk with his wife on the phone. This is most important for him…”
A few articles by Uncut News (one a rebuttal by Viviane Fischer) were mentioned by Marion from Germany.
A question was asked about getting international alternative publishers to share more regarding Reiner’s arrest.
“But first we have to really know what is in the files, you know, because what should they say if we don’t even know what’s in the files?… The only thing that is really factual, clear, is how they how they got him and how they got him out of Mexico…
“We would very appreciate high-ranking. legal expertise on this subject. So try to find your top lawyers in your country, in your city. Talk to them and tell them they have to look in this case because this can hit everybody.”
Heike Funke (member of ICIC team) mentioned that they will be creating a webpage where comments in support of Reiner can be posted.
A question was asked regarding the discord between Reiner & Viviane Fischer.
Dagmar:
“The real mistake of Reiner was that he didn’t confront the problems with her right away when they appeared. If he would have — and that’s a trait in him. He has really difficulties in private relationships to address problems. He does it outside but with private he always tries to smooth them out, not to confront them. To smooth so that the work can go on. But this can be a major mistake, as this case shows now.
“She has not done any work she was obliged to do in the Corona Committee. And so he took all on himself. He did all the work then and his law firm. Instead of confronting her — if he had confronted her she would have been out after three months and the whole problem would have not appeared…”
Elsa added some insight.
Elsa:
“…I know from an interview with me, he knew within the first few minutes that it wasn’t a good match… And yet he always felt, ‘I can make it work’ as opposed to ‘this is the wrong person’. Better to have nobody or better to be without a team than to have the wrong team member…”
00:52:00
Dagmar:
“You know this, Elsa. I did also much work on myself. I know it’s difficult to confront these topics in yourself, but if you don’t, one day they hit you so in the face. And sometimes they even bring you into jail. I mean, what bigger the cost could be, like this now…”
[…]
“…I met him in 2015 and I invited him to this company to set up a legal platform to investigate in the judiciary. That’s where he met Schwab and Wodarg. I had already my experience with Wodarg in this thing, which was not very positive.
“And when I talked to him about my things I had done, you know my spiritual path… I mean… he had no idea about what I was talking. So he was really now in a pressure cooker for all these insights with the Corona Committee. He learned a lot. He opened so much. I mean, things for which I had maybe 10-20 years, he had to open to now in 2-3 years. That’s an immense inner work he has done and has allowed to happen to him — an opening he has allowed to happen to him…
“…I think in some strange way, I think this forced retreat — forced meditation retreat, he has now to endure — will change him a lot more. It will open dimensions probably he’s not aware yet, of insights. Because he was always running. And I know that Inka, his wife, she was always afraid that he’s working too much, that he’s still always confronting a burnout. Because this interview, and that interview, and then Africa. And this and that. So he never could really relax…
“Even after Martin Schwab has shown his his real face and his real attitude, he still was always not really facing what he was doing. He still was always trying to make it look good. But now this is changing. Because they really — Wodarg really damaged…
“And Viviane, I always see her as a desperate five-year-old… I think she had a lost child syndrome, breaking up, when he tried to go to the U.S… Then she got really angry.
“But Wodarg — she would not have done the 2nd of September 22 without Wodarg. She would not have done it. So he was actually the main actor here. And he has no excuse, no excuse at all, because he was a politician for 20 years. He was 15 years in parliament. He has experienced so many times that you can just kill a person like Reiner with one rumor, especially about money…”
[…]
“…And Martin Schwab, I think he just fulfilled the wish of his father who was a very famous professor of law. He still is…
“He just tried to fulfill the wish of his father to become also a professor, and that he became. But in this difficult task, all the other developments of his person somehow didn’t get enough energy…”
[…]
“…It’s true they have been very jealous of him because he has this energy and this power, and this ability to connect with so many people.
“And still to be so precise and clear. And that you can feel his heart. You can feel that he’s a real person…
“…If a real person talks then our hearts open because that’s the heart-to-heart connection that happens then.”
While this case is ongoing you can send a message to Reiner via Dagmar:
rainschoen@kanzlei-schoen.de
Today on October 26th we are just getting our first look at the damage and it is almost complete destruction. The Mexican government is keeping the media out of Acapulco and hardly any help or supplies is coming in. Almost all stores were destroyed in the storm and there is currently not even any food or water and very little power or communication.
Jeff Berwick, and the team from Anarchapulco, have been working in Acapulco for decades and raised funds and brought people to help for a prior hurricane in Acapulco, have supported the Marsh Children’s Home and their 200 orphans and helped out numerous communities who also received no help from the government or from the outside.
They are rushing in supplies and people with their own funds currently but this is a massive disaster and we need all the help we can get. Currently, most funds received will purchase food, water and supplies from Chilpancingo to be transported in and taken to the most hard hit areas first.
This is a rapidly moving situation and we will update regularly here on our progress and needs.
“You mentioned “DNA targeting.” yes, indeed, this is possible, but is it happening? I seriously doubt it. If medical/pharmaceutical experts cannot isolate a virus, RNA, or spike protein, they cannot (not capable) of working with DNA targeting, as assumed.”
Viruses/Virology: Promoting With Glorified And Catchy Language
About the view that vaccine(s) may include some type of DNA targeting, I responded as follows:
Being a chemist/scientist all my life, and mainly in the pharmaceutical area, when I read about pharmaceuticals, including viruses and vaccines, it is evident to me that medical experts clearly describe chemistry in a glorified and catchy language. However, most of their claims do not make sense and are often false and fraudulent.
You mentioned “DNA targeting.” yes, indeed, this is possible, but is it happening? I seriously doubt it. If medical/pharmaceutical experts cannot isolate a virus, RNA, or spike protein, they cannot (not capable) of working with DNA targeting, as assumed. So, it is fancy language to impress that something (high-level “science”) is happening.
On the other hand, as I described (here and here), it looks like they are injecting partial or unpurified cell culture (as a “vaccine”), assuming it is mRNA and is causing the problems (adverse effects), including deaths.
The only and easiest/quickest way to find out is to get an audit done by experts with experience in isolation/purification to establish if the mRNA/vaccine is pure as described or junk.
However, in the current (regulatory) system, an audit is done by experts who have no or limited experience in isolation and purification and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, so they will provide fancy stories and seek more funding for “research” to prepare for next “pandemic” and “vaccine.”
Further information on the topic may be found here: Helpful Notes, the Book, and Blog by the author (Dr. Qureshi), who worked at Health Canada as a Research Scientist and had 35+ years of bench science experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing among other specialties.
For many years doctors have received bonuses for adherence to the latest drug therapy protocol. Drugs that are known to be dangerous such as statins and anti-depressants. And now we know that insurance companies are paying doctors to fully vaccinate your children.
This incentive program for vaccinating babies can be found in the Blue Cross Blue Shield doctor incentives booklet. And specifies that every patient under the age of two that receives the currently prescribed twenty-four inoculations is worth a four-hundred dollar payout to that doctor.
For further motivation, they get paid by the hundred and they have to vaccinate a certain percentage of their total patients or they don’t get anything. Blue Cross Blue Shield rules say that a doctor needs to vaccinate sixty-three percent of their patients in order to qualify.
The average American pediatrician has about fifteen hundred patients and would have to have nine hundred and forty-five of them fully vaccinated in order to get paid. At forty-thousand for every hundred this works out to three-hundred and sixty thousand dollars.
This is why most pediatricians won’t provide care for families who don’t completely submit to the latest childhood vaccine schedule protocol. We are talking over a quarter million dollars which is more than the average pediatrician’s yearly salary.
Research shows that an unvaccinated child’s risk of death increases by over five thousand percent when they receive the current vaccine schedule.
And Doctors are now beginning to use virtual reality to help them administer these poisons to children who instinctively know better.
It gets harder and harder for the imperial propagandists to frame empire-targeted powers like Hamas as Evil Villains who are simply Evil because they are Evil. As our society gains a better and better collective understanding of psychology and trauma and why individuals do what they do, fewer and fewer people are swallowing such infantile propagandistic frameworks. When something scary and traumatizing happens, more and more people are beginning to ask, “Why? Why did that happen? What were the antecedents which led those people to do what they did?”
When people start asking such questions, answers are revealed which are very inconvenient for the information interests of the western empire. Oh it turns out Israel is an abusive apartheid state and Gaza is a giant concentration camp where Palestinians are deprived of basic human needs. Oh it turns out NATO was amassing war machinery near Russia’s border in ways the United States would never in a million years permit near its own borders. Oh it turns out western powers were funneling weapons to murderous extremist groups in Syria with the goal of ousting Assad and installing a puppet regime in Damascus.
More and more people understand that nobody is just plain evil because they are evil; if they’re doing something violent and scary, it’s a safe bet that something violent and scary was done to them, either immediately before or in their formative years. You see this expanding awareness manifest today in popular movies and shows with the rise of the anti-hero and complex villains with traumatic pasts that you can understand and sympathize with. Modern storytelling has largely abandoned the Virtuous Protagonist vs Villainous Antagonist model, simply because audiences are too conscious to buy it anymore. It loses their interest and attention.
And of course this expanded awareness extends to Israel as well. A people who had just suffered an unfathomable collective trauma were told they have a place that they can call their own in the Holy Land where they can feel safe, and then we saw the kind of violence and abuse we’d expect to see from a highly traumatized population who suddenly had power over the indigenous people who were living there previously. That trauma went into the psyches of the Palestinians, who sometimes do things only highly traumatized people would do.
And round and round it goes.
Really we’re all just lost little kids stumbling around from jump scare to jump scare in a frightening world that we do not understand. Some of us are better at faking self-assuredness than others, but really none of us know what this big mysterious world is all about and we only do what we do because we are whipped around by forces within ourselves we can’t really see, which were put there when we were too young to understand the trauma that was happening to us.
That’s all this really is. It comes out in some ugly, horrifying ways, like what we’re seeing in Gaza right now, but underneath it all it’s ultimately just scared little kids frozen in grown adult bodies trying to feel like they have a little bit of control in this wild chaotic world so they maybe won’t get hurt and scared again.
It comes out in some dark, dark ways and leads our species down some dark, dark paths. It might even get us all killed in a nuclear holocaust one day. But underneath it all we were always just a bunch of scared little primates, getting thrown around by psychological forces we hadn’t made conscious in a world our newly evolved brains aren’t equipped to comprehend.
I don’t know where our strange adventure is taking us or what we’ll endure on the remainder of our winding road together. But there does seem to be a light growing, even amid all the violence and the screams. Maybe we’ll wake up one day and stop acting out these terrible patterns. Maybe we’ll wake up one day and build a healthy world.
There is a complex history behind Israel’s October 2023 plan to “Wipe Gaza off the Map.”
It’s genocide, an absolute slaughter:
“We are going to attack Gaza City very broadly soon,” Israel’s chief military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said in a nationally broadcast address, without giving a timetable for the attack.”
It’s a criminal undertaking based on Israel’s doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” which was first formulated in 2001.
(See below: my January 2009 article published at the very outset of Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Led”)
The “Justified Vengeance” doctrine propounds in no uncertain terms that(despite its limited military capabilities) Palestine rather than Israel is “the aggressor” and that Israel has the right to defend itself.
“U.S. intelligence say they weren’t aware of an impending Hamas attack.
Did Netanyahu and his vast military and intelligence apparatus (Mossad et al) have foreknowledge of the Hamas attack which has resulted in countless deaths of Israelis and Palestinians.
Was a carefully formulated Israeli plan to wage an all out war against Palestinians envisaged prior to the launching by Hamas of “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm”?
This was not a failure of Israeli Intelligence, as conveyed by the media. Quite the opposite”
The History of False Flags: “The Green Light to Terror” (1997), The “Bloodshed as a Justification” to Wage War
“…This is the “green light to terror” theme which the Military Intelligence (Ama”n) has been promoting since 1997, when its anti-Oslo line was consolidated. This theme was since repeated again and again by military circles, and eventually became the mantra of Israeli propaganda…
The ‘Foreign Report’ (Jane’s information) of July 12, 2001 disclosed that the Israeli army (under Sharon’s government) has updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority”
The blueprint, titled “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”, was presented to the Israeli government by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, on July 8 [2001].
The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification.” (Tanya Reinhart, December 22, 2001)
Ariel Sharon: “A 1948 Style Solution”
According to the Prof. Tanya Reinhart:
“Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage of the ground invasion [2002- ], were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population … Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon “it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians”. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)
The “Hamas-Mossad Partnership”
What is now unfolding in Gaza is part of a longstanding intelligence agenda, which has been on the drawing board of successive Israeli governments for more than twenty years. Founded in 1987 with the support of Israel, “The Hamas-Mossad partnership” is confirmed by Netanyahu:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (March 2019 Statement quoted by Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)
“Support” and “Money” for Hamas
“Transferring Money to Hamas” on behalf of Netanyahu is confirmed by a Times of Israel October 8, 2023 Report:
“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (emphasis added)
Benjamin Netanyahu’s position defined several years prior to the October 7, 2023 “State of Readiness For War” consists in the total appropriation of Palestine Lands as well as the outright exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homeland:
“These are the basic lines of the national government headed by me: The Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.” (January 2023)
The Role of Mossad
The doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” initiated in 2001, is the cornerstone of Israel’s intelligence narrative. It provides a justification to carry out acts of genocide, with the support of the International community, first in Gaza, then in the West Bank.
These official figures are meaningless, intelligence agencies do not reveal the sources of their funding or the size of their staff (which are in excess of the figures quoted above).
Mossad (Foreign Intelligence) together with Shin Bet (Domestic National Security) and Aman (Military Intelligence) is the main actor in the conduct of “false flag operations”. It’s covert capabilities are extensive. It has over the years infiltrated both Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority, It also exerts –in liaison with US intelligence– control over Al Qaeda operatives, ISIS and Daesh throughout the Middle East.
Mossad’s mandate is to create “divisions” within the Palestinian Resistance Movement, while sustaining fear and routine terrorist false flag events against innocent Israeli civilians, which sustains the legitimacy of the “Justified Vengeance” narrative.
Chronology
Let us briefly review the history, the various stages following the:
Failure of Oslo I and II (1993-95) and The Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (1995)
2001. “Operation Justified Vengeance”
Presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title:
“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.
See the Analysis of Tanya Reinhart and the Jane Report quoted above and in the article below).
“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after the late General Meir Dagan, who headed Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency from 2002-2011.
The longer term objective of “Operation Justified Vengeance” (2001) was and remains the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.
2002. Decision to Build the Infamous Apartheid Wall by Sharon Government
2004. The Assassination of Yasser Arafat
It was ordered by the Israeli Cabinet in 2003. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. It was undertaken by Mossad. (See details in article below)
2005. The Removal, Under Orders of PM Ariel Sharon of All Jewish Settlements in Gaza.
Proposed in 2003 by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, implemented in August 2005 and completed in September 2005.
A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated. This relocation was required to transform the Gaza Strip into “An Open Air Prison”
2006. The Hamas Election Victory in January 2006.
Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections.
2008-2009. “Operation Cast Lead”
In 2008 the “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda, which was first formulated in the 2001 “Operation Justified Vengeance”:
“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”
The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” as formulated in the “Operation Justified Vengeance Report”.
—Michel Chossudovsky, May 15, 2021, October 23, 2023
Below is my article published in early January 2009, at the height of the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead
The Invasion of Gaza: Part of a Broader Israeli Military-Intelligence Agenda
by Michel Chossudovsky, January 2009
“Operation Cast Lead”
The aerial bombings and the ongoing ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli ground forces must be analysed in a historical context. Operation “Cast Lead” [2008] is a carefully planned undertaking, which is part of a broader military-intelligence agenda first formulated by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001:
“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)
It was Israel which broke the truce on the day of the US presidential elections, November 4:
“Israel used this distraction to break the ceasefire between itself and Hamas by bombing the Gaza strip. Israel claimed this violation of the ceasefire was to prevent Hamas from digging tunnels into Israeli territory.
The very next day, Israel launched a terrorizing siege of Gaza, cutting off food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities in an attempt to “subdue” the Palestinians while at the same time engaging in armed incursions.
In response, Hamas and others in Gaza again resorted to firing crude, homemade, and mainly inaccurate rockets into Israel. During the past seven years, these rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis. Over the same time span, Israeli Blitzkrieg assaults have killed thousands of Palestinians, drawing worldwide protest but falling on deaf ears at the UN.” (Shamus Cooke, The Massacre in Palestine and the Threat of a Wider War, Global Research, December 2008)
Planned Humanitarian Disaster
On December 8, [2008] US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Tel Aviv for discussions with his Israeli counterparts including the director of Mossad, Meir Dagan.
“Operation Cast Lead” was initiated two days day after Christmas. It was coupled with a carefully designed international Public Relations campaign under the auspices of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.
Hamas’ military targets are not the main objective. Operation “Cast Lead” is intended, quite deliberately, to trigger civilian casualities.
What we are dealing with is a “planned humanitarian disaster” in Gaza in a densly populated urban area. (See map below)
The longer term objective of this plan, as formulated by Israeli policy makers, is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands:
“Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources… The daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions” Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)
“Operation Justified Vengeance”
A turning point has been reached. Operation “Cast Lead” is part of the broader military-intelligence operation initiated at the outset of the Ariel Sharon government in 2001. It was under Sharon’s “Operation Justified Vengeance” that F-16 fighter planes were initially used to bomb Palestinian cities.
“Operation Justified Vengeance” was presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.
“A contingency plan, codenamed Operation Justified Vengeance, was drawn up last June [2001] to reoccupy all of the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip at a likely cost of “hundreds” of Israeli casualties.” (Washington Times, 19 March 2002).
According to Jane’s ‘Foreign Report’ (July 12, 2001) the Israeli army under Sharon had updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.
“Bloodshed Justification”
The “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda. The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” Israeli military operations were carefully timed to coincide with the suicide attacks:
“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after General (ret.) Meir Dagan, who currently heads Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.
Reserve General Meir Dagan was Sharon’s national security adviser during the 2000 election campaign. The plan was apparently drawn up prior to Sharon’s election as Prime Minister in February 2001. “According to Alex Fishman writing in Yediot Aharonot, the Dagan Plan consisted in destroying the Palestinian authority and putting Yasser Arafat ‘out of the game’.” (Ellis Shulman, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: a Secret Plan to Destroy the Palestinian Authority, March 2001):
“As reported in the Foreign Report [Jane] and disclosed locally by Maariv, Israel’s invasion plan — reportedly dubbed Justified Vengeance — would be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. (Ibid, emphasis added)
The “Dagan Plan” envisaged the so-called “cantonization” of Palestinian territories whereby the West Bank and Gaza would be totally cut off from one other, with separate “governments” in each of the territories. Under this scenario, already envisaged in 2001, Israel would:
“negotiate separately with Palestinian forces that are dominant in each territory-Palestinian forces responsible for security, intelligence, and even for the Tanzim (Fatah).” The plan thus closely resembles the idea of “cantonization” of Palestinian territories, put forth by a number of ministers.” Sylvain Cypel, The infamous ‘Dagan Plan’ Sharon’s plan for getting rid of Arafat, Le Monde, December 17, 2001)
The Dagan Plan has established continuity in the military-intelligence agenda. In the wake of the 2000 elections, Meir Dagan was assigned a key role. “He became Sharon’s “go-between” in security issues with President’s Bush’s special envoys Zinni and Mitchell.” He was subsequently appointed Director of the Mossad by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in August 2002. In the post-Sharon period, he remained head of Mossad. He was reconfirmed in his position as Director of Israeli Intelligence by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in June 2008.
Meir Dagan, in coordination with his US counterparts, has been in charge of various military-intelligence operations. It is worth noting that Meir Dagan as a young Colonel had worked closely with defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on Palestinian settlements in Beirut in 1982. The 2009 ground invasion of Gaza, in many regards, bear a canny resemblance to the 1982 military operation led by Sharon and Dagan.
Continuity: From Sharon to Olmert
It is important to focus on a number of key events which have led up to the killings in Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”:
1. The assassination in November 2004 of Yasser Arafat.
This assassination had been on the drawing board since 1996 under “Operation Fields of Thorns”.
According to an October 2000 document
“prepared by the security services, at the request of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, stated that ‘Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel] and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence’”. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001. Details of the document were published in Ma’ariv, July 6, 2001.).
Arafat’s assassination was ordered in 2003 by the Israeli cabinet. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. Reacting to increased Palestinian attacks, in August 2003, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared “all out war” on the militants whom he vowed “marked for death.”
“In mid September, Israel’s government passed a law to get rid of Arafat. Israel’s cabinet for political security affairs declared it “a decision to remove Arafat as an obstacle to peace.” Mofaz threatened; “we will choose the right way and the right time to kill Arafat.” Palestinian Minister Saeb Erekat told CNN he thought Arafat was the next target. CNN asked Sharon spokesman Ra’anan Gissan if the vote meant expulsion of Arafat. Gissan clarified; “It doesn’t mean that. The Cabinet has today resolved to remove this obstacle. The time, the method, the ways by which this will take place will be decided separately, and the security services will monitor the situation and make the recommendation about proper action.” (See Trish Shuh, Road Map for a Decease Plan, www.mehrnews.com November 9 2005)
The assassination of Arafat was part of the 2001 Dagan Plan.
In all likelihood, it was carried out by Israeli Intelligence. It was intended to destroy the Palestinian Authority, foment divisions within Fatah as well as between Fatah and Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas is a Palestinian quisling.
He was installed as leader of Fatah, with the approval of Israel and the US, which finance the Palestinian Authority’s paramilitary and security forces.
2. The Removal, Under the Orders of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005, of All Jewish Settlements in Gaza.
A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated.
“It is my intention [Sharon] to carry out an evacuation – sorry, a relocation – of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements…. I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza,” Sharon said.” (CBC, March 2004)
The issue of the settlements in Gaza was presented as part of Washington’s “road map to peace”.
Celebrated by the Palestinians as a “victory”, this measure was not directed against the Jewish settlers. Quite the opposite: It was part of the overall covert operation, which consisted in transforming Gaza into a concentration camp. As long as Jewish settlers were living inside Gaza, the objective of sustaining a large barricaded prison territory could not be achieved. The Implementation of “Operation Cast Lead” required “no Jews in Gaza”.
3. The Building of the Infamous Apartheid Wall
This was decided upon at the beginning of the Sharon government in 2002. (See Map below)
4. The Hamas Election Victory in January 2006.
Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections. This was part of the scenario, which had been envisaged and analyzed well in advance.
With Hamas in charge in Gaza, using the pretext that Hamas is a terrorist organization, Israel would carry out the process of “cantonization” as formulated under the Dagan plan. Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would remain formally in charge of the West Bank. The duly elected Hamas government would be confined to the Gaza strip.
Ground Attack, 2008-2009
On January 3, [2009] Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza in an all out ground offensive:
“The ground operation was preceded by several hours of heavy artillery fire after dark, igniting targets in flames that burst into the night sky. Machine gun fire rattled as bright tracer rounds flashed through the darkness and the crash of hundreds of shells sent up streaks of fire. (AP, January 3, 2009)
Israeli sources have pointed to a lengthy drawn out military operation. It “won’t be easy and it won’t be short,” said Defense Minister Ehud Barak in a TV address.
Israel is not seeking to oblige Hamas “to cooperate”. What we are dealing with is the implementation of the “Dagan Plan” as initially formulated in 2001, which called for:
“an invasion of Palestinian-controlled territory by some 30,000 Israeli soldiers, with the clearly defined mission of destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian leadership and collecting weaponry currently possessed by the various Palestinian forces, and expelling or killing its military leadership. (Ellis Shulman, op cit, emphasis added)
Nakba 2.0: Mass Expulsion and a Ground Invasion Contemplated
The broader question is whether Israel in consultation with Washington is intent upon triggering a wider war.
Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage of the ground invasion, were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population.
Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon
“it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)
Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.
“But these weren’t the kind of monsters that had tentacles and rotting skin, the kind a seven-year-old might be able to wrap his mind around—they were monsters with human faces, in crisp uniforms, marching in lockstep, so banal you don’t recognize them for what they are until it’s too late.”
― Ransom Riggs, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children
Enough already.
Enough with the distractions. Enough with the partisan jousting.
Enough with the sniping and name-calling and mud-slinging that do nothing to make this country safer or freer or more just.
We have let the government’s evil-doing, its abuses, power grabs, brutality, meanness, inhumanity, immorality, greed, corruption, debauchery and tyranny go on for too long.
We have seen this convergence before in Hitler’s Germany, in Stalin’s Russia, in Mussolini’s Italy, and in Mao’s China: the rise of strongmen and demagogues, the ascendency of profit-driven politics over deep-seated principles, the warring nationalism that seeks to divide and conquer, the callous disregard for basic human rights and dignity, and the silence of people who should know better.
Yet no matter how many times the world has been down this road before, we can’t seem to avoid repeating the deadly mistakes of the past.
This is not just playing out on a national and international scale. It is wreaking havoc at the most immediate level, as well, creating rifts and polarities within families and friends, neighborhoods and communities that keep the populace warring among themselves and incapable of presenting a united front in the face of the government’s goose-stepping despotism.
We labor today under the weight of countless tyrannies, large and small, disguised as “the better good,” marketed as benevolence, enforced with armed police, and carried out by an elite class of government officials who are largely insulated from the ill effects of their actions.
For too long now, the American people have rationalized turning a blind eye to all manner of government wrongdoing—asset forfeiture schemes, corruption, surveillance, endless wars, SWAT team raids, militarized police, profit-driven private prisons, and so on—because they were the so-called lesser of two evils.
Yet the unavoidable truth is that the government—through its acts of power grabs, brutality, meanness, inhumanity, immorality, greed, corruption, debauchery and tyranny—has become almost indistinguishable from the evil it claims to be fighting, whether that evil takes the form of terrorism, torture, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, murder, violence, theft, pornography, scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity.
At its core, this is not a debate about politics, or constitutionalism, or even tyranny disguised as law-and-order. This is a condemnation of the monsters with human faces who walk among us.
Many of them work for the U.S. government.
This is the premise of John Carpenter’s film They Live, which was released thirty-five years ago and remains unnervingly, chillingly appropriate for our modern age.
Best known for his horror film Halloween, which assumes that there is a form of evil so dark that it can’t be killed, Carpenter’s larger body of work is infused with a strong anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, laconic bent that speaks to the filmmaker’s concerns about the unraveling of our society, particularly our government.
Time and again, Carpenter portrays the government working against its own citizens, a populace out of touch with reality, technology run amok, and a future more horrific than any horror film.
In Escape from New York, Carpenter presents fascism as the future of America.
In The Thing, a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name, Carpenter presupposes that increasingly we are all becoming dehumanized.
In Christine, the film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel about a demon-possessed car, technology exhibits a will and consciousness of its own and goes on a murderous rampage.
In In the Mouth of Madness, Carpenter notes that evil grows when people lose “the ability to know the difference between reality and fantasy.”
And then there is Carpenter’s They Live, in which two migrant workers discover that the world is not as it seems. In fact, the population is actually being controlled and exploited by aliens working in partnership with an oligarchic elite. All the while, the populace—blissfully unaware of the real agenda at work in their lives—has been lulled into complacency, indoctrinated into compliance, bombarded with media distractions, and hypnotized by subliminal messages beamed out of television and various electronic devices, billboards and the like.
It is only when homeless drifter John Nada (played to the hilt by the late Roddy Piper) discovers a pair of doctored sunglasses—Hoffman lenses—that Nada sees what lies beneath the elite’s fabricated reality: control and bondage.
When viewed through the lens of truth, the elite, who appear human until stripped of their disguises, are shown to be monsters who have enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on them.
Likewise, billboards blare out hidden, authoritative messages: a bikini-clad woman in one ad is actually ordering viewers to “MARRY AND REPRODUCE.” Magazine racks scream “CONSUME” and “OBEY.” A wad of dollar bills in a vendor’s hand proclaims, “THIS IS YOUR GOD.”
When viewed through Nada’s Hoffman lenses, some of the other hidden messages being drummed into the people’s subconscious include: NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONFORM, SUBMIT, STAY ASLEEP, BUY, WATCH TV, NO IMAGINATION, and DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.
This indoctrination campaign engineered by the elite in They Live is painfully familiar to anyone who has studied the decline of American culture.
A citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question, is submissive, does not challenge authority, does not think outside the box, and is content to sit back and be entertained is a citizenry that can be easily controlled.
In this way, the subtle message of They Live provides an apt analogy of our own distorted vision of life in the American police state, what philosopher Slavoj Žižek refers to as dictatorship in democracy, “the invisible order which sustains your apparent freedom.”
Tune out the government’s attempts to distract, divert and befuddle us and tune into what’s really going on in this country, and you’ll run headlong into an unmistakable, unpalatable truth: what we are dealing with today is an authoritarian beast that has outgrown its chains and will not be restrained.
We’re being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no resemblance to reality.
Despite the fact that we are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack; 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane; 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack, and 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist , we have handed over control of our lives to government officials who treat us as a means to an end—the source of money and power.
As the Bearded Man in They Live warns, “They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.”
We have bought into the illusion and refused to grasp the truth.
From the moment we are born until we die, we are indoctrinated into believing that those who rule us do it for our own good. The truth is far different.
The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists, pandemics, mass shootings, etc.).
They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our safety and well-being.
They want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other’s throats.
We are little more than expendable resources to be used, abused and discarded.
In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups.
In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.
Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.
Sound familiar?
Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests.
We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism.
Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many. In this way, it is not a democracy or a republican form of government, which is what the American government was established to be. It is a top-down form of government and one which has a terrifying history typified by the developments that occurred in totalitarian regimes of the past: police states where everyone is watched and spied on, rounded up for minor infractions by government agents, placed under police control, and placed in detention (a.k.a. concentration) camps.
For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary.
But why would a people agree to such an oppressive regime?
Fear is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. And, as most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere of fear permeates modern America: fear of terrorism, fear of the police, fear of our neighbors and so on.
The propaganda of fear has been used quite effectively by those who want to gain control, and it is transforming the populace into fearful, compliant, pacified zombies content to march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.
This brings me back to They Live, in which the real zombies are not the aliens calling the shots but the populace who are content to remain controlled.
When all is said and done, the world of They Live is not so different from our own. As one of the characters points out, “The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society, and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain.”
We, too, are focused only on our own pleasures, prejudices and gains. Our poor and underclasses are also growing. Injustice is growing. Inequality is growing. A concern for human rights is nearly nonexistent. We too have been lulled into a trance, indifferent to others.
Oblivious to what lies ahead, we’ve been manipulated into believing that if we continue to consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out. But that’s never been true of emerging regimes. And by the time we feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.
So where does that leave us?
The characters who populate Carpenter’s films provide some insight.
Underneath their machismo, they still believe in the ideals of liberty and equal opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the law and the establishment, but they are nonetheless freedom fighters.
When, for example, John Nada destroys the alien hypno-transmitter in They Live, he delivers a wake-up call for freedom. As Nada memorably declares, “I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I’m all out of bubblegum.”
In other words: we need to get active and take a stand for what’s really important.
Stop allowing yourselves to be easily distracted by pointless political spectacles and pay attention to what’s really going on in the country.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the real battle for control of this nation is taking place on roadsides, in police cars, on witness stands, over phone lines, in government offices, in corporate offices, in public school hallways and classrooms, in parks and city council meetings, and in towns and cities across this country.
All the trappings of the American police state are now in plain sight.
Wake up, America.
If they live (the tyrants, the oppressors, the invaders, the overlords), it is only because “we the people” sleep.
“The Orthodox crazies also have a scenario — namely, the End Times, in which we will see the sacrifice of a red heifer, destruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque, construction of the Third Temple, blood sacrifices, the appearance of the long-awaited Messiah, and a world ruled from Israel under Noahide law. Only hard-core viewers will be interested in this episode, but Christian zionists will certain to be watching because they are heavily into this scenario. These people are so impatient to see prophecy fulfilled that they can’t wait for God to carry it out, so they’re doing it themselves.”
The media magicians certainly know how to keep us guessing. From 9-11, to Covid, to Ukraine, and now Gaza — just as we were piecing together the puzzle of the last world-shaking event, a new one is thrown on the table. It’s as if there were scriptwriters whose job is to keep us on the edge of our chairs, so occupied with new dramas that we have no time to think. The difference is, the story-makers here are using the real world as their stage.
The October 7, 2023 Gaza rebellion against Israel has led to a whirlwind of discussion. Some speculate that it was a plan which would give Israel a justification to invade Gaza, which would in turn bring in Hezbollah, which would bring in Iran, which would bring the US and NATO to attack Iran, which would bring Russia in to defend Iran, and then China to defend Russia. In other words — World War III as a desired goal. This scenario involves secret societies with the power to orchestrate world events down through the centuries, as if they were gods. Indeed, many of the major players in the Great Reset have already shown that they feel that they are gods and can shape the world as they see fit. It will be a hard fall for them — the very definition of hubris, and of insanity.
Others say October 7 was a successful prison break which caught the zionist entity completely off guard. In this scenario, the zionists will be desperate for revenge but will only be further humiliated when they invade Gaza on the ground. When this happens world opinion will be so horrified by the carnage that it withdraws all support, leaving the Palestinian resistance to force the child killers of the IDF into final defeat. The zionist project launched by Theodore Herzl in 1897 will then reach its shameful end. We can only hope.
Still others say that Netanyahu is enough of a psychopath to bring all this about in order to maintain power. In this scenario, Netanyahu solves his domestic political problems with the diversions of martial law and war. But 80% of the Jewish population of Israel reportedly believe there is no way the security breach at Gaza could have happened without his connivance. This leads to a general lack of support for war, mass desertions from the military, and the end of Netanyahu. We will have to wait until next week’s episode to see whether it’s the Talmud-thumping Orthodox crazies or someone else who takes Netanyahu’s place.
The Orthodox crazies also have a scenario — namely, the End Times, in which we will see the sacrifice of a red heifer, destruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque, construction of the Third Temple, blood sacrifices, the appearance of the long-awaited Messiah, and a world ruled from Israel under Noahide law. Only hard-core viewers will be interested in this episode, but Christian zionists will certain to be watching because they are heavily into this scenario. These people are so impatient to see prophecy fulfilled that they can’t wait for God to carry it out, so they’re doing it themselves.
It’s hard to miss the thread of Jewish involvement running through 9-11, the covid psy-op, Ukraine, and the push for wider war being made out of Gaza. Consider what history would have been like if we hadn’t been manipulated by patently obvious schemes carried out by Jewish actors. Wolfowitz and Perle would have been forced to drop their plan to attack a long list of Israel’s enemies. Albert Bourla and Rochelle Walensky would have been denied permission to inject poisonous “vaccines” into two thirds of the world’s population. Blinken, Nuland, and Zelensky would have been thrown out for betraying agreements to stop attacking the Donbass and to keeping Ukraine neutral. Israel would have been forced to let up on Gaza and, for that matter, its entire project in Palestine. These steps could have prevented our reaching the dangerous situation we’re in today, yet tremendous effort was put in by these busy people to make sure war and suffering would go forward. Why is so much space being taken up by the needs and anxieties of such a small group?
For the sake of humanity, the world must stop the disasters Jewish messianism is drawing us into. Genocide is now being carried out in Gaza with the whole world watching. The resistance in Palestine and in the region have always had, and have now, every right to fight back. There is no equals sign between Palestinians and Israel. Israel is the oppressor; the Palestinians are the oppressed. Free Palestine!
The video below was filmed by Oracle Films as part of the On Guard for the Liberty of Mankind Symposium that took place in Sweden on September 30, 2023, presented by The Children’s Health Defense and The Doctors’ Appeal.
This interview took place between Ivor Cummins & David Rogers Webb, author of the book “The Great Taking”. Find additional videos from this conference at Ivor Cummins’ Odysee channel.
Summary of “The Great Taking”
It is about the taking of collateral (all of it), the end game of the current globally synchronous debt accumulation super cycle.
This scheme is being executed by long-planned, intelligent design, the audacity and scope of which is difficult for the mind to encompass. Included are all financial assets and bank deposits, all stocks and bonds; and hence, all underlying property of all public corporations, including all inventories, plant and equipment; land, mineral deposits, inventions and intellectual property.
Privately-owned personal and real property financed with any amount of debt will likewise be taken, as will the assets of privately owned businesses which have been financed with debt.
If even partially successful, this will be the greatest conquest and subjugation in world history.
Private, closely held control of ALL central banks, and hence of all money creation, has allowed a very few people to control all political parties and governments; the intelligence agencies and their myriad front organizations; the armed forces and the police; the major corporations and, of course, the media.
These very few people are the prime movers. Their plans are executed over decades. Their control is opaque.
To be clear, it is these very few people, who are hidden from you, who are behind this scheme to confiscate all assets, who are waging a hybrid war against humanity.
Mainstream media aren’t talking about it, but it’s an open secret: some 50 years ago, the US and Israel created Hamas—as an offset and competitor to Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization.
It was one more brilliant (aka asinine) example of meddling and launching endless enemies, who become our enemies when they turn on us. The CIA has specialized in this, all over the world.
The US and Israeli governments launched CIA and Mossad. These intel giants were tasked with collecting and interpreting information on potential enemies.
Of course, CIA and Mossad expanded their mandates and operations. Immediately. And that’s where the real trouble came.
“Let’s subvert our enemies. Let’s undertake hundreds and thousands of clandestine operations to neutralize and destroy our enemies. In the process, we can invent groups who will serve us and do the destroying for us…”
Yeah. Sure. A perfect formula for suicide.
