by Credit Repair News, Sebastian Pulvera on Friday 14 May 2021 02:00 AM UTC-05 | United States Credit Report Repair News. Top Stories to help consumers fix bad credit, gain higher credit score, remove bankruptcy, free annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. Free Credit Repair Counseling | (888) 502-1260 | | | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." ~ H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series While diplomacy may be thought of as a noble act, it rarely works, and even less so concerning any collective effort. In addition, it can never be achieved when dealing with any governing body. Diplomacy is meant for individuals in order to structure cooperation and calm in daily life, commerce, and society. Nation states can only attempt to be diplomatic if the people themselves fully agree with the terms. This is never the case. Diplomacy by representative proxy therefore, while seemingly possible, is not, as all individual parties must first agree, and continue to do so for any so-called intended diplomatic result to occur. Regardless, diplomacy is nothing more than concession, and therefore useless in any effort to accomplish anything of value. Concerning the current environment and tyrannical chaos evident, diplomacy is not only irrelevant; it is worthless. I am no diplomat, and no longer have sympathy for those that choose to remain blind in the face of this obvious and purposely planned and initiated totalitarian hell. The holes in this 'pandemic' fraud are large enough for trucks to drive through, so acceptance of the state's narrative is no longer valid in any way. At this point, all that matters is the truth, and an acceptance of that truth in order to be able to recognize reality. This in essence is the psychological basis for sanity, and the foundation of character. Gaining an understanding of this premise can only lead to a better life and confidence in making the right decisions. How much indisputable evidence and tyranny must be present before the herd is willing to not only listen to the truth, but also accept it? The requirements for this awakening can be harsh, but are necessary in order to survive unscathed. Avoidance of the truth leads to a dishonest response of diplomacy and compliance in order to "get along." This can only lead to widespread submission and an inability to face any challenge. This country's inhabitants are now consumed by ignorance due to long-term mass indoctrination, and have become unable to distinguish truth from lies, fact from fiction, and reality from fantasy. Because of this purposely-created phenomenon, honesty and courage have virtually disappeared, and have been replaced with cowardice and indifference. This has led to what might be described as gross intellectual obsolescence of the majority. It has been reported often that there are many people in this country that do not believe in masks or social distancing, or any of the other draconian and freedom robbing mandates that have been issued, but do them anyway in order to be respectful of others, or to show some pretended empathy or compassion. This is pure poppycock, and is a barefaced lie. If any of these people actually do not believe that what they are doing is right, but are doing it anyway, they are simply seeking an excuse for their cowardice. They do not want to buck their master nor do they desire to have any conflict, so they practice a form of false diplomacy. In other words, they do as they are told and pretend that they have some noble purpose. To consider the consequences of doing right in order to decide to go ahead or stand against wrong, then right has already been discarded in favor of submission. This is a pathetic response, and one that is prevalent in the majority of Americans today. The situation we are faced with is not only dire; it is life changing and could be life ending. Certainly all freedom is threatened, private property is being confiscated due to intentional economic destruction, medical tyranny is rampant, self-imprisonment has been mandated and will be again, poverty is widespread, poisonous injections and Communist Block type identification papers are required in some areas in order to work or travel, and hyper inflation has already begun. This is serious business, and this weak and apathetic populace has voluntarily accepted all of this totalitarian madness with little if any resistance. There is much talk about the necessity for Americans to wake up, but that has not happened. In light of the preponderance of evidence concerning the fraudulent nature of this so-called pandemic and "Great Reset," why has a mass awakening not occurred? It has not occurred because most of the people of this country are now happy with their slavery, and are not willing to take any risk whatsoever to protect their own freedom. This is the current state of affairs, so what is to be done? No one has a right to force or attempt to force another to take any position whatsoever. In other words, you as an individual have no right to force your beliefs on others in society, regardless of the merits of your thinking. This means of course, that no other has any right to force you to do anything against your