And it caters to exactly the people you never want to give any power to. The chessboard game-playing crazies. Namely, your own operations case officers and planners.
THESE guys are loved by all sorts of big-time corporate and financial players (in the US and Israel), who are looking for a leg up in their foreign expansions efforts: finding new resources abroad, finding new markets, finding new corrupt allies.
Protecting national interests becomes EMPIRE.
Empire perverts and subverts little items like national Constitutions and the basic rule of law. “The law is for suckers. We’re the intel community. Just let us do our jobs. We know how to capture and win whatever we can get our hands on. Life is nothing more than winners and losers. Face it. And we’re the pros.”
Which takes us much deeper into the rabbit hole. Into places where morality and reality clash. Where sympathy and common sense clash. Where the whole idea of what an independent nation is and should be is challenged and potentially destroyed.
This rabbit hole is where many people don’t want to go. It challenges and nullifies, they believe, every important human impulse.
“He said, ‘If you become steadfast in your abstentions of thoughts of harm directed towards others, all living creatures will cease to feel enmity in your presence.’
[…]
“But at the higher level, when there are no justified resentments, what you are doing is you are at a place where you are sending love in response to hate.”
Wayne Walter Dyer (May 10, 1940 – August 29, 2015) was an American self-help author and a motivational speaker. Dyer completed a Ed.D. in guidance and counseling at Wayne State University in 1970. Early in his career, he worked as a high school guidance counselor, and went on to run a successful private therapy practice.
He became a popular professor of counselor education at St. John’s University, where he was approached by a literary agent to put his ideas into book form. The result was his first book, Your Erroneous Zones (1976), one of the best-selling books of all time, with an estimated 100 million copies sold. This launched Dyer’s career as a motivational speaker and self-help author, during which he published 20 more best-selling books and produced a number of popular specials for PBS. Influenced by thinkers such as Abraham Maslow and Albert Ellis, Dyer’s early work focused on psychological themes such as motivation, self actualization and assertiveness.
I was in a group one time of drug addicts and alcoholics. And I was one of the people that was a sponsor and leading this group. And the sign on the wall said “There are no justified resentments in this group”.
And what I said to that group that night was, “No matter what anybody says to you here, no matter what kind of anger comes directed towards you, no matter how much hate you may encounter showing up in your life, there are no justified resentments.”
Meaning that if you carry around resentment inside of you about anything or about anyone —
And I’m talking about the person that you lent money to and hasn’t paid you back.
I’m talking about the person in your life that you feel was abusive.
I’m talking about the person who walked out on you and left you for somebody else.
I’m talking about all of the things that you have justified in your heart and in your life that you have the right to be resentful about.
And I’m suggesting to you that those resentments will always end up harming you and creating in you a sense of despair.
I’ve often said that no one ever dies from a snake bite. The snake bite will never kill you. You cannot be unbitten. Once you’re bitten, you’re bitten. But it’s the venom that continues to pour through your system after the bite that will end up destroying you.
So now you have to take a look at all of the resentments that you may have in your life. And I’d like to suggest to you that I think there is a wonderful metaphor for this that I have created in my life for how to make this work.
There’s a show called ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?’. And basically this show has two levels that you have to get to.
Now the first level is the thousand dollar level. And at the thousand dollar level you basically have to answer a question like, on your hand you have some digits. Those digits on your hand are called — your feet? — your nose? — your ears? — your fingers?. Uhhh. And everybody who ever goes on the show has this horrible dread that they’re going to go out on one of those questions. Right?
So basically, in order to get to the thousand dollar level all you have to do is answer five pretty simple questions in order to get to the thousand dollar level. Now the thousand dollar level, for you in this metaphor, means that you will leave with something if you get this. At least get this. This is the thousand dollar level.
You must send blame out of your life for any conditions of your life. Blame has to go.
Now blame means if you’re sitting there with a disease you say, without guilt, “It’s mine. I take responsibility for it.”
This means that if you have been through any tough circumstances in your life, this means if you have a minimal amount of financial security in your life.
This means if your children don’t get along with you.
This means that if your neighbors are taking up a petition to get you out of the neighborhood.
Whatever it might be that’s going on in your life, you name it and everybody has a series of these things that you’re willing to say, “I am here because of the choices that I have made. Right now. I’m willing to say that.” Even though it’s difficult, and we know it’s really not your fault. We know really there’s a lot of people out there who are really bad. All right? But you’re willing to say, “No blame.”
That’s the first level. All right? That’s where you understand “No justified resentment”.
And then on the ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?’ show, there is what is called the $32,000 level. And the $32,000 level is not only an opportunity for you to walk away with a sizable amount of goodies, but it also is the door opener to multi-wealth. But you got to get to this in order to have an opportunity to move into these transcendent levels. All right? Millionaire spiritual status. All right? You got to get through these next five questions.
And this $32,000 question, or level rather, comes to this. It came to me from a quotation that I used in the writing of ‘A Spiritual Solution to Every Problem’. I read a book that was written a couple of thousand years ago by Patanjali, ‘The Yoga Sutras’, ‘The Aphorisms of Patanjali’. And one of those sutras, one of those aphorisms, observations that this brilliant man made almost 2,000 years ago was this:
He said, “If you become steadfast in your abstentions of thoughts of harm directed towards others, all living creatures will cease to feel enmity in your presence.”
Now this translates to: Blame, pretty basic. No more blame. I’m just not going to assign responsibility to other people for where I am. Because now I have an opportunity to get rid of it. If I think someone else caused it, then I’ve got to wait for somebody else to change in order for me to get rid of it. And you might wait forever for that. But if I take responsibility for it, I can do something, including move on, which might be the most important thing to do.
But at the higher level, when there are no justified resentments, what you are doing is you are at a place where you are sending love in response to hate. You are literally saying, “No matter what comes my way, I am going to be steadfast in my abstention of thoughts of harm directed toward others. I’m going to work hard at, no matter what comes my way, having it come out of me what I want to come out of me. And that is love. And that is a higher energy.”
And if you can get to that level, Patanjali said, all living creatures will cease to feel enmity in your presence.
I have a little girl, a precious little girl. I have six precious girls and two precious sons, but I have a little girl who is almost 12. And she loves animals like no one I’ve ever met in my life. I mean, her whole life revolves around animals. And when we walk in the woods, butterflies avoid me, fly away from people around, and they come and they land right on her arm, and it happens all the time. All living creatures. She couldn’t have a thought of harm directed towards any living creature.
And Patanjali said to us, all living creatures will cease to feel fear or enmity or anger in the presence of those who can send love in response to hate. That’s what I mean when I say there are no justified resentments.
What I’d like to do, I’d like to share a little story here with you. It’s a very tender story. It was sent to me by someone who sends me beautiful things in the mail. And I call it The Teddy Story. And I’d like to read this to you, if I can do it without tearing up. And this story illustrates this as well as anything I’ve ever seen.
There’s a story many years ago of an elementary school teacher. Her name was Mrs. Thompson. As she stood in front of her fifth grade class on the very first day of school, she told the children a lie. Like most teachers, she looked at her students and said that she loved them all the same. But that was impossible because there in the front row, slumped in his seat, was a little boy named Teddy Stoddard.
Mrs. Thompson had watched Teddy the year before and noticed that he didn’t play well with the other children, that his clothes were messy and that he constantly needed a bath. Teddy could be unpleasant. It got to the point where Mrs. Thompson would actually take delight in marking his papers with a broad red pen and making bold Xs and then putting a big F at the top of his paper.
At the school where Mrs. Thompson taught, she was required to review each child’s past records. And she put Teddy’s off until last. However, when she reviewed his file, she was in for a surprise.
Teddy’s first grade teacher wrote, “Teddy is a bright child with a ready laugh. He does his work neatly and he has good manners. He’s a joy to be around.”
His second grade teacher wrote, “Teddy is an excellent student, well liked by his classmates. But he’s troubled because his mother has a terminal illness and life at home must be a struggle.”
His third grade teacher wrote, “His mother’s death has been hard on him. He tries to do his best, but his father doesn’t show much interest and his home life will soon affect him if steps aren’t taken.”
Teddy’s fourth grade teacher wrote, “Teddy’s withdrawn and doesn’t show much interest in school. He doesn’t have many friends and sometimes he even sleeps in class.”
By now Mrs. Thompson realized the problem and she was ashamed of herself. She felt even worse when her students brought her Christmas presents wrapped in beautiful ribbons and bright paper, except for Teddy’s. His present was clumsily wrapped in heavy brown paper that he got from the grocery bag.
Mrs. Thompson took pains to open it in the middle of the other presents. Some of the children started to laugh when she found a rhinestone bracelet with some of the stones missing and a bottle that was one quarter full of perfume. But she stifled her children’s laughter when she exclaimed how pretty the bracelet was, putting it on and dabbing some of the perfume on her wrist.
Teddy Stoddard stayed after school that day just long enough to say, “Mrs. Thompson, today you smelled just like my mom used to.”
After the children laughed, she cried for at least an hour. On that very day, she quit teaching, reading, writing and arithmetic and instead she began to teach children.
Mrs. Thompson paid particular attention to Teddy. As she worked with him and his mind seemed to come alive, the more she encouraged him the faster he responded. By the end of the year, Teddy had become one of the smartest children in the class and, despite her lie, became one of her teacher’s pets.
A year later, she found a note under the door from Teddy telling her that she was still the best teacher he ever had in his whole life.
Six years went by before she got another note from Teddy. He then wrote that he had finished high school third in his class and she was still the best teacher he ever had in his whole life.
Four years after that, she got another letter saying that while things had been tough at times, he stayed in school and stuck with it. And would soon graduate from college with the highest of honors. He assured Mrs. Thompson that she was still the very best and favorite teacher he ever had in his whole life.
Then four more years passed and yet another letter came. This time he explained that after he got his bachelor’s degree, he decided to go a little further. The letter explained that she was still the best and favorite teacher he ever had but now his name was a little longer. The letter was signed Theodore F. Stoddard, MD.
But the story doesn’t end there. You see, there was yet another letter that spring. Teddy said he’d met this girl and was going to be married. He explained that his father had died a couple of years ago and he was wondering if Mrs. Thompson might agree to sit in the place at the wedding that was usually reserved for the mother of the groom.
Of course Mrs. Thompson did. And guess what? She wore that bracelet, the one with several rhinestones missing. And she made sure she was wearing the perfume that Teddy remembered his mother wearing on their last Christmas together.
They hugged each other and Dr. Stoddard whispered in Mrs. Thompson’s ear, “Thank you so much for making me feel important and showing me that I could make a difference.”
Mrs. Thompson came, with tears in her eyes, and whispered back, “Teddy you have it all wrong. You were the one who taught me that I could make a difference. I didn’t know how to teach until I met you.”
Isn’t that a beautiful story? That symbolizes there are no justified resentments. Work at reaching that $32,000 level. The place where the only thing you have to send is love because that’s what’s inside.
And that’s the message of our greatest spiritual teachers. That’s all they ever had to give away.
The famous lawyer, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, founder of the International Crime Investigative Committee (ICIC), formerly the German Corona Commission, was deported last Thursday, 12 October, from Mexico City to Germany, to be arrested for alleged financial irregularities at arrival in Frankfurt, on Friday, 13 October. He was immediately put in pre-trial detention.
In Mexico, Reiner had to consult with the German embassy for passport issues and, to his shocking surprise, was immediately arrested and flown to Germany – accompanied by two guards, no personal belongings, no clothing, not even a toothbrush. His wife is not accused and was allowed to remain in Mexico.
From Frankfurt, Dr. Fuellmich will eventually be transferred next week to Göttingen, where he will be kept for an undetermined period in pre-trial detention because they unjustly suspect him of attempting to escape.
His confinement was based on a 30-page arrest warrant written already in September 2022.
He is falsely accused for financial fraud, precisely by those people who themselves have questionable criminal records and who supposedly worked with him during the 2+ years Dr. Fuellmich was running the German Corona Commission from Berlin.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich will be defended by two excellent lawyers, Dr. Dagmar Schön and Dr. Katja Woermer. They filed immediate counter-accusations against the predator-accusers.
Lawyer Dr. Dagmar Schön presented Reiner’s story on Sunday evening, 16 October 2023, on BittelTV, where 33,000 spectators and supporters listened to his case.
Reiner is well known and highly appreciated throughout the world for his fine work, defending victims of government-induced COVID crimes, and other crimes against humanity, perpetrated by governments and government institutions around the world.
The attempt to censure and outright silence him has failed bitterly – and the very German government, which disrespects human rights, freedom of speech and is guilty of lying and distributing false information on the media, has now found no other way than arresting Reiner illegally.
They will not succeed. Justice will eventually prevail. A higher justice, way above the manmade twisted laws – justice that reigns over Mother Earth and the Universe – always rules.
This case will be followed closely and updated periodically.
This following message was sent on October 16 to our substack mailing list subscribers and was posted at our telegram, minds and brighteon social accounts.
As many of you know, Reiner Fuellmich was arrested three days ago in Mexico and was flown to Germany where he is now in prison.
His friend (and now his defense attorney) Dagmar Schoen made an announcement on Bittel.tv (in German). BittelTV telegram channel: https://t.me/s/bitteltv
Elsa Schieder, PhD provided an English transcript of this announcement at her The Truth Summit substack. She provides additional background information, including the involvement of Viviane Fischer (of Corona Investigative Committee) in the charges made against Reiner Fuellmich. She also shares information on ways to offer support for Reiner Fuellmich.
Here is the transcript of the announcement made by Dagmar Schoen:
Reiner and his wife lost their passports and visas quite some time ago, needed to get them replaced. As they have been staying in Mexico, this led to their needing to go to the German embassy in Tijuana, Mexico. The first time they went, on Monday, they needed to come back. Dagmar was already uneasy, but everything seemed all right.
A time was arranged, for Friday, for them to pick up the documents. So the embassy knew exactly when they would be arriving.
When they went back on Friday, Reiner’s wife got her documents and was allowed to go. Reiner was arrested. He had nothing with him, only the clothes he was wearing. No toothbrush, even.
A warrant for his arrest had been issued in March. A second warrant was issued in May. One was from Germany and the other from the EU. Obviously he was not informed.
As Reiner was in Mexico, which is outside the jurisdiction of the EU, the warrants could not be enforced.
So there needed to be a way to get him onto German soil.
Reiner’s needing a new passport and visa gave those who wanted him arrested the perfect opportunity.
When he entered the embassy on Friday, there were 6 men waiting to detain him, take him to the airport, escort him to Germany.
The charges, as Dagmar found out when she had the official papers opened, were 30 pages long – so this was something carefully planned and executed.
They related to allegations of Viviane Fischer, a former team member on the Corona Committee, about financial wrongdoing.
Three people signed the charges against Reiner.
Perhaps the craziest aspect of the charges is that the money Reiner allegedly took is in the bank account (or anyway, was in the bank account) of one of the 3 people.
As additional information becomes available, I will post links at Telegram, Brighteon Social, Minds and Substack Notes, as well as include them in our New Posts newsletter.
[Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Matthew Ehret (along with his equally brilliant wife Cynthia Chung) offer deep research and often unique insight into the history of humanity. I am sharing this here with respect for this excellence. Near the end of the article you will find a disparaging comment about the work of David Icke. This felt out of place to me. Regular readers of this site know that we post the work of David Icke now and then. I respect the work of both without needing to agree with or align completely with the perspective of either man. ~ Kathleen]
The purpose of this investigation into the deep structure historical dynamics shaping our present world is not to simply romanticize bygone ages but to help clarify the principled dynamics that feudalist oligarchs have been obsessively trying to destroy over the course of the past two millenia. I here refer to the dangerous outbreak of peace through cooperation that has tended to occur between religious rivals in never-ending wars across the ages.
In this location, I would like to go a little deeper into the longer wave of history shaping our presently confused age by taking a look at the Jewish Kingdom of Khazaria (8-11th century CE).
Taking the time to investigate this important part of world history is additionally important as China’s New Silk Road currently represents the greatest hope for peace amongst various faiths and cultures not only in the Middle East, but globally. This is not the first time that the Silk Road ushered in a hope for a new age of reason amongst diverse cultures and as we shall soon see, the Kingdom of Khazaria played a major role in that endeavor which St Augustine called a City of God well over a millennium ago.
Figure 1 Today’s New Silk Road
The Mystery of Khazaria in the Modern Era
Typically well informed readers who frequent alternative media either have never heard of the Jewish Khazar Kingdom that dominated central Europe, southern Russia and the Caucuses in the 7-10th century or IF THEY HAVE heard of it, they tend to believe that this Kingdom was the source of everything evil up until modern times. Many mainstream scholars tend to simply deny all evidence that this Jewish kingdom ever even existed.
Figure 2 The Kingdom of Khazaria
I would like to take a novel approach to this anomalous matter of Khazaria and the broader role of Judaism in world history. Not only do I assert that bountiful evidence allows us to conclude that this Jewish Kingdom certainly did certainly exist, but all existent evidence points to the fact that it was the very opposite to a hotbed for “evil Ashkenazi Jewry” as so many lazy researchers have claimed. Instead, this report will attempt to prove that the forgotten kingdom was not only a beautiful phenomenon uniting all three major Abrahamic faiths under one ecumenical alliance of cooperation for well over a century, but also served as a keystone to the newly reborn Silk Road trade routes uniting Asia with Europe through the Confucian Tang Dynasty (618-912 CE).
Much of the following report was made possible by the pioneering work of historian Pierre Beaudry in his online book The Charlemagne Ecumenical Principle.
Under a primitive version of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations doctrine, the Venetian Empire and the Ultramontane Church which were the heirs of the recently collapsed Roman oligarchy hated the rise of the Carolingian Empire under Charlemagne and the Augustinian humanist educational and economic reforms enacted during Charlemagne’s reign. More importantly, they hated the brilliant alliances Charlemagne oversaw alongside his co-thinker Harun al Rashid (Caliph of the Abassid Dynasty of Baghdad who ruled from 786-809 CE) and the new King Bulan of Khazaria who converted his kingdom to Judaism in the mid-8th century.
Figure 4- Four Great ecumenical leaders (left to right): Charlemagne, Harun al Rashid, King Bulan and Emperor Xuanzong
The Turkish Conversion to Judaism: The China Angle
In 578 AD, the vast GokTurk Empire had extended from Mongolia, through Eurasia, all the way to Crimea in today’s Ukraine. The empire that had arisen only 30 years earlier played a major diplomatic role in mediating relations between the Byzantine Empire (the surviving eastern Roman Empire) and the pre-muslim Sassanid Persian Empire.
Through a series of marriages with leading princesses of the short-lived western Wei dynasty, and Northern Zhou Dynasty of China (in 562 and 568), leading Khagans of the GokTurks became instrumental in facilitating the revival of the old trade routes of the Silk Road corridors that had fallen into disarray with the collapse of the Han Dynasty in 200 AD.
With the death of the fourth ruler (Taspar Khagan) in 586, warring factions vied for control and a civil war broke out resulting in the eventual split of the Empire into an eastern and western division. Before the emergence of the Tang Dynasty in 618, various rival dynasties in China would also be a factor in the disarray that spread across Central and Eastern Asia during these chaotic years.
Khazaria was first established in the mid-7th century by the western Turkish Khaganate that had become independent from any obedience to the eastern Turkish parent empire when the later had been defeated militarily by the Taizong Emperor of the Tang Dynasty of China in 643 CE. With the Western Khaganate’s defeat (the eastern branch had been defeated by Li Jing in 630), only the most western branch of the GokTurks remained with Khazaria.
With this 643 victory, the Chinese Emperor was made “Tengri Khagan” (Heavenly King), supreme authority over all Turks. 100,000 Turks then migrated to China’s vastly expanded realm and 10,000 Turkish elites settled in the capital. Letters from various Turkish leaders to the Tang court all the way until 741 CE continued to recognize China’s emperors as “Heavenly Khagan”.
Confucianism spread electrically across the entire Turkic world and the newly independent Turks of the west quickly established a highly developed centralized government in Khazaria whose economy would be based primarily upon fisheries, and agriculture. Khazaria became a keystone in the Silk Road with primary routes of the Steppe Silk Road going east-west over land from Uygur Territory in the east to western Crimea and export/import lines along the Dnieper, Don and Volga Rivers which fed into the Caspian and Black Seas.
Khazaria also held the vital North-South trade route along the Volga from Scandinavia through Central Russia to Islamic Iran and Azerbaijan. Since Venetian steered-wars with Islam made Mediterranean trade impossible, and also made it unsafe for Christians or Muslim merchants to move through each other’s’ territories, this Khazarian route was vital and the role of Jews indispensable for trade.
Anomalies of Jewish Khazars
The fact that Khazaria was founded by Turks with a strong link to China cannot be ignored. When evaluating this fact, we must hold three important facts in mind:
1) Countless scholars have noted the strong Confucian philosophy embedded in the western Turkish Khaganate that established the Kingdom of Khazaria before King Bulan’s later conversion to Judaism sometime around 750CE. Even though they were shamanistic, the Confucian principle of the Mandate of Heaven was a core belief of the Khazarian turks.
2) The presence of Jews in China at this time was anomalously large with the first recorded influx of Jews occurring in 618 CE with the start of the Tang Dynasty. As the Tang emperor revived the Silk Road trade routes that had fallen apart after the fall of the Han Dynasty in the 200 CE, Buddhists, Hindus, Nestorian Christians, Zoroastrians, Muslims and Jews flocked to China. This was an especially positive breath of fresh air for Jews as Professor Pan Guang stated: “they could preserve their native customs and religious beliefs… In education, work, buying and selling of land, marriage and the right to move, they enjoyed the same rights and treatment as Han Chinese. They never faced discrimination”.
This tolerant Chinese policy stood in stark contrast to the persecution and forced conversions had run rampant across the west. Major prosecutors of violence against Jews at the time was driven by Emperors Heraclius (610-641), Justinian II (685-695), Leo III (717-741) and Romanos I (920-944) of the Byzantine Empire.
Much of this persecution stemmed less from religious reasons and more from geopolitical ones as the earlier Jewish Himyaritic Kingdom’s conversion to Judaism in 380 CE disrupted Byzantine interests to control a vital shipping corridor (the Bab el-Mandeb Strait) into the Red Sea off the coast of today’s Yemen. That’s right, between 380 until 525 AD, a major kingdom occupying all of Yemen and major regions of Saudi Arabia was… Jewish. The surviving accounts of Himyarite Dynasty are as scarce as those of Khazaria, but if the accounts of the Christian Priest Symeon of Beth Arsham who lived in the early 6th century are true, then it appears that a Himyarite leader named Yusuf (Joseph) had launched a coup in 524 followed by a persecution of Christians living in and around Yemen. This attack on Christians (if it was true) resulted in a total war of annihilation of Yusuf and the end to the Himyarite kingdom.
3) The primary group in this early phase of the renewed Silk Road routes were Jewish Radhanite traders originating from the city of Radhan in Iraq. According to Persian scholar al Masudi (896-956), these Jewish traders spoke Arabic, Greek, Persian, Slavic, Spanish and Frankish and according to 9th century geographer Ibn Khurdabhe, there were four Radhanite trade routes linking Europe to China. The primary and most active corridor moving through the Middle East and to Europe was “the Steppe Silk Road” much of which under the jurisdiction of Khazaria.
The Ecumenical Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Confucian Alliance
Al Masudi reported his Meadows of Goldthat the Jewish Khazars had established an incredible military alliance with the Islamic Abbasid Dynasty who supplied an army of 10 000 Muslim soldiers to the Jewish Khazars under the condition that if any future Jewish leader were to declare war on Islam, that army would fight for Islam! This incredible safeguard was a creative flank which brought the self-interests of both cultures together in ways that made orchestrated imperial conflict nearly impossible.
Another distinguishing feature of Khazaria was its unique judicial system which wisely represented the diverse faiths which sought refuge in this Jewish land. Khazaria had become renowned for its tolerance and openness (the majority of the population were a mix of Christian, Muslim and Pagan though the King and his court were Jewish). 10th century Persian historian Abu al-Istakhri described the Khazarian Supreme Court of Justice whose judges comprised two Christians, two Muslims, two Jews and one Pagan stating: “The king has 7 judges [hukkan] from the Jews, Christians, Muslims and Idolators. When the people have a lawsuit, it is they who judge it. The parties do not approach the king himself but only these judges.”
The Abbasid Dynasty played another indispensable role in preserving the Silk Road and Confucian renaissance in conjunction with their alliance with Khazaria. At a decisive moment in 755 CE, the Tang Dynasty faced a terrible crisis known as the An-Shi Rebellionwhen a renegade General An Lushan declared himself emperor of the North threatening both civil war and the dissolution of the new Silk Road. Caliph al-Mahdi (grandfather of the great Harun al Rashid) sent 4000 Muslim soldiers to aid the Emperor in putting down the rebellion, preserving the ecumenical alliance!
It is unfortunate that the Tang Dynasty was never able to recover to its pre-Civil War prestige and the Silk Road lost valuable vitality just as the Christian-Jewish-Muslim alliance was attaining its apex.
Septimania: European Entry to the Silk Road
We have already noted many surprising and important ecumenical alliances around a higher concept of divine justice and common good in opposition to the policies of the 2nd Roman Empire which operated exclusively on “divide to rule” tactics. However we have left out another important creative alliance worth mentioning.
In 751, the Umayyad Caliphate in Spain lost a major territory called Septimania to the new Carolingian Dynasty of a Frankish King named Pepin the Short (father of Charlemagne) who ruled from 751-768. Septimania, a large area which hosts the strategic port city of Narbonne, had a large Jewish and Muslim population which Pepin and his son allied with against the intrigues of Venice. This area later became a leading renaissance zone reviving the study of Greek classics, astronomy, poetry and medicine under the Andalusian Renaissance centuries later.
Rather than fall into Jewish vs Christian vs Muslim conflicts which the oligarchy would have liked, Pepin instead called for a Jewish leader from Baghdad descended from the House of David named Natronai al Makhir (725-765) to become king of Septimania even giving his daughter Alda to Makhir as wife. Al Makhir in turn gave his Jewish daughter to King Charlemagne in marriage as part of a diplomatic flank against the war mongers in Rome.
Charlemagne ended the anti-Jewish policy dominant in Europe for centuries and even gave Jews rights to land ownership and titles unprecedented in that age. Whenever Charlemagne or his father established diplomatic embassies with the Muslim Abbasids, diplomatic envoys selected were always Jewish. Ultramontane Pope Stephen III who advocated a ‘clash of civilizations’ policy, attacked Charlemagne’s policy in 768 CE writing to the Archbishop Aribert:
“Christians work the vineyards and the fields of these Jews. Christian men and women live under the same roof as these prevaricators, listening to their blasphemous language, night and day; these miserable men and women always have to humiliate themselves before the demeaning display of dogs. What communion hath light with darkness and what concord hath Christ with Balial?”
Both Pepin and Charlemagne ignored the Vatican’s many demands to renounce their ecumenical program.
The governance of Septimania was later divided by Charlemagne with 1/3 under the authority of Archbishop Thomas of Normandy, 1/3 under the Islamic Viscount and 1/3 under Jewish governance ironically putting a Muslim territory under Jewish and Christian protection!
This policy of creative war avoidance and win-win collaboration tied into a Muslim-Christian agreement led by Harun al Rashid in 800 CE when he gave control of the Holy Land to Charlemagne declaring that the Christian leader’s land would be protected by Muslim rule. According to the records of the Monk Zacharias, this diplomatic entente was negotiated by Charlemagne’s Jewish Ambassador to Baghdad Isaac of Rachen.
Figure 6- Julius Köckert, Charlemagne and Haroun al-Rashid,1856
Tying this alliance back to the international geopolitical stage, it is important to recall that Narbonne/Septimania was the key entry point for Silk Road goods to Europe, and its early collapse would have been devastating to the humanist cause. This ecumenical alliance was strong enough to last 90 years before collapsing under the later intrigues of Venice which had managed to get Charlemagne’s small-minded grandchildren to fall into civil war breaking the Carolingian Empire with the 842 Oath of Strasbourg into conflicting regions that later came to become the borders of modern Europe.
The Carolingian Renaissance
Without going into the details of Pepin and Charlemagne’s bold reforms centering on infrastructure (vast roads, bridges over the Rhine, canals, cathedrals and schools), their Irish monastery movement, and financial reforms which saw private financiers lose control as Charlemagne’s government took control of coinage and credit… it is enough for now to state that the Carolingian Renaissance earned its name for the right reasons. The philosophical basis for Charlemagne’s ability to break with anti-Jewish hate was found in the doctrine of Witness formulated by St. Augustine in the early 5th century and which asserted that Jews should no longer be slaughtered, but rather protected since their very existence and adherence to the Old Testament was a living testimony to Christian faith.
Historian Thomas MacDonald said of Augustine’s Doctrine: “His positions is that the Jews are under a divine order of physical protection, and that not only must they be protected, but they must be allowed to worship as Jews… His reason for this view is demeaning for Jews but it also informed centuries of theology and countless orders of protection of Jews living in Christian lands. When Jews were persecuted at the hands of Christians, it was in direct defiance of this doctrine, and when they were protected it was because of this influence.”
The Abbasid Renaissance
In Islam, Augustine’s doctrine found a parallel in the Doctrine of Dimi which asserted that Muslims must protect Jews because they had direct intercourse with the One God whom all Abrahamic faiths share in common.
It is also worth noting that the Abbasid Dynasty was known rightfully as the “Islamic Golden Age” which ushered in a parallel bureaucratic, monetary, and educational reform under the Confucian principle of the Mandate of Heaven (i.e.: A leader’s right to rule was valid only through his obedience to the laws of nature and the common good). This was an anti-oligarchical concept of governance shared by Charlemagne and Caliph al Rashid. Under the humanist leadership of Caliph Al Mahdi, his son Harun Al Rashid and grandson al Mamun, networks of humanist education centers were created called “Houses of Wisdom” which brought Muslim, Christian, and Jewish scholars together to translate ancient works of Greek and Latin, study astronomy, literature, medicine and engineering. Paper mills were established in 832 CE in Samarkand, Cairo, Damas and Baghdad applying Chinese technology to broaden humanity’s access to knowledge.
The Chinese Renaissance
In China, the Tang Dynasty (618-907) distinguished itself early on as an ecumenical safe haven for all cultures and saw influxes of Muslims, Jews and large groups of Nestorian Christians who all made China their home. During the 300 years of Tang Rule, the arts rose to new heights, and the Poet-statesman became an actualized ideal as the greatest poets and painters (such as Wang Wei, Li Bai and Du Fu) played major roles as political figures. Torture and death penalties were nearly done away with and public schools were built at record numbers. Unfortunately, wars with Muslims, Turks, and Tibetans did occur over the years and many internal struggles occurred from within weakening the Dynasty.
Physical evidence of the Khazar Kingdom were nearly all destroyed or suppressed leaving very little empirical evidence to work with for modern scholars (and leaving much room for speculative gossip led by such British Imperial assets like Arthur Koestler or lizard-man quackidoodle David Icke). Luckily, dozens of Christian and Muslim scholars of the 8-12 centuries have written extensively of its existence, and some of the 250 000 fragments discovered at the end of the 19th century in the Cairo Geniza are finally being made public- bringing direct evidence to light for the first time in millennia.
One question is still unanswered: Why did the Khazar Kingdom end by the 10th century and why were all traces of this golden age among Confucianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam destroyed?
The Venetian Takeover and the Rise of ‘Jewish Bankers’
Here we must look to towards that ugly center of spiritual pus: The heirs of the Roman Oligarchy found in the Lagoons of Venice and Byzantine Empire (soon to be undone by the wilier Venetians in 1251 as outlined in my recent report The League of Cambrai and the BRICS Today and 2009 film The New Dark Age).
Although it took a couple hundred years of effort, the oligarchy was finally successful in breaking up Charlemagne’s unified kingdom into warring factions, and the Islamic Empire soon fell into its own internal and external discord. Finally in 1095, Venice and the Ultramontane Papacy were successful in launching the first Crusade against Islam turning the world upside down. It is noteworthy that all trade routes established by Rhadanite Jews were the first things destroyed in Europe by the Crusaders (organized by the new Templar Cultists) who then took over those routes, using this infrastructure to wage a most unholy war.
The Templar cultists of Baphomet worshippers were themselves created by the grand strategist Bernard de Clairvaux (an enemy of the great Augustinian Platonist Peter Abelard), of the Cistercian order and who put at least two popes into power during his hyper-active lifetime. It was Clairvaux who established the constitution of this gnostic “Christian mercenary” cult that would soon control the majority of banking operations and new era of Christian vs Muslim (and vs Jew) religious violence that would shape so much of the coming centuries. The Templar fixation with Solomon’s temple (their headquarters would be located under the site which was presumed to be location of Solomon’s Temple) and the obsession with the Grail myth (which turned into the British Israelite Cult that presumed the Royal Family to be the progeny of Jesus’ supposed marriage with Mary Magdalene) and also the source of Rosicrucianism, modern masonry and political zionism, presents an important elemental cause to our current global crisis.
Whatever happened to cause the weakening and ultimate collapse of Khazaria under Kiev Rus invasions in 969 is not clear. What is clear is that anti-Jewish laws were imposed at unprecedented rates from the 11th-16th centuries of Venetian global dominance. In the late 10th century, Jews were cut off from Khazaria as all east-west trade routes were taken over by Genoa and Venice. Though other nations soon followed suite, Venice was the first to ban Jews from all international trade with the Venetian Senate passing a law in 945 CE forbidding any ship to Asia from carrying a Jew. Laws were soon passed across Europe on Venice’s direction forbidding Jews from owning land, joining trade guilds of weavers, dyers, carpenters or blacksmiths or owning any trade companies. Other laws like the 1181 English Assize Laws forbade Jews from owning weapons, serving in military or even farming.
The word “Ghetto” began in Venice as well, as Jews were here relegated to a small neighborhood called the Ghetto and were excluded from any normal form of profession being forced to either deal in old rags, pawn broking or money lending for (nominally) Christian oligarchical families who used them as HofJuden servants.
Historian Cecil Roth addressed this devastating situation saying: “The situation would have been an impossible one but for the presence of the Jew, who, precisely as he found himself excluded from other methods of gaining a livelihood, was forced into this most unhonoured profession. The non-Jewish capitalists lent to kings and magnates, under the cover of various devices (such as making out the bond for a larger amount than the sum lent, or euphemistically calling the interest by some other name). The more open, least lucrative, and most unpopular branches of the profession, such as lending on pledge for a short period to the artisan and tradesman, were forced upon the Jews. ”
“In Venice, for example, down to the close of the eighteenth century, the Jewish community was only tolerated on the express condition that it maintains in the Ghetto four loan-banks (a more polite term for pawn broking establishments)… The only other professions legally permitted there were old clothes dealing and the wholesale export trade to the Levant, which did not compete with Christian traders. The same was the case in the cities of the terra firma. This ignominious condition of affairs was sternly enforced, and any attempt on the part of the Jews to broaden their economic status, or to place it on a slightly more dignified plane, was the systematically blocked.”
This now opens the door to our next instalment which will introduce a new perspective to Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, and an earlier play known as “The Jew of Malta”.
The author delivered a lecture on this topic which can be accessed here:
Anders Brunstad alerted me to the installation of one of the most powerful radar stations in the world on the Varanger Peninsula in Finnmark, Norway just before tens of thousands of birds fell dead all over the peninsula. The southern and eastern coasts of the peninsula also have 4G+ and, increasingly, 5G service, added recently.
At Ekkerøy Nature Reserve, on the southern coast of the peninsula, at least 15,000 endangered kittiwakes died at the end of July and beginning of August 2023. They nest there in the summer on high cliffs where they are directly in the line of fire of the radar, which is 50 kilometers away. The restaurant at Ekkerøy was forced to close for the summer because it was “raining down” dead birds. The total population of these seabirds in Norway was only about 50,000. Dead terns and other kinds of gulls have also been collected. Half of the cranes at Ekkerøy have died.
The radar, called Globus III, was built by the United States on the island of Vardøya in Vardø, the easternmost city in Norway, which is across a bay from northern Russia. It appears to be part of a civil defense network called the Space Fence.
Details about this site have been kept secret, but I found a Request for Information published on February 22, 2022 on the U.S. government’s website, SAM.gov. It states:
“This system is a one-of-a kind design which will be fielded in 2023. The program is a bi-national, collaborative specialized collection system. The GLOBUS program is a dual band ground-based radar system consisting of an S-band solid state phased array, an X-band dish antenna, an Integrated System Controller (ISC), and a Mission Communications Suite (MCS) hosted at an Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) location.”
Other Space Fence radars are located on Kwajalein Island in the Marshall Islands, and in Western Australia. These S-band (2 GHz to 4GHz) phased array radars each have 36,000 transmitting antennas, a peak power of 2.7 MW and, when focused into a narrow beam that scans the sky in all directions, a peak effective radiated power of several billion watts.
The conflagration is not confined to Finnmark, or to Norway. Last summer I reported on mass deaths of nesting seabirds in locations near new antennas in the Netherlands and France (Birds on Texel Island; Sea Birds’ Last Refuges). This summer the situation is immensely worse. The continued proliferation around the world of 4G and 5G cell towers and antennas, as well as offshore wind farms, has killed millions of wild birds on five continents, together with foxes, skunks, raccoons, fishers, badgers, martens, black bears, grizzly bears, bobcats, lynx, mountain lions, wild boar, otters, Virginia opossums, seals, penguins, and other animals.
Last year, 40% of the Dalmatian pelicans nesting in Greece died, along with 20% of those in Romania, and large numbers in Montenegro and Albania. By May 2023, more than 50,000 dead wild birds of all kinds had been reported in the United Kingdom, 40,000 in eastern Canada, and tens of thousands in the United States. By July 31, 2023, China was reporting 5,100 dead birds in Tibet. Reports of mortality have come from every state in the United States, across 129 species of birds. Huge numbers of bald eagles have died. Just in November and December 2022, more than 50,000 seabirds died along the coast of Peru, including 16,890 Peruvian pelicans and 4,324 brown boobies, both endangered in Peru. In Chile, as of January 1, 2023, perhaps 10,000 seabirds had died, including pelicans, kelp gulls, Belcher’s gulls, grey gulls, guanay cormorants, Peruvian boobies, elegant terns, and turkey vultures.
On May 9, 2023, the Chilean government reported the deaths of 27,977 seabirds, and on July 21, 2023, the Peruvian government reported the deaths of 519,541 seabirds. These represented birds of 65 species. In addition, Chile reported the deaths of 2,517 Humboldt penguins, 460 Magellanic penguins, 16,856 sea lions, and smaller numbers of dolphins, porpoises, otters and other kinds of seals, while Peru reported the deaths of 9,314 sea lions and 100 other sea mammals. According to a report by the OFFLU, a global network of expertise on animal influenza, Chile has lost at least 13% of its Humboldt penguins, Peru has lost at least 36% of its Peruvian pelicans, and Chile and Peru together have lost at least 9% of their sea lions.
Ornithologists are all blaming this catastrophe on avian influenza, in spite of the fact that most of the dead birds are testing negative for any influenza virus, and the ones that test positive have all different variants of the virus so could not be transmitting it to one another, let alone to bears and penguins. For example, 233 dead birds were examined for flu virus by the Norwegian Veterinary Institute between August 14 and October 1, 2023. They found highly pathogenic H5N1 virus in 8 birds, highly pathogenic H5N5 in 2 birds, highly pathogenic H5Nx (other subtypes) in 2 birds, low pathogenic H5Nx in 6 birds, “other Influenza A virus” in 8 birds, and no virus at all in 207 birds.
The disappearance of bugs has also been in the news. Dr. Norman Leppla, a professor of entomology at the University of Florida, said that state’s lovebug infestation has completely vanished. They used to come in massive numbers in the spring and fall around May and September with a little variation depending on if you are in the northern or southern part of the state. “It’s not subtle, they’re really not here this season,” he said in an interview published October 5, 2023. But no one is blaming that on “avian influenza.”
Wind farms are also devastating birds, as documented by German scientists in an article published in Nature on April 13, 2023. They found that populations of red-throated loons plummeted in the North Sea after five clusters of offshore wind farms were built there between 2010 and 2014. Their populations declined by an average of 94% within 1 kilometer of a wind farm and by 52% within 10 kilometers, with some population reduction at distances up to 24 kilometers.
Wind farms are also killing whales. At least 32 whales have washed up dead on the U.S. east coast in recent months, prompting a group of New Jersey legislators to call for an immediate moratorium on offshore wind farms in the area.
Communities that are waking up
Sanity has broken out in in Chhattisgarh’s Gariaband district, in the Indian village of Lachkera, home to 600 families. A village resolution prohibits the installation of any cell towers in order to protect birds. “We have learnt that the transmission towers cause radiation that is harmful; we would rather prefer to live with weak network connectivity from the adjoining locations. It’s a delight to welcome Openbill storks with the onset of the monsoon. They nest in the trees of our village and no one in the village disturbs them. We don’t permit any mobile phone service provider to establish their tower despite the pressure and temptation from them,” said Uday Nishad, the elected head of the village government.
They learned this from a field survey by scientists at C.V. Raman University that was conducted in 2017 of birds in the vicinity of the 9 cell towers in Bijapur district. Reviewing 113 studies on the ecological effects of RF radiation, the authors wrote:
“When birds are exposed to weak electromagnetic fields, they disorient and fly in all directions, which harm their natural navigational abilities. A large number of birds like pigeons, sparrows, swans are getting lost due to interference from the ‘unseen enemy’, i.e. mobile tower. It has also been noted of late that animals used near mobile towers are prone to various dangers and threats to life including still births, spontaneous abortions, birth deformities, behavioral problems and general decline on overall health. Electromagnetic pollution is a possible cause for deformations and decline of some amphibian populations too. Apart from birds and animals, electromagnetic radiation emanating from cell towers can also affect vegetable, crop and plants in its vicinity.”
They visited the areas where each cell tower was located for 2 to 3 hours in the morning and 2 to 3 hours in the evening, every day for 6 months, and counted birds — peacocks, wild ducks, crows, parrots, cuckoos, sparrows, wild pigeons, eagles, and woodpeckers. There were far fewer of every kind of bird in 2017 than there had been in a survey conducted in 2006 before the towers were erected.
It bears repeating, yet again, that influenza, whether in people, animals, or birds, is not caused by a virus and has never been demonstrated to be a contagious disease. In 1918, at the height of the Spanish influenza, attempts by medical teams in Boston and San Francisco to demonstrate the contagious nature of the flu met with complete and resounding failure. Such experiments in humans were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, and Public Health Reports. Such experiments in horses were published in Veterinary Journal. Chapters 7, 8 and 9 of my book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, are devoted to a complete, detailed examination of the history and science of influenza. Chapter 16, the longest chapter in the book, is devoted in part to the effects of electromagnetic radiation on birds. Some diseases are caused by viruses, but influenza is not one of them. I suggest once again that all bird conservation organizations should acquire my book and read it carefully.
The word “Israel” was first presented in the Bible as a name given to Jacob after he fought an angel. Its meaning was a man who has struggled with God. And is commonly translated as “God Prevails” or “Man seeing God”. Many have argued that the word Israel in the Bible does not refer to a place, but rather a believer or a group of believers in God.
Others believe the land known as Palestine was where the Biblical state of Israel once stood. And in the 17th century, Sabbatai Zevi was the first Jew to try and re-settle there.
Sabbatai Zevi claimed to be the Messiah and amassed a large Jewish following that engaged in ritual sex orgies and the defilement of God’s law. In the spring of 1666, they were planning to be the first Jewish settlement in Palestine. But things changed when Sabbatai was arrested and thrown in jail. His radical movement continued with the Frankism movement, and Zionism became more political.
Although they claimed to be secular, the Zionists flooded the temples with prayers for a return to Zion and a restoration of the Jewish state. But the rabbis rejected them. In 1885 the rabbis wrote that “we consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community; and we therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws”
While the rabbis offered no support, the Zionists garnered the support of the British Crown as early as 1841. And they were funded by the Rothschild banking dynasty, otherwise known as the Bank of England, so the Crown was likely involved from the start.
In 1897, the political intent to re-create the state of Israel was made official to the public. And in 1917, under the British government’s Balfour Declaration, British troops seized control of Palestine on behalf of the Zionists.
In 1922, the League of Nations adopted the declaration. And in 1947, the United Nations granted parts of Palestine to the Zionists.
Between 1947 and 1949, Palestinians were made refugees and kicked out of the homes of their ancestors. Hundreds of villages were destroyed, and thousands of Palestinians were murdered in a series of massacres known as the Nakba. The Zionists killed Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews
The Zionists claimed to be non-religious but they were mostly Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazi can be traced back to the Khazars; the progenitors of Rabbinic Judaism.
The Khazar Khaganate was a major empire in what is now Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and parts of Russia, Turkey, and Iran. It was ruled by the Khazars but made up of several diverse nomadic tribes.
In the year 740 the Khazars mass converted to Judaism. Synagogues and schools were built and Rabbinic Judaism was born. The original Jerusalem Talmud was replaced by the recently codified Babylonian Talmud. Which was based on Babylonian philosophy and became the mainstream thanks to the Khazars and the Zionists.
Some Christians believe that this is the synagogue of Satan written about in the Bible. “Which say they are Jews, and are not.” And many other Christians have become Zionists themselves.
The Zionists have tremendous support from American Megachurches and Christian Evangelicals many of whom believe that as the world becomes a fiery hell, they will be saved and brought to an eternal paradise. But in order for this to happen, the Temple of Solomon must be rebuilt, and two-thirds of the Jewish people must perish.
According to the Bible, King Solomon’s temple was constructed in 957 BC, and destroyed in 586BC. Rebuilt again in 516BC, and destroyed again in the year 70AD.
Many Christians and Jews believe that this temple must be rebuilt in order for their messiah to come. But there is something in its way. Originally built near the end of the 7th century, the Al-Aqsa mosque is considered one of the three holiest sites in Islam. Islam teaches that this is where the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. The Temple Mount has been occupied by Israel ever since the Six-Day War of 1967. And now it looks like they are ready to complete their mission.
This is the Holy War that sane people have feared, and zealots have prayed for. They want you to pick a side and kill each other. But we can always choose peace. And learn to love our neighbors.
Is there an Electric Universe perspective on time? Rather than to convince you that time has dimensions, the goal here is to convince you that our ancestors thought so.
If you believe an ancient Japanese text which says that a new planet, Venus, entered our solar system, perhaps you will believe an Egyptian text that says time has three dimensions just as space does.
We begin with a four-point analysis and exploration of time gleaned from classical physics:
1) The reality of a “present moment” is on shaky ground;
2) The rate at which time flows is unclear;
3) There are lines of time as well as points of time;
4) Multiple versions of systems can simultaneously exist.
It’s also appropriate to acknowledge ancient knowledge that can be derived from the Hermetica—writings from various historical periods, though most ideas have their origins in the very distant past of Egypt tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Michael Clarage, PhD, Astrophysicist and Lead Scientist of SAFIRE, states his arguments, from classical physics and older civilizations, for a modern perspective of time.
It is a common misconception that blood types are genetically determined and unchangeable. In fact, blood types are nothing more than an illusion, influenced by environmental factors, diet and individual life experiences, medications and shocks. The idea of fixed blood types only serves to perpetuate the myths of special “bloodlines” and to boost the blood business.
Virology and Genetics: The Art of Distraction
The introduction of blood groups and the Rhesus factor has contributed more to confusion than enlightenment. Instead of providing clear answers, new subgroups are constantly being introduced to circumvent existing contradictions. This approach is very reminiscent of virology, where new mutations are constantly being postulated to support the basic assumptions. It is obvious that financial interests and not scientific accuracy are the priority here.
Blood Transfusions: A Risky Business
Blood transfusions are often presented as a safe medical practice. But reality looks different. The risks are significant and the mortality rate for patients receiving a transfusion is alarmingly high. The question arises as to whether the quality of the blood reserves is guaranteed at all. Figures suggest the risk of mortality is six times higher in patients who receive a blood transfusion than those who do not.
Interest groups: profit over truth
It is clear that certain interest groups benefit from perpetuating these myths. The virus existence question serves as a catalyst to expose the misinterpretations and unscientific nature of medicine. It is high time we let go of outdated assumptions and accept the real facts.
Genetics and Blood Types: The Fallacious Path of Uncontrolled Interpretation
In genetics we encounter a familiar pattern that is reminiscent of the debate over blood types. Instead of offering clear answers, science tends to arbitrarily interpret and assign genes.
When a genetic theory is questioned, instead of reassessment, even more complex assumptions are added. What was once thought to be a single gene is now presented as a complex combination of multiple genes, splicing and other factors. Such convoluted interpretations often only serve to support old, debunked theories.
To make matters worse, markers in genetics similar to “blood groups” can be defined and even patented without sufficient verification. It is becoming increasingly clear that financial interests overshadow scientific integrity. It is high time that we look critically at these uncontrolled interpretations and turn to sound scientific findings.
Conclusion: The déjà vu of scientific interpretation
Once you understand the mechanism of scientific interpretation, you realize that it is a recurring pattern. This mechanism is based on the practice of supporting unclear or refuted theories with increasingly complex assumptions and interpretations instead of critically reconsidering or correcting them. This often happens without sufficient scientific control and is driven by financial interests. Once this process is recognized, it appears like déjà vu in many areas of science.
The virus existence question serves as an eye-opener and shows how profound and far-reaching such uncontrolled interpretations are anchored in science. It is time we move away from such practices and adopt a truly scientific approach.
While it seems the transgender ideology came out of nowhere, schools have been teaching children that their identity is separate from their biology, and that gender is a choice, for a long time. Today, transgender ideology is being taught to children as early as preschool
Transgenderism is primarily a social contagion, although exposure to synthetic chemicals, in utero and in early life, may play a role in some cases, especially in boys identifying as girls
Classic gender dysphoria primarily affected boys, and always presented at a very early age. Now, teens and young adults claim they’re transgender, which was never the case before. Girls identifying as boys now make up about 60% of cases
Many in the affirmative care field insist that you can block puberty without negative effects and that hormone therapy effects are reversible, neither of which is true. Proponents of transgender ideology also claim that unless trans kids are affirmed in their new identities and provided medical and surgical treatment to transition, they’re at high risk of suicide, and that’s not true either
“Lost in Trans Nation,” written by Dr. Miriam Grossman, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and board-certified medical doctor, provides parents with the required knowledge and tools to protect their children from the transgender ideology contagion
In this interview, Dr. Miriam Grossman, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and board-certified medical doctor, discusses the dangers of transgender ideology, which is her specialty, and, more importantly, how to protect your children from it.
Grossman is also a senior fellow at the Do No Harm Medicine, which fights “against identity politics” and “for individual patients.” “First, do no harm” is part of the Hippocratic Oath that doctors through the ages have sworn to abide by. Unfortunately, the Hippocratic Oath has been massively perverted and “do no harm” has basically fallen by the wayside.
“Do No Harm is a pretty recently formed organization of medical professionals who feel that our profession has lost its way,” Grossman explains.
“It has become politicized — by identity politics and other issues — to such a degree that our patients are suffering and our profession is suffering. DoNoHarmMedicine.org was founded by Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a retired nephrologist from the University of Pennsylvania.
I believe he had the responsibility of organizing the curricula for medical students at the University of Pennsylvania, and he recognized the degree to which politics had entered into the curricula and was very alarmed. So, he retired and formed this amazing organization, which I would encourage every medical professional to check out and join.”
The Rise of Transgender Ideology
While Grossman has only recently become known as a leading voice opposing the mainstream transgender narrative, her involvement and concern about this unscientific belief system goes back about 15 years. For the casual observer, it may seem that transgender ideology sprang up from nowhere, overnight, but that’s not the case.
“The explosion in cases did actually happen quite rapidly, but the teachings, the ideology that says our identities can be separate from our biology — which is not based in science — and the belief that we can be someone different than what our body says we are, that’s been taught to kids in sex education for a long time,” Grossman says.
“I became aware of it in the mid 2000s when I was writing my book, ‘You’re Teaching My Child What?’ I was a psychiatrist for students at UCLA, and a lot of the kids coming to see me with anxiety and depression, especially the young women, were there as a result of unhealthy sexual behaviors.
A lot of them, an alarming number, had a sexual transmitted disease, an STD. They had herpes or genital warts, and these diseases are caused by viruses that are incurable essentially. Once you have a diagnosis of genital warts, the human papillomavirus or the herpes virus, you’ve got that for life.
It can be controlled, but not eliminated. So these are serious diseases … These were smart kids, and these were kids who were ambitious, yet they had made these foolish sexual decisions of hooking up with random strangers …
So I started looking into what kids are being taught in sex education, and I discovered that sex education … is not about health. It’s not about staying healthy. It’s about … promoting sexual freedom — all sorts of risky behaviors — and it’s about changing society.
My book, ‘You’re Teaching My Child What?’ … delves into the origins of sex education in this country. It is about sexual freedom. It’s about rejecting Judeo-Christian values. It is most certainly not about fighting bacteria and viruses. And sex education is introduced at a very young age, in kindergarten.”
Gender ideology is introduced even earlier, in preschool. Books read to preschool children will say things like, “Adults make mistakes when babies are born and only you know if you’re a girl or a boy,” and “Adults may have made a mistake when they decided that you were a girl or a boy,” or “Some people are born with a boy’s brain and a girl’s body.”
“These outrageously false ideas are introduced to children at a very, very young age,” Grossman says, “and that’s the danger. These ideas are going to reach your kids before you do.”
Transgenderism Is a Social Contagion
Grossman’s most recent book, “Lost in Trans Nation,” which came out in July 2023, provides parents with the practical information and tools needed to protect their families against the “transgender contagion.”
“It is a social contagion,” she says. “If your child ends up in a friend group, either in school or in the neighborhood or online, in which there is one or more kids who are identifying as transgender, nonbinary, or one of these other made-up words, there’s a much greater chance that your child … will also end up identifying.
So, no family is immune. I’ve talked to hundreds and hundreds of parents, and I’ve seen many, many kids in my office who get drawn into this belief system. And trust me, it’s a very difficult thing.”
The transgender contagion is so widespread at this point, Grossman suspects most of the college, high school and elementary school students believe that sex and gender are two separate things, and that you can choose your gender at will, because that’s what they’ve been indoctrinated to believe.
“When I use the word indoctrinated, I mean that this has been relentlessly pushed at them over and over again. They’re bombarded with this idea, presented as if it is a fact. It’s not a fact, it’s a belief. And it’s an outrageous belief. It’s an irrational belief that you can be something other than what your body says you are.
But this belief is pushed at them 24/7 from every direction, and it’s presented as fact. And, it’s presented in such a way that questions are not permitted. If you doubt, if you hesitate, if you ask questions, well then you are a hater and you are transphobic.
Kids want to belong. Kids want to be accepted in their social group. They don’t want to be seen as an outsider and certainly not as transphobic. That’s the equivalent of being racist, sexist and all those other awful things.
So, that’s why I use the word indoctrinated, and that’s why a majority of them are going to believe it. It’s being presented to them by authorities, educational authorities, medical authorities, government authorities, and they don’t hear the argument on the other side of it.”
Gender Dysphoria Then and Now
When Grossman was a medical student, rapid onset gender dysphoria (when a young child suddenly insists he or she is the opposite gender) was exceedingly rare. That all changed around 2015, when the number of cases suddenly exploded.
However, contrary to classical gender dysphoria, these more recent cases typically involve teens and young adults, which had never been the case before. What’s more, in the past, gender dysphoria predominantly affected boys, at a ratio of about 6-to-1. Today, girls identifying as boys make up about 60% of cases.
I, like many others, suspect synthetic chemicals, many of which have estrogenic activity, may be playing a role, especially in boys identifying as girls. Grossman doesn’t dismiss that possibility, but based on her work, she suspects social media and peer pressure are still the primary contributors.
“The kids say as much,” she says. “They develop symptoms of being unhappy with their bodies after binging on these YouTube videos of kids who are chronicling their own dysphoria and their own path. So there’s definitely a social contagion element.”
Transgenderism Is a False Cure for What Ails Them
Not surprisingly, children with a history of psychiatric issues, such as being on the autistic spectrum or struggling with anxiety, depression or emotional trauma, are more prone to falling victim to gender ideology.
“They learn about gender ideology, and they’re told that this could be the reason for your distress — ‘You’re feeling that you don’t fit in … because you are in the wrong body.’
And they come to believe that all their problems are going to be solved by this one solution, that identifying as the opposite sex, change their name, their pronouns and their appearance … that will be the solution.
We hear this over and over again from detransitioners, the people who went through the ‘affirmation’ and when they got more mature, they realized, ‘Oh my god, what have I done to myself?’ and regret what they’ve done.
I don’t like using this language because it’s Orwellian language, but let’s just call it what the mainstream medicine is calling it, which is ‘gender affirmation,’ which of course means you deny biology.
One of the main things that detransitioners talk about is how they were convinced that this would be the solution to all their mental health problems. Instead, they go through the process, their bodies are sometimes permanently disfigured from hormones and surgery, and their mental health problems have not been addressed.”
Kids and Parents Are Being Lied To
Making matters worse, children and teens are being lied to about the ramifications of hormone therapy and surgery. These are permanent changes being applied for what is likely a temporary emotional problem. You cannot undo the damage inflicted once you change your mind.
Remarkably, many in the affirmative care field insist that you can block puberty without negative effects and that hormone therapy effects are reversible, neither of which is true.
Proponents of transgender ideology also claim that unless trans kids are affirmed in their new identities and provided medical and surgical treatment to transition, they’re at high risk of suicide, and that’s not true either.
In fact, it’s the exact opposite. Detransitioners are at high risk of suicide because not only is it a struggle to get back to their real identity, but many now have severe medical problems brought on by hormones and surgery.
Those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery, in particular, face the very real possibility of lifelong medical troubles and associated depression. Many have urological problems, recurrent infections, chronic pain and sexual dysfunction. They’re also sterile and will never be able to have children.
“In my congressional testimony that I gave a few months ago, I pointed out that in countries such as Sweden, Norway, Finland, the United Kingdom, where they have made these medical treatments essentially unavailable to kids for the past few years, there has been no increase in suicides or decreased mental health.
So that is simply not true. It’s terrible misinformation and emotional blackmail [to say] ‘The only chance your child has of living a happy and fulfilling life is if you go along with their new identity and give them whatever it is they say they want, even if your child is 10 or 12 years old.’ And this is what’s going on in the gender clinics.
It’s very, very important that people read my book, not only families in which they are in the midst of this difficulty, but families who in the future may face it, so that they are prepared and can understand what it’s about, so they know how to respond and how to protect their child before they’re indoctrinated.”
A Generation of Damaged Youth
Even if they don’t go through with surgery on the sex organs, boys are given massive doses of estrogen, a known human carcinogen that has a plethora of ill health effects. Girls taking high-dose testosterone also face serious adverse health effects, including irreversible voice changes and blood clotting disorders.
An ever-growing number of teenage girls are also getting double mastectomies. There are no hard numbers on how many top surgeries are being done, because no one is tracking transgender treatments and gender reassignment surgeries, but it’s definitely not a rarity anymore. Grossman comments:
“When I was writing my book and working on the chapter on double mastectomies, there were 47,000 young girls raising money on GoFundMe to have breast surgery — 47,000 … You have a whole population of young women who were led to believe that their breasts are simply disposable sex objects that don’t serve any other purpose.
Young women are never taught about the magnificent biology of nursing and of the nutrition, which is the gold standard nutrition, for newborns. There is nothing better for a newborn than mother’s milk.”
The Madness Is Coming From the Top
Children’s lives are being ruined by lies, and we need to be just as aggressive in sticking to biological facts as the indoctrinators are being aggressive in pushing vulnerable kids to make destructive health choices.
A major part of the problem is the educational system, as most schools are teaching transgender ideology. The solution, then, would be to get your children out of those schools. Grossman agrees, saying:
“Because gender issues have been framed as a civil right, every teacher can introduce it in their class — into English literature, social studies, civics, history.
Parents also have to be aware that … there are activist teachers, activist social workers and guidance counselors, who are out there to influence your child, and they will go as far as to keep it a secret from the family if the child requests to make some sort of identity change at school.
The school will keep it a secret from the parents, which is another outrageous element in all of this because it’s a parent’s right to know such a thing. So yes, you can remove your child from not only public school, but there are also private schools that push this ideology …
Their professional organizations — the National Educational Association, the professional organizations of social workers, school counselors, guidance counselors and principals — they have all bought into the narrative. So they are obligated to follow those policies, and the policies call for keeping the parents in the dark if the child says that’s what they want.
I tell a story in my book of teachers who have felt that it is wrong to keep the parents in the dark about their child’s gender identity at school and shared the information with the parents. They’ve been fired.
There are teachers, especially the younger ones, who have been indoctrinated. But I have people writing to me who are school psychologists and teachers, and they say things like, ‘I can’t do this anymore. I’m leaving this field. I’m retiring, I simply can’t do this anymore, it’s wrong.’
So parents need to be aware of that. And I provide in the book an appendix written by attorneys who are specialists in child and parental rights, and they explain exactly how to be proactive.
Even if your child is entering kindergarten, you can go into the school and you can, with a form that I provide on my website, merriamgrossmanmd.com, that puts the school on notice that they have no constitutionally based rights to direct the education of your child, that you don’t want your child being taught gender ideology and that you do not permit your child to be a part of any program or club in which this ideology is being taught.
And you certainly are not giving permission for your child to be called by a different name, or for your kid to use the opposite sex bathrooms. You have to [do that].”
Inoculate Your Children Through Biological Affirmation
Another important strategy that parents need to adopt is to affirm the biology of their children from the start. By teaching them the value and permanence of their biological sex, you can effectively “inoculate” them against deranged ideas being brought in later. Grossman explains:
“You can say to a 2-year-old or a 3-year-old, ‘You know you’re a boy, and you’re always going to be a boy. From the very first moment of your creation, you were a boy.’
This phrase, ‘sex assigned at birth,’ drives me crazy because it is so, so false. It is so outrageously untrue. Sex is not assigned at birth. Sex is established at conception and it is permanent.
Kids are being led to believe that sex — being male or female — is randomly assigned. Some doctor or nurse in the delivery room takes a look at you and makes this random decision that really isn’t based on anything real. No, you want to inoculate your child against that idea.
You want to tell your child that ‘You always were a boy or a girl, and you always will be. And that’s a great thing.’ Also, [teach them that] there are many different ways of being a girl or a boy. There isn’t one way.
There are some girls who love makeup and do all those stereotypically feminine things, and there are other girls who never want to put on a dress and they’re into building things and sports. And that’s great. That’s one kind of way of being a girl.
So from a very young age, we can tell kids that there isn’t just one way of being a girl or a boy, because what the ideology is telling them is that if you don’t fit into these ridiculous stereotypes, you may not actually be a girl (or a boy). So, you want your child to recognize that as not making sense.”
Another thing that children need to be taught from a young age is that being male or female has an impact on every system of the body. It’s not just a few skin-deep anatomical differences.
Your biological gender — immutable due to the presence of XX or XY chromosomes in every cell of your body — impacts how your brain works, your cardiovascular system, GI system and the immune system, and no amount of sex hormones and surgery will change that.
By taking hormones to feminize or masculinize the body, you’re wreaking total havoc on the entire system, because it wasn’t designed for those hormones. The only predictable outcome of transgender hormone therapy is health problems.
More Information
The transgender ideology is a pervasive threat to our children, and parents need to educate themselves on how to battle it most effectively. Grossman’s book, “Lost in Trans Nation” is the only book out there right now that gives parents the necessary tools. So, if you have young children, pick up a copy. Also gift the book to new parents. It could be the most valuable baby gift they can get. In closing, Grossman says:
“Parents, it’s really essential for you to know as much as you can. I’ve put my heart and soul into writing this book [‘Lost in Trans Nation’] because I have seen too much. I have seen people, marriages and families destroyed from this ideology.
That is why I wrote this book. It was not an easy book to write. It’s not an easy book to read. But we have to live in reality and know what’s going on. Parents that contact me all tell me the same thing. They say, ‘We were blindsided. We never imagined that this could happen. We weren’t prepared for it.’ And so I want parents to be prepared …
I have tons of information that families can use to protect themselves. Once your child is involved, it can be really tough to get them out because they are essentially brainwashed.
In addition to believing that they may be born in the wrong body, they have been brainwashed to believe that anyone who challenges them, anyone who won’t use their new name and pronouns, is a bad person. [They’ve been told] their home might be unsafe if their parents won’t use their new name and that they may need to live somewhere else …
This is a push to change our culture, change our society — to place a wedge between kids and their parents and for the state to say that we know what’s best for your child, not you. It’s a very dangerous situation.
And I think it’s important just to mention that other countries, very progressive countries such as Sweden, have all done a 180. Those other countries are saying what the kids need is psychotherapy. This is an emotional disorder.”
“I know it’s difficult at times like this, but please try not to let people fuck with your head. Try not to let them punch your buttons. Try not to let them make you react to emotional stimuli like Pavlov’s dog. Take a break from the mass hysteria. Try to see things clearly. Try to understand the goals and tactics of both sides of this conflict, regardless of which side you think you’re on…”
On the afternoon of September 11, I stood among the crowd on the Brooklyn Heights Promenade and watched what was left of the Twin Towers burn. Walking home as the sun was setting, it appeared to be snowing. It wasn’t snowing. The snowflakes were bits and pieces of paper, burnt ginger orange and rust brown around the edges, which the wind had carried across the East River, contracts, memos, actuarial tables, pages torn out of trashy paperback books, scribbled notes, pink telephone messages, the children’s drawings and affirmations that adorn the colorless upholstered walls of corporate cubicles throughout America.
It was snowing relics, the hideous detritus of thousands of people’s mundane lives.
America had been attacked. It was time to come together as Americans, to put aside our political differences, to rally around the flag, and the president, and go and kill a whole lot of people who had absolutely nothing to do with it.
You might be too young to remember that time. I remember it vividly. I remember it in detail. I remember how the nation “came together.” I remember how the Western world “stood with America.” I remember how we declared a “Global War on Terror,” how we “took the gloves off,” both at home and abroad, how the government and the media whipped the public up into a bloodthirsty, jingoistic frenzy. I remember being called a “traitor,” a “Saddam apologist,” a “terrorist sympathizer,” because I wouldn’t wave the flag, and “stand with America,” and get on board with murdering hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children.
So, forgive me if what follows seems a bit cold. As I said, I’ve seen this movie before.
Actually, I’m pretty torn up at the moment. Many people are. It’s been quite a week. I was planning to publish one of my satirical columns about the recent events in Israel and Gaza. It was going to focus on the “40 beheaded babies” propaganda. I started it. And stopped it. I cannot do it. Not today. I just don’t have it in me.
Instead, I’m going to drop the sarcasm for now, and say a few things for the record. Maybe just to get this out of my system. Nothing I publish is going to change what has happened, or what is going to happen in the coming days and weeks, or anyone else’s mind, probably.
I am not going to condemn the Hamas attack, as hideous as I think it was. I do not condemn things on command, or perform any other kind of tricks on command. If that’s what you’re looking for, get a dog.
That said, I am not going to call the Hamas attack “resistance” or try to justify it. I refuse to justify mass murder. If you’re OK with mass murdering civilians for your cause … OK, but own it. Call it what it is. And spare me the “legitimate resistance” bullshit.
Same goes for Israel. If you “stand with Israel” as it murders civilians, fine. Own it. Give me a break with the “Israel has the right to defend itself” bullshit, and own it.
Whatever “side” of this conflict you are on, at least have the integrity to call things what they are.
Here is what things are, in a nutshell.
Israel is a nation-state. It is doing what a lot of nation-states have done throughout the history of nation-states. It is wiping out, or otherwise removing, the indigenous population of the territory it has conquered. It has been doing this for 75 years. The indigenous population, i.e., the Palestinians, have been trying not to get completely wiped out, or otherwise removed from their indigenous territory, and lashing out at Israel in a variety of ways (i.e., from throwing stones to committing mass murder).
That is what is happening. The rest is PR. Public relations. Propaganda.
If you “stand with” the nation-state of Israel and its ongoing efforts to wipe out and otherwise remove the Palestinians from the territory it controls, I get it. The United States of America did that to its indigenous population. The British Empire did it in its colonies. A lot of nations and empires did it. It is standard nation-state behavior. There is nothing aberrational about it. If you can live with supporting that … OK, go for it, but spare me the sanctimony and the “unprovoked attack” crap.
If you “stand with” the Palestinians in their ongoing efforts to not get wiped out, or otherwise removed from their homeland, I get it. My sympathies are with them too. I’ve never found nation-states particularly sympathetic, especially when they are in their Mercilessly-Wiping-Out-the-Indigenous-Population phase. However, if you believe that “standing with” the Palestinians means celebrating mass murder, and making excuses for it like “settlers are not civilians” … OK, fine, but count me out.
What’s my point? Well, my point is, at times like this, everything conspires to keep everyone from seeing things clearly and thinking critically. Everyone’s selling you a narrative and punching your emotional buttons to force you into joining their side.
Hamas is playing on your basic human decency … your empathy for the Palestinians. Their game is, if you support the Palestinian people, you have to support the Hamas attack and condone the mass murder of unarmed civilians.
Israel is playing on your basic human decency … on your sympathy for the murdered Israelis. Their game is, if you don’t support the mass murder of Palestinian civilians that is now in progress, then you are a “terrorist-sympathizer,” who hates the Jews.
Both of these parties are fucking with your head, as are their assorted propaganda-spewing mouthpieces. They are trying to force you into a position where your only choice is to support mass murder.
You do not have to support mass murder.
I know it’s difficult at times like this, but please try not to let people fuck with your head. Try not to let them punch your buttons. Try not to let them make you react to emotional stimuli like Pavlov’s dog. Take a break from the mass hysteria. Try to see things clearly. Try to understand the goals and tactics of both sides of this conflict, regardless of which side you think you’re on. If you do not know the history of this conflict — the conflict I described above in a nutshell — please take a few minutes and educate yourself. It’s actually not that complicated.
That’s it, for now. I’m sure I’ll be writing more about this in the coming weeks. As far as I can tell, what we’re about to witness is going to be protracted and extremely ugly. The IDF appears to be preparing to liquidate a sizable portion of Gaza. One assumes Hamas has prepared for this, as that was obviously what their massacre was meant to provoke. Who knows how long the fighting will last, whether it will spread, and what it will lead to?
Do you really believe that a simple blood test can reveal your genetic history and heritage? Let us show you why common ideas about blood groups and bloodlines are far from scientific reality.
Blood: The Liquid Enigma of Our Existence
Have you ever stopped and thought about the mysterious fluid that runs through our veins? Blood, often seen as a reflection of our ancestry and identity, holds secrets far beyond what we have previously been told.
Dozens of blood groups and subgroup systems
Let’s start with a startling fact: there is not just the ABO and Rhesus blood group system that we are so familiar with. There are DOZENS of blood group systems! Each system with its own binding reactions.
What does that mean? It shows that the idea of a “specific” blood type that makes us unique is actually much more complex and non-specific than we thought.
Change in blood group
Now for an even more amazing fact: our blood type can change throughout our lives.
Yes, you’ve read correctly.
What is often viewed as an immutable marker of our identity can actually change. And not only that, scientists can artificially change blood types in laboratories!
But why is this so important? Because it challenges the common idea that our blood is an immutable witness to our genetic ancestry and history.
Lack of ideas: When blood is mixed wildly
If rabbits and monkeys were involved in the discovery of the Rh factor, how reliable is our understanding of blood groups and their meaning?
Theoretical expansion of the system: If we continue to rely on non-specific experiments, such as the monkey-rabbit experiment, we could theoretically “discover” an infinite number of new blood group systems.
Imagine if we injected monkey blood into frogs and then transferred this antiserum to human blood. This could lead to a hypothetical “Rhesus frog system”. And if we pursue this approach, we could create a new system with each combination of animals.
This shows how easy it is to develop complex and potentially misleading systems on unsound foundations.
The truth is that blood is constantly moving and changing, just like us. It is a living, breathing system that responds to our environment, our choices and our health. The idea that it divides us into simple categories is an illusion.
Own blood vs. foreign blood: Same challenges when it comes to compatibility
It is a common misconception that using your own blood in transfusions is automatically safer than using donor blood. In fact, both variants have similar challenges in terms of tolerability.
Need for compatibility testing
The fact is that blood group determination alone is not sufficient to ensure the tolerability of a blood transfusion. There are many subgroups and other factors such as the unscientific Rhesus factor that are taken into account. Therefore, a compatibility test is carried out before each transfusion to ensure that the donor and recipient are compatible.
What are blood groups?
The claim of blood groups is an attempt to explain the phenomenon of “incompatibility” of blood from different people in terms of Mendelian genetics.
Since the energy content of the cell membranes and the proteins dissolved in the body and blood are constantly changing, the blood groups also change. There are currently 29 “officially” approved, diverse blood group systems.
Drs. Tom Cowan and Mark Bailey challenge an article posted on October 4, 2023 by HART (a group of scientists in the UK) titled “Why HART uses the virus model — Arguments against ‘the virus doesn’t exist’ “.
Tom and Mark go over all key points made in the article.
It’s clear that the HART group has no idea what has been revealed in the research done by those who been exposing the false foundation of virology.
HART has somehow missed a foundational point of the “no virus” research — that no infectious “virus” has ever been isolated in the entire history of virology and that the “no virus” research shines a light on the fraud of all so-called infectious viruses.
Here is how HART group describes themselves at their website:
“HART is a group of highly qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts. We came together over shared concerns about policy and guidance recommendations relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
We continue to be concerned about the lack of open scientific debate in mainstream media and the worrying trend of censorship and harassment of those who question the narrative. Science without question is dogma.”
On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm.” which wasled by its Military Chief Mohammed Deif. On that same day, Netanyahu confirmed a so-called “State of Readiness For War”. Israel has now (October 7, 2023) officially declared a new stage of its long war against the people of Palestine.
Was “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” a “surprise attack”? Did Netanyahu and his vast military and intelligence apparatus (Mossad et al) have foreknowledge of the Hamas attack? Was it a false flag?
U.S. intelligence say they weren’t aware of an impending Hamas attack. Nonsense.
The current Netanyahu government is committed to the “Greater Israel” and the “Promised Land”, namely the biblical homeland of the Jews.
Benjamin Netanyahu is pressing ahead to formalize “Israel’s colonial project”, namely the appropriation of all Palestinian Lands.