will as well. So what does this mean? It means that those of us willing to stand up against the controlling powers and the state should not bow to any authority or any individual or group attempting to harass, threaten, shame, or intimidate us in any way. Diplomacy be damned, as it is high time to quit attempting to sympathize with idiots. "I'm as mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore" is the position that seems most prudent as we enter this final stage of this takeover plot. Quit pretending that you are wearing a mask for the benefit of others. Quit allowing non-thinking, obnoxious drones from attacking you. Quit running away from those attempting to force their position on you. Quit going along to get along. Quit succumbing to pressure from others to do things you know are not in your best interest. Quit calculating every decision and move you make based on the consequences, and just do what you know to be the right thing. Live you own life your way without concern for those refusing to stand up against tyranny. "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once." ~ Albert Einstein The post Considering the 'Covid' Lie: This Is No time for Diplomacy, It Is a Time for Truth appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Dear Allan, Thank you so much for your help and info. I have read your book and it has helped me to not have to wear a mask in many situations and given me much needed confidence. I have two children that I kept out of school this year and would like to send them back to school in the fall. I’m pretty upset with the school because initially this year they said that the kids only had to wear masks when they were dropped off in the morning and when being picked up. I recently received a school newsletter and noticed in the pictures that they had kids with masks on in the gym. Not even on their mouth but on their chins which in itself is ridiculousness. This is a private Christian school. I am waiting to see how things progress with the masks through the next couple months. Do you have any tips to help me with this? I was thinking I can try religious exemptions and also our state mandate in NC that if a child does not want to wear a mask they don’t have to and are exempt. I can use that line to try and fight it. Is there any thing else that you can think of that will help me to try and get them exempt from the school’s policy? Kind regards, A Concerned Parent — The best way to accomplish this is having a good friendly relationship with the principal and any other members of the decision making body. Someone in that school makes decisions and allows room for exemptions and that's a great person or people to spend a few hours a month getting to know better. Invite them over for your award winning chili or your wife's famous chicken paprikash. Let them get to know you as humans. Don't do this just because you want something from them, but do this because this is the right way to treat people who play a pronounced role in your life and the lives of your family members. A Gift Of 2020 — An Urgent Return To Basic Principles Of Human Decency A gift of 2020 has been to highlight how important human decency is in our own lives and in the world around us. Face masks aren't a problem because of laws. Face masks are really a problem because of human decency. One-size-fits-all medical approaches have no place in the life of an individual human and certainly not foisted upon us by force or threat of force. If we, as a society, can step away from this over-reliance on government, that would be helpful for us to put things into perspective. Around the time of the American Revolution, numerous documents point to the only justification for a government being the preservation of freedom. Freedom is another term for human decency. Those who recognize this are more able to lead us away from a perverted use of government and toward the fundamental reasons that any laws exists: to promote that human freedom, that human decency. Freedom is natural to us. It is part of our humanness. The law only is legitimate in so far as it recognizes and operates for the purpose of upholding that. No further. The law exists for man and not man for the law. If we cannot return to those basic principles, the greatest pain will be visited upon us as we try to make sense of where we are going and why we are going there. The blind must not be allowed to lead the blind. Those with vision must stand up and lead. Beware Of Some Of Your Masculine Tendencies At A Moment Like This The less-than-admirable, hired gun, political consultant Frank Luntz pointed out in his book Words that Work: men like war imagery in their political speeches. Women do not. You have suggested it is time to "fight" this. This reveals you as a man, in my mind, or at least a woman with masculine tendencies. There are things that need to be fought. There are threats that need to be clubbed with your cave man bludgeon or neutralized with your sabertooth dagger. I, like you, am ready to jump to protect my family and my tribe any time danger rears its head. This is how many political battles are waged. We call them "campaigns" for a reason. They are named for the military