His position defined below consists in total appropriation as well as the outright exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homeland:
“These are the basic lines of the national government headed by me: The Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.” (January 2023)
The Nakba
Commemoration on May 13, 2023: The Nakba. 75 years ago on May 13, 1948. The Palestinian Catastrophe prevails. In a 2018 report, the United Nations stated that Gaza had become “unliveable”:
With an economy in free fall, 70 per cent youth unemployment, widely contaminated drinking water and a collapsed health care system, Gaza has become “unliveable”,[in 2018] according to the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian Territories”
The above UN assessment dates back to 2018. Under Netanyahu, Israel is currently proceeding with the plan to annex large chunks of Palestinian territory “while keeping the Palestinian inhabitants in conditions of severe deprivation and isolation.“
Creating conditions of extreme poverty and economic collapse constitute the means for triggering the expulsion and exodus of Palestinians from their homeland. It is part of the process of annexation.
“If the manoeuvre is successful, Israel will end up with all of the territories it conquered during the 1967 war, including all of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem and most of the Palestinian Territories, including the best sources of water and agricultural land.
The West Bank will find itself in the same situation as the Gaza strip, cut off from the outside world and surrounded by hostile Israeli military forces and Israeli settlements.” (South Front)
Human rights ended at the Palestinian border. The bought and paid for US Congress couldn’t genuflect enough:
“On July 19, 2023 the US Congress convened a special joint session for Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Both Democrats and Republicans bobbed up and down to applaud him 29 times.”
“Watching Palestine Disappear”, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 12, 2023
“Greater Israel would create a number of proxy states. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.”
“Palestine Is Gone! Gone! راحت فلسطين . The Palestinian plight is savagely painful and the pain is compounded by the bafflingly off-hand dismissal and erasure by Western powers of that pain.” Rima Najjar, Global Research, June, 7, 2020
Michel Chossudovsky, June 10, 2021, July 19, 2023, September 19, 2023, October 8, 2023
Introductory Text on “The Greater Israel Project”
by Michel Chossudovsky
The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.
President Donald Trump had confirmed in January 2017 his support of Israel’s illegal settlements (including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank). The Trump administration expressed its recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. And now the entire West Bank is being annexed to Israel.
Under the Biden administration, despite rhetorical shifts in the political narrative, Washington remains supportive of Israel plans to annex the entire Jordan River valley as well the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Bear in mind: The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is to extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.
In this regard, Washington’s strategy consists in destabilizing and weakening regional economic powers in the Middle East including Turkey and Iran. This policy –which is consistent with the Greater Israel– is accompanied by a process of political fragmentation.
Since the Gulf war (1991), the Pentagon has contemplated the creation of a “Free Kurdistan” which would include the annexation of parts of Iraq, Syria and Iran as well as Turkey
“The New Middle East”: Unofficial US Military Academy Map by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
When viewed in the current context, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East bears an intimate relationship to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the political crisis in Saudi Arabia.
The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, the Saudi-Israeli rapprochement is from Netanyahu’s viewpoint a means to expanding Israel’s spheres of influence in the Middle East as well as confronting Iran. Needless to day, the “Greater Israel” project is consistent with America’s imperial design.
“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. According to Stephen Lendman,
A near-century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state included:
• historic Palestine;
• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;
• Syria’s Golan Heights, Hauran Plain and Deraa; and
• control of the Hijaz Railway from Deraa to Amman, Jordan as well as the Gulf of Aqaba.
Some Zionists wanted more – land from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey.”
The Zionist project has supported the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.
The Project of “Greater Israel” is to create a number of proxy States, which could include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).
[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.
“Greater Israel” would require the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.
The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must
1) become an imperial regional power, and
2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states.
Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation… This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)
Viewed in this context, the US-NATO led wars on Syria and Iraq are part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion.
In this regard, the defeat of US sponsored terrorists (ISIS, Al Nusra) by Syrian Forces with the support of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah constitute a significant setback for Israel.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015, updated September 13, 2019
The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
Translated and edited by Israel Shahak
The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)
In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”
Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
Oded Yinon’s
“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”
Published by the
Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.
Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982
Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8)
Introductory Note
by Dr. Khalil Nakhleh
The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.
The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.
This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s study documents, in convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties.
The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon, but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments. This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980’s,” talks about “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967” that are created by the “very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel.”
The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy, but is pursued more forcefully in times of conflict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war. An appendix entitled “Israel Talks of a New Exodus” is included in this publication to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show, besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine.
It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982, that the “far-reaching opportunities” of which Zionist strategists have been thinking are the same “opportunities” of which they are trying to convince the world and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion. It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans, but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however, especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later.
Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence. There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the Israeli siege of Beirut. The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.
Khalil Nakhleh, July 23, 1982
Foreward
by Israel Shahak
The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:
1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.
3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.
The notes by the author follow the text under the title.
To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this Foreward and the Concluding Observations at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.
Israel Shahak, June 13, 1982
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
by Oded Yinon
This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14–Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department ofPublicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.
At the outset of the nineteen eighties the State of Israel is in need of a new perspective as to its place, its aims and national targets, at home and abroad. This need has become even more vital due to a number of central processes which the country, the region and the world are undergoing. We are living today in the early stages of a new epoch in human history which is not at all similar to its predecessor, and its characteristics are totally different from what we have hitherto known. That is why we need an understanding of the central processes which typify this historical epoch on the one hand, and on the other hand we need a world outlook and an operational strategy in accordance with the new conditions. The existence, prosperity and steadfastness of the Jewish state will depend upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs.
This epoch is characterized by several traits which we can already diagnose, and which symbolize a genuine revolution in our present lifestyle. The dominant process is the breakdown of the rationalist, humanist outlook as the major cornerstone supporting the life and achievements of Western civilization since the Renaissance. The political, social and economic views which have emanated from this foundation have been based on several “truths” which are presently disappearing–for example, the view that man as an individual is the center of the universe and everything exists in order to fulfill his basic material needs. This position is being invalidated in the present when it has become clear that the amount of resources in the cosmos does not meet Man’s requirements, his economic needs or his demographic constraints. In a world in which there are four billion human beings and economic and energy resources which do not grow proportionally to meet the needs of mankind, it is unrealistic to expect to fulfill the main requirement of Western Society,1 i.e., the wish and aspiration for boundless consumption. The view that ethics plays no part in determining the direction Man takes, but rather his material needs do–that view is becoming prevalent today as we see a world in which nearly all values are disappearing. We are losing the ability to assess the simplest things, especially when they concern the simple question of what is Good and what is Evil.
The vision of man’s limitless aspirations and abilities shrinks in the face of the sad facts of life, when we witness the break-up of world order around us. The view which promises liberty and freedom to mankind seems absurd in light of the sad fact that three fourths of the human race lives under totalitarian regimes. The views concerning equality and social justice have been transformed by socialism and especially by Communism into a laughing stock. There is no argument as to the truth of these two ideas, but it is clear that they have not been put into practice properly and the majority of mankind has lost the liberty, the freedom and the opportunity for equality and justice. In this nuclear world in which we are (still) living in relative peace for thirty years, the concept of peace and coexistence among nations has no meaning when a superpower like the USSR holds a military and political doctrine of the sort it has: that not only is a nuclear war possible and necessary in order to achieve the ends of Marxism, but that it is possible to survive after it, not to speak of the fact that one can be victorious in it.2
The essential concepts of human society, especially those of the West, are undergoing a change due to political, military and economic transformations. Thus, the nuclear and conventional might of the USSR has transformed the epoch that has just ended into the last respite before the great saga that will demolish a large part of our world in a multi-dimensional global war, in comparison with which the past world wars will have been mere child’s play. The power of nuclear as well as of conventional weapons, their quantity, their precision and quality will turn most of our world upside down within a few years, and we must align ourselves so as to face that in Israel. That is, then, the main threat to our existence and that of the Western world.3 The war over resources in the world, the Arab monopoly on oil, and the need of the West to import most of its raw materials from the Third World, are transforming the world we know, given that one of the major aims of the USSR is to defeat the West by gaining control over the gigantic resources in the Persian Gulf and in the southern part of Africa, in which the majority of world minerals are located. We can imagine the dimensions of the global confrontation which will face us in the future.
The Gorshkov doctrine calls for Soviet control of the oceans and mineral rich areas of the Third World. That together with the present Soviet nuclear doctrine which holds that it is possible to manage, win and survive a nuclear war, in the course of which the West’s military might well be destroyed and its inhabitants made slaves in the service of Marxism-Leninism, is the main danger to world peace and to our own existence. Since 1967, the Soviets have transformed Clausewitz’ dictum into “War is the continuation of policy in nuclear means,” and made it the motto which guides all their policies. Already today they are busy carrying out their aims in our region and throughout the world, and the need to face them becomes the major element in our country’s security policy and of course that of the rest of the Free World. That is our major foreign challenge.4
The Arab Moslem world, therefore, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties, despite the fact that it carries the main threat against Israel, due to its growing military might. This world, with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive, as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria, is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run, but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import. In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes. The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging.5 Most of the Arabs, 118 million out of 170 million, live in Africa, mostly in Egypt (45 million today).
Apart from Egypt, all the Maghreb states are made up of a mixture of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers. In Algeria there is already a civil war raging in the Kabile mountains between the two nations in the country. Morocco and Algeria are at war with each other over Spanish Sahara, in addition to the internal struggle in each of them. Militant Islam endangers the integrity of Tunisia and Qaddafi organizes wars which are destructive from the Arab point of view, from a country which is sparsely populated and which cannot become a powerful nation. That is why he has been attempting unifications in the past with states that are more genuine, like Egypt and Syria. Sudan, the most torn apart state in the Arab Moslem world today is built upon four groups hostile to each other, an Arab Moslem Sunni minority which rules over a majority of non-Arab Africans, Pagans, and Christians. In Egypt there is a Sunni Moslem majority facing a large minority of Christians which is dominant in upper Egypt: some 7 million of them, so that even Sadat, in his speech on May 8, expressed the fear that they will want a state of their own, something like a “second” Christian Lebanon in Egypt.
All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict even more than those of the Maghreb. Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it. But the real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the Shi’ite Alawi ruling minority (a mere 12% of the population) testifies to the severity of the domestic trouble.
Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi’ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren’t for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq’s future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi’ites in Iraq view as their natural leader.
All the Gulf principalities and Saudi Arabia are built upon a delicate house of sand in which there is only oil. In Kuwait, the Kuwaitis constitute only a quarter of the population. In Bahrain, the Shi’ites are the majority but are deprived of power. In the UAE, Shi’ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in power. The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist South Yemen there is a sizable Shi’ite minority. In Saudi Arabia half the population is foreign, Egyptian and Yemenite, but a Saudi minority holds power.
Jordan is in reality Palestinian, ruled by a Trans-Jordanian Bedouin minority, but most of the army and certainly the bureaucracy is now Palestinian. As a matter of fact Amman is as Palestinian as Nablus. All of these countries have powerful armies, relatively speaking. But there is a problem there too. The Syrian army today is mostly Sunni with an Alawi officer corps, the Iraqi army Shi’ite with Sunni commanders. This has great significance in the long run, and that is why it will not be possible to retain the loyalty of the army for a long time except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards Israel, and today even that is insufficient.
Alongside the Arabs, split as they are, the other Moslem states share a similar predicament. Half of Iran’s population is comprised of a Persian speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish group. Turkey’s population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority, some 50%, and two large minorities, 12 million Shi’ite Alawis and 6 million Sunni Kurds. In Afghanistan there are 5 million
Shi’ites who constitute one third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi’ites who endanger the existence of that state.
This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems.
In this giant and fractured world there are a few wealthy groups and a huge mass of poor people. Most of the Arabs have an average yearly income of 300 dollars. That is the situation in Egypt, in most of the Maghreb countries except for Libya, and in Iraq. Lebanon is torn apart and its economy is falling to pieces. It is a state in which there is no centralized power, but only 5 de facto sovereign authorities (Christian in the north, supported by the Syrians and under the rule of the Franjieh clan, in the East an area of direct Syrian conquest, in the center a Phalangist controlled Christian enclave, in the south and up to the Litani river a mostly Palestinian region controlled by the PLO and Major Haddad’s state of Christians and half a million Shi’ites). Syria is in an even graver situation and even the assistance she will obtain in the future after the unification with Libya will not be sufficient for dealing with the basic problems of existence and the maintenance of a large army. Egypt is in the worst situation: Millions are on the verge of hunger, half the labor force is unemployed, and housing is scarce in this most densely populated area of the world. Except for the army, there is not a single department operating efficiently and the state is in a permanent state of bankruptcy and depends entirely on American foreign assistance granted since the peace.6
In the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt there is the largest accumulation of money and oil in the world, but those enjoying it are tiny elites who lack a wide base of support and self-confidence, something that no army can guarantee.7 The Saudi army with all its equipment cannot defend the regime from real dangers at home or abroad, and what took place in Mecca in 1980 is only an example. A sad and very stormy situation surrounds Israel and creates challenges for it, problems, risks but also far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967. Chances are that opportunities missed at that time will become achievable in the Eighties to an extent and along dimensions which we cannot even imagine today.
The “peace” policy and the return of territories, through a dependence upon the US, precludes the realization of the new option created for us. Since 1967, all the governments of Israel have tied our national aims down to narrow political needs, on the one hand, and on the other to destructive opinions at home which neutralized our capacities both at home and abroad. Failing to take steps towards the Arab population in the new territories, acquired in the course of a war forced upon us, is the major strategic error committed by Israel on the morning after the Six Day War. We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing.8 Today, we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state.
In the course of the Nineteen Eighties, the State of Israel will have to go through far-reaching changes in its political and economic regime domestically, along with radical changes in its foreign policy, in order to stand up to the global and regional challenges of this new epoch. The loss of the Suez Canal oil fields, of the immense potential of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the Sinai peninsula which is geomorphologically identical to the rich oil-producing countries in the region, will result in an energy drain in the near future and will destroy our domestic economy: one quarter of our present GNP as well as one third of the budget is used for the purchase of oil.9 The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs.
(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political prioritywhich is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the present Israeli government and the governments which paved the road to the policy of territorial compromise, the Alignment governments since 1967. The Egyptians will not need to keep the peace treaty after the return of the Sinai, and they will do all they can to return to the fold of the Arab world and to the USSR in order to gain support and military assistance. American aid is guaranteed only for a short while, for the terms of the peace and the weakening of the U.S. both at home and abroad will bring about a reduction in aid. Without oil and the income from it, with the present enormous expenditure, we will not be able to get through 1982 under the present conditions and we will have to act in order toreturn the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat’s visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979.10
Israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in Israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israelwith the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-
Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the longrun. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day.11
The myth of Egypt as the strong leader of the Arab World was demolished back in 1956 and definitely did not survive 1967, but our policy, as in the return of the Sinai, served to turn the myth into “fact.” In reality, however, Egypt’s power in proportion both to Israel alone and to the rest of the Arab World has gone down about 50 percent since 1967. Egypt is no longer the leading political power in the Arab World and is economically on the verge of a crisis. Without foreign assistance the crisis will come tomorrow.12 In the short run, due to the return of the Sinai, Egypt will gain several advantages at our expense, but only in the short run until 1982, and that will not change the balance of power to its benefit, and will possibly bring about its downfall. Egypt, in its present domestic political picture, is already a corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing Moslem-Christian rift. BreakingEgypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front.
Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join thedownfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run.13
The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab worldincluding Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.14
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate forIsrael’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and willshorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.15
The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure.16
Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the short run.
There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of theJordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigration from the territories and economic demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future. The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any compromise or division of the territories for, given the plans of the PLO and those of the Israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa’amr plan of September 1980, it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.17
Within Israel the distinction between the areas of ’67 and the territories beyond them, those of ’48, has always been meaningless for Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of ’67. It should be clear, under any future political situation or military constellation, that the solution of the problem of the indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of Israel in secure borders up to the Jordan river andbeyond it, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch.
Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today.l8
Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first on the realization of this internal strategic objective. The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure. If we are not able to make this change freely and voluntarily, we shall be forced into it by world developments, especially in the areas of economics, energy, and politics, and by our own growing isolation.l9
From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and Israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with nocompromises.20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future.21
Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat’s method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken “peace” policy and the problem of the Israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future.
Concluding Observations
by Israel Shahak
Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.
The Military Background of The Plan
The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being “explained” in closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian “unrest” on the West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of “Haddad forces” or of “Village Associations” (also known as “Village Leagues”): local forces under “leaders” completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The “states” proposed by Yinon are “Haddadland” and “Village Associations,” and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be “punished” either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.
It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.
Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?
The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews, combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin’s speeches) has to be persuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid “persuaders” and “explainers” (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then “learn it,” more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was “in opposition”) the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering “the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity” was explained in the years 1965-67.
Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?
Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?
In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the “liberal” American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call “the constructive criticism.” (In fact those among them who claim also to be “Anti-Stalinist” are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always “good intentions” and only “makes mistakes,” and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, The Jerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which Israel is really a “closed society” to the rest of the world, because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.
Israel Shahak, June 17, 1982 Jerusalem
About the Translator
Israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistly at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by theAAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)
Notes
1. American Universities Field Staff. Report No.33, 1979. According to this research, the population of the world will be 6 billion in the year 2000. Today’s world population can be broken down as follows: China, 958 million; India, 635 million; USSR, 261 million; U.S., 218 million Indonesia, 140 million; Brazil and Japan, 110 million each. According to the figures of the U.N. Population Fund for 1980, there will be, in 2000, 50 cities with a population of over 5 million each. The population ofthp;Third World will then be 80% of the world population. According to Justin Blackwelder, U.S. Census Office chief, the world population will not reach 6 billion because of hunger.
2. Soviet nuclear policy has been well summarized by two American Sovietologists: Joseph D. Douglas and Amoretta M. Hoeber, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War, (Stanford, Ca., Hoover Inst. Press, 1979). In the Soviet Union tens and hundreds of articles and books are published each year which detail the Soviet doctrine for nuclear war and there is a great deal of documentation translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force,including USAF: Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army: The Soviet View, Moscow, 1972; USAF: The Armed Forces ofthe Soviet State. Moscow, 1975, by Marshal A. Grechko. The basic Soviet approach to the matter is presented in the book by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, SovietDoctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963).
3. A picture of Soviet intentions in various areas of the world can be drawn from the book by Douglas and Hoeber, ibid. For additional material see: Michael Morgan, “USSR’s Minerals as Strategic Weapon in the Future,” Defense and Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1979.
4. Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, Sea Power and the State, London, 1979. Morgan, loc. cit. General George S. Brown (USAF) C-JCS, Statement to the Congress on the Defense Posture of the United States For Fiscal Year1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew Middleton, The New York Times, (9/15/79); Time, 9/21/80.
5. Elie Kedourie, “The End of the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No.4, 1968.
6. Al-Thawra, Syria 12/20/79, Al-Ahram,12/30/79, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 55% of the Arabs are 20 years old and younger, 70% of the Arabs live in Africa, 55% of the Arabs under 15 are unemployed, 33% live in urban areas, Oded Yinon, “Egypt’s Population Problem,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15, Spring 1980.
7. E. Kanovsky, “Arab Haves and Have Nots,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No.1, Fall 1976, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79.
8. In his book, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the Israeli government is in fact responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East, after June ’67, because of its own indecisiveness as to the future of the territories and the inconsistency in its positions since it established the background for Resolution 242 and certainly twelve years later for the Camp David agreements and the peace treaty with Egypt. According to Rabin, on June 19, 1967, President Johnson sent a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol in which he did not mention anything about withdrawal from the new territories but exactly on the same day the government resolved to return territories in exchange for peace. After the Arab resolutions in Khartoum (9/1/67) the government altered its position but contrary to its decision of June 19, did not notify the U.S. of the alteration and the U.S. continued to support 242 in the Security Council on the basis of its earlier understanding that Israel is prepared to return territories. At that point it was already too late to change the U.S. position and Israel’s policy. From here the way was opened to peace agreements on the basis of 242 as was later agreed upon in Camp David. See Yitzhak Rabin. Pinkas Sherut, (Ma’ariv 1979) pp. 226-227.
9. Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma ‘ariv,10/3/80) that the Israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace.
The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, Israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of Israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha’aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha’aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha’aretz, 5/5/79. Ma’ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and Israel’s energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma’arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once…see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha’aretz, 8/22/79.
10. Many sources report on the growth of the armaments budget in Egypt and on intentions to give the army preference in a peace epoch budget over domestic needs for which a peace was allegedly obtained. See former Prime Minister Mamduh Salam in an interview 12/18/77, Treasury Minister Abd El Sayeh in an interview 7/25/78, and the paper Al Akhbar, 12/2/78 which clearly stressed that the military budget will receive first priority, despite the peace. This is what former Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil has stated in his cabinet’s programmatic document which was presented to Parliament, 11/25/78. See English translation, ICA, FBIS, Nov. 27. 1978, pp. D 1-10.
According to these sources, Egypt’s military budget increased by 10% between fiscal 1977 and 1978, and the process still goes on. A Saudi source divulged that the Egyptians plan to increase their militmy budget by 100% in the next two years; Ha’aretz, 2/12/79 and Jerusalem Post, 1/14/79.
11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt’s ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, “The Arab Republic of Egypt”; E. Kanovsky, “Recent Economic Developments in the Middle East,” Occasional Papers, The Shiloah Institution, June 1977; Kanovsky, “The Egyptian Economy Since the Mid-Sixties, The Micro Sectors,” Occasional Papers, June 1978; Robert McNamara, President of World Bank, as reported in Times, London, 1/24/78.
12. See the comparison made by the researeh of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and research camed out in the Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, as well as the research by the British scientist, Denis Champlin, Military Review, Nov. 1979, ISS: The Military Balance 1979-1980, CSS; Security Arrangements inSinai…by Brig. Gen. (Res.) A Shalev, No. 3.0 CSS; The Military Balance and the Military Options after the Peace Treaty with Egypt, by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Y. Raviv, No.4, Dec. 1978, as well as many press reports including El Hawadeth, London, 3/7/80; El Watan El Arabi, Paris, 12/14/79.
13. As for religious ferment in Egypt and the relations between Copts and Moslems see the series of articles published in the Kuwaiti paper, El Qabas, 9/15/80. The English author Irene Beeson reports on the rift between Moslems and Copts, see: Irene Beeson, Guardian, London, 6/24/80, and Desmond Stewart, Middle EastInternmational, London 6/6/80. For other reports see Pamela Ann Smith, Guardian, London, 12/24/79; The Christian Science Monitor 12/27/79 as well as Al Dustour, London, 10/15/79; El Kefah El Arabi, 10/15/79.
14. Arab Press Service, Beirut, 8/6-13/80. The New Republic, 8/16/80, Der Spiegel as cited by Ha’aretz, 3/21/80, and 4/30-5/5/80; The Economist, 3/22/80; Robert Fisk, Times, London, 3/26/80; Ellsworth Jones, Sunday Times, 3/30/80.
15. J.P. Peroncell Hugoz, Le Monde, Paris 4/28/80; Dr. Abbas Kelidar, Middle East Review, Summer 1979;
Conflict Studies, ISS, July 1975; Andreas Kolschitter, Der Zeit, (Ha’aretz, 9/21/79) Economist Foreign Report, 10/10/79, Afro-Asian Affairs, London, July 1979.
16. Arnold Hottinger, “The Rich Arab States in Trouble,” The New York Review of Books, 5/15/80; Arab PressService, Beirut, 6/25-7/2/80; U.S. News and World Report, 11/5/79 as well as El Ahram, 11/9/79; El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, Paris 9/7/79; El Hawadeth, 11/9/79; David Hakham, Monthly Review, IDF, Jan.-Feb. 79.
17. As for Jordan’s policies and problems see El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, 4/30/79, 7/2/79; Prof. Elie Kedouri, Ma’ariv 6/8/79; Prof. Tanter, Davar 7/12/79; A. Safdi, Jerusalem Post, 5/31/79; El Watan El Arabi 11/28/79; El Qabas, 11/19/79. As for PLO positions see: The resolutions of the Fatah Fourth Congress, Damascus, August 1980. The Shefa’amr program of the Israeli Arabs was published in Ha’aretz, 9/24/80, and by Arab Press Report 6/18/80. For facts and figures on immigration of Arabs to Jordan, see Amos Ben Vered, Ha’aretz, 2/16/77; Yossef Zuriel, Ma’ariv 1/12/80. As to the PLO’s position towards Israel see Shlomo Gazit, Monthly Review; July 1980; Hani El Hasan in an interview, Al Rai Al’Am, Kuwait 4/15/80; Avi Plaskov, “The Palestinian Problem,” Survival, ISS, London Jan. Feb. 78; David Gutrnann, “The Palestinian Myth,” Commentary, Oct. 75; Bernard Lewis, “The Palestinians and the PLO,” Commentary Jan. 75; Monday Morning, Beirut, 8/18-21/80; Journal of PalestineStudies, Winter 1980.
18. Prof. Yuval Neeman, “Samaria–The Basis for Israel’s Security,” Ma’arakhot 272-273, May/June 1980; Ya’akov Hasdai, “Peace, the Way and the Right to Know,” Dvar Hashavua, 2/23/80. Aharon Yariv, “Strategic Depth–An Israeli Perspective,” Ma’arakhot 270-271, October 1979; Yitzhak Rabin, “Israel’s Defense Problems in the Eighties,” Ma’arakhot October 1979.
19. Ezra Zohar, In the Regime’s Pliers (Shikmona, 1974); Motti Heinrich, Do We have a Chance Israel, TruthVersus Legend (Reshafim, 1981).
20. Henry Kissinger, “The Lessons of the Past,” The Washington Review Vol 1, Jan. 1978; Arthur Ross, “OPEC’s Challenge to the West,” The Washington Quarterly, Winter, 1980; Walter Levy, “Oil and the Decline of the West,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1980; Special Report–“Our Armed Forees-Ready or Not?” U.S. News and World Report 10/10/77; Stanley Hoffman, “Reflections on the Present Danger,” The New York Review of Books 3/6/80; Time 4/3/80; Leopold Lavedez “The illusions of SALT” Commentary Sept. 79; Norman Podhoretz, “The Present Danger,” Commentary March 1980; Robert Tucker, “Oil and American Power Six Years Later,” Commentary Sept. 1979; Norman Podhoretz, “The Abandonment of Israel,” Commentary July 1976; Elie Kedourie, “Misreading the Middle East,” Commentary July 1979.
21. According to figures published by Ya’akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, “The New Anti-Semitism,” The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, “They poisoned the Wells,” Newsweek 2/3/75.
The original source of this article is Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Here are a few excerpts to give you a sense of the video contents. A full transcript is provided below the video.
“It always is with every war — is that civilians on both sides are being slaughtered. Always the case — while those that order the slaughtering stay in a safe place.”
[…]
“We have two sides apparently, but one side in reality. Fighting each other, getting other people to fight for them, allowing the slaughter of Jewish civilians and Hamas, knowing that that slaughter will lead to the slaughter of Palestinian civilians.
“They are the same side, ladies and gentlemen. And it happens all over the world all the time. You see different sides. You see different groups. But it’s the same agenda, the same psychopathy, the same evil on public display.
“And we — please, please — we as a human race have got to start seeing that our so-called bloody leaders are not there to serve us. They’re there to serve an agenda to enslave us on a level never seen in known human history.”
[…]
“I’ve been watching the mainstream alternative media being taken over by barely one-dimensional buffoons, and main chances, and comedians. And we need to take it back. Because without a genuine alternative media, with a genuine perception of what is happening in the world, we have no alternative to the continued duality of sides, and us against them, when the same hands are holding the strings of all of them.
“Come on people. This has got to stop. We can’t let the perception of sides and leaders in different regimes delude us to what’s happening. We can’t let these bloody pied pipers of the alternative (mainstream alternative) media lead us to the edge of the cliff with a cul-de-sac diversion of what’s going on.
“There’s a global cult and it’s running the world through what appear to be different governments and world health organizations — at Silicon Valley and banking systems, all of it corporations. And we need to grasp that.
“The Palestinians and the Jewish people are both pawns in that game. And they need to come together to see who the real enemy is and has always been.”
Hello, this is a dot connector to wade through the deceit, the diversions, the cul-de-sacs, the lies surrounding what is currently happening in Israel.
And of course, you won’t get this information in the mainstream media. In fact, from what I’ve seen in the last 24 hours, you won’t get it from some of the “big names” in the so-called alternative media.
What is the case again? It always is with every war — is that civilians on both sides are being slaughtered. Always the case — while those that order the slaughtering stay in a safe place.
When Iraqi civilians were being slaughtered with the invasion of Iraq by America and Britain, where were boy George Bush and Tony Blair? Where were they while it was all going on? Sipping coffee in the White House and Downing Street. Always the way.
And we have Netanyahu sitting here now pontificating. ‘We’re going to do this. We’re going to do that.’ You, mate, are doing nothing. You’re sending others to do it like you always do.
And the same goes for that which is really behind. Not the window dressing. What is really behind? What is known as Hamas.
So first of all, the bottom line. This was not a surprise attack. ‘Oh, yeah, it surprised us.’ Oh, really? Who do you think you’re talking to? Bloody idiots?
We have the Israeli defense forces as one of the most trained and best-equipped armies in the world. And we’re talking about a very small area in terms of Israel, Gaza.
We have Mossad, one of the most sophisticated and widespread intelligence agencies in the world that make surveillance an art form. It’s on the cutting edge. It knows everything that’s going on in that area. But somehow hundreds of Hamas “militants” laid siege to Israel, put thousands of rockets into Israel, which they somehow gathered or built or whatever without Mossad and the IDF having any idea. ‘Oh, no, we didn’t know about that.’
We had Hamas operatives coming into Israel on fricking hang gliders. But they never knew it was coming. We had fighting in all these different areas of Israel, these different locations, but the IDF and Mossad and all the rest of that vast Israeli security network had no idea.
Isn’t that what they said with 9-11? I’m hearing them saying, this is Israel’s 9-11. Well, what happened on 9-11? These planes were, they say, hijacked and there was a big build up to it, they say, preparing for it, but the whole of the American intelligence military network,’Oh, no, it was a surprise; we didn’t know’.
To say they are lying to you is to state the bloody obvious. And we’ll get into why.
This is a quote from a former IDF soldier who was a border observer. And she worked with the highest level technology available. That’s what Israel does. And this is what she said. “If a bird came close, we knew. Even a cockroach came to our fence border, we knew. How did 400 Hamas pass through today?”
The answer is they were allowed to. Was this a surprise attack for the civilian population of Israel? Oh, yes. Of course. Was it even a surprise attack for many in the rank and file of the military? But the inner core, that’s running the show, surprise to them, you must be bloody joking.
And this situation reminded me of someone I’ve quoted over the years in the books, over the decades. It’s a man called Leroy Fletcher Prowty. He served as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Kennedy, JFK. He was a colonel in the United States Air Force and subsequently became a critic of US foreign policy, particularly the covert activities of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which he believed was working on behalf of a secret world elite. This is in the 1960s and after. The very world elite I’ve been uncovering for now 34 years, my 34th year of doing it. And this is the telling quote that I’ve used a number of times in the books.
Fletcher Prowty said, “No one has to direct an assassination. It happens.” And for assassination, that means an attack like the one in Israel now as well. “No one has to direct an assassination. It happens. The active role is played secretly by permitting it to happen. This is the greatest single clue”, he said. “Who has the power to call off or reduce the usual security precautions?”
Who has that power in Israel must now come under the spotlight and be questioned why they did so. Because they obviously did.
Now, what they want you to do in any situation like this is to take sides. And if I’m going to take the side of anyone, I take the side of the civilians — the civilians in Israel who have been subject to these horrors that continue and the civilians in Gaza who are now suffering the horrors of the Israeli response.
But in terms of sides, one fighting the other, to take either is to lose the plot. Because I’ve been exposing for decades now and been called anti-Semitic for it, even though it’s the opposite. I’ve been exposing a cult.
There’s a global cult and there is a major aspect of it which is called the Sabbatean cult.
The Sabbatean cult goes back to the 1600s. I detail it all in the books. But basically, it is a grouping, a satanic grouping that is expert in posing as what it’s not. So they might pose as Islamic leaders. They might pose as Vatican leaders or they might — and have mercilessly for the Jewish people in general — they might, and have, posed as Jewish leaders. It was this Sabbatean cult, with the Rothschilds very much involved, who were responsible for the creation of Israel in 1948. And the horrors — matching what’s happened now and more — imposed by Sabbatean actually, but officially Jewish, terrorist groups like Irgun and the Stern Gang, who forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to leave their homeland in terror, never to return.
So when you look at what’s happening now and the horrors of what has been imposed upon Jewish civilians, we should not take sides. Because when you get to the core of what’s controlling this side and what’s controlling that side, ultimately, you’re looking at the same people.
And Sabbateans who have been the controllers of Israel from the start and then moved in on places like America — they, irony of ironies, hate Jewish people. They have contempt for them. And I’ve been saying all these years that, in the end, this Sabbatean cult is going to throw the Jewish people in general under a colossal bus. And we are now, as I speak, seeing that happen.
All the Jewish population of Israel have got to contemplate is how they were treated during the so-called pandemic, fake pandemic, and how they were forced in many and various ways to get the fake COVID vaccine, which has killed and maimed so many in its wake. They don’t care about you, Jewish people of Israel and the wider world. The Sabbatean cult has infiltrated you. It does not care about you. And that’s why it’s allowed this to happen, for ulterior motives, we will get into.
And at the same time, this global cult, as I call it, is behind Hamas. If you want to bring two groups of people into conflict with each other, then control both sides and it’s a go. And the people who are the civilians taking the consequences of that think, ‘oh, they’re against me and I’m against them’. But actually, ultimately, the same hands are on the tiller of both sides. This is how the world works and we’re seeing a blatant example of it.
Now, just look at the history of Hamas and you will see how much influence — fundamental influence in its creation — came from the Israeli government. So Hamas is hanging the Palestinian civilians out to dry and the same is happening with the government of Israel and Israeli civilians.
And here’s another quote from Fletcher Prowty. Remember, he was an insider. “The Kennedy assassination has demonstrated that most of the major events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people” (Wait for this. This is crucial) “who are not of one nation, one ethnic grouping, or one over-ridingly important business group. They are a power unto themselves for whom others work. Neither is this power elite of recent origin. Its roots go deep into the past.”
Which is what I’ve been uncovering all these decades. This is what I call the global cult and this is seeking to lead the world ever more obviously to a global dystopia. And to do that you have to destroy the current status quo, whatever it is. You could call it creative destruction.
You have a status quo, a way that society works, the way that society is, and as long as that status quo stays there, you can’t move the world on to your dystopia. So you destroy that status quo. And wars are bloody perfect. Economic crashes too. And then you move to another status quo. And then eventually you destroy that status quo and move on to another. And with each new status quo, they are getting closer and closer to the global dystopia they’ve been working towards for a long time. And Fletcher Prowty was right. This is not a recent thing. This goes way back into what we call history.
So there’s a technique that I coined in the 1990s. I called it Problem-Reaction-Solution. And what you do is you create a problem and you blame someone else for it. You want at stage two, having created the problem, you want the reaction from the public of outrage, of fear, of ‘something must be done’. ‘Do something. What are they going to do about it?’ But at that point, those who’ve created the problem and got that reaction from the public openly offer the solutions to the problems they have themselves created.
So already Netanyahu is saying that once we’ve overcome Hamas, we’re going to go for Iran, which we say is behind Hamas. Iran, another cult-controlled regime.
So that is one — one of the reasons for what is happening. To turn the fire towards Iran. And that has big implications as I’ll come to.
And there is even another version of Problem-Reaction-Solution that I call No-Problem-Reaction-Solution. You don’t need a real problem, you just need the illusion of it. Human-caused climate change. A hoax. Why? Because look, what’s happening. The belief in human-caused climate change, nonsensical as it is scientifically, is being used to justify the very dystopia, globally, that this cult has sought for so long.
So Netanyahu is already talking about targeting Iran, which he says is behind all this. Well, I’ve been saying for so many years that the plan is to create a conflict between the West and the East — the East involving China, the dominant party, Russia and other countries. And I’ve said this many times over the years — including Iran. And Iran has just been invited to join this BRICS economic trading group, which is dominated by China and Russia.
And you look at what’s happening now in Ukraine. That’s another Problem-Reaction-Solution. You start a war, you manipulate into place a war, an attack on Ukraine, and look what’s happened. Oh, problem. What are you going to do? Pour vast amounts of money and weaponry into Ukraine and impact massively on the global economy and on energy prices with all their implications among many, many other things. You also diminish the Western armament potential by passing so much to Ukraine.
But what else is happening with Ukraine? It has brought Russia and China closer in an economic, and other aspects, alliance together, which is the pieces on the chessboard being moved around. So Ukraine is a proxy war, who between the West and Russia, supported by China, is already begun. And this is just another aspect of it that we’re seeing here.
Now, there was a letter that is alleged to have been written by a very prominent Freemason in America in the 1800s, a bloke called Albert Pike. I’ve written about him at length in the books. Albert Pike was the sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, Scottish Rite, southern jurisdiction in America. And it said that he wrote a letter to Italian cult operative Giuseppe Mazzini in 1871 in which he described the plan for three (THREE) world wars to transform global society into the dystopia that I’ve so long warned about. Now the letter is said to have come to light via a former Canadian naval officer called William Guy Carr in the 1950s.
So obviously World War I and World War II had happened by the 1950s. So we can put them aside, even though the letter described them very accurately, you can put that aside of course. The Third World War, which hadn’t happened by the 1950s, is the crucial thing. Now of course, this letter, its existence or non-existence has been very controversial. And what I’m going to do is just read you what it said about World War III and the aftermath. And then you can make your own mind up what you think of it. And then, even more relevantly, you can see how events play out in relation to it. Certainly current events fit.
Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.
Pike is said to have written to Mazzini. “The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the ‘agentur’ of the ‘Illuminati'” (the global cult) “between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other.”
Now some people will understandably pick up on that and say he’s talking about the state of Israel in 1871. Well, there was no state of Israel. But as I’ve explained in the book so many times over the years, the cult has a very different awareness of the future — because it’s bloody creating it — than the general population does. So in 1871, they would have known the plan involved the establishment of the state of Israel.
“Meanwhile,” Pike said, “the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion. We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.”
Whatever the background to that, it is describing this satanic cult — deeply, deeply satanic cult — which is behind world events and will be behind current events in Israel because of where it’s planned to go and what it’s planned to play out, to create in terms of consequences.
And I had an email today — I wrote to a friend of mine in Israel, a Jewish lady in Israel, and asked her if she was okay. And, this is part of what she replied. “They took so many civilians, children, babies, old people, young people as captives and it’s unlikely they will be saved. So many killed. The guerrilla warfare is relentless and complete psychopaths, impossible to comprehend the horror and the scale of it.” And this is a lady with a big open heart that just wants peace and justice for the Palestinians and everyone else.
“People are bewildered.” she said. “How on earth the great and powerful army of Israel couldn’t even protect these settlements? The militants took over and literally conquered two settlements entirely, shooting in the streets. I feel this is just the beginning of something even major about to happen. And just like with 9/11 in the US, it smells like classic Problem-Reaction-Solution. I immediately understood what goes on here. It was given the green light for their desire to invade Iran and ultimately create their World War III. Am I right?”
She said, “Just like they did with ISIS in Syria, I always used to hear that Israel is their ground for World War III. It could be the same in the north, this time with the Hezbollah. It’s obvious both Hamas and Hezbollah play a role in invoking and creating constant havoc.” (Hezbollah in Lebanon.) “The people of Israel are nothing but patsies as well as the people of Gaza. Obviously an illusion of a country, an illusion of safety.” (Absolutely spot on.)
And a later email from her said, “I’ve just heard that there are multiple squads of militants making their way to different places in Israel including possibly my area. They are taking cars and killing whoever they can.” (This is scary shit.) “I heard suggestions of handing over a fire weapon to each citizen in order to defend themselves. This is unreal, David. I can’t believe we are at war. I’m a bit scared. We are unprepared for this. We don’t have a proper shelter or means to defend ourselves.”
Yes, it’s horrific what’s going on with Jewish people in Israel. But lest we bloody forget, the cult-owned Israeli government, from the bloody start in 1948 to today with the psychopath Netanyahu with their military and their intelligence agencies (Mossad and the rest. Shin Bet.) they have treated the Palestinian people with grotesque contempt. They have treated them like vermin, decade after decade. And in doing so, they have created a mentality that follows the psychopathic cult-owned Hamas.
I mentioned earlier about the Jewish Sabbatean terrorist groups, Irgun the Stern Gang and others, that bombed and terrorized Israel into existence in 1948. Well, that mentality is indivisible, indistinguishable from the mentality we are seeing with Hamas.
We have two sides apparently, but one side in reality. Fighting each other, getting other people to fight for them, allowing the slaughter of Jewish civilians and Hamas, knowing that that slaughter will lead to the slaughter of Palestinian civilians.
They are the same side, ladies and gentlemen. And it happens all over the world all the time. You see different sides. You see different groups. But it’s the same agenda, the same psychopathy, the same evil on public display.
And we — please, please — we as a human race have got to start seeing that our so-called bloody leaders are not there to serve us. They’re there to serve an agenda to enslave us on a level never seen in known human history.
And you know, I’ve been talking recently about the way the so-called, there is a genuine one, but so-called alternative media — what I call the mainstream alternative with all the big names and the famous names and all, ‘yes, oh, what’s he said, oh, what’s he said?’ How some of them have responded to this is classic. And like I say, I’ve been talking about the way that the alternative media — which never existed when I started out, I’ve watched it appear and grow — how they have taken it over (these so-called big names). And they’re holding it in a holding pattern, what I call the barricade of here and no further, which still sees sides, still sees duality, still sees everything through the fundamentally unbelievably-limited perception of the five senses. And we’ve seen that on display the last 24 hours as I speak.
We’ve seen Jordan Peterson of the Daily Wire, which is not the alternative media, it’s just an alternative Republican party, who’s been doing fawning interviews with Benjamin Netanyahu posting on Twitter X to go get him, Netanyahu. Enough is enough, says the great one, the psychological giant Jordan Peterson. Who is “em”. Go get ’em, Who is ’em, Mr. Peterson? Kids in Gaza, right? Because they’re the ones that are going to get it. Someone from the alternative media taking a side, because he hasn’t got a bloody clue there even is a cult, never mind, it’s got an agenda for the world.
And then we have the giant intellect that is Andrew Tate, telling us that Allah is the one, Allah is commanding, cheering Allah. That is alternative. What a joke.
I’ve been watching the mainstream alternative media being taken over by barely one-dimensional buffoons, and main chances, and comedians. And we need to take it back. Because without a genuine alternative media, with a genuine perception of what is happening in the world, we have no alternative to the continued duality of sides, and us against them, when the same hands are holding the strings of all of them.
Come on people. This has got to stop. We can’t let the perception of sides and leaders in different regimes delude us to what’s happening. We can’t let these bloody pied pipers of the alternative (mainstream alternative) media lead us to the edge of the cliff with a cul-de-sac diversion of what’s going on.
There’s a global cult and it’s running the world through what appear to be different governments and world health organisations — at Silicon Valley and banking systems, all of it corporations. And we need to grasp that.
The Palestinians and the Jewish people are both pawns in that game. And they need to come together to see who the real enemy is and has always been.
TCTL editor’s note: Shai Danon talks with David Icke on unfolding events in Israel. He describes the incredibly evil horrors of the attacks on innocent villagers, driving the survivors out of their quiet, peaceful areas — with the possible motive of driving all to live in controlled, surveilled 15-minute cities (Agenda 2030). Also discussed is how both sides are suffering and being manipulated by the Sabbatean cult or hidden globalist agenda for control of all humanity.
Dr. Tom Cowan: Do COVID “mRNA Shots” Actually Contain mRNA? Let’s Look at the Science
We are providing a transcript of one of Dr. Tom Cowan’s recent weekly webinars. His research (and that of many others) that shreds the heavy veil of lies about our human biology (and the biology of the animal world) is essential for us all to understand. The mind control involved in modern “medicine” is deeply entrenched.
Just as we as a species have been easy to control via politics, religions, and false narratives about our true nature and our history, “science” has been used in the same way. These deceptive narratives keep us trapped in a world of ever-spawning sub-narratives laced with fear. This latest whirlwind of information related to mRNA vaccines, spike protein, DNA contamination, shedding, etc. pushes us to get a better grip on what is really possible and ultimately what is true.
~ Kathleen
“You see, the tendency here, especially amongst the so-called freedom community, is they like to pick up on these studies to attempt to demonstrate or prove that these vaccines, so-called, are horrible, and they’re causing myocarditis, and they’re doing so through the mechanism of the creation of this so-called spike protein.
“I am not arguing against the fact that the injections are horrible, or that they give people myocarditis or otherwise heart problems. I’m talking about the mechanism. Because the mechanism is everything. It has to do with, eventually, how you think about this whole thing. What is actually happening. And even, eventually, how to treat it.
“Because I have no sympathy for the argument advanced by so many doctors. ‘Tom, what difference does it make whether there’s actually mRNA in the injections or whether there’s spike proteins or whether there’s a virus?’
“It makes all the difference in the world. Because if you can’t understand what’s happening or at least disprove that this particular thing is happening, you will will eventually be led astray.
“You will also eventually scare and frighten people more than you should. And there is no benefit from being ignorant about what happens and using anti-scientific thinking to make claims about what’s happening that are easily disproven.”
[…]
“So there is no such thing as a monoclonal or antibody specificity. So all these papers alleging that they found the spike protein, that the spike protein is a mechanism of damage, need to be tossed out as uncontrolled anti-scientific garbage.”
[…]
“So again, there is no actual clear scientific evidence that this process would result in pure mRNA of a specific type that could be put into these vials, that could produce a spike protein, and that could be the saving grace of the pharmaceutical industry with further mRNA vaccines.
“It’s simply the old culturing non-specific stuff that they’ve been doing all along with viruses and claiming they’re actually doing something a lot more sophisticated then they actually know how to do.”
So today I wanted to talk about the question again, which we’ve dealt with a little bit.
Is there spike proteins being made as a result of COVID shots?
But then taking it back even a step further. So this, we’re told, is a new mRNA technology that has been developed over many years. Robert Malone was one of the people who worked on the development of this technique, we’re told.
And I received an interesting series of short papers by a friend and colleague, Saeed Qureshi.
So many of you know him. I believe he’s a biochemist and works in pharmacy kind of things, who’s been very vocal about the non-existence of the virus, or at least the inability to prove that viruses actually exist.
And he sent me some papers where he goes through the argument of whether there is actually mRNA in the mRNA shots. Imagine that.
And I can imagine that most of you can imagine that because we’ve heard so many things that simply aren’t true.
When people say, ‘but there’s got to be something that is true’… And right now I’d be hard pressed to think of what in modern medicine and biology is, in fact, accurate. I’m sure there’s something. Like we have a head on top of our chest, sort of.
So we’re going to take a look at that. Before we look at that, we need some background, which is again, going over old hat.
Most of things, probably these days have a little bit of old hat in them. And that is, we have to really understand what this question of antibody specificity — and I’ll tell you a little more about what I mean by that.
But I also want to point out that probably the best paper that was written on this was written by our friend Mike Stone at Viroliegy called Antibody Specificity?
So if you’re really interested in this subject you should check out that paper on that website. So this is, again, me lifting things from other people. But as I always say, at least I acknowledge that.
So let’s get into the question first of antibody specificity. And before I do that, I have something I wanted to show you. So share the screen.
I don’t know this guy Daniel Dennett.
“There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion.”
So, I guess you can forget about worrying about that, because if there’s actually no way to do that and “be polite’ or maintain connection, then you don’t have to bother trying to think about what the best way would be, because there’s no way. So you might as well just say it the best way you know how.
So here’s some papers — some quotes from peer reviewed journals. The first three that I’ve probably shown before. (Can make this a little bigger.) This is about antibodies. Again, these were all lifted from peer reviewed journals.
[TCTL editor’s note: Here Tom Cowan shares some images of papers and reads from them.]
“The idea of poison and antidote led to the belief that the antidote would precisely combine with the poison and thus neutralize it. Even if death occurred when treated with the antidotes, which was often the case with mercury and arsenic, the justification was that it would prevent infecting others or that the person would have died more quickly without treatment.
“When Paul Ehrlich, who invented chemotherapy and the immune theory, slowly poisoned horses with toxic plant extracts so that they could survive otherwise lethal concentrations of the poison for a time, he found that there was an increase in protein in the blood. Since that time, these proteins have been referred to as an antidote and, in the modern version, as an anti-body.
“In reality, the body builds new vessels with these proteins, called globulins, seal all other cells and tissues with them, regulates blood clotting and thus wound healing. Paul Ehrlich’s misconception that these antidote proteins fit the toxins exactly like a key in a lock is the basis of all immune theories.”
So this paragraph essentially encapsulates the reason why I keep saying there’s no immune system.
This is the foundation of the immune theory — that we make proteins called antibodies, which are, in fact, globulins — which I would say are non-specific, unlike the specificity which is claimed. And I’ll get into more what I mean by that in a minute. So they’re not specific to anything in any virus or any protein.
They are non-specific proteins that regulate clotting and wound healing. So they cannot be used in any way to identify the protein. That’s what it means by specificity.
And since the time of Ehrlich, there have been probably thousands of papers going into the molecular details of how this specificity comes about. But the fact of the matter is, nobody has been able to prove specificity — meaning one antibody is specific, that binds and only binds to one specific antigen or protein or part of a protein or toxin. That’s what we mean by specific.
The antibody, if it was specific, could be used to identify the protein. If it’s not specific, it can’t be used to identify the protein. That should be obvious.
And so specific means it’s unique to that protein. Non-specific means it’s not unique to that protein.
If it’s specific, it can be used to identify the protein, since that’s the only possible thing it could be reacting to. If it’s non-specific, then it can’t possibly be used to identify the protein.
So next:
“In reality, these globulins, which are presented as antibodies and used in antibody tests, only come in a few size classes and different charge states. Only the size and the state of charge on the one hand and the composition of the liquids on the other hand in which the antibodies are supposed to react with the ‘bodies’ decide whether a reaction will occur or not. Even a slight change in fluid composition, temperature, or pH can cause antibodies to bind to all substances or none.”
And this is the case that the antibodies are not specific, and that they’re reacting to non-specific proteins. And the reaction is more based on the composition of the fluid, such as the temperature or the pH, or maybe the oxidation reduction potential, or maybe some other things, but they are not reacting to a specific antigen protein or toxin at all.
“This is the reason why all antibody tests, e.g. against pathogens, types of cancer etc. can be easily manipulated, are arbitrary and without any meaningfulness. Even the package inserts for these tests state that there is no (calibration) standard. Even if the disease-causing viruses existed, ‘antibody tests’ could not detect them.”
So, that is the basic argument that they’re manipulatable, they’re changed depending on the conditions of the fluid that they’re in.
They can’t possibly identify a protein or a virus or a toxin. They’re just, as they say, non-specific proteins that regulate blood clotting and wound healing. And so this is a very important fact as we go forward in this discussion.
Okay, next.
So I’m going to switch here to a slightly different.
Before I get into the spike protein and the mRNA —
This, unfortunately, title is called “Biden Quotes”. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen this. Apparently Biden said:
“I said I’d cure cancer. They looked at me like, ‘Why cancer’? Because no one thinks we can. That’s why. And we can. We ended cancer as we know it,” Biden said during a speech in the East Room of the White House.
Well, that’s good to know. So one less thing we all have to worry about, according to Joe Biden.
And then just highlight this and then I’m going to bring this up.
Okay. So this is a little bit of a switch of subjects. But I found this interesting and you’ll see how it relates to the topic. This was posted on something called US Mortality by someone who I don’t think I know. I may know them, named Ben. So I don’t really know who Ben is. I’ve seen some of his stuff just recently and it looks great. So I applaud Ben, whoever you are, you’re doing some great stuff. And, in particular, for thinking properly, because that’s what it all is based on.
So we all know that it certainly doesn’t reduce the death rate. That’s easy to show with just epidemiology. But here’s the question — because people, including myself before I really toned or honed my thinking process had questions about this. Because it seems like in previous times, 50-60 years ago, there was more of a disease called measles than there is now. And so, now that I know more about it, I know how difficult it is to make that diagnosis. And how difficult that kind of conclusion is to make on pure epidemiology or pure observation.
So it’s one of those things that — it seems like there’s less measles. But the question here is, has it been actually proven whether or not there’s more or less measles? That the MMR vaccine has been shown to reduce the number of measles cases?
So, again, the thinking process is: this is a claim. You don’t have to know anything else about the situation but the claim is the MMR vaccine has reduced the number of measles cases.
So that claim should be provable or disprovable by doing a proper study with a control — giving one group of people or children who haven’t had measles the MMR and another group of more or less identical children, not giving them the MMR, and then looking at the cases and seeing if you can detect a difference.
Anything else but that, any observation or any other epidemiological information can’t come up with that answer. This is the only way to do it. That should be obvious.
So we’re investigating the claim that the MMR vaccine reduced the cases of measles.
So here’s what the CDC says: that the MMR vaccine protects against measles, mumps and rubella. Two MMR vaccines are available — MMR II and PRIORIX, fully interchangeable. So you can use either one.
And then they go according to the Mayo Clinic — What is Measles? So they give you a bunch of of symptoms. And in particular I want to mention they tell you about Koplik’s spots, the white spots with the bluish white centers on a red background inside the lining of a cheek.
And as I said, this is the so-called pathonomonic feature of a case of measles, except 40% or so of children who are told they have measles don’t have Koplik’s spots. So that’s apparently non-Koplik’s spots measles, which is odd because that’s how you know it’s measles. So how can there be a non-Koplik’s spot measles? But anyways. So these are the symptoms of a child or a person with measles. Occurs in stages over two weeks.
So now that we know what measles looks like, let’s look at the package insert of the two products, he says.
So, these were the clinical trials that demonstrated that these vaccines reduce the case of measles. And as he points out this is the MMR II, quoting here they “demonstrate that the antibody response rates to measles, mumps, and rubella among children who received MMR II manufactured with rHA will be similar to the antibody response rates among children who receive MMR manufactured with” some other antigen and to demonstrate that MMR II will induce acceptable antibody response rates to measles, mumps, and rubella. And it’s well tolerated.
So in other words, the demonstration that the MMR II works to prevent cases of measles has no clinical indications as endpoints, no placebo was used. They only looked at antibodies under the claim that the antibodies tell you specifically that this child had or didn’t have measles. And as we now know that isn’t possible with an antibody test.
So this is an anti-scientific study, which can tell you nothing about whether the MMR II vaccine reduced the actual cases of clinical measles or not.
So let’s look at the other one, the PRIORIX. The second current vaccine was also compared to antibody responses, this time to the antibody responses of MMR II.
In other words, they inject a poison in you. They see that you have a non-specific repair mechanism activated by this injection of the poison. They claim that that means that you have an immunity against measles. And then the second vaccine, they compare it to the first one, which was fraudulently and anti-scientifically done. And then they compare the antibody response relative to MMR II, and they find that it’s basically similar. Therefore, they both protect you against measles.
When in reality that just means they both created approximately the same sort of tissue damage because they’re both poisons. And they, therefore, create the same amount of bodily response, non-specifically to heal the damage.
Now third one, MMR II (HSA), since 1978, they say that the efficacy of measles, mumps, rubella was established in a series of double-blind controlled trials, of which only these two references mentioned measles. So only this one study is — so that’s the only study that actually has anything to do with measles. And so here he has a link to the studies. And according to the study, the vaccines were compared for their clinical reaction and their antibody response.
He says he doesn’t have access to the full text, but according to the abstract the endpoints did not include the case rate of measles or deaths.
And here you can see the clinical reaction rate and antibody, were compared in children given three vaccines — so they’re compared these to the previous two. And they say they did it with the clinical reaction. So finally we get actually a trial that’s looking at whether the children got sick or not. But how did they do it?
So they did it with a clinical trial of 300 children that did not have measles. They split them into three groups. They use two measles vaccines and a placebo. And then they monitored them for three weeks.
So even though they did use a placebo, they gave them these two different measles vaccines. And then they monitor them for a total of three weeks to see whether that protected them against measles.
And what did they actually do? Did they actually look for all the clinical signs of measles? No, they simply did a rectal temperature every day, I guess, for those three weeks. And that was the only clinical sign that they measured. And if they had no more signs of a rectal increase in temperature that, apparently, meant they were protected for life against measles or three weeks.
So this is about as crazy as you can get. It goes back to an experiment in ’69 in Honduras where 300 children were monitored for three weeks. No efficacy for measles cases or deaths was established. All subsequent studies rely on this original study.
This is yet another example of these doctors thinking that somebody must have proved this. Somebody must have shown that the cases go down. When this is the only trial, apparently, that actually did anything clinical at all. And it was — all they did was measure the rectal temperature for three weeks, which has nothing to do with the alleged protection against measles or the reduction of cases or death or anything else that is claimed for this measles vaccine.
So you would have to say that there is no evidence that any MMR shot or any measles vaccine, reduced the cases of measles or the death rate for measles. Full stop.
And if you disagree with that, you’re going to have to send us a study that shows that that’s the case. And my guess is you will not be able to do that.
Okay. So now with that background, we can then go to the first question. Are we, as this paper claims… one of the most important papers on the molecular mechanism of the detection of recombinant spike protein in the blood of individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.
Here is the author [Carlo Brogna], apparently in Italy.
So, of course, we go down to the methods section and ask. So how did he detect this recombinant spike protein in the blood of individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2?
And lo and behold, no surprise, probably. We go down to the experimental procedures… informed consent… 20 human samples were collected from vaccinated subjects with informed consent. The geometric mean of their antibodies′ titer versus spike protein was such and such after 60 days. In addition 20 human biological samples were collected from unvaccinated subjects wtih informed consent.
And so they were different. These ones who had not undergone COVID-19 and didn’t have the vaccine, and presumably had less tissue breakdown, were negative for these antibodies — which according to them, proves that the spike protein is created in the blood through vaccination, and is part of the illness they’re calling COVID-19.
So again, the whole thing rests on the fact that the only thing that they measured here were antibodies. They were claiming that the antibodies were specific for the spike protein. Therefore, if they find the spike protein in the blood of vaccinated or people who allegedly had COVID, that means that they had spike protein disease. Whereas the people who were healthy and then, presumably not breaking down their tissues, didn’t have to make non-specific antibodies. So the antibody tests were negative.
It has nothing to do with spike proteins or viruses at all.
So again, it doesn’t mean that I’m saying — we’re talking the mechanism here, not whether some people who allegedly had some non-specific illness called COVID-19 were sick. Maybe they were and maybe they were breaking down. And I’m not exonerating these injections.
For sure, if you inject somebody, as we’ll see with non-specific cell culture goop, you will make them sick. Their tissues will break down and they will have increased antibodies.
The question we’re dealing with here is not whether things can make people sick, or injections of poisons can make people sick. It’s whether the antibodies prove that this is a spike protein or a spike protein coming from a virus, and the spike protein is made by the alleged mRNA in the injection.
So, let me just go through, well, let me go to the next one here.
You see, the tendency here, especially amongst the so-called freedom community, is they like to pick up on these studies to attempt to demonstrate or prove that these vaccines, so-called, are horrible, and they’re causing myocarditis, and they’re doing so through the mechanism of the creation of this so-called spike protein.
I am not arguing against the fact that the injections are horrible, or that they give people myocarditis or otherwise heart problems. I’m talking about the mechanism because the mechanism is everything. It has to do with, eventually, how you think about this whole thing. What is actually happening. And even, eventually, how to treat it.
Because I have no sympathy for the argument advanced by so many doctors. ‘Tom, what difference does it make whether there’s actually mRNA in the injections or whether there’s spike proteins or whether there’s a virus.’
It makes all the difference in the world. Because if you can’t understand what’s happening or at least disprove that this particular thing is happening, you will will eventually be led astray.
You will also eventually scare and frighten people more than you should. And there is no benefit from being ignorant about what happens and using anti-scientific thinking to make claims about what’s happening that are easily disproven.
So when you say, okay, well, how did this paper that’s so crucial to our understanding that it’s the spike protein that’s causing myocarditis — how did they detect the spike protein?
And no surprise there. If you go to the method section, you see:
“We performed extensive antibody profiling…” and then there’s a whole other bunch of immune profiles, antibodies against the human-relevant virome. These are all downstream antibody testing, all of which are non-specific and can’t possibly tell you that there was a spike protein.
And here again you see this immunophenotyping, and it’s all about detecting antibodies against previous infection, SARS-Cov-2 spike protein specific T-cell responses and other antibodies.
They never actually assay for spike protein directly in the fluids. They sometimes look for pieces which they allege, through other antibody testing previously done, that those come from the spike protein.
It all basically boils down to: Are antibodies specific? And the answer, as I said, is clearly no.
So, this brings up another interesting question.
So somebody could say, ‘Okay, Cowan, how can you actually go about proving whether these antibodies are specific or not? Like what should we do?’
Just like we outlined with how they should go about proving there is a virus or not with our viral challenge, here I will outline how you would go about, if you wanted to do proper, reasonable, logical science, proving that antibodies are specific and not just non-specific reactions to tissue breakdown. So it would go something like this:
You would give a substance, preferably a toxic substance or a substance that causes damage, like a vaccine (so-called), or an injection, or some sort of cell culture goop or nanoparticles. And
then you would get breakdown of the tissue. If you don’t give any toxic substance, you won’t get any tissue breakdown, presumably, and then you won’t get any antibodies produced, and then you don’t have anything to study. So you give the substance, you get the tissue breakdown.
And then you inject the antibody or take a sample and mix it with the antibody that you believe — this is what you’re going to test — is specific for a certain protein.
They say that if this antibody binds, and therefore makes some sort of reaction, that’s proof of specificity. But what they should do is give the same person or animal a different substance that couldn’t possibly have a spike protein in it, but is also toxic to the tissues and causes a similar amount of tissue damage. Then you once you get the tissue damage, you take a sample or inject the antibodies, or mix it with antibodies in the sample, or inject the antibody into the person, and see if it binds the same antibody.
If it binds — and obviously the insult, the toxin, was different — that proves that the antibodies are not binding to a specific toxin, they’re binding to non-specific toxins and, in particular, they’re being produced in reaction to tissue damage.
So that’s the first of two controls that you would do.
The second is you would give this toxic substance — let’s say something you claim is a spike protein or an mRNA — you would see the tissue damage. And then you would inject it with the antibody that you claim is specific, see if it binds. and see if it lights up and you can detect it. And if it does, you claim that that binding proves that it’s protein specific.
But then, give the same substance (your so-called spike protein), you get the tissue breakdown, but this time you inject or mix it with a different antibody, not the antibody that you say is specific to the spike protein, but a totally different antibody. That of course shouldn’t bind. And if it does, it tells you that antibodies are binding non-specifically, and you cannot use it to prove the existence of that antigen or that protein in the first place.
Every single paper that does that, that uses antibodies to make this claim, should obviously include both of those steps. And yet, none of us can find a paper that ever includes both of those steps. Therefore, they’re all anti-scientific. They are not using appropriate controls and not following the scientific method.
And this is why one of the world’s leading authorities on antibodies, and particularly monoclonal antibodies (monoclonal means they’re specific to one antigen) and that’s Clifford Saper, Harvard Medical School Professor. And this is a quote from one of his papers.
“No, there is no such thing as a monoclonal antibody that, because it is monoclonal, recognizes only one protein or only one virus. It will bind to any protein having the same (or a very similar) sequence.”
So there is no such thing as a monoclonal or antibody specificity. So all these papers alleging that they found the spike protein, that the spike protein is a mechanism of damage, need to be tossed out as uncontrolled anti-scientific garbage.
If you want an analogy, I came up with one just before this that may help.
So let’s say you have a balloon and you cut the balloon with a knife or some object. And then you put duct tape on it to fix the balloon. And then you claim that because you were able to fix the balloon with duct tape this proves that the knife was the mechanism that cut the balloon.
That’s essentially what they’re doing. They’re saying essentially that the duct tape is somehow specific to the mechanism of injury, which is a knife.
So the first control experiment you would need to do is take the balloon and cut it with a scissors, and then use your duct tape and see if you could fix the balloon. Because if you could, this would demonstrate that your conclusion originally was wrong, that it is not specific to a knife, because it works just as well with a balloon cut with a scissors.
And then the next control experiment you would do is you would take the balloon and you would cut it with a knife. But this time you would try to fix the balloon with, say, elephant tape. I’m not sure what that is, but I’ve heard that that actually works sort of like duct tape. And if that works to fix the balloon, which it would, that would tell you that the type of tape, i.e. the antibody, is not specific to the mechanism of injury, that is to say a knife — that any similar tape would work.
So again, similarly, many antibodies will bind to that protein, or to that injured tissue, because the antibodies are not specific to the protein. They’re specific to the tissue injury.
So many different mechanisms of injury, and many different antibodies will work. And if you don’t believe me, send me a paper where they did both of those controls, and I and others will admit we’re wrong. Except that won’t happen, because none of the so-called scientists will be able to do that. Because, as far as we can see, it doesn’t exist.
And so, once again, we are putting out very specific guidelines to prove us wrong. And the people who are attempting to do that seemingly never are able to do that, because those papers don’t exist.
And then, finally, we get to the issue of Dr. Qureshi’s paper of ‘Is there actually mRNA in these injections?’.
So here’s the paper. You can see the reference here, and I don’t know exactly how to find it but I think if you put this in somehow you’ll be able to find it. And he talks about how they claim that there is mRNA in these injections. I mean that’s the whole point.
You put the mRNA for the spike protein, then that goes to the imaginary ribosomes and makes the spike proteins, and the spike proteins make non-specific antibodies to a protein that couldn’t possibly have been made — or at least has never been demonstrated to have been made — and pretty soon you realize you’re in La La Land.
So, here he goes through the steps. And I think basically, he talks about the fact that the mRNA… Let’s just read it and so we go there from a pharmaceutical perspective.
[TCTL editor’s note: Here, Tom skips through, reading parts of pages 2 to 4 from Saeed Qureshi’s paper and mixing with his own comments. To identify which words are Saeed’s and which are Tom’s, it might help to read the paper while listening. LINK]
“One must obtain the active ingredient, in this case mRNA”… either have to make it yourself or get it from a third party.
So he talks about this. There’s the active ingredient, which is the mRNA and then there’s all the other stuff that goes into the formulation.
So we’re not interested in the other stuff. We’re only interested in this so-called active ingredient, which is mRNA.
So during the product development, the active ingredient is monitored, tested, to see if it is in the body, is expected in the expected amounts, the efficacy and toxicity relate to the active ingredient levels.
Therefore, a vaccine developer would first need an appropriate mRNA or its source to purchase such an active ingredient… should commonly be available from an independent third party supplier with appropriate certification for identification and purity.
However, the COVID-19 mRNA is proprietary. No information about its nature and purity is available in the public domain. So obviously that makes it difficult to know whether that’s in there.
Therefore, as he says, appropriately, one must rely on general information regarding what is present in the vials, and how they may have been synthesized manufactured and purified.
So now we’re getting to the crux of the matter.
In this regard a fermentation process using culturing microbes, such as bacteria is claimed to produce mRNA, which is then extracted, isolated, from the manufacturing perspective. The following diagram shows the steps. [see the bottom of page 2 for diagram]
You can see that steps — hard to see here. Culture has developed, some chemical reactions are performed. This stops the culturing fermentation, followed by purification. The last step is marked as formulation.
This production process of mRNA is simple, yet very confusing, which may be why people do not correctly understand the manufacturing of the vaccine and its adverse effect.
As explained above, the active ingredient is mRNA.
And this is the key of all this.
But no step describes mRNA production. We go through this in detail.
There is no step proving that this bacteria in this fermentation mat are making a specific mRNA.
The last step in the diagram is formulation or vaccine. Therefore this is vaccine production, not mRNA per se.
He says they use the words mRNA and vaccine interchangeably which is incorrect. Calling the end stages formulation indicates that the mRNA has never been produced, but is assumed to be there. So there is no step in here that proves, or demonstrates the specific production of mRNA.
It’s only assumed to be there.
The last step in the manufacturing should be a pure and isolated mRNA compound. However, it is an “isolate”, culture or gunk, possibly selectively concentrated compared to the one in the productive chamber.
In other words, all they have is the breakdown of the culture or gunk, culture gunk, not specifically isolated purified mRNA, which then they could use as the active ingredient to put into the vials.
And he says they don’t appreciate the difference between culture isolate gunk and pure isolated component which is a critical misunderstanding as the relevant science, the same as the virus issue.
So mRNA has not been produced, but a culture isolate, gunk, is considered and sold as mRNA or vaccine.
And this is another crucial point he makes.
It may be argued that the manufacturing processes or steps shown in the figure above have multiple filtration separation or isolation steps, like gradient ultra centrifugation for virus isolation, ensuring the production of pure mRNA.
And this is the part that I can’t verify myself. But I know Saeed, and I think this is a worthy place to start.
“Considering my extensive expertise and experience 40 plus years in separation science, including exhaustive training and experience in chromatography, I can confidently say that the steps described here would not be able to produce the claimed pure and isolated mRNA until shown otherwise.”
“Another critical point is that it is impossible to monitor mRNA production because no test may be developed without the availability of the pure and isolated reference (mRNA) standard. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that mRNA production is based on assumption, not scientific or valid testing.”
In other words, if they can’t come up with the pure isolated mRNA, there’s no way to validate this procedure. And therefore, there’s no way to claim that this procedure made the mRNA that they’re saying is in there. Therefore, there’s no way to even know that the mRNA is in there.
So what’s in there?
He suspects that the presence of DNA contamination, which is becoming an issue now — they know that the DNA is contaminated — is simply because they’re using culture gunk or chip particles of bacteria, which obviously have their own contaminating DNA. And this contamination would explain the widespread adverse reactions after the injection of these vials.
So we don’t need to propose a mechanism of mRNA or spike protein. Simply injecting bacterial culture junk with all the stuff that’s in there that is not properly purified.
And there’s no way to assess the validity of the claim, because they don’t have a pure mRNA to begin with, makes the whole burden of proof on the manufacturers to prove that there is the mRNA that they say there is in there.
And my guess is that is, again, a challenge that they will never undertake due to claims of proprietary, or this or that, or we don’t want to sell our secrets, or people would do nasty things with it as if (as if they’re not doing enough nasty things with what they’re doing already).
So again, there is no actual clear scientific evidence that this process would result in pure mRNA of a specific type that could be put into these vials, that could produce a spike protein, and that could be the saving grace of the pharmaceutical industry with further mRNA vaccines.
It’s simply the old culturing non-specific stuff that they’ve been doing all along with viruses and claiming they’re actually doing something a lot more sophisticated then they actually know how to do.
So I hope that clarifies things and alleviates people’s worries that they’re being genetically reprogrammed or that there’s some specific genetic modification going on.
I mean, again, it’s not to say that the injections aren’t bad enough. And I’m not exonerating the injections or saying they’re not causing the damage that they do. Far from it.
It’s just not the mechanism that we’ve been told. And anybody who claims that’s the mechanism, the burden of proof is on them to:
Show the pure isolated mRNA that comes from this process.
Show us that mRNA is the same in all the vaccines.
Show us by direct assay that the spike proteins are made as a result of these injections.
Show that the spike protein injections create something called immunity to something called the virus.
And none of those four steps are possible, because the whole thing is a bunch of hooey.
Is Worldwide Depopulation Part of the Billionaire’s “Great Reset”?
by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research
October 3, 2023 [This article was originally published by Global Research on September 29, 2021.]
For more than ten years, meetings have been held by billionaires described as philanthropists to reduce the size of the world’s population culminating with the 2020-2022 COVID crisis.
Recent developments suggest that “depopulation” is an integral part of the so-called COVID mandates including the lockdown policies and the mRNA “vaccine”.
Flash back to 2009. According to the Wall Street Journal: “Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population”.
In May 2009, the Billionaire philanthropists met behind closed doors at the home of the president of The Rockefeller University in Manhattan.
This secret gathering was sponsored by Bill Gates. They called themselves “The Good Club.”
Among the participants were the late David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and many more.
In May 2009, the WSJ as well as the Sunday Times reported: (John Harlow, Los Angeles) that
“Some of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.”
The emphasis was not on population growth (i.e Planned Parenthood) but on “depopulation”, i.e. the reduction in the absolute size of the world’s population.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
…
Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.
Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.
“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. …
Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said. (Sunday Times)
Shrinking the World’s Population
The media reports on the May 5, 2009 secret gathering focussed on the commitment of “The Good Club” to “slowing down” the growth of the world’s population.
“Shrink the World Population” (the WSJ article) goes beyond Planned Parenthood which consists in “Reducing the Growth of World Population”. It consists in “Depopulation”, namely reducing the absolute size of the world’s population, which ultimately requires reducing the rate of birth (which would include reduced fertility) coupled with a significant increase in the death rate.
Secret Meeting: At the Height of the H1N1 Pandemic
On April 25, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) headed by Margaret Chan declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). And a couple of weeks later, the “Good Club” met in NYC at the height of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic which turned out to be a scam.
It is also worth noting that at very outset of the H1N1 crisis in April 2009, Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London was advising Bill Gates and the WHO: “40 per cent of people in the UK could be infected [with H1N1] within the next six months if the country was hit by a pandemic.”
Sounds familiar? That was the same Neil Ferguson (generously supported by the Gates Foundation) who designed the coronavirus lockdown model (launched on March 11, 2020). As we recall, that March 2020 mathematical model was based on “predictions” of 600,000 deaths in the UK.
And now (summer-autumn 2021) a third authoritative “mathematical model” by the same “scientist” (Ferguson) was formulated to justify a “Fourth Wave Lockdown.”
Saving Lives to Achieve “Depopulation”
Was an absolute “reduction”in world population contemplated at that May 2009 secret meeting?
A few months later, Bill Gates in his TED presentation (February 2010) pertaining to vaccination, confirmed the following;
“And if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [the world population] by 10 or 15 percent”.
According to Gates’ statement, this would represent an absolute reduction of the world’s population (2010) of the order of 680 million to 1.02 billion.
The same group of billionaires who met at the May 2009 secret venue at the Rockefeller University in Manhattan, have been actively involved from the outset of the COVID crisis in designing the lockdown policies applied worldwide including the mRNA vaccine and the WEF’s “Great Reset”.
The mRNA vaccine is not a project of a UN intergovernmental body (WHO) on behalf the member states of the UN: It’s a private initiative. The billionaire elites who fund and enforce the COVID vaccine project worldwide are eugenists committed to depopulation.
Instead of focusing on the DNA-contaminated mRNA vaccines, the central question should be: Has the basic assumption about “pathogenic particles (viruses)” ever been scientifically proven/confirmed? The answer is NO , and therefore every vaccination is inherently illegal and dangerous.