campaigns of the past, so named for open flat spaces in the Italian countryside and other places, related to the French word campagne, or Latin campania and campus, meaning field or open space. A region in Italy still bears a similar name. I understand this way of thinking very well. I have a warrior spirit in me and a great deal of courage, which I think also describes you and many readers of these pages. We are ready for the military battle, we are ready for the political battle, we are ready for the cultural battle, we are ready for the spiritual battle, bring on the next campaign. We must not let this powerful tool of ours be so relied on by us, though, that it becomes an impediment rather than an implement. Sometimes a bare knuckle fight is not the right approach. Your specific request of how to handle fave mask mandates or other one-size-fits-all health approaches in a private school is one such moment. I have one set of advice for a parent in a public school, which starts with "get started gently, then be ready to go to battle" and I have a different set for those with children attending private school "start out gently, use lots of finesse, keep everyone happy, and never go to battle." Why The Truly Feminine Is So Incredibly Important Right Now If you are like almost anyone in America over the last two or three generations, you have neglected the role of family and community in your life, and you have emphasized the roles of systems and outcomes in your life. By 2020, we've seen some serious flaws by thinking we can welcome computers to run the show in life, or even that we can welcome people to run the show whose only redeeming quality in life appears to be that they can talk to computers better than most other people can. Talking to computers pays well, but you are a fraction of a person if that is your redeeming quality. So much more is needed to be a complete man or a complete woman, and quite naturally, even more than that is needed if one is to lead. Women tend to have a natural ability to bond people. There are plenty of counter examples to that, and there is no lack of bonding that is initiated by men, but the formation of a hearth, a particularly feminine ability, and the formation of a community around a hearth is an important feminine quality that is so overlooked. Predictably, by letting this vital quality of community-building get dismissed as "oppression" and "mere homemaking," with hardly any resistance to such nonsensical claims by most men, a great schism in society has been caused, for the important role of the feminine has been to create bonds that last through the greatest turmoil and which no bureaucrat can possibly undo. This tendency is pointed to in so many ways. It is pointed to in Beowulf, through the language used to describe women. It is pointed out by speech communication researchers who note that the average woman speaks about three times as many words as the average man each day. Though it may no longer be a notable topic for her in the current political milieu, researcher Deborah Tannen once described men as communicating for the purpose of data transmission and women as communicating for the purpose of bonding. This dichotomy describes one detail that often leaves retired men suddenly very lonely, for their former data source (their job) has left their lives. They suddenly have nothing noteworthy to talk to anyone about and they, at some level, intimately realize that. Women handle this transition notably better, for it was never about the data for them, it was always about the relationship when they spoke words. Men may point to the fact that women seem to speak forever and say nothing. Well, that's true in some ways, especially from a masculine perspective. Many women may not necessarily be communicating hard facts at the heart of what they are saying, but they may be communicating something even more valuable for the survival of a family and also of a tribe: "I care about you and that is why we are speaking" or "I am interested in you and I want to spend this time engaging" or "I love you and I want to feel more closely bonded to you through our exchange of words." The masculine protects the tribe using blunt communication to provide information succinctly. The feminine protects the tribe by using communication to bond. These are not hard and fast boundaries, but useful and telling generalities. With Mother's Day this weekend, it's notable how disgraceful the treatment of mothers has been in popular culture for the last sixty years of American history. The feminist movement, and much of the thrust of modernity, was a dismissal of this vital role and its replacement with a lie: "Dear woman, just act more like a men and you will be happier, the men in your life will be happier, your children will be happier, it will be better for society, and also you'll simply feel more adequate." 