It is ironic that if the assumptions of genetic theory were correct, critics would be right. This irony shows that pharmaceuticals are paradoxically finding themselves caught in the crossfire due to theses held by both critics and the mainstream.
What does that mean?
The idea that DNA is the unchanging blueprint of life has been promoted for over 40 years. But in 2006, leading researchers confirmed: This idea was naive. DNA is dynamic and constantly changing.
The human genome
Complete decoding of the human genome (in reality just reading rows of letters that are not understood) is impossible. No two people are “genetically” alike, not even one cell is another. When you consider that the individual genomes of less than 0.0003% of the 8 billion people have been sequenced (and incompletely), one thing becomes clear: assignments of genetic letter orders for cancer, eye color, height, etc. are impossible.
An example: the color of the eyes
It was believed that it was simply genetically determined. This idea turned out to be a forced interpretation of the current data, which was refuted by more recent data. So parents with blue eyes can have a child with brown eyes. This makes it clear that the idea of a fixed genetic section has been scientifically refuted.
Plain language: If every genome is unique, we only know a tiny fraction of all genomes (0.0003%) and they are constantly changing themselves, then the attempt to define fixed gene sections for certain characteristics such as eye color or cancer is worth it , like trying to catch a river with a sieve – it’s not only inaccurate, it’s simply unattainable.
The madness of genetics
When even simple examples such as eye color cannot be assigned, it seems bizarre when parties claim that foreign “specific” DNA can precisely change human genetics and cause cancer. Dr. Kary Mullis summed it up well: With PCR you can find everything in every person if you do it right. This means that every DNA or RNA sequence can be found in every person, whether healthy, sick, vaccinated or unvaccinated.
The strategy of fighting like with like may seem promising at first glance. But on closer inspection it turns out to be a theoretical trap. Instead of focusing on the DNA-contaminated mRNA vaccines, the central question should be: Has the basic assumption about “pathogenic particles (viruses)” ever been scientifically proven/confirmed? The answer is NO , and therefore every vaccination is inherently illegal and dangerous.
The current approach offers the pharmaceutical apparatus a back door: they could argue that there are better, uncontaminated vaccines or present other methods that would then have to be accepted within the long-refuted genetics thesis.
The technical implementation of the laboratory in Magdeburg is vulnerable even within the narrative
The detection is based on non-exact methods such as Qubit Flex Fluorometer and qPCR that have been performed. Neither the plasmids were directly isolated and detected nor were they properly sequenced.
First, we lack detailed information about the exact conditions and protocols under which these experiments were conducted.
Secondly, we know nothing about the negative and positive controls carried out.
Third, no sequencing or isolation of the plasmids was performed. This means that we do not know exactly which DNA sequences were present in the samples. Sequencing would have been necessary to determine the “theoretically” accurate nature of the DNA detected and to ensure that it was in fact plasmid DNA and not other forms of DNA.
David Icke with Reiner Fuellmich: On the Step by Step Takeover of Humanity & Our Natural World | The Solution Is in the Power of ‘No’ & Our Refusal to Acquiesce
Below you will find Reiner Fuellmich’s recent interview with David Icke. Some excerpts are provided to give you a sense of the overall tone. This conversation covers a wide number of topics related to our multi-dimensional, multi-frequency reality.
Along with a discussion of the ways humanity has been controlled throughout history and the awakening of so many people because of the global crimes against humanity during ‘the plandemic’ , there are also brief mentions of hidden technology, the secrecy around Antarctica (and Admiral Byrd’s expedition), Hollow Earth, underground bases, non-human manipulation of humanity, Rudolf Steiner’s (1861-1925) prediction of mind-control vaccines, etc.
Reiner Fuellmich:
“I mean, I get bored with that because I don’t want to talk the umpteenth time about how they misused the PCR test in order to create cases that didn’t exist. I don’t want to talk about whether or not this is personality changing. I don’t want to talk about whether this is going to make people infertile. We know that it does.
“We have to step beyond this because we’re wasting our time talking about the same things over and over and over again simply because it’s so fascinating to see how blatantly they manipulated us and made us believe in totally idiotic concepts.
“If we don’t understand the whole picture, if we don’t see that, we’re not going to be able to get out of this self-created illusion.
“So in that sense, I’m extremely glad that you have put the dots together. It makes perfect sense to me and it coincides with everything that I’ve learned over the last three years.”
[…]
“I mean, yes, my friend Dexter Ryneveldt (he’s an attorney from South Africa) and I and all the other international attorneys were working on getting out the whole picture, not just the pieces of the puzzle but the whole story, in a legal proceeding. Because this is what people expect. We’re talking about justice.
“Ultimately, there will be justice. Justice will have to be done.
“But you won’t get justice inside the system, which you have just described because it’s totally, it’s the spider web. It’s totally under their control.
“So we’ll have to step outside the system and probably into a system that not just provides the legal framework as we think it should be as lawyers, but also connects with spirituality or consciousness, whatever you want to call it. Step outside the system so that they will not be able to touch us.
“Dexter’s example was, as an eagle you can’t fight a snake [on the ground] and win against it. You can’t come down and fight it at the ground. You have to pick it up into the air, which is where it can’t survive if you really want to destroy it.
“And ultimately, I think this is what this is about. It’s about either them or us. We have to either destroy them or they will destroy us. And this is what people have to understand.”
[…]
“But, you know, sometimes it helps to have a kind of a symbolism. For me as a lawyer the most important takeaway from what you’re telling us today is that we do have to go after the gophers.
“I know it’s just symbolism but it shows everyone that it’s us who are calling the shots. And if we don’t want to play along, if we want justice, if we want to hold these people responsible, then we will.
“There’s nothing that can stop us. And if we cut off this conveyor belt, so to speak, we’re destroying the spider web. And all of a sudden we will be able to see who we really are. I think this is really what it boils down to.”
David Icke:
“Well, they’ve been taking over our society over a long period of time and going step by step towards their ultimate goal.
“And I have this phrase, ‘know the outcome and you’ll see the journey‘.
“If you don’t know the outcome then everything seems random. When you know what the outcome is planned to be, the random becomes very clear stepping stones to that outcome.
“So the outcome is planned to be, first of all, a different type of human, far more synthetic in nature. This is why synthetic biology is a massively expanding area of science. This is all connected into the jabs as well — as you will have talked to many people about this.
“Up to this point, they have had to control information to manipulate perception because perception is what they’re after. They want a technological way of controlling perception. So they don’t have to do all this manipulation of information.
“So religions served the perceptual indoctrination very well. And now we’ve got science, which is overwhelmingly not science at all in its true sense.
“But what they want — and this is why they’re now coming out with it; they’ve gone from hiding it to sales-pitching it — they want to connect artificial intelligence to the human brain and the human body so that our perceptions will come direct.
“Not manipulated. Direct. You will think what AI thinks.
“And so you have this guy, Ray Kurzweil at Google, a futurist. And people say, he’s got an 80% accuracy in predicting the future.
“Well, if you know what the plan is, there’s a bloody good chance you’re going to be right.
“I mean, people say to me, how did you predict all this? Well, because I uncovered the plan.
“I’m not predicting the future. I’m predicting what the plan wants.
“And if nothing intervenes in the plan it will become the future.”
[…]
“We don’t have to fight the enemy. There’s no need to fight. We have to stop cooperating with it. Because the enemy has no freaking power…
“We are the cause of what’s happening in the world by acquiescing to authority. We take it back, the house of cards is all over the floor.”
[…]
“And you know, again, not only can you not control eight billion people… unless you recruit gophers from the eight billion people to impose your will upon the eight billion people. These are police officers. These are the military.
“And when people like that start to realize (and other people in the system start to realize) what they’re playing the part of without realizing it, who their real masters are, and the fact that their kids and grandkids are going to have to live in the world they’re helping to create — if they would then walk away and stop doing what they’re doing, then the whole thing starts to fall apart.”
[…]
“And so it’s a time of great danger, but it’s also a time of great opportunity — that we can create true freedom as opposed to the illusion of freedom…”
In this first of two parts of ICIC’s interview, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and co-host attorney Dagmar Schoen talk with British veteran of the alternative media scene David Icke. He is an author, researcher and investigative journalist.
Reiner Fuellmich and Dagmar Schoen question him about his personal awakening process and the beginning of his involvement with the other side of the story, the real side, that initially turned his world upside down. He recounts his startling experiences that, ultimately, broadened his horizon and understanding of reality, as opposed to the mainstream’s narrative. These processes led him to leave his old life behind, defying all reprisals, and to dedicate his life to the uncovering of hidden knowledge and truths, beyond the fabricated “reality” we have been fed.
Icke describes in detail the structure and the far-reaching entanglements of a pyramidal organizational structure designed by a small, but very well-organized conglomerate. This conglomerate was, indeed, able to infiltrate almost all areas of our social structures over many years by installing stooges in politics, business, NGOs, etc.
Those who pull the strings, who act in secret, have positioned themselves like a spider in the center of this network, so that they have everything under surveillance. They must maintain their position of power at all costs in order to survive at the expense of humanity – which is waking up to this reality ever faster.
David Icke addresses issues that at first glance seem to have nothing to do with each other, explaining the entanglements and then connecting the dots so that an overall picture emerges of the great deception to which we have been and are being subjected. None of this is an accident, as the last three and a half years have shown us.
The connections are becoming clearer and clearer, revealing that this inhumane agenda is aimed at total control of humanity, combined with dehumanization through technocracy to replace anything human, indeed, creation as a whole. David Icke’s work reveals the workings of a persistent and perfidious psychological terror that is being deliberately used against us.
If we realize that we as humanity are vastly superior to this inhumane conglomerate, that it is dependent on us and can only survive through our energy and creative power, then this exploitation and deception will cease immediately. For this, the determined refusal to participate on our part is sufficient. We need only communicate this to these creatures by using the powerful word “No!” And we must understand that we are now at a point in time that even our legal systems analyze as a situation of self-defense.
So, you’ve watched How BlackRock Conquered the World and you’re now aware of how this financial behemoth with trillions of dollars of assets under management has taken over vast swaths of the economy. You know how BlackRock is one of the top institutional investors in seemingly every major Fortune 500 company, and you understand how Fink and the gang are leveraging this incredible wealth to wield political and social power, directing industry and ultimately steering the course of civilization.
And since you did watch that podcastumentary to the very end, you’ll also remember how I pointed out that the top institutional investor in most of these companies is not BlackRock, but The Vanguard Group.
So what is The Vanguard Group? Where did it come from? What does it do? And how does this financial colossus fit into the overall BlackRock/ESG/Net Zero plan for the future of the (controlled) economy? Good questions! Let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work answering them.
The Rise of Vanguard
Just as the official history of BlackRock starts with the humbling of a rising star of the financial world—with BlackRock founder Larry Fink having supposedly learned a valuable lesson in risk management after he lost $100 million in a single quarter at First Boston investment bank—the Vanguard story, too, begins with the lemons-to-lemonade tale of a financial whiz kid.
In the Vanguard case, the story starts with John Clifton “Jack” Bogle, a titan of the financial industry whose conservative investment ethos was forged, we are told, in the crucible of The Great Depression. Born in New Jersey in May 1929—just months before the great stock market crash that wiped out his family’s fortune, drove his father to alcoholism and, ultimately, led to his parents divorce—Bogle was forced to buckle down and excel at his schoolwork even as he worked an assortment of jobs to help keep the family afloat.
Beating the odds, Bogle ended up getting a scholarship to study economics at Princeton. But, being an average student at a prestigious institution full of bright, ambitious young phenoms, Bogle knew he would have to produce a stellar senior thesis in order to stand out. Vowing to write about something that had never been covered before, he found his thesis topic in the pages of the December 1949 issue of Fortune magazine: the mutual fund industry.
Mutual funds, Investopedia informs us, are financial vehicles that “pool assets from shareholders to invest in securities like stocks, bonds, money market instruments, and other assets.” They had existed in the US in various forms since the late 19th century, but it was a series of acts passed by Congress in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash—including, most notably, the Investment Company Act of 1940—that paved the way for the explosive growth of the mutual fund industry in the mid-20th century. Bogle just happened to read the right article at the right time to catch the very first wave of what would eventually become a financial tsunami.
If Bogle had hoped to turn his flagging academic career around with his thesis, he succeeded. Not only did the thesis lead to a magna cum laude diploma from Princeton, it even caught the eye of Walter Morgan, founder of the prestigious Wellington Fund, the first balanced mutual fund in the United States. Morgan offered the young whiz kid a job at Wellington Management Company, the firm that managed the fund, and Bogle set out on what would become a storied career.
Becoming an assistant manager in 1955, Bogle oversaw a period of explosive growth for the firm and the mutual fund industry as a whole. He persuaded management to capitalize on the public’s growing interest in such investments by creating a new fund composed solely of equities, the Wellington Equities Fund. The new fund’s success and Bogle’s hard work cemented his position as Walter Morgan’s hand-picked successor. He would go on to become president of the company in 1967 and CEO in 1970.
It was a decision Bogle made at the height of the go-go ’60s bull market, however, that would prove to be what he later identified as his greatest mistake. In 1966, facing growing competition from a crop of newer, riskier mutual funds that were promising investors greater returns than the boring, conservative Wellington funds, Bogle forged a merger with with the investment counseling firm of Thorndike, Doran, Paine and Lewis, managers of the the up-and-coming Ivest Fund out of Boston.
But Bogle and his new partners quickly found they had different visions for the merged company. So, when the bull market ended in the 1970s and the stock market cratered, the partners banded together to have him fired as chief executive of Wellington Management Company.
Bogle would later identify the merger as the greatest mistake of his career and his subsequent firing as the lowest point of that career. But being let go would serve as the springboard for the creation of The Vanguard Group.
Bogle came up with a plan to turn the lemon of being fired into the lemonade of a new venture:
Jack’s response to his firing was to appeal to the boards of directors of the Wellington funds. These groups were separate from the board of the Wellington Management Company which had just fired Jack. While separate, the boards of the funds were essentially captives of the management company and the chairman of each fund’s board was traditionally the CEO of the management company. That was the way things were done in the mutual fund industry. Nevertheless, Jack suggested that each of the boards consider taking over the management company’s functions.
The boards of the various Wellington funds went along with this idea and they decided to keep Jack as their president. He then proposed that—in a radical break from industry norms—that the fund boards assume responsibility for their own administrative services, which had been hitherto provided by Wellington Management Company. Wellington Management would stay on as the funds’ investment advisor and principal underwriter, but the fee the funds paid to the management company would be reduced by $1 million to reflect this changeover in administrative services.
The okay from the board of the Wellington Group of Investment Companies enabled Bogle to form a new corporation to take over the administration of the eleven funds of the Wellington Group. He named it The Vanguard Group after the flagship of Lord Nelson’s fleet in the legendary Battle of the Nile.
“Together, the Wellington tie-in, the proud naval tradition embodied in HMS Vanguard, and the leading-edge implication of the name vanguard were more than I could resist,” he later explained.
In one stroke, Bogle had created an entirely new entity that ended up revolutionizing the industry: the “mutual” mutual fund, in which profits did not flow to the management company, but back to the funds themselves, meaning that, “as a practical matter, Vanguard attempted to operate at cost and pass the savings on to the shareholders.”
There was yet another hurdle Bogle had to surmount. The funds’ directors decided that Vanguard was to have the narrowest of mandates: it would only look after the funds’ administration, and would not be permitted to engage in advisory or investment management activities. Bogle overcame this restriction by proposing a completely passive fund, one that would not be actively managed but instead be tied to the performance of the S&P 500 index.
To say that the initial reaction of seasoned investors to this innovation was disparaging would be an understatement. Dubbed “Bogle’s Folly,” the idea of investing not in a single company but in an entire index was alternately derided as a “cop out,” as a “search for mediocrity,” and—given its eschewal of the traditional market ethos of picking winners and dropping losers—as “un-American.”
Unfortunately for Bogle, the criticism was not confined to mere name calling. The $150 million underwriting target for the very first mutual index fund, First Index Investment Fund, proved to be overly ambitious. Indeed, when initial underwriting was finished in August 1976, however, the fund had only collected $11 million. That wasn’t even enough to invest in all 500 of the S&P 500 stocks, as was the fund’s intention. So the fund managers settled for investing in the top 200 stocks, plus 80 others that had been selected as representative of the remaining 300 stocks. Nevertheless, they pressed ahead and by the end of the year the fund’s assets had grown by $3 million, to $14 million.
“Bogle’s Folly” paid off. Literally. The indexing model grew in popularity during the bull run in the early 1980s and Vanguard also launched new funds, including a bond index fund and a total market fund that captured the entire stock market minus the S&P 500.
Today, The Vanguard Group is the largest provider of mutual funds in the world and the second-largest provider of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) after BlackRock’s iShares. It boasts over $7 trillion of assets under management, and, as we have already seen, is the single largest institutional investor in just about every company of importance in the United States.
Who Owns the Shares?
OK, so, there you go. That’s the very condensed nutshell version of how Vanguard rose to prominence. And, as we know, Vanguard is now part of the shadowy financial cabal that owns everything.
. . . Or do we know that? This is where the fact checkers will come in to make their nasally point about how the conspiracy theorists are wrong. And, you know what? For once, they may not be entirely incorrect.
You see, the fact checkers at AAP and Reuters have tackled the question of Vanguard and BlackRock’s growing financial oligopoly in the way fact checkers do: by taking the most ridiculous framing of the argument they can possibly find and contrasting it with the opinions of their credentialed “experts.”
In AAP’s case, “Global corporate monopoly claim dances on edge of reality,” tackles the very serious issue of the Vanguard/BlackRock leviathan by refuting a Facebook video featuring someone discussing the problem while performing an interpretive dance.
After conceding that the companies are indeed the largest shareholders in a number of important companies, AAP then explains that this is for a good reason: they are “strategically investing their client’s [sic] money in order get a good return.”
Oh, OK, then.
More to the point, AAP then brings in Rob Nicholls—an associate professor of regulation and governance at the UNSW Business School—to lend gravitas to its main point: Vanguard and BlackRock don’t “own” Pepsi and Coke and Amazon and Apple and all the other companies cited by the conspiracy theorists. Instead, their holdings in these companies are largely passive investments—either ETFs, in which shares are purchased in proportion to market capitalizations, or index funds, in which shares are purchased in proportion to the index on which they are traded. Thus the purchase and selling of shares in these companies is largely automatic: when a company’s market cap falls or when its stock gains in relation to the overall index, the associated ETF or index fund would be obligated to offload or purchase shares in order to maintain the fund’s mandate.
Thus, to the extent that Vanguard and BlackRock holdings represent passive investment, these holdings do not have any sway over the companies or their actions. The argument here is that Vanguard can’t threaten to sell Apple shares if Apple doesn’t conform to the woke agenda because Vanguard can’t really sell those shares on a whim. Instead, Vanguard is obligated to hold Apple shares in proportion to Apple’s position in the S&P 500 index (at least when it comes to their S&P 500 index fund). And, where there is no credible carrot to reward “good behaviour” (buying shares when Apple does what Vanguard wants) or stick to reward “bad behaviour” (selling shares when Apple doesn’t do what Vanguard wants), then there is no way for Vanguard to directly influence Apple’s behaviour.
Besides, as Lorenzo Casavecchia, a “senior lecturer at UTS Business School,” told AAP FactCheck, “an investor can only control a company if they have more than half of the votes cast at a general meeting.” But even when you combine the shares of the so-called Big Three investors (BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street), their holdings in these major companies do not even approach a majority. Often, they each hold a single-digit percentage point of overall shares.
What’s more, as Reuters point out in their fact check on the topic (citing a BlackRock spokesperson, of course): “BlackRock itself is not a shareholder” in these companies. Instead, “the owners of these securities are our clients, through their investments made on their behalf via the funds managed by Blackrock.”
The same goes for Vanguard, which likes to brag in its corporate PR that Vanguard “is owned by its funds, which in turn are owned by their shareholders—including you, if you’re a Vanguard investor.” So, the way Vanguard frames it, when you inevitably end up at the question of “who owns Vanguard?” (or “who owns BlackRock?” for that matter), the answer will be: “The investors do!”
So, you see? Vanguard and BlackRock (and let’s not forget State Street) don’t “own” the major corporations. They don’t manage those companies or have any influence over them. And, besides, their shares are held on behalf of their investors, so it’s the investors who are really the biggest holders of Apple and Exxon and Walmart and all the rest.
Well, I guess that sums it up, folks. Nothing more to see here, right?
Vanguard, BlackRock and the Shadows of Power
Oh, wait. Of course there is more to this story.
True, Vanguard and BlackRock and State Street don’t “own” these companies in the straightforward sense, but to say that the trillions of dollars of assets under their management doesn’t bring with it the clout needed to sway the direction of corporate America as a whole or even of select companies individually is beyond naive.
Indeed, as many serious, credentialed researchers—as opposed to the interpretive dancing TikTokers “refuted” by the fact checkers—have pointed out, there are ways that these investment companies can flex the muscles that come with trillions of dollars in investable capital.
As even AAP concedes in its fact check (citing Adam Triggs, research director at ANU’s Asian Bureau of Economic Research), there is evidence that common ownership of competing firms (like Coke and Pepsi) reduces competition, helping to cement the corporatocracy into place.
This common sensical and obvious point is backed up by researchers like John Coates at Harvard Law School, whose paper, “The Future of Corporate Governance Part I: The Problem of Twelve,” outlines how “in the near future roughly twelve individuals will have practical power over the majority of U.S. public companies.”
It shouldn’t take an economist or a university professor to imagine how such intense concentration of ownership could lead to a raft of problems, from higher prices on consumer products to reduced wages and employment. But while you hold your breath and wait for the fact checkers to tell you why this is a totally wonderful turn of events that won’t have any bad consequences whatsoever, you should take the time to digest Coates’ own summarization of the inherent threat that such an intense concentration of ownership poses for the market and even for the rule of law itself:
Indexation, private equity, and globalization threaten to permanently entangle business with the state and create organizations—advisors to index funds and private equity funds—controlled by a small number of individuals with unsurpassed power. That concentration of control underscores the gap between ordinary citizens’ experience of disengagement and distance from their government made visible in 2016, and the increasing wealth gap between the ultra-rich and the bulk of the population. Politics is shaped by perceptions. Law—itself a function (in part) of politics—will almost certainly change in response to these trends. The only question is how.
Then there’s the question of votes. Of course, shareholders get to vote in corporate elections, including electing directors and voting on shareholder resolutions. So who gets to vote when the shares are actually held by an asset manager on behalf of its clients? Traditionally, it’s Vanguard and BlackRock who actually do the voting. Vanguard calls it “stewardship” and likes to brag on its website how its managers “votein accordance with the funds’ proxy voting policies.”
The funds, of course, tell the finger-pointers to just relax. After all, they don’t coordinate their votes as a bloc, so their small percentage of votes won’t be a decisively sway anything, anyway. But research published in 2017 found that the Big Three do in fact “utilize coordinated voting strategies and hence follow a centralized corporate governance strategy.” Heck, even Bloomberg can see through the propaganda suggesting that their voting power is small and insignificant:
And yet voting power is voting power. The fund companies’ combined votes and back-channel jawboning, in which they make their views known to directors and chief executive officers, could swing the outcome of important matters such as mergers, major investment decisions, CEO succession, and director elections—even if no fund house has the ability to decide the outcome of such matters alone. They’re potentially the most powerful force over a huge swath of America Inc. Alarm bells have begun to go off with some regulators, as well as with an ideologically diverse array of academics and activists.
To find out how these votes actually work, you can search Vanguard’s public record of proxy votes. For what it’s worth, a random search of the most recent Vanguard proxy votes for Exxon shows that Vanguard voted against every single resolution, including the ones pushing the woke green technocratic agenda.
But the issue remains: if the managers get to vote (even if its “on behalf of” their investor-owned funds) in accordance with ill-defined and ever-changing “principles,” who really gets to wield the power of the shares?
This is not a trivial issue. BlackRock, at least, recognizing that its claim to be simply a neutral asset manager rather than a civilization-shaping force is undermined by its ability to wield shareholder votes, has made a big PR campaign about introducing and then expanding a scheme to allow investors to opt for voting their own shares.
But when considering the <sarc>incredibly difficult</sarc> question of whether the people running the firms that collectively manage tens of trillions of dollars of assets have any sway whatsoever over the firms they are investing in, there is a simple answer: yes. Yes, they do.
As I explained in How BlackRock Conquered the World, even the boffins and eggheads at the prestigious universities have been forced to concede (after years of careful study, no doubt) that Larry Fink doesn’t pen his annual “Letter to CEOs” just for the fun of it. The word of Fink does carry weight in corporate boardrooms.
Sometimes referred to as a “call to action” to corporate leaders, these letters from the man stewarding over a significant chunk of the world’s investable assets actually do change corporate behaviour. That this is so should be self-evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, which is precisely why it took a team of researchers months of painstaking study to publish a peer-reviewed paper concluding this blindingly obvious fact: “portfolio firms are responsive to BlackRock’s public engagement efforts.”
So here’s the $20 trillion question: how much power does a Larry Fink or a Jack Bogle really wield over the world through their companies?
Well, on the most basic level, the latter question is easy to answer. Jack Bogle was forced out of the CEO position at Vanguard in 1996, retired as chairman in 2000, and died in 2019, so he isn’t wielding much influence these days.
But here’s the more serious point: Larry Fink at BlackRock and Mortimer “Tim” Buckley (the current chairman of The Vanguard Group) do exert power over the economy and, ultimately, over society. As long as their company’s remain the top institutional investors in the majority of the stock market, the only question is: how much havoc they will wreak by imposing their will on the world?
You have already seen Larry Fink and his woke ESG agenda-pushing. So, how about Buckley? Well, to his credit, Buckley did pull The Vanguard Group out of the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, claiming that Vanguard is “not in the game of politics” and that “our research indicates that ESG investing does not have any advantage over broad-based investing.” And while Vanguard does offer so-called “sustainable” funds and ESG index funds, they amount to a miniscule percentage of the group’s offerings, with Buckley saying he wants to “allow investors to express their values and preferences” but the decision whether or not to pursue ESG investment “has to be an individual investor’s choice.”
Regardless of how much of this is just corporate blather designed to protect Vanguard from the growing ESG backlash (and subsequent withdrawal of investment funds) that has afflicted BlackRock in recent years, the underlying problem persists. Even if Buckley were an angel descended from heaven to protect us from the green woke mobs, who is to say his successor would be an angel, too? The very fact that people like Fink and Buckley are in a position to sway corporate decisions is itself the problem—not the particular ways they wield (or refrain from wielding) that power.
Ironically, this point was not lost on Jack Bogle. You’ll note that Bogle is not a name synonymous with nefarious corporate scheming in the same way that Fink currently is. In fact, in recent decades the now-deceased Bogle has become something of a saint in the investment world.
His idea of “mutualizing” the mutual funds by cutting out the management company middlemen and thus greatly reducing fees has put upwards of a trillion dollars back in the pockets of ordinary investors (and thereby kept it out of the pockets of Wall Street managers). And his common sense, down-to-earth investment strategies that eschewed get-rich-quick schemes and fancy quant-driven investment trends gave rise to an entire movement of investors who call themselves “Bogleheads” (yes, really), and continue to organize conferences in his name.
So what was Bogle’s take on the astonishing growth of Vanguard and BlackRock in the years before his death?
Most observers expect that the share of corporate ownership by index funds will continue to grow over the next decade. It seems only a matter of time until index mutual funds cross the 50% mark. If that were to happen, the “Big Three” might own 30% or more of the U.S. stock market—effective control. I do not believe that such concentration would serve the national interest.
He’s not wrong there, at least.
As always, I will note that the incredible power that the Finks and the Buckleys of the world wield is in fact our power, derived from our money through our investments of our time, our energy, our labour and our productive power in the service of their corporate agenda. Thus, the fundamental solution to the problem of Vanguard and BlackRock will not come from some outside force. It will come when we withdraw our wealth from their system.
For those who are interested in the solution to the Vanguards and the BlackRocks of the world, they are directed to my recent #SolutionsWatch episode on the subject.
“The takeover framework of these ruling psychopaths is based always on the prototype of problem-reaction-solution, of which all are fake premeditated events and false emergencies; conspiracies in fact, meant to instill fear, hatred, or confusion, so that the State can pretend to come to the rescue of its hapless slave-class.”
[…]
“While the state continues to build its new world order, the general population is consumed by one after another false flag event, claimed ’emergency,’ or new ‘threat,’ as stated by the ruling class bent on taking over the world. While the masses are at each other’s throats, the state continues its drive toward total domination. What this indicates is that the people are complicit in their own slavery due to their inability to see the big picture, while concentrating on every distraction thrown at them by this evil ruling force.”
This Long Plotted World Takeover Scheme Is More Advanced Than Any Normal Human Can Fathom
“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean a conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, incredibly evil in intent.”
~ Rep. Larry P. MacDonald [Note: Lawrence McDonald was killed (likely murdered) on Korean Air Lines 007, 1983, a few months after making this statement.]
To begin, I will preface my remarks by saying that this is an attempt to explain in simple terms, very complicated financial and economic crimes being used against Americans, and also against the entire world population, in order to create and sustain total control over humanity. This is meant to manifest itself in the concept of one world governance, the ‘Great Reset,’ or the New World Order.
This may seem a bold statement; it is not, but once you understand that everything that has happened over many decades is linked, especially since the plotted and premeditated false flag event called ‘9/11,’ you should be able to recognize the massive number of obvious connections that are incredibly evil.
It has recently become more prevalent by mostly alternative news sites and bloggers, to put forth the notion that many are waking up, and that the people are winning the battle for freedom. In my opinion, this is just not so, and in fact is misleading, as false hope is the driving force of this thinking.
It is evident that more are claiming to be against government tyranny, but absolutely nothing has been done to reduce or eliminate the power of the State at any level to date. In addition, the nefarious efforts of the State and its controllers continue to expand, and the drive toward more draconian policies is never-ending.
In the current environment, it is not known what the reaction by the masses might be considering the vast and imminent array of so-called ’emergencies’ that are certain to arise as this controlling cabal seeks to advance its agendas, but if the past is any indication, compliance should be expected.
The takeover framework of these ruling psychopaths is based always on the prototype of problem-reaction-solution, of which all are fake premeditated events and false emergencies; conspiracies in fact, meant to instill fear, hatred, or confusion, so that the State can pretend to come to the rescue of its hapless slave-class.
This strategy has worked most every time it has been tried to date, and the herd continues to simply go along, regardless of the erroneous rhetoric being spewed that this populace is winning. It is not, and so long as the State continues and succeeds in its push to remake and transform society, whether psychologically, financially, or economically, the power of the ruling class and its governing system, will advance its wealth transfers, its monetary monopoly, and its depopulation efforts.
Psychological manipulation and control is necessary in order for the State thugs to accomplish their mission of world takeover, but financial and economic control is mandatory.
This brings us to the real question; who owns and controls this world? It is certainly the big banking cartels, including all central banks, the large corporate magnates, the government protected NGO foundations, and of course, the entire global asset industry, which by 2020 controlled well over $100 trillion dollars. But who owns and controls all of these entities? Who has controlling interest in everything on earth? That is Blackrock and The Vanguard Group, and as I explained a year ago:
“There are a few thousand institutional investment firms that own every large bank, every large corporation, every large investment firm, every ‘news’ outlet, every large communication company, every large pharmaceutical company, every large transportation company; in other words, most every large company on earth is owned by these institutional investors. In turn, the small institutional investment firms are owned by larger institutional investment firms, and the larger investment firms, are owned by even larger investment firms. The two institutional investment companies that are the major owners and controllers of all the others in the world are Vanguard Holdings and Blackrock, and Vanguard is the largest shareholder (owner) of Blackrock. What this means is that Vanguard and Blackrock own and control this planet.”
The current CEO of Vanguard is Tim Buckley, and of course, the head and founder of the powerful Blackrock institution is Larry Fink. It should be noted that Fink and Blackrock have attained a position of extreme and almost infinite power over finance and economics, and according to many are now the fourth branch of government.
The connections of Fink are incredibly telling of the power wielded by Blackrock. Blackrock effectively has control of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury, as well as banks around the world. It should be noted that Fink was appointed to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Board on August 22, 2019, the onset of the fraudulent ‘covid pandemic,’ which was set up, solidified, and begun, the same month that Fink took his seat on the board of the WEF.
To gain a full picture of Fink and Blackrock’s history through today, watch this superb documentary by James Corbett; “How Blackrock Conquered the World.” In it, Corbett explains with full reference in video and text, how the entire ‘covid’ hoax was staged, and was first and foremost a financial takeover coup led by Blackrock. This connection of dots and people is of vital importance.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a very simplistic view of events, but it is necessary to tie a few things together in order that all can be seen to be completely connected; which would indicate a vast conspiracy that has been propagated over a long period of time.
All so-called ’emergencies’ since the fraudulent 9/11 inside job, have much in common, and why would they not, as the main agenda of world governing domination was always the goal sought.
Consider just three events, but there are many, many more, over that time.
The buildings that came down on 9/11 were turned into powder, an impossibility with fire caused by jet fuel. Consider that cars far away from any fire were burned to nothing, with melted metal, aluminum, windshield glass; all as if by spontaneous combustion.
But the same thing happened in the Paradise, California fires in 2018, with many similarities, including the incredible damage to automobiles not even in the path of fires that had to be well above any heat level of a wildfire.
The same also just occurred this past month in Lahaina, Hawaii.
How could this be? It could not, unless similar or exact methods of destruction were plotted beforehand, and carried out by criminal State (military) means. And this is happening around the world as well, all falsely explained away by the complicit and controlled mainstream media.
One very telling aspect of all these bogus ’emergencies,’ from 9/11 to Maui, is that Wall Street and the financial firms, the institutional asset firms, central banks, defense contractors, and military-controlled tech companies, and of course this includes Blackrock, tended to gain huge profits, capture (steal through land grabs) more property, government contracts, and massive bailout money, while walking away from disaster far richer and more powerful than ever before possible.
This happened with 9/11, the 2008 finance and housing collapse, the fake ‘covid’ plot, and now with the ultimate weapon against humanity, the completely illegitimate ‘climate change’ agenda; and this agenda placed Blackrock at the top of the heap worldwide, of this criminal fraud.
Each and every emergency brings about a bigger and more powerful State, more restrictions, more regulation, more mandates, more lockdowns, less travel, and more surveillance and censorship. This is all by design, and never coincidental or accidental, as all is a deliberate plot against humanity.
Regardless of political considerations or parties, this assault against us all is ongoing, and forever expanding. Every incident, every manipulation, every ’emergency,’ has been planned far in advance, and the world takeover is now closer at hand.
While the state continues to build its new world order, the general population is consumed by one after another false flag event, claimed ’emergency,’ or new ‘threat,’ as stated by the ruling class bent on taking over the world. While the masses are at each other’s throats, the state continues its drive toward total domination. What this indicates is that the people are complicit in their own slavery due to their inability to see the big picture, while concentrating on every distraction thrown at them by this evil ruling force.
What is being ignored is that this world has already been taken over and is being fully controlled by the very few, and the fighting of one against another is continuing to aid in this takeover plot. By concentrating on each and every tyrannical distraction, the people have left themselves open to dictatorial management, and in the process have lost all ability to stop the totalitarian usurpation of their lives and property at the hands of the financial cabal bent on world rule. By treating each indiscretion as independent of the real agenda being sought, nothing is being done to stop the state in its efforts to fully control all people on earth.
By participating in the political and ‘voting’ process; a process designed and implemented for the single purpose of control, by concentrating on the political side shows, by attempting to use corrupt government courts to gain redress from tyrannical maneuvers, by accepting the ruling system as legitimate, by allowing the Federal Reserve and all banks the ability to monitor and control assets through complete digitization, the lowly people are digging their own graves.
It may already be too late to continue this asinine exercise in futility, as the ruling class few are in control of the systems that will allow them to complete their takeover plot.
The only answer to this evil attempt to destroy us in favor of the few most powerful, is to negate all government, to negate and abolish the federal reserve system, to disallow any and all control by the banking cartels, to stop any and all efforts to monopolize the economic and monetary system’s efforts to create and implement any central bank digital currencies, and to not accept any new feigned emergency concerning health, fake ‘climate change,’ war threats, unnatural events, or any other intentional criminal acts meant to cause undue fear among the seemingly helpless proletariat.
The people are not winning; they are losing, but this deadly assault on humanity can still be reversed if even a small majority stand up and take responsibility for their own lives and freedom.
If the current trend continues, if the bulk of this population persists in hiding from the truth, if most expect others to save them, all will be lost, but if any true actionable awakening by large numbers becomes evident, the state will fold. This will never happen with any election, and no politician can change the course we are on, as depending on any master participating in this evil governing system, is the epitome of failure, and can only lead to eternal enslavement.
“The one thing man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by a World Government, a New World Order.”
A correspondent in Gold Coast, the “smartest city in Australia”, reported in April that his city is devoid of almost all non-human life.
“Where I live in Australia,” wrote George, “we used to have many rain forest frogs, most famous is the green tree frog. The last time it rained I heard not one bleep. Even the Queensland cane toad has disappeared.
“After each rain the grass used to be covered with earthworms–not an earthworm on the grass anymore.
“We used to hear the cicadas chirping in the evening–I haven’t heard a chirp for over six years.
“All my fruit trees have no fruit.
“There are no insects, bees, spiders or even aphids on my roses.
“My area is well known as the smartest city in Australia and our close by bush are dead of any environmental life (bees, butterflies, moths, birds, flying bats, frogs and native animals)”.
A correspondent in North Carolina sent me this account a few days ago of a healthy newborn who was irradiated nearly to death by the hospital environment:
“I want to relate what happened to my Goddaughter’s baby brother at the Duke Medical Center earlier this spring. Baby Emiliano was born in excellent health, but when I returned 12 hours later, he had been moved to a different room and I became concerned because I myself developed dizziness, tremor, and headache within about 5 minutes of visiting his room.
“I knew to check my RF meter because these are microwave sickness symptoms which I get when the RF levels are high. The Cornet measurements hovered between 11 and 15 milliwatts per square meter! Personally I need the RF levels below about 0.006 milliwatts per square meter, so I can’t imagine what it was doing to an infant who was only 12 hours old. When I opened the curtains I noticed there was a round 5G pole outside on the street; also straight out of his hospital window you could see a rooftop cell array that looked like several large white panels on top of another hospital building across a small green quad. You could see them clearly because the other building was shorter, which meant that the roof panels lined up horizontally nearer to the level of the baby’s window.
“By day 3, Emiliano had developed jaundice and soon was put in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, which also had very high radiation levels. While on that unit, his jaundice numbers continued to climb, and he developed a rash. I found it interesting because I developed a rash too. I developed a butterfly rash across my face and the baby had a full-body rash on one side of his body. I told the nurse that I had a 5G rash, just like the baby. She had no clue what I was talking about. She explained that lots of babies get this rash, but they don’t know what causes it.
“After several more days in the Duke Main NICU his condition continued to worsen. I was forcing myself to visit him in the hospital, despite my being horribly sick there, because I am very close with the family. My own rash would return along with the dizziness, tremor and headache every time I visited. These would go away within 12-24 hours of leaving the hospital and returning home. The baby had to stay in the radiation, though.
“After many more days in the NICU, being irradiated 24/7, the baby developed a staph infection near his tiny fingernail. The infection began spreading down his finger and they were talking about amputating his finger. By then, I had been working for days to persuade his mother to have him transferred to Duke Regional, a smaller hospital in the northern part of the city, and finally she asked to transfer him. My reason is that I knew that Regional had much lower RF levels based on her prior visit there during early contractions when she had stayed overnight and background radiation levels in the room were between 0.003 and 0.01. (Durham Regional is in a less affluent part of town, with lower-tech overall.) They transferred the baby by helicopter and the baby’s health improved immediately. Within 48 hours of being transferred away from the high radiation at Duke Medical, the rash improved dramatically, the jaundice scores declined, and the staph infection began to improve.
“The radiation levels at Regional were about a thousand times lower than at Duke Main. Also at Duke Regional there were no visible 5G poles or roof arrays outside the baby’s windows. The baby recovered fully there and is home now.”
– 2 –
Cancer in Young People Is Skyrocketing
A review of cancer statistics in young people in 44 countries has been published by an international team of scientists. The rate of cancer in people under 50, they found, has increased dramatically in every one of those countries. The study, published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, is titled “Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?” The authors speculate on various possible causes for this epidemic, including diet, lifestyle, obesity, the microbiome, and genetic susceptibilities, but are forced to conclude there is no evidence that any of these factors have caused the global increase. There is one mention of ionizing radiation in a single sentence, and no mention whatsoever of RF radiation.
Investigative journalist Felice Freyer interviewed two of the study’s authors as well as six other cancer specialists from Harvard, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Tufts University about the results of that study. I mailed her a copy of my book along with the following letter:
“I read with interest your article of July 22, 2023 in the Boston Globe titled “Rise in cancer among younger people worries and puzzles doctors.” I also read the Nature Reviews paper referred to in your article (‘Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?’).
“I too have been following the increase in certain cancers in young people, but in relation to a very specific environmental factor: radio frequency (RF) radiation from the cell phones younger people have been carrying much of their lives. There is extensive literature on this connection, including a plausible causative mechanism. I believe exposure to wireless technology, especially cell phones, is the cause of much if not most of the recent rise in cancer in young people.
“Supplementary Table 1 in the Nature Reviews study lists trends of 13 types of cancer in 44 countries. The types of cancer with a rising trend in at least 75% of those countries are cancers of precisely the organs most heavily irradiated by cell phones:
breast
colorectal
thyroid
prostate
endometrial
kidney
“During use, cell phones are held either right next to the thyroid gland or in front of the body near the breast. When not in use, but still on and radiating, cell phones are most often kept in a back or hip pocket, next to the kidney or near the colon and the prostate or uterus. The single most-exposed organ among the ones included in the study is the thyroid, which is the only type of cancer reviewed with an overall upward trend in every one of the 44 countries (except Thailand, where the numbers did not reach significance).
“I would also call attention to testicular cancer, which that team did not review. The testicles are also heavily irradiated by cell phones in pockets. And testicular cancer is not only on the rise in young people worldwide, but in 2020 was the most common cancer in men aged 15 to 44 in 62 countries worldwide. (Ariana Znaor et al., Global patterns in testicular cancer incidence and mortality in 2020, International Journal of Cancer 151(5): 692-698 (2022), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijc.33999.
“And then, of course, there is brain cancer, which that team also did not review. The brain is even more irradiated by cell phones than the thyroid. Brain and central nervous system tumors are today the second most common type of cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in children and young-adults. (J.S. Bell et al., Global incidence of brain and spinal tumors by geographic region and income level based on cancer registry data, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 66: 121-127 (2019), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967586818322252).
“There is a plausible mechanism. Electromagnetic fields interfere with the movement of electrons, including the electrons in the electron transport chain in the mitochondria of every cell. This slows metabolism and causes oxygen deprivation, resulting in the spectacular increase in several diseases and disorders, about which the medical community has largely thrown up its hands in puzzlement, searching for a reason. I am referring to obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. The decreased efficiency in digesting sugars and fats will result in obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, while cancer cells thrive in anaerobic conditions. And the Warburg hypothesis proposes that oxygen starvation not only selects for cancer but causes it.
“You may be interested in some of the following studies:
John G. West et al., Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones, Case Reports in Medicine, Volume 2013, Article ID 354682, https://www.hindawi.com/journals/crim/2013/354682
Michael Carlberg et al., Is the Increasing Incidence of Thyroid Cancer in the Nordic Countries Caused by Use of Mobile Phones? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 9129 (2020), https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/23/9129
Yakymenko et al., Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems, Experimental Oncology 33(2): 62-70 (2011). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21716201/
Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg, Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma – Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009, Pathophysiology 22(1): 1-13 (2015), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928468014000649
Brière, Jean-Jacques, Paul Bénit, and Pierre Rustin. 2009. “The Electron Transport Chain and Carcinogenesis.” In: Shireesh P. Apte and Rangaprasad Sarangarajan, eds., Cellular Respiration and Carcinogenesis (New York: Humana), pp. 19-32.
“The history and causation of cancer in relation to electromagnetic fields is reviewed in chapter 13 of my book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green 2020), a copy of which accompanies this letter. The book has 137 pages of bibliography.
“I believe the universal use of cell phones, which began suddenly within the past 25 years, is responsible for the simultaneous, extraordinary increase in certain cancers in young people during the same period of time, and should be a factor analyzed in every study of cancer incidence, prevalence and causation today.
“I look forward to any follow-up article you may write on this topic.”
I also sent a similar letter to each of the seven scientists she interviewed. Here are all their names and email addresses for those of you who want to write to them:
A team of scientists from the UK, France, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, and the United States compared rates of multiple sclerosis in 115 countries in 2013 with rates in 2020. They found that the prevalence of MS had increased dramatically in every region of the world in just seven years. It increased by 59% in Africa, 87% in the Americas, 38% in the Eastern Mediterranean, 32% in Europe, 58% in Southeast Asia, and 32% in the Western Pacific. Globally, 44 in every 100,000 people had MS in the year 2020. Multiple sclerosis is even starting to be tracked in children: in 2013, 7,000 cases of multiple sclerosis in people under 18 years of age were reported by 34 countries; in 2020, more than 30,000 cases in people under 18 were reported by 47 countries.
No one should be surprised. In 2015, a team of Turkish scientists exposed rats to cell phone-like radiation for one hour a day during their early and mid-adolescence, which for a rat is 21 to 46 days of age. The exposed rats’ spinal cords had significant losses of myelin, similar to what occurs in multiple sclerosis.
– 4 –
Incredible Rise in Obesity and Heart Conditions
In April 2023, the British Heart Foundationpublished statistics revealing a shocking prevalence of obesity and heart disease. 64% of all adults 16 years of age and older in the UK today are overweight or obese. And 30% of all children aged 2-15 are overweight or obese.
The number of prescriptions used in the prevention and treatment of heart disease in England rose from 46,252 in 1981 to 332,575 in 2020. The sharpest rise occurred between 1996 (91,037 prescriptions) and 2006 (234,793 prescriptions), the years when most of the population acquired mobile phones.
The number of people suffering from atrial fibrillation, a conduction disorder of the heart, increased in the UK from 1.30% of the population in 2006/07 to 2.12% of the population in 2021/22. That is a 63% increase in 15 years.
– 5 –
Nearly Half of All U.S. Honey Bee Colonies Lost Last Year
The Bee Informed Partnership’s annual survey, published on June 22, 2023, revealed that 48.2% of all honey bee colonies in the United States were lost in the period from April 1, 2022 to April 1, 2023. “Lost” means all bees in the colony died.
– 6 –
Smart Cities Are Killing All Life
A correspondent in Gold Coast, the “smartest city in Australia”, reported in April that his city is devoid of almost all non-human life. “Where I live in Australia,” wrote George, “we used to have many rain forest frogs, most famous is the green tree frog. The last time it rained I heard not one bleep. Even the Queensland cane toad has disappeared. After each rain the grass used to be covered with earthworms–not an earthworm on the grass anymore. We used to hear the cicadas chirping in the evening–I haven’t heard a chirp for over six years. All my fruit trees have no fruit. There are no insects, bees, spiders or even aphids on my roses. My area is well known as the smartest city in Australia and our close by bush are dead of any environmental life (bees, butterflies, moths, birds, flying bats, frogs and native animals)”.
Below is the shocking testimony of Ann Williams before the Disaster, Resilience, International Affairs, Planning Committee of the Maui County Council. Williams once lived at the now-destroyed house at 457 Lahainaluna Road in Lahaina, Hawaii.
She explains how the people fleeing Lahaina were intentionally trapped in the city to prevent them from fleeing the imminent immolation of Lahaina. From what she saw, Williams concluded that “it’s obvious we were intentionally trapped.”
The Lahaina immolation was intended to kill as many residents as possible.
The cover story for preventing people from gaining access to roads out of the city was the danger of electrocutions from downed power lines.
And 2) there were no power lines down on the main highway going north out of Lahaina.
Nonetheless. police blocked access to that highway ensuring that people would be trapped and killed in Lahaina. Ann Williams stated, in pertinent part:
We did Escape out the Fleming’s Chart House exit to go north. We went North free sailing at that point after Flemings, got out there, they hadn’t blockaded us yet.
I was one of the lucky few that got out that way.
No power lines whatsoever. It was a safe exit all the way North and we got to Honokowai that way.
After me though they decided to block it.
And there were still no power lines down because I did come out the next morning and I saw the death trap. It was where there were no power lines still yet the following morning.
Everybody could have gotten out. Everybody could have gotten out. It was free sailing going north.
But the police officer there quote unquote from direct other residents who talked to him were walking, saw all the cars stopped.
They finally walked all the way up to the front at the exit; policemen standing there and the guy said to the policeman there’s a fire, the fire is coming, you got to let these people go.
[The policeman responds,] “I’ve got orders.”
We need to investigate that. Who is giving these cops orders? I mean if the police officer might be taking orders. It’s not his fault personally. But there’s somebody above him that did this and they need to investigate that.
And then John said the far end of Front Street was blocked, bringing him in that way, and then blocked this way. It’s obvious we were intentionally trapped.
And I hope that this gets investigated further. And I have the eyewitnesses who have spoken to that cop directly. Thank you.
~ Testimony of Ann Williams
Ann Williams’ testimony is corroborated by another eyewitness, who goes by the nickname, “Fish.” He stated that police blocked traffic to prevent residents from fleeing the immolation of Lahaina.
There was no logical reason for the police to block cars fleeing the destruction of the city other than to ensure as many people died as possible. The witness describes the actions of the police as “a combination of stupid and evil.”
The video of that witness’ account has since been made private on YouTube. However, another video of his account of the police blockade can be found below.
Ann Williams’ and Fish’s testimony sheds light on the experience of Jonathan Herzog. Herzog’s video below reveals how police kept rerouting traffic in a circle through Lahaina in a way that prevented the people from leaving Lahaina as the city was being immolated.
As you watch the video, keep in mind that the police had continuous radio communication with their command center, which is orchestrating the traffic around Lahaina. Although electrical power was down, the police station had backup generators to power the command center.
Nobody knows the streets of the city better than the police department. The command center had the big picture. This was not a mistake. The command center knew that the rerouting of the drivers in a loop through Lahaina corralled the drivers so that they could not leave Lahaina.
Herzog’s video starts on the morning of August 8, 2023, as he is leaving Lahaina to drive north to Napili. But he was prevented from leaving by a police blockade of the road.
The video picks up again at 2:56 p.m. when he decides to travel south to Kihei. At the 2:41 mark in the video, he is driving southbound on Front Street in Lahaina. But at the 2:50 mark in the video, we see him driving northbound, he puts a caption indicating that “THEY KEPT DETOURING US IN CIRCLES AND THEN I START TO SEE SMOKE.” At the 3:17 mark in the video, we see that he is back traveling southbound on E 30 passing Dickenson Street.
At the 4:50 mark in the video, we then found him rerouted to drive northbound on Front Street.
At the 5:22 mark in the video, he is once again traveling southbound (probably on E 30) passing the intersection of Papalaua Street.
At the 6:50 mark in the video, he is traveling southbound, he sees the billowing smoke behind him and comments that there is a fire behind him and he is trying to get away from the area.
But at the 7:30 mark in the video, he is rerouted to northbound Front Street for the second time, which is right back into the fire that he saw earlier.
He soon realizes the peril he has been guided into. As the smoke approaches closer and closer he decides to park his car at Kingdom Hall and walk to the boat landing and pier. He eventually walks northbound along Front Street and out of Lahaina to safety.
A directed energy weapon could have caught the passengers by surprise. If they were struck with a directed energy weapon, they would have been immolated as they sat in their cars.
What is BlackRock? Where did this financial behemoth come from? How did it gain such incredible power over the world’s wealth? And how is it seeking to leverage that power in shaping the course of human civilization?
Find out in this in-depth Corbett Report documentary on How BlackRock Conquered the World.
Let’s imagine you’re Joe Q. Normie and you need to run out for some groceries. You hop in the car and head to the store. What store do you go to? Why, Walmart, of course!
And, being an unwitting victim of the sugar conspiracy, what do you buy when you’re there? Coke, naturally!
And you can get jabbed at Walmart these days, right? Well then, you might as well make sure you get your sixth Moderna booster while you’re there!
And don’t forget to fill up with gas on your way home!
Is this creeping you out? Then why don’t you shut yourself in your house and never go out shopping again? That’ll show ’em! After all, you can always order whatever you need from Amazon, can’t you?
Are you noticing a pattern here? Yes, in case you haven’t heard, BlackRock, Inc. is now officially everywhere. It owns everything.
Sadly for us, however, the creepy corporate claws of the BlackRock beast aren’t content simply to clutch onto a near plurality of the shares of every major corporation in the world. No, BlackRock is now digging its talons in even further and flexing its muscles, putting that inconceivable wealth and influence to use by completely reordering the economy, creating scamdemics and shaping the course of civilization in the process.
Let’s face it: if you’re not concerned about the power BlackRock wields over the world by this point, then you’re not paying attention.
But don’t worry if all of this is news to you. Most people have no idea where this investment giant came from, how it clawed its way to the top of the Wall Street dogpile, or what it has planned for your future.
Let’s fill in that gap in public understanding.
I’m James Corbett of The Corbett Report and today you’re going to learn the story of How BlackRock Conquered The World.
Chapter 1: A Brief History of BlackRock
“Hold on a second,” I hear you interject. “I’ve got this! BlackRock was founded as a mergers and acquisitions firm in 1985 by a couple of ex-Lehmanites and has since gone on to become the world’s largest alternative investment firm, right?”
Wrong. That’s Blackstone Inc., currently headed by Stephen Schwarzman. But don’t feel bad if you confuse the two. The Blackstone/BlackRock confusion was done on purpose.
In fact, BlackRock began in 1988 as a business proposal by investment banker Larry Fink and a gaggle of business partners. The appropriately named Fink had managed to lose $100 million in a single quarter in 1986 as a manager at First Boston investment bank by betting the wrong way on interest rates. Humbled by this humiliating setback (or so the story goes), Fink turned lemons into lemonade by crafting a vision for an investment firm with an emphasis on risk management. Never again would Larry Fink be caught off guard by a market downturn!
Fink assembled some partners and brought his proposal to Blackstone co-founders Pete Peterson and Stephen Schwarzman, who liked the idea so much that they agreed to extend Fink a $5 million line of credit in exchange for a 50% share in the business. Originally named Blackstone Financial Management, Fink’s operation was turning a nice profit within months, had quadrupled the value of its assets in one year, and had grown the value of its portfolio under management to $17 billion by 1992.
Now firmly established as a viable business in its own right, Schwarzman and Fink began musing about spinning the firm off from Blackstone and taking it public. Schwarzman suggested giving the newly independent company a name with “black” in it as a nod to its Blackstone origins and Fink—taking roguish delight in the inevitable confusion and annoyance such a move would cause—proposed the name BlackRock.
STEPHEN SCHWARZMAN: So Larry and I were sitting down and he said, “what do you think about sort of having a family name? You know, with “black” in it. And I said that I think that’s a good idea. And I think he put on the table either BlackPebble or BlackRock. And so he said, “you know, if we do something like this, all of our people will kill us.”
The two evidently share the same sense of humour. “There is a little confusion [between the companies],” Schwarzman now concedes. “And every time that happens I get a real chuckle.”
But a shared taste for causing unnecessary confusion was not enough to keep the partners together. By 1994, the two had fallen out over compensation for new hires (or perhaps due to distress over Schwarzman’s ongoing divorce, depending who’s telling the story), and Schwarzman sold Blackstone’s holdings in BlackRock for a mere $240 million. (“That was certainly a heroic mistake,” Schwarzman admits.)
Having made the split with Blackstone and established BlackRock as its own entity, Fink was firmly on the path that would lead to his company becoming the globe-bestriding financial colossus that it is today.
In 1999, with its assets under management standing at $165 billion, BlackRock went public on the New York Stock Exchange at $14 per share. Expanding its services into analytics and risk management with its proprietary Aladdin enterprise investment system (more on which later), the firm acquired mutual fund company State Street Research & Management in 2004, merged with Merrill Lynch Investment Managers (MLIM) in 2006, and bought Seattle-based Quellos Group’s fund-of-hedge-funds business in 2007, bringing the total value of assets under BlackRock management to over $1 trillion.
But it was the Global Financial Crisis of 2007—2008 that catapulted BlackRock to its current position of financial dominance. Just ask Heike Buchter, the German correspondent who literally wrote the book on BlackRock. “Prior to the financial crisis I was not even familiar with the name. But in the years after the Lehman [Brothers] collapse [in 2008], BlackRock appeared everywhere. Everywhere!” Buchter told German news outlet DW in 2015.
Even before the Bear Sterns fiasco materialized into the Lehman Brothers collapse and the full-on financial bloodbath of September 2008, Wall Street was collectively turning to BlackRock for help. AIG, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac had all hired the firm to comb through their spiraling mess of credit obligations in the months before the meltdown. BlackRock was perceived to be the only firm that could sort through the dizzying math behind the complicated debt swaps and exotic financial instruments underlying the tottering financial system and many Wall Street kingpins had Fink on speed dial as panic began to grip the markets.
“I think of it like Ghostbusters: When you have a problem, who you gonna call? BlackRock!” UBS managing director Terrence Keely told CNN at the time.
Oh, did I forget to mention that? Remember the whole “losing his job because he lost $100 million for First Boston in 1986” thing? That came just three years after Fink had made billions for the bank’s customers by constructing his first Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) and almost single-handedly creating the subprime mortgage market that would fail so spectacularly in 2008.
LARRY FINK: I started at First Boston in 1976. [. . .] I was the first Freddie Mac Bond Trader [. . .] and so the mortgage Market was just in its infancy. [. . .] And then in 1982 we had the ability to put a PC on our trading desk. Before that you had no ability to put a computer on that trading desk. And it was very clear to me that if we could have computing power on the trading desk, we were going to have the ability to dissect cash flows of mortgages.
That led in 1983 to the first carving up of a mortgage into different tranches. And so we created the first CMO.
So, depending how you look at it, Fink was either the perfect guy to have in charge of sorting out the mess that his CMO monstrosity had created or the first fink who should have gone to jail for it. Guess which way the US government chose to see it?
Yes, you guessed right. They saw Fink as their saviour, of course.
Specifically, the US government turned to BlackRock for help, with beleaguered US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner personally consulting Larry Fink no less than 49 times over the course of the 18-month crisis. Lest there be any doubt who was calling the shots in that relationship, when Geithner was on the ropes and his position as Secretary of the Treasury was in jeopardy at the end of Obama’s first term, Fink’s name was on the short list of those who were being considered to replace him.
The Federal Reserve, too, put its faith in BlackRock, turning to the company for assistance in administering the 2008 bailouts. Ultimately, BlackRock ended up playing a role in the $30 billion financing of the sale of Bear Stearns to J.P. Morgan, the $180 billion bailout of AIG, and the $45 billion rescue of Citigroup.
When the dust finally settled on Wall Street after the Lehman Brothers collapse, there was little doubt who was sitting on top of the dust pile: BlackRock. The only question was how they would parley their growing wealth and financial clout into real-world political power.
For Fink, the answer was obvious: move from the petty crime of high finance into the criminal big leagues of government. Accordingly, throughout the last decade, he has spent his time building up BlackRock’s political influence until it has become (as even Bloomberg admits) the de facto “fourth branch of government.”
But lobbying the government is a roundabout way to get what you want. As any good financial guru will tell you, it’s far more cost-efficient to make sure that no troublesome regulations are imposed in the first place. Perhaps that’s why Fink has been collecting powerful politicians for years now, scooping them up as consultants, advisors and board members so that he can ensure BlackRock has a key agent at the heart of any important political event.
As William Engdahl details in his own exposé of BlackRock:
BlackRock founder and CEO Larry Fink is clearly interested in buying influence globally. He made former German CDU MP Fridrich Merz head of BlackRock Germany when it looked as if he might succeed Chancellor Merkel, and former British Chancellor of Exchequer George Osborne as “political consultant.” Fink named former Hillary Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills to the BlackRock board when it seemed certain Hillary would soon be in the White House.
He has named former central bankers to his board and gone on to secure lucrative contracts with their former institutions. Stanley Fischer, former head of the Bank of Israel and also later Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is now Senior Adviser at BlackRock. Philipp Hildebrand, former Swiss National Bank president, is vice chairman at BlackRock, where he oversees the BlackRock Investment Institute. Jean Boivin, the former deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, is the global head of research at BlackRock’s investment institute.
And it doesn’t end there. When it came time for Biden’s handlers to appoint the director of the National Economic Council—responsible for the coordination of policymaking on both domestic and international economic issues—naturally they turned to Brian Deese, the former global head of sustainable investing at BlackRock Inc.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
. . . or, more accurately, is the present. Because when we peel back the layers of propaganda from the past three years, we find that the remarkable events of the scamdemic have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a virus. We are instead witnessing a changeover in the monetary and economic system that was conceived, proposed and then implemented by (you guessed it!) BlackRock.
Chapter 2: Going Direct
Historians of the future will no doubt note 2019 as the year that BlackRock began its takeover of the planet in earnest.
It was in January of that fateful year that Joe Biden crawled cap-in-hand to Larry Fink’s Wall Street office to seek the financial titan’s blessing for his presidential (s)election. (“I’m here to help,” Fink reportedly replied.)
Then, on August 22nd of 2019, Larry Fink joined such illustrious figures as Al “Climate Conman” Gore, Chrystia “Account Freezing” Freeland, Mark “GFANZ” Carney, and the man himself, Klaus “Bond Villain” Schwab, on the World Economic Forum’s Board of Trustees, an organization which, the WEF informs us, “serves as the guardian of the World Economic Forum’s mission and values.” (“But which values are those, precisely?” you might ask. “And what does Yo-Yo Ma have to do with it?”)
It was another event that took place on August 22, 2019, however, that captures our attention today. As it turns out, August 22nd was not only the date that Fink achieved his globalist knighthood on the WEF board, it was also the date that the financial coup d’état (later erroneously referred to as a “pandemic”) actually began.
In order to understand what happened that day, however, we need to take a moment to understand the structure of the US monetary system. You see (GREATLY oversimplifying things for ease of understanding), there are actually two types of money in the banking system: there is “bank money”—the money that you and I use to transact in the real economy—and there is “reserve money”—the money that banks keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve. These two types of money circulate in two separate monetary circuits, sometimes referred to as the retail circuit (bank money) and the wholesale circuit (reserve money).
But the point of the two-circuit system is that, historically speaking, the Federal Reserve was never able to “print money” in the sense that people usually understand that term. It is able to create reserve money, which banks can keep on deposit with the Fed to meet their capital requirements. The more reserves they have parked at the Fed, the more bank money they are allowed to conjure into existence and lend out into the real economy. The gap between Fed-created reserve money and bank-created bank money acts as a type of circuit breaker, and this is why the flood of reserve money that the Fed created in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008 did not result in a spike in commercial bank deposits.
But all that changed three years ago. As Titus observes, by the time of the scamdemic bailouts of 2020, the amount of bank money sitting in deposit in commercial banks in the US—a figure which had never shown any correlation with the total amount of reserves held on deposit at the Fed—suddenly spiked in lockstep with the Fed’s climbing balance sheet.
Clearly, something had happened between the 2008 bailout and the 2020 bailout. Whereas the tidal wave of reserve money unleashed to capitalize the banks in the earlier bailout hadn’t found its way into the “real” economy, the 2020 bailout money had.
So, what happened? BlackRock happened, that’s what.
Specifically, on August 15, 2019, BlackRock published a report under the typically eye-wateringly boring title, “Dealing with the next downturn: From unconventional monetary policy to unprecedented policy coordination.” Although the paper did not catch the attention of the general public, it did generate some press in the financial media, and, much more to the point, generated interest from the gaggle of central bankers who descended on Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for the annual Jackson Hole Economic Symposium taking place on August 22, 2019—the exact same day that Fink was being appointed to the WEF’s board.
The theme of the 2019 symposium—which brings together central bankers, policymakers, economists and academics to discuss economic issues and policy options—was “Challenges for Monetary Policy,” and BlackRock’s paper, published a week in advance of the event, was carefully crafted to set the parameters of that discussion.
It’s no surprise that the report caught the attention of the central bankers. After all, BlackRock’s proposal came with a pedigree. Of the four co-authors of the report, three of them were former central bankers themselves: Philipp Hildebrand, the former president of the Swiss National Bank; Stanley Fischer, the former Federal Reserve vice chairman and former governor of the Bank of Israel; and Jean Boivin, the former deputy governor of the Bank of Canada.
But beyond the paper’s authorship, it was what “Dealing with the next downturn” actually proposed that was to have such earthshaking effects on the global monetary order.
The report starts by noting the dilemma that the central banksters found themselves in by 2019. After years of quantitative easing (QE) and ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and even the once-unthinkable NIRP (negative interest rate policy), the banksters were running out of room to operate. As BlackRock notes:
The current policy space for global central banks is limited and will not be enough to respond to a significant, let alone a dramatic, downturn. Conventional and unconventional monetary policy works primarily through the stimulative impact of lower short-term and long-term interest rates. This channel is almost tapped out: One-third of the developed market government bond and investment grade universe now has negative yields, and global bond yields are closing in on their potential floor. Further support cannot rely on interest rates falling.
So, what was BlackRock’s answer to this conundrum? Why, a great reset, of course!
No, not Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset. A different type of “great reset.” The “Going Direct” reset.
An unprecedented response is needed when monetary policy is exhausted and fiscal policy alone is not enough. That response will likely involve “going direct”: Going direct means the central bank finding ways to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders. Going direct, which can be organised in a variety of different ways, works by: 1) bypassing the interest rate channel when this traditional central bank toolkit is exhausted, and; 2) enforcing policy coordination so that the fiscal expansion does not lead to an offsetting increase in interest rates.
The authors of BlackRock’s proposal go on to stress that they are not talking about simply dumping money into people’s bank accounts willy-nilly. As report co-author Phillip Hildebrand made sure to stress in his appearance on Bloomberg on the day of the paper’s release, this was not Bernanke’s “helicopter money” idea.
PHILIPP HILDEBRAND: Something that goes into the direction of essentially what we call go and direct which would be ways of putting money into pockets of consumers or corporates directly in order to spend so to go around the interest rate channel as opposed to traditional central banking where you really only uh always work through the interest rate channel so kind of like helicopter money do you have to be coordinated yeah i think what it means helicopter money is a sort of catchphrase from the famous paper that ben bernanke gave in in the early 2000s but the point is yes you have to go in a different way than working through the interest rate channel because interest rates are already so low
Nor was it—as report co-author Jean Boivin was keen to stress in his January 2020 appearance on BlackRock’s own podcast discussing the idea—a version of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), with the government simply printing up bank money to spend directly into the economy.
No, this was to be a process where special purpose facilities—which they called “standing emergency fiscal facilities” (SEFFs)—would be created to inject bank money directly into the commercial accounts of various public or private sector entities. These SEFFs would be overseen by the central bankers themselves, thus crossing the streams of the two monetary circuits in a way that had never been done before.
Any additional measures to stimulate economic growth will have to go beyond the interest rate channel and “go direct” – when [sic] a central bank crediting private or public sector accounts directly with money. One way or another, this will mean subsidising spending – and such a measure would be fiscal rather than monetary by design. This can be done directly through fiscal policy or by expanding the monetary policy toolkit with an instrument that will be fiscal in nature, such as credit easing by way of buying equities. This implies that an effective stimulus would require coordination between monetary and fiscal policy – be it implicitly or explicitly. [Emphases added.]
Alright, let’s recap. On August 15, 2019, BlackRock came out with a proposal calling for central banks to adopt a completely unprecedented procedure for injecting money directly into the economy in the event of the next downturn. Then, on August 22, 2019, the central bankers of the world convened in Wyoming for their annual shindig to discuss these very ideas.
So? Did the central bankers listen to BlackRock? You bet they did!
Remember when we saw how commercial bank deposits began moving in sync with the Fed’s balance sheet for the first time ever? Well, let’s take another look at that, shall we?
It wasn’t the March 2020 bailouts where the correlation between the Fed balance sheet and commercial bank deposits—the tell-tale sign of a BlackRock-style “going direct” bailout—began. It was actually in September 2019—months before the scamdemic was a gleam in Bill Gates’ eye—when we started to see Federal Reserve monetary creation finding its way directly into the retail monetary circuit.
In other words, it was less than one month after BlackRock proposed this revolutionary new type of fiscal intervention that the central banks began implementing that very idea. The Going Direct Reset—better understood as a financial coup d’état—had begun.
To be sure, this going direct intervention was later offset by the Fed’s next scam for forcing more government debt on depositors, but that’s another story. The point is that the seal had been broken on the going direct bottle, and it wasn’t long before the central bankers had a perfect excuse for forcing that entire bottle down the public’s throat. What we were told was a “pandemic” was in fact, on the financial level, just an excuse for an absolutely unprecedented pumping of trillions of dollars from the Fed directly into the economy.
The story of precisely how the going direct reset was implemented during the 2020 bailouts is a fascinating one, and I would encourage you to dive down that rabbit hole, if you’re interested. But for today’s purposes, it’s sufficient to understand what the central bankers got out of the Going Direct Reset: the ability to take over fiscal policy and to begin engineering the economy of Main Street in a more . . . well, direct way.
But what did BlackRock get out of this, you ask? Well, when it came time to decide who to call in to manage the scamdemic bailout scam, guess who the Fed turned to? If you guessed BlackRock, then (sadly) you’re exactly right!
To be sure, this bailout bonanza wasn’t just another excuse for BlackRock to gain access to the government purse and distribute funds to businesses in its own portfolio, though it certainly was that.
And it wasn’t just another emergency where the chairman of the Federal Reserve had to put Larry Fink on speed dial—not simply to shower BlackRock with no-bid contracts but to manage his own portfolio—although it certainly was that, too.
It was also a convenient excuse for BlackRock to bail out one of its own most valuable assets: iShares, the collection of exchange traded funds (ETFs) that it acquired from Barclays for $13.5 billion in 2009 and that had ballooned to a $1.9 trillion juggernaut by 2020.
BlackRock is being allowed by the Fed to buy its own corporate bond ETFs as part of the Fed program to prop up the corporate bond market. According to a report in Institutional Investor on Monday, BlackRock, on behalf of the Fed, “bought $1.58 billion in investment-grade and high-yield ETFs from May 12 to May 19, with BlackRock’s iShares funds representing 48 percent of the $1.307 billion market value at the end of that period, ETFGI said in a May 30 report.”
No bid contracts and buying up your own products? What could possibly be wrong with that?
The numbers speak for themselves. After BlackRock was allowed to bail out its own ETF funds with the Fed’s newly minted going direct funny money, iShares surged yet again, surpassing $3 trillion in assets under management last year.
But it wasn’t just the Fed that was rolling out the red carpet for BlackRock to implement the very bailout plan that BlackRock created. Banksters from around the world were positively falling over themselves to get BlackRock to manage their market interventions.
In April 2020, the Bank of Canada announced that it was hiring (who else?) BlackRock’s Financial Markets Advisory (FMA) to help manage its own $10 billion corporate bond buying program. Then in May 2020, the Swedish central bank, the Riksbank, also hired BlackRock as an external consultant to conduct “an analysis of the Swedish corporate bonds market and an assessment of possible design options for a potential corporate bonds asset purchase programme.”
As we saw earlier, the Global Financial Crisis had put BlackRock on the map, establishing the firm’s dominance on the world stage and catapulting Larry Fink to the status of Wall Street royalty. With the 2020 Going Direct Reset, however, BlackRock had truly conquered the world. It was now dictating central bank interventions and then acting in every conceivable role and in direct violation of conflict-of-interest rules, acting as consultant and advisor, as manager, as buyer, as seller and as investor with both the Fed and the very banks, corporations, pension funds and other entities it was bailing out.
But yet again we are left with the same nagging questions: what is BlackRock seeking to do with this power? What is it capable of doing? And what are the aims of Fink and his fellow travelers?
Let’s find out.
Chapter 3: Aladdin’s Genie and the Future of the World
As you now know, BlackRock started out life as “Blackstone Financial Management” in the offices of The Blackstone Group in 1988. By 1992, it was already so successful that founder Larry Fink and Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman spun the company off as its own entity, christening it BlackRock in a deliberate attempt to sow confusion.
But it was in 1993 (or so the story goes) that arguably the most important of BlackRock’s market-controlling tools was forged. It was that year that Jody Kochansky, a fixed-income portfolio manager hired the year before, began to tire of his daily 6:30 AM task of comparing his entire portfolio to yesterday’s numbers.
The task, done by hand from paper printouts, was long and arduous. Kochansky had a better idea: “We said, let’s take this data, and rather than print it out, let’s sort it into a database, and have the computer compare the report today versus the report yesterday, across every position.”
It may seem obvious to us today, but in 1993 the idea of automating a task like this was a radical one. Nonetheless, it paid off. After seeing the utility of having an automated, daily, computer-generated report calculating the risk on every asset in a portfolio, Kochansky and his team hunkered down for a 72-hour code-writing exercise that resulted in Aladdin (short for “asset, liability, and debt and derivative investment network”), a proprietary investment analysis technology touted as “the operating system for BlackRock.”
Sold as a “central processing system for investment management,” the software is now the core of BlackRock Solutions, a BlackRock subsidiary that licenses Aladdin to corporate clients and institutional investors. Aladdin combines portfolio management and trading, compliance, operations and risk oversight in a single platform and is now used by over 200 institutions, including fund manager rivals Vanguard and State Street; half of the top ten insurers in the world; Big Tech giants like Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet; and numerous pension funds, including the world’s largest, the $1.5 trillion Japanese Government Pension Insurance Fund.
The numbers themselves tell the story of Aladdin.
It is used by 13,000 BlackRock employees and thousands of BlackRock customers.
It occupies three datacentres in the US, with BlackRock planning to open two more in Europe.
It runs thousands of Monte Carlo simulations—computational algorithms that model the probability of various outcomes in chaotic systems—every day on each one of the tens of millions of securities under its purview.
And, by February 2017, Aladdin was managing risk for $20 trillion worth of assets. That’s when BlackRock stopped reporting this figure, since—as the company told The Financial Times—”total assets do not reflect how clients use the system.” An anonymous source in the company had a different take: “[T]he figure is no longer disclosed because of the negative attention the enormous sums attracted.”
In this case, the phrase “enormous sums” almost fails to do justice to the truly mind-boggling wealth under the watchful eye of this computer system. As The Financial Times went on to report, the combination of the scores of new clients using Aladdin in recent years and the growth in the stock and bond markets in that time has meant that the total value of assets under the system’s management is much larger than the $20 trillion reported in 2017: “Today, $21.6tn sits on the platform from just a third of its 240 clients, according to public documents verified with the companies and first-hand accounts.”