2020 could not have happened without that SICK, TAWDRY, INSULTING lie being believed by so many, and especially by mothers. I denounce you if any part of you buys into such nonsense. Man and woman we were made. There are two different ones. The differentness is special. The Word Feminism Is A Lie The word feminism is a lie. It has nothing to do with the feminine. It is an insult of that which is feminine. If you honor humanity, no part of you should have anything to do with those toxic ideas. Uplift the mother for the queen she is. Uplift the wife for the queen she is. Uplift the feminine in her for the jewel to society that it is. This "be more like a man and you will be more adequate of a woman" style of thinking is sickness. So, dear man, as I write this to you, I want you to honor the warrior in you and also to recognize that your wife might need to take the lead on this mission, and to do that she needs to do away with her "be more like a man" style of brainwashing. She needs to lean into her feminine. She needs to lean into that part of her that builds families, that builds nations, that shapes worlds. That doesn't happen around the conference table. It happens around the kitchen table. It's not time to fight. It's time to relate. The Dopiness Of This Era & It's Connection To Money The dopiness of living life under the world reserve currency at the behest of the central bank under Keynesian and monetarist theories of money and credit have left so much of society utterly clueless on how irrelevant finance really is in life. For what will be a blink of the eye in history, we have perverted our way of thinking to allow us to see the conference table as so important, to allow us to see the boardroom as important, to allow us to see financiers and bankers and M&A attorneys and MBAs as vital. It's so goofy. The hearth has been the building block of all human cooperation for time immemorial. This era is so goofy that the hearth has literally been replaced by the conference table. This thinking is a contagion all around us. There's a plethora of industries created by the attempt to direct the money sloshing around the economy trying to eke out any return. It's an exciting game, but still a game as opposed to reality. The game is built upon and enabled by our deceitful and artificial monetary policy that cannot and will not last forever. How much we have squandered playing such stupid games, even going so far as giving our brightest minds to these games. Homes are destroyed so mom and dad can go out and play this game. Kids are raised to go play this game. Eventually it ends. When it ends, what is left under the surface? What is left but facade? What is left that will get you through the transition? What is left that is not either Decadence or its twin sister Decay? It starts around the proverbial hearth. There aren't many hearths in Silicon Valley. I've spent a fair amount of time there. There's a lot of bling. A lot of flash. A lot of people who know how to speak to a computer, but never figured out how to look a person in the eye or give a good handshake or to even the see the humanity in another. Get To Know People Better Government teaches us to use a bludgeon for everything we need. It's what government does. The bigger government grows, the more common it is for people to turn to the bludgeon of government, and ultimately to justify the bludgeon of government. That's a problem, because it creates a vicious circle, by which more people buying into this paradigm create more demand for government, thereby increasing the need to expand the size of government. As described above, rather than pushing and threatening, you are generally benefitted by taking that option off the table. Surely you can use government to push around a private school, and that's something you might save as a last resort, but if you psychologically remove even that as an option, you are significantly benefited in your dealings. I would consider that a most worthy attitude if you could take that off the table. Almost everything you need to accomplish in life can be done with this: get to know people better. That's it. Nothing else really needs to happen. All the rest of this writing is irrelevant if you can just do that. Almost all of my writing on face masks is a crutch to help people communicate more honestly and to ultimately just get to know people around them better. While women are busy trying to be more masculine, and men are busy trying to tone down their masculine — all in the name of the fraudulently termed "feminism" — we are left with an absence created by that missing feminine. It is the feminine that makes everything so worthwhile, that makes all the work and sacrifice worth it, yet it has been ripped out from society in so many quarters. And something the feminine is so good at, is simply getting to know people better. I Really Hope You'll Stop Reading This Essay Now I really hope most people will just stop reading right there and just work on this. The rest of the essay is so second rate compared to what's been written. Everything I have to say is so second rate compared to this. It's really all an attempt to get to this. This is the whole point: Be the man you were made to be. Be the woman you were made to be. Pair with a mighty man. Pair with woman of virtue. Build a hearth. Raise a family. Become the cornerstone of a community. Build institutions in your community that no sneeze can blow over, no pencil neck can shut down, no pale skinned, deluded man sitting around talking to computers can