For context, that figure—representing the assets of just one-third of BlackRock’s clientele—itself accounts for 10% of the value of all the stocks and bonds in the world.
But if the idea of this amount of the world’s assets being under the management of a single company’s proprietary computer software concerns you, BlackRock has a message for you: Relax! The official line is that Aladdin only calculates risk, it doesn’t tell asset managers what to buy or sell. Thus, even if there were a stray line of code or a wonky algorithm somewhere deep inside Aladdin’s programming getting its investment analysis catastrophically wrong, the final decision on any given investment would still come down to human judgment.
. . . Needless to say, that’s a lie. In 2017, BlackRock unveiled a project to replace underperforming human stockpickers with computer algorithms. Dubbed “Monarch,” the scheme saw billions of dollars of assets snatched from human control and given to an obscure arm of the BlackRock empire called Systematic Active Equities (SAE). BlackRock acquired SAE in the same 2009 deal that saw it snag iShares from Barclays Global Investor (BGI).
As we’ve already seen, the BGI deal was unbelievably lucrative for BlackRock, with iShares being purchased for $13.5 billion in 2009 and rising to a $1.9 trillion valuation in 2020. Testifying to BlackRock’s commitment to the machine-over-man Monarch project, Mark Wiseman, global head of active equities at BlackRock, told The Financial Times in 2018, “I firmly believe that, if we look back in five to 10 years from now, the thing that we most benefited from in the BGI acquisition is actually SAE.”
Even The New York Timeswas reporting at the time of the launch of the Monarch operation that Larry Fink had “cast his lot with the machines” and that BlackRock had “laid out an ambitious plan to consolidate a large number of actively managed mutual funds with peers that rely more on algorithms and models to pick stocks.”
“The democratization of information has made it much harder for active management,” Fink told The NY Times. “We have to change the ecosystem — that means relying more on big data, artificial intelligence, factors and models within quant and traditional investment strategies.”
Lest there be any doubt about BlackRock’s commitment to this anti-human agenda, the company doubled down in 2018 with the creation of AI Labs, which is “composed of researchers, data scientists, and engineers” and works to “develop methods to solve their hardest technical problems and advance the fields of finance and AI.”
The actual models that SAE uses to pick stocks is hidden behind walls of corporate secrecy, but we do know some details. We know, for instance, that SAE collects over 1,000 market signals on each stock under evaluation, including everything from the obvious statistics you would expect in any quantitative analysis of the equities markets—trading price, volume, price-earnings ratio, etc.—to the more exotic forms of data harvesting that are possible when complex learning algorithms are connected to the mind-boggling amounts of data now available on seemingly everyone and everything.
A Harvard MBA student catalogued some of these novel approaches to stock valuation undertaken by the SAE algorithms in a 2018 post on the subject.
One of the ways BlackRock is including machine learning in its investment process is by ‘signal combination’, in which a model mines data attempting to learn the relationships between stock returns and various quantitative data. For example, it would analyze web traffic through corporate’s websites as an indicator of future growth of the company or would look at geolocation data from smartphones to predict which retailers are more popular. In doing so, researchers must recalibrate and refine the model, to make sure it was adding value and not just rediscovering well known market behaviors already know [sic] by ‘fundamental’ fund managers.
Another important machine learning application came when it was combined with natural language processing. In this model, the technology learns in an adaptive way what are the words that can predict future performance of stocks. This model was used on analysis of broker reports and corporate filings, and the technology discovered that CEO’s remarks tend to be generally more positive, so then it started giving more importance to the comments of the CFO, or the Q&A portion of conference calls.
So, let’s recap. We know that BlackRock now manages well in excess of $21 trillion of assets with its Aladdin software, making a significant portion of the world’s wealth dependent on the calculations of an opaque, proprietary BlackRock “operating system.” And we know that Fink has “cast his lot in with the machines” and is increasingly devoted to finding ways to leverage so-called artificial intelligence, learning algorithms, and other state-of-the-art technologies to further remove humans from the investment loop.
But here’s the real question: what is BlackRock actually doing with its all-seeing eye of Aladdin and its SEA robo-stockpickers and its AI Labs? Where are Fink and the gang actually trying to take us with the latest and greatest in cutting-edge fintech wizardry?
Luckily, we don’t exactly need to scry the tea leaves to find our answer to that question. Larry Fink has been kind enough to write it down for us in black and white.
You see, every year since 2012, Fink has taken it upon himself as de facto ruler of the world’s wealth to pen an annual “letter to CEOs” laying out the next steps in his scheme for world domination.
. . . Errr, I mean, he writes the letter “as a fiduciary for our clients who entrust us to manage their assets – to highlight the themes that I believe are vital to driving durable long-term returns and to helping them reach their goals.”
Sometimes referred to as a “call to action” to corporate leaders, these letters from the man stewarding over a significant chunk of the world’s investable assets actually do change corporate behaviour. That this is so should be self-evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, which is precisely why it took a team of researchers months of painstaking study to publish a peer-reviewed paper concluding this blindingly obvious fact: “portfolio firms are responsive to BlackRock’s public engagement efforts.”
So, what is Larry Fink’s latest hobby horse, you ask? Why, the ESG scam, of course!
That’s right, Fink used his 2022 letter to harangue his captive audience of corporate chieftains about “The Power of Capitalism,” by which he means the power of capitalism to more perfectly control human behaviour in the name of “sustainability.”
Specifically:
It’s been two years since I wrote that climate risk is investment risk. And in that short period, we have seen a tectonic shift of capital. Sustainable investments have now reached $4 trillion. Actions and ambitions towards decarbonization have also increased. This is just the beginning – the tectonic shift towards sustainable investing is still accelerating. Whether it is capital being deployed into new ventures focused on energy innovation, or capital transferring from traditional indexes into more customized portfolios and products, we will see more money in motion.
Every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net zero world. The question is, will you lead, or will you be led?
Oooh, oooh, I want to lead, Larry! Pick me, pick me! . . . but please, tell me how I can lead my company into this Brave New Net Zero World Order.
Stakeholder capitalism is all about delivering long-term, durable returns for shareholders. And transparency around your company’s planning for a net zero world is an important element of that. But it’s just one of many disclosures we and other investors ask companies to make. As stewards of our clients’ capital, we ask businesses to demonstrate how they’re going to deliver on their responsibility to shareholders, including through sound environmental, social, and governance practices and policies.
Yes, to the surprise of absolutely no one, Larry Fink has signed BlackRock on to the multi-trillion-dollar scam that is “environmental, social, and governance practices and policies,” better known as ESG. For those who don’t know about ESG yet, they might want to get up to speed on the topic with my presentation earlier this year on “ESG and the Big Oil Conspiracy.” Or they can read the summary of the ESG scam by Iain Davis in his article on the globalization of the commons (aka the financialization of nature through so-called “natural asset corporations”):
A low ESG rating will deter investors, preventing a project or business venture from getting off the ground. A high ESG rating will see investors rush to put their money in projects that are backed by international agreements. In combination, financial initiatives like NACs and ESGs are converting SDGs into market regulations.
In other words, ESG is a set of phoney-baloney metrics that are being cooked up by globalist think tanks and would-be ruling councils (like the World Economic Forum) to serve as a type of social credit system for corporations. If corporations fail to toe the line when it comes to globalist policies of the moment—whether that’s committing to industry-destroying net zero (or even Absolute Zero) commitments or de-banking thought criminals or anything else that may be on the globalist checklist—their ESG rating will take a hit.
“So what?” you may ask. “What does an ESG rating have to do with the price of tea in China, and why would any CEO care?”
The “so what” here is that—as Fink signals in his latest letter—BlackRock will be putting ESG reporting and compliance in its basket of considerations when choosing which stocks and bonds to invest in and which ones to pass over.
And Fink is not alone. There are now 291 signatories to the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, an “international group of asset managers committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner.” They include BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and a slew of other companies collectively managing $66 trillion of assets.
In plain English, BlackRock and its fellow globalist investment firms are leveraging their power as asset managers to begin shaping the corporate world in their image and bending corporations to their will.
And, in case you were wondering, yes, this is tied into the AI agenda as well.
In 2020, BlackRock announced the launch of a new module to its automated Aladdin system: Aladdin Climate.
Aladdin Climate is the first software application to offer investors measures of both the physical risk of climate change and the transition risk to a low-carbon economy on portfolios with climate-adjusted security valuations and risk metrics. Using Aladdin Climate, investors can now analyze climate risk and opportunities at the security level and measure the impact of policy changes, technology, and energy supply on specific investments.
To get a sense of what a world directed by digital overlords at the behest of this ESG agenda might look like, we simply need turn to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. As Fink wrote in his letter to shareholders earlier this year:
Finally, a less discussed aspect of the war is its potential impact on accelerating digital currencies. The war will prompt countries to re-evaluate their currency dependencies. Even before the war, several governments were looking to play a more active role in digital currencies and define the regulatory frameworks under which they operate. The US central bank, for example, recently launched a study to examine the potential implications of a US digital dollar. A global digital payment system, thoughtfully designed, can enhance the settlement of international transactions while reducing the risk of money laundering and corruption. Digital currencies can also help bring down costs of cross-border payments, for example when expatriate workers send earnings back to their families. As we see increasing interest from our clients, BlackRock is studying digital currencies, stablecoins and the underlying technologies to understand how they can help us serve our clients.
The future of the world according to BlackRock is now coming fully into view. It is a world in which unaccountable computer learning algorithms automatically direct investments of the world’s largest institutions into the coffers of those who play ball with the demands of Fink and his fellow travellers. It is a world in which transactions will be increasingly digital, with every transaction being data mined for the financial benefit of the algorithmic overlords at BlackRock. And it is a world in which corporations that refuse to go along with the agenda will be ESG de-ranked into oblivion and individuals who present resistance will have their CBDC wallets shut off.
The transition of BlackRock from a mere investment firm into a financial, political and technological colossus that has the power to direct the course of human civilization is almost complete.
JAMES O’KEEFE: Meet Serge Varlay, a recruiter at BlackRock.
SERGE VARLAY: Let me tell you, it’s not who the president is. It’s who’s controlling the wallet of the president.
UNDERCOVER REPORTER: And who’s that?
VARLAY: The hedge funds, BlackRock, the banks. These guys run the world.
Campaign financing. Yup, you can buy your candidates. Obviously, we have this system in place. First, there’s the senators. These guys are f***ing cheap. You got 10 grand? You can buy a senator. “I could give you 500k right now, no questions asked, Are you gonna do what needs to be done?”
REPORTER: Does like, everybody do that? Does BlackRock do that?
VARLAY: Everyone does that. It doesn’t matter who wins. They’re in my pocket at this point.
As bleak as the exploration of this world-conquering juggernaut is, there is a ray of hope on the horizon: the public is at least finally becoming aware of the existence of BlackRock and its relative importance on the global financial stage. This is reflected in an increasing number of protests targeting BlackRock and its activities. For example:
Keen-eyed observers may note, however, that these protests are not against the BlackRock agenda I have laid out in this series. On the contrary. They are for that agenda. These protesters’ main gripe seems to be that Fink and BlackRock are engaged in greenwashing and that the mega-corporation is actually more interested in its bottom line than in saving Mother Earth.
Well, duh. Even BlackRock’s former Chief Investment Officer for Sustainable Investing wrote, after leaving the firm, an extensive, four-part whistleblowing exposé documenting how the “sustainable investing” push being touted by Fink is a scam from top to bottom.
My only gripe with this limited hangout critique of BlackRock is that it implies that Fink and his cohorts are merely interested in accumulating dollars. They’re not. They’re interested in turning their financial wealth into real-world power. Power they will wield in service of their own agenda and will cloak with a phoney green mantle because they believe—and not without reason—that that’s what the public wants.
Slightly closer to the point, you get nonprofit groups like Consumers’ Research “slamming” BlackRock for impoverishing the real economy for the benefit of itself and its clients. “You’d think a company that has made it their mission to enforce ESG (environmental, social and governance) standards on American businesses would apply those same standards to foreign investments, but BlackRock isn’t pushing its woke agenda on China or Russia,” Consumers’ Research Executive Director Will Hild explained earlier this year after the launch of an ad campaign targeting the investment giant.
But that critique, too, seems to miss the underlying point. Is Hild trying to say that if only Fink applied his economy-destroying standards equally across the board then he would be beyond reproach?
More hopefully, there are signs that the political class—always willing to jump out in front of a parade and pretend they’re leading it—are picking up on the growing public discontent with BlackRock and are beginning to cut ties with the firm.
In recent months, multiple US state governments have announced their intention to divest state funds from BlackRock, with 19 states’ attorneys general even signing a letter to Larry Fink in August calling him out on his agenda of social control:
BlackRock’s actions on a variety of governance objectives may violate multiple state laws. Mr. McCombe’s letter asserts compliance with our fiduciary laws because BlackRock has a private motivation that differs from its public commitments and statements. This is likely insufficient to satisfy state laws requiring a sole focus on financial return. Our states will not idly stand for our pensioners’ retirements to be sacrificed for BlackRock’s climate agenda. The time has come for BlackRock to come clean on whether it actually values our states’ most valuable stakeholders, our current and future retirees.
As part of this divestment push, the Louisiana state treasurer announced in October that the state was withdrawing $794 million in state funds from BlackRock, South Carolina’s state treasurer announced plans to divest $200 million from the company’s control by the end of the year, and Arkansas has already taken $125 million out of money market accounts under BlackRock’s management.
As I noted in my appearance on The Hrvoje Morić Show, regardless of the real motivations of these state governments, the fact that they feel compelled to take action against BlackRock is itself a hopeful sign. It means that the political class understands that an increasing portion of the public is aware of the BlackRock/ESG/corporate governance agenda and is opposed to it.
Once again, we arrive at the bottom line: the only thing that truly matters is public awareness of the issues involved in the rise of a financial (and political and technological) giant like BlackRock, and it is only general public opinion that can move the needle when it comes to removing the wealth (and thus the power) from a behemoth like the one that Fink has created.
But before we wrap up here, there’s one last point to be made.
You might remember that we opened this exploration by highlighting BlackRock’s position as one of the top institutional shareholders in Walmart:
And in Coca-Cola:
And in Moderna:
And in Exxon:
And in Amazon:
. . . and in seemingly every other company of significance on the global stage. Now, the fact checkers will tell you that this doesn’t actually matter because it’s the shareholders who actually own the stock, not BlackRock itself. But that raises a further question: who owns BlackRock?
Oh, of course.
Now, I realize this is a lot of information to take in at once. Go ahead and re-read this series once or twice. Follow some of the many links contained herein to better familiarize yourself with the material. Share these reports with others.
But if, after reading all of this you find yourself looking back over these “Top Institutional Holders” lists and saying: “Hey wait! Who’s The Vanguard Group?” . . .
. . . Well then, I’d say you’re starting to get it! Good job!
So who is the Vanguard Group? It’s an excellent question, and one that I’ll be answering in the next edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter! I hope you’re there for the answer!
***
NOTE: This documentary originally ran as a three-part series in The Corbett Report Subscriber Newsletter in November 2022. To stay up to date on the latest info, please become a Corbett Report member.
The Federal Reserve has a significant grip on the US economy, its political system and, by extension, the rest of the world.
Created by a banking cartel, it’s designed to serve the interests of the banking industry at the expense of the general population. A staggering 90% of the US money supply is essentially created out of thin air by private banks. These banks then loan this money and collect interest, essentially making profits from nothing. (This is known as fractional reserve banking.)
The US government borrows from these central banks, adding to the public debt, which is then shouldered by the citizens.
Plus, the government has no real control over the Federal Reserve, despite the appearance of regulation. The Federal Reserve Board and the heads of the Federal Reserve Banks are the ones who determine the economic policy of the US. These board members have strong ties to big banking and investment companies (such as Vanguard and BlackRock).
The Federal Reserve is a corrupt institution that facilitates war and mass slavery through inflation and theft.
The article claims that this system essentially robs society by inflating prices and reducing the purchasing power of existing dollars. It also discusses how a small number of companies, primarily banks and financial institutions, control a significant portion of global wealth. The article suggests that the death of the dollar could be imminent due to the exposure of these systems. It is obviously unfair that banks are given the monopoly privilege of creating money, which steals the purchasing power from everyone else in society.
Moreover, there are around 147 firms, primarily banks and financial institutions, that control about 40% of global wealth. (Vanguard and BlackRock alone control around $16.5 trillion.)
The ability to create money out of thin air has enabled banks to buy, consolidate, and weaponise the media and other industries,. This has led to a form of monopoly where a small number of companies control significant sectors.
What do burkas, tichels, yarmulkes, hijabs, kapps, fezzes, dukus, and surgical masks all have in common? Religious cultures mandate or strongly encourage these head coverings to comply with dogma. Although most of these are rooted in ethnic and religious traditions of any denomination to reflect humility before G-d and modesty before man, surgical masks have become the morality trend of the Western world for those who fear The Science before they fear any god.
As absurd as that last sentence may sound, the People of the United States are under siege–a war that is targeting our greatest claim to fame, our pride and joy: our freedom. Our Forefathers determined at the inception of this nation that all men have the inviolate right to life and liberty. Recognizing some freedoms that are indelible to the identity of a human are especially at risk of infringement, the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights to expressly protect freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to petition the government among other activities.
Yet over the last three years, our government has encroached on these unalienable freedoms in the name of public health and following The Science. The few government officials and bureaucrats sitting in D.C. and Georgia imposed their beliefs on what makes the public healthy on the masses, without regard for dissenting opinions or contrary beliefs. Such factional tyranny is exactly the breach of social contract the Framers aimed to prevent.
After initially telling the country that masks would not work against this virus, Anthony Fauci fell in step, ordering persons be masked and directing both government and non-government actors alike to hold their fellow citizens accountable for failing to mask. A futile exercise in the name of “public health” given research predating the pandemic had already put to bed the idea that masking could prevent respiratory infections. Even following the Cochrane Review’s pandemic masking study showing little-to-no efficacy at masks preventing infection, the Biden administration still tells the People we should be masking.
Beyond inefficacy, recent studies are also researching possible adverse consequences from constant mask-wearing, now termed “Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome.” The illness bears many of the same symptoms as “long covid,” begging the question: are the health risks of long-term masking worth the miniscule efficacy? I digress. Masking mandates began to die down when the CDC lost a legal battle where the court only addressed the agency’s statutory authority to impose such a mandate. The question of whether such mandates are constitutional at all was never reached. Despite the open question in the courts, I firmly believe mask mandates do not pass constitutional muster.
Recalling my extreme parallel of religious head coverings to surgical masks, compare this scenario: one day, the bureaucrats in Washington decide that for public health and decency, everyone must wear a burka. The land would cry, “Foul!” Non-muslim citizens would lose their minds that Sharia law was being imposed on them in violation of their First Amendment right to be free from the establishment of religion! Only the worshippers of the public health fascists would gladly adorn the dress as a testament to their true belief that the burka would save them from illness. I ask you, how is our current masking guidelines any different? Because masking is not a teaching from an institutionalized religion? Is trusting The Science not a form of having faith?
In truth, our courts have held time and time again that government actors cannot infringe on our clothing under both freedom-tenants of religion and speech. Our Constitution contracts our appointed government to respect and defend our human right to liberty, which includes our ability to express ourselves and beliefs through our clothing and appearances. After all, our appearance is all a part of our individual identities. Covering one’s face, one’s physical identity, must be a choice and not a requirement.
Moreover, our individual identities are not just linked to our physical attributes. Nay, our speech is also core to our humanity and identities. Speech is the expression of one’s soul, subjective based upon the speaker’s own perceptions and experiences. How I speak and what I say is part of how others (and I) recognize me as who I am!
Like any painting serves as a window into the artist’s being, so is speech into a person’s mind, heart, and soul. It is as complex as the human body that produces such words and sounds: the speaker’s larynx, vocal chords, pharynx, palate, tongue, teeth, cheeks, lips, and nose are all coordinating in harmony to make what we think in our minds come out of our mouths. Speech is as unique to each individual as a person’s fingerprints or DNA. Muffling a person’s voice, covering the delicate facets producing speech, hiding non-verbal facial cues, and restricting air flow via masks is not natural.
Masking inhibits self-expression. Even prior to physical masking, virtue-signalers touted policing one’s own speech as being “politically correct.” Policing and masking speech is toxic to both individuals and humankind. It evokes the same hesitancy as does domestic abuse–the feeling of “walking on eggshells” for fear your words will trigger and bring you harm. It further causes an identity crisis–a dissociation within oneself, wherein the mind is policing the heart and soul for fear of offending any listener (or observer). Both perpetuate the victimhood complex where one believes she cannot live without fear because others will not do “what they are supposed to do.”
It is true that internal perceptions expressed outwardly are not always correct or palatable. Such is the beauty of allowing one to convey his opinions and beliefs in his own words: the listener can understand the person with whom she is speaking and take the opportunity to debate and educate, correct her own misunderstanding, or completely discredit the speaker of value within her own mind. Speech is not just about speaking, but about hearing and deciding what one believes to be true. Speech of our own and listening to others’ speech helps us understand and develop our own identities.
It is not that constant expletives and hyperboles should become the norm of self-expression through speech. No, language itself is so vastly malleable that it can be morphed to rise to any situation–to connect with one’s listeners. For instance, there are different ages of communication. You would not use the same words with a child as you would with adults, unless your intention is to be misunderstood or completely unintelligible like the unseen adult characters of Charlie Brown. To be understood by your listeners, you must change your speech to be appropriate for the venue and target audience.
How is any of this relevant to the topic of mask mandates eroding freedom? Requiring people to cover the face and bodily member responsible for speaking and being heard and understood is inhumane. It strips children of their ability to learn how to speak, how to use their body to produce sounds and words and sentences, and how to connect those words to facial expressions to add context for listeners. It socially distances people from each other, deteriorating the human connection that allows us to communicate and understand each other.
There is no replacement for that connection. As I discussed in a prior article, humans are a social species. Although we are capable as individuals, we fail to thrive when deprived of interacting with others. During lockdowns, people yearned to visit family, go out to restaurants, to resume “normalcy.” Zoom meetings, video calls, and text messages were not enough to curb the cravings for human connection.
Masking is just another degree of separation from one another. Although it is less obvious than the isolation of quarantines, it is just another lonely reminder that we are not free. Not free to be ourselves, not free to connect, not free from fear, not free to breathe, not free to decide for ourselves what is in our own best interest. Even President Biden joked during a recent press conference that, “they keep telling me… I got to keep wearing [a mask], but don’t tell them I didn’t have it on when I walked in,” defiantly waving his surgical mask away from his face.
Who are “they” to decide what is in any individual’s best interest? Are we children and “they” our parents? Do we lack the mental capacity to think for ourselves? Are we not developed and educated enough to decide what is healthy and what is not? Are our God-given immune systems so defective that we can no longer survive colds? I find it a hard blue pill to swallow that humanity has survived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years for a coronavirus variant to suddenly confound our natural biological defenses.
Who are “they” at all? “They” are not our duly-elected legislators who oathed to uphold and defend our Constitution and who are the only branch of government who the People gave authority to create laws. In fact, Senator JD Vance (R-OH) is now fighting this usurpation of legislative authority by “them.” On September 7, 2023, he brought to the Senate floor the “Freedom to Breathe” Act, which would prohibit mask mandates. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) objected to the call for unanimous consent, arguing that this legislation would infringe on the health powers of the states.
An interesting and seemingly Constitution-based argument by Senator Markey, but it presupposes masking mandates on the public are a health-related decision at all, which is not supported by scientific evidence, and that such mandates are not otherwise constitutionally prohibited.
Though the People granted health powers to the states, those powers are still limited by the People’s ultimate right to life and liberty, including the free exercise of religion without a state-sanctioned religion (The Science) and free speech without intrusions on the speech-producing orifice or physical identity of the speaker.
Masking restrictions are not a “health power” the state governments are permitted to enforce. Masking mandates are not a public health measure the federal government is permitted to sanction. Both impede life and liberty guaranteed to the People by being human and safeguarded by the People through enforcing our Constitution. As such, the People will not comply.
The parents of 62-day-old Sawyer learned their baby’s blood contained 95 micrograms per liter of aluminum, a level that would be toxic for adults. The toxicologist who read Sawyer’s report said the aluminum and antigen levels in the blood were due to the vaccines.
A Maine couple last week finally got the answers they’d been seeking for nearly a year, ever since their 62-day-old son, Sawyer, died Oct. 28, 2022 — 34 hours after receiving his scheduled childhood vaccines.
According to a toxicology report, Sawyer’s blood contained 95 micrograms per liter of aluminum, a level that would be toxic for adults.
A toxicologist told the couple the aluminum and antigen levels in the blood were due to the vaccines. She also said a viral infection Sawyer was being treated for could have been a contributing factor.
Sawyer’s parents, Melissa — a registered nurse — and her fiancé Nick shared their story last week with journalist Jennifer Margulis.
In an interview this week with The Defender, the couple detailed their search for truth, beginning with how Maine’s medical examiner refused repeated requests to perform lab tests that might have shown the culpability of the vaccines — and instead initially ruled Sawyer’s death “asphyxiation due to inappropriate sleep position and environment.”
The story of baby Sawyer
On Oct. 20, 2022, Melissa took Sawyer to a doctor for a persistent rash around his torso. The doctor diagnosed a viral infection, gave Melissa some medicinal cream and told her to monitor Sawyer’s temperature for possible fever.
Exactly one week later, Melissa went to the same pediatrician for a baby wellness checkup, where the doctor insisted Sawyer, despite Melissa’s reservations and the baby still having a rash, receive the scheduled childhood vaccines.
These included: RotaTeq (for rotavirus), Hib (for Haemophilus influenzae b), Prevnar 13 (for 13 types of pneumococcal bacteria) and Pediarix (for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and polio).
Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, a pediatrician, told The Defender, “I don’t know of any official warnings against vaccinating sick children,” but “there are no upsides to vaccinating a sick child. There are only downsides.” He added, “And, there are no upsides to vaccinating any child.”
Melissa told The Defender that, despite her medical training, she became skeptical of vaccines just two days prior when she watched a video of a toxicologist talking about the dangers of vaccines for children. She discussed the upcoming vaccinations with her fiancé, and they decided to go ahead with them.
“We were afraid that the medical system was going to judge him and judge us and not let him into school,” Nick said. “We just hadn’t done any research on it.”
Nick has two daughters from a previous marriage, ages 11 and 19, who received all of their childhood vaccines “and nothing ever happened,” he said.
After the doctor’s visit, Sawyer arrived home screaming and Melissa gave him the baby Tylenol recommended by the doctor.
By the next day, the baby had calmed somewhat but was still acting “fussy and uncomfortable,” so Melissa gave him more Tylenol and some expressed breastmilk.
When Nick got home from work that day, they put Sawyer into his bassinet for a nap around 5:30. By 6:15 the baby was fussing, and with some help was able to get back to sleep. He slept off and on for another four hours, while his parents kept tabs on him via his baby monitor and visits to his room.
The last time Melissa checked on Sawyer, he wasn’t moving or breathing. She picked up his limp and lifeless body and started screaming. Nick rushed in to help but it was already too late.
Emergency medical technicians arrived after the couple called 911. They tried but were unable to revive Sawyer.
The county and state police also responded and, because it was an infant death, opened a formal investigation and ordered an autopsy.
Chief Medical Examiner Mark Flomenbaum performed the autopsy the next day. Although he found Sawyer to be “well developed” and without signs of injury or bruising, Flomenbaum filed a death certificate citing asphyxiation due to a “sub-optimal sleeping environment” — essentially blaming the parents.
“It was near Christmas when we got the autopsy results,” Melissa told The Defender. “We read them on Christmas Eve. … We did nothing for the entire weekend.”
Asked if they ever learned what the medical examiner saw to make his determination, they said no. “The only thing in his basket was the blanket he was laying on.”
The police looked for evidence of child abuse or alcoholism, but quickly concluded it was an accidental death.
Melissa, grief-stricken, told everyone she could to investigate the possible role of vaccines in Sawyer’s death.
She first called the medical examiner to see if he would do testing to determine if sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) was responsible, but was told there was no need “because it wouldn’t show the cause of his passing,” she recalled being told.
The hunt for answers
That’s when the couple’s hunt for answers began. “I was looking up people on the internet, on social media. I was calling any number I could find,” Melisssa said.
Finally, she discovered a suite of pathology tests that could determine whether vaccines played a role in Sawyer’s death.
The tests measure C-reactive protein (indicating brain inflammation), liver enzymes, aluminum and mercury in brain and blood tissue, formaldehyde and formalin (another name for formaldehyde). A cytokine panel would also identify various blood factors and vaccine titer levels.
Melissa mailed and emailed Flomenbaum’s office to formally request the full battery of tests. The doctor refused, dismissing her concerns and telling her that heavy metals do not cause SIDS.
“They gave me a reason why each test didn’t need to be done,” she said.
Further emails to the state medical examiner’s office, from both parents, have been bouncing back as “undeliverable” since.
A friend of Melissa’s told her about Health Choice Maine, a statewide nonprofit working to protect health freedom and parental rights. There she met Tiffany Kreck, Health Choice Maine’s executive director, who helped Melissa organize her own investigation.
“Families being bullied by a doctor or threatened with CPS [child protective services] or whatever, can reach out, and we will, to the best of our ability, help them navigate it,” Kreck told The Defender.
Melissa said Tiffany gave her a list of things they had to do, “like getting reports and billing information, people to contact, and that’s what I did.”
Their primary goal was to find a competent pathologist to perform the lab tests Melissa had requested. They searched the entire country — even enlisting the help of Laura Bono, vice president of Children’s Health Defense, Kreck told The Defender — but came up empty.
Kreck told Melissa they would not be mentioning anything about vaccines to the prospective pathologists, so they would be less likely to reject the request.
The biggest obstacle was finding a doctor who was willing to order the tests.
Her ob-gyn told her that it was “out of his scope of practice.”
She called her primary care physician and told him she thought the vaccines had played a role in her son’s death “and he denied it,” she said. Her pediatrician also said no.
The toxicology report and next steps
Finally, they found someone in-state who, responding to Melissa’s grief, agreed to perform the tests on June 21. Although some of Sawyer’s tissue samples had degraded, the pathologist was able to perform enough tests to issue a definitive report last month.
The report was technical and was not accompanied by any guidance or recommendations.
Melissa said, “They never called me and said, ‘Oh, listen, this is high. This could be due to his vaccines. We will do a VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] report, you know, and advocate for other infants that pass away.’ No, we didn’t get anything from them.”
So they had to hire a private toxicologist who could interpret the report. That second report arrived last week.
“And she was the one that called us the other day and told us that his aluminum levels were very high,” Melissa said, “and that we needed to seek some legal services.”
The report showed baby Sawyer had 95 micrograms of aluminum per liter of blood, a level that would be toxic for adults. The toxicologist told the couple the aluminum and antigen levels in the blood were due to the vaccines. She also said the baby’s illness could have been a contributing factor.
Kreck told Margulis, “This additional pathology report shows how much are medical examiners don’t know because they won’t look.”
The report also showed high levels of lead, which would not be due to vaccines, the toxicologist said, and asked about lead levels in their house or water. But given that the baby had only consumed breastmilk and was not yet old enough to crawl around on the floor, the question remains open.
After receiving the confirmation about the aluminum, the couple felt “exonerated” from the implication they were responsible for Sawyer dying from asphyxiation, “but we also still feel like we failed our baby,” Melissa told The Defender.
“Me being a nurse,” she said, “I felt like I failed him both as a nurse and a mother.”
Nick added, “From the father’s standpoint, you’re supposed to protect your family, and I failed at that. It weighs on me every second of the day.”
Melissa and Nick are planning to file a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). She said she still feels skeptical “because I know how the government and the medical system are.”
Kreck is helping the couple prepare for the VICP meeting. “We are doing every test that we can possibly do and trying to cross all of our t’s and dot all of our i’s before we go into the VICP,” Kreck said, “which is historically difficult and harsh on what they perceive to be SIDS cases.”
A couple told The Defender they got help reporting the case to VAERS last November, but have never received any follow-up. They did, however, confirm that Sawyer’s case was in the database.
Health Choice Maine is also exploring options for a lawsuit challenging the finding on the state medical examiner’s death certificate.
Dealing with the grief
Just three months after the ordeal, a therapist told Melissa, who was still grieving for her child and searching for answers, that she had an “adjustment disorder.”
“She was pretty much telling me that I was not adjusting to losing my son quick enough, and recommended trauma therapy,” Melissa said.
She left the office crying, wondering if something was wrong with her or not being able to let go of her grief. “I haven’t had good luck with therapists,” she told The Defender.
“I’ve been going through this all on my own, trying to go through reports and all the information about my baby’s life and his medical records. And I’m doing all this while trying to grieve the loss of him and it is horrifically painful,” she said. “It’s something no parent should ever have to go through.”
One therapist told Melissa to take mood stabilizers and anti-depressants. “The mental health care system has not been very helpful in this at all,” Nicked added.
Nick found that going back to work and keeping busy was the most therapeutic approach for him. “Just keeping my mind focused on other stuff, you know, while carrying all that around,” he said.
Nick has joined Melissa in several of her therapy sessions, which he found very helpful.
The couple found a grief support group called Empty Arms for parents who have lost a child, which has been “amazing,” Melissa said. The group does a butterfly release for the deceased on Memorial Day and an annual remembrance walk.
They have found support from family members as well, although Melissa said it has been hard to talk to her family about the vaccine connection.
The couple said the loss has brought them closer together. “I couldn’t keep going, fighting the fight we’re fighting right now, without her,” Nick said. “And you don’t realize how much you love someone and just how precious life is and what you have in front of you is.”
“Cherish it and love it, don’t let it go,” he said.
“We lost the biggest and best part of us both and if we didn’t stay together, I’d feel like I was losing another piece,” Melissa said.
The couple’s journey to warn others
“I just want to make other people aware and I want to put a stop to this,” Melissa said.
Melissa said she warns mothers of sick children to cancel their appointments for vaccines at least until the child has recovered. She added:
“Children do not need vaccines. And if they were to get them, they don’t need them until they’re at least two years old. The problem is, is they have a blood-brain barrier that has not closed up until they’re two years old or later.
“And if you get vaccinated before two years old, the aluminum can cross that blood-brain barrier. That’s why levels are so high and it stops respiration and causes cardiac arrest.”
Nick said, “I wouldn’t tell anybody ‘Don’t vaccinate your children.’ But I would definitely say ‘Do your research. Go to the end of the internet, make sure what you’re doing is right, that you know all the possible outcomes.’”
“Be more educated and be a strong advocate for your baby,” he added. “Because it’s your baby, not the doctor’s.”
Asked why more medical professionals don’t speak out, Melissa simply said “Career suicide.”
“I don’t even wanna be a nurse anymore,” she said. “Why would I want to be? But I have to pay my bills.”
“Doctors don’t have any better education on vaccines than most 10th graders,” she said. “Even as a nurse, we don’t get the education. We just got the schedule.”
She also said that medical examiners should have the right to test for vaccine injuries during the autopsy and identify them as a cause on the death certificate. “The vaccines are killing people and babies and they’re trying to cover it up,” she said.
While the couple said they found it helpful to share their story, they also admitted to wanting to keep a low profile. “It’s kind of a quiet subject for us because we’ve got to protect ourselves now,” Melissa said.
The couple is looking for a good support system. “We’re looking for people to stand behind us and support us as we go through this journey, for the next questionable amount of years, to get justice for our baby. It might drag on for a while,” Melissa said.
When asked about what gives them the strength to stand up and share their story, despite the backlash that such activism could invite, Melissa said:
“This is the only way that I feel like I can mother my baby anymore. And my baby deserves justice. And we deserve to know the truth.
“He is our reason for living right now. And he is our motivation.”
Questions about the state medical examiner
Kreck told The Defender that state medical examiner Flomenbaum came from Massachusetts where he had been fired as the state medical examiner. “It looks like he tried to sue them for wrongful termination and lost,” Kreck said.
Flomenbaum earned a national reputation as a top medical examiner through his work identifying bodies in New York City after the 9/11 attack in 2001, according to an article in the Portland Press Herald.
He was fired from his Massachusetts position for losing a body and having a backlog of bodies waiting to be examined.
In 2019, the Maine attorney general’s office investigated and later cleared Flomenbaum over criticism that he was running a side business as a consultant in out-of-state death cases.
The Press Herald article details more of Flomenbaum’s controversial history, which included a Connecticut prosecutor’s letter to then-Attorney General Jane Mills telling her that a judge had determined his testimony in a child manslaughter case was “not credible.”
Flomenbaum was reprimanded in 2021 by Maine Governor Mills for inappropriate and unprofessional behavior in the workplace, after which he announced he would not be seeking reassignment to the position.
“He was only supposed to have a month or so left of his term back then and he’s still in office now. That all sounds very odd and fishy,” Kreck said.
Melissa told The Defender that Flomenbaum had recently left the medical examiner’s office, putting the disposition of Sawyer’s remains in question.
The couple, with the aid of Health Choice Maine, is seeking to remove Sawyer’s blood and tissue samples from the medical examiner’s office.
Anyone with information about where a new location might be found to accommodate Sawyer’s remains is encouraged to email Tiffany Kreck at tiffany@healthchoicemaine.org.
_on_the_run,_Isfjorden,_Svalbard.jpg){kind=link}