rend asunder, no matter how many billions of dollars of funny money Federal Reserve notes he has. Don't you understand how scared they are of you? Don't you understand how scared they are that you will just act on your human-ness and act on it with the authority placed in you if you will just accept it? Stop making it so hard on yourself. Now, I'll talk about more stupidities that work in the short term, but which really miss the whole point if the above is ignored. Just getting to know people better can go a long way. Use Your Wallet — A Useful, Peaceful Technique To Keep In Mind You already pay an arm and a leg for tuition. Well, you deserve your money's worth. Approach it from that perspective. Let the decision maker know you pay a pretty penny to go there and the individualized treatment of your children is one reason you and your wife chose private Christian school over the cesspool government indoctrination camp across town. Right there in the first chapter of Genesis, we have this fundamentally important linchpin of Western Civilization: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." If the principal or other decision maker doesn't relent, be ready to make a donation to the school. I'm not joking. If you ask me, the kids should be at home getting taught by you. They probably get 80% of the government indoctrination where they are. If the extra time to yourself is worth it to you, please shell out the extra money. If the health of the student body is so important, these masks are not a real solution for that. Offer to help raise money for a new fitness center to really do the job of keeping students healthy, thereby allowing masks to be optional or done away with. Offer to not only help raise money, but to also write the first check. Pragmatic principals can be quite receptive to parents willing to help invest in the school, in exchange for a higher level of specialized service for their child. Some surprisingly dimwitted offspring have gotten through school by parents using that technique. Though the ethics of giving money to get a dimwitted kid matriculated is questionable, delivered properly, there should be no hesitation around helping the principal feel empowered to encourage unrestricted breathing. This Works At EVERY School Start to surround yourself increasingly with parents from that school by attending events where they are likely to be, by specifically seeking them out, or by hosting events. Every time you run into a parent, or have occasion to talk to them, ask them what they think of mask mandates on children. Find one who agrees with you. Meet regularly. Find a second who agrees with you. Make sure you all meet regularly. Never let them out of sight without exchanging numbers. A friendly "How do I keep in touch with you?" can be very useful if you are at a loss for what to say in order to ask a compatriot for a phone number. Even at a small school, across all the grades, you might find 50 parents who agree with you. You may have been the one annoying dad before who eats up an hour of the principal's time every time there is a difference of opinion between you and the principal. Suddenly you become the annoying dad with 50 friends who eat up 10, 20, or 50 hours of time every time the principal and the dad have a difference of opinion. That only has to happen once before the principal quickly realizes that it's not worth it to have a difference of opinion with you. It just makes more sense for the principal to make sure you guys see eye-to-eye. If you go this route keep it really helpful and supportive. Don't get antagonistic. It's not a fight. It's you trying to help them provide an even better atmosphere for your child in the midst of all the pressures the administration has to face. Please share this article with someone you know in this situation or a similar situation. Wearing the face mask or letting your children wear a face mask is an immoral and harmful reinforcing of a lie. If you need pointers on how to never wear one again, have a look at Allan Stevo's best selling "Face Masks in One Lesson," his LewRockwell.com writing, or his videos and classes by signing up for his email newsletter at RealStevo.com. At a time like this, you are the only thing protecting your kids from the abyss. You can do this, and your kids need you to stand up and do this. The post Kids Shouldn't Be in Face Masks Ever — How To Keep Them Unmasked, Even at a Private School appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 "What's unfolding before our eyes is a very specific type of coup called the `Color Revolution'." So said former Trump aide Darren Beattie, speaking on the Tucker Carlson show, September 15, 2020. Most people felt something was fishy about the upcoming election. But it was hard to say what. Beattie gave a name to the problem. He called it "color revolution." He defined color revolution as "a regime change model favored by many in our national security apparatus." It uses "an engineered, contested-elections scenario" to disrupt and override legitimate elections, Beattie explained. America had been using this technique for decades to overthrow regimes overseas. Now a similar operation was being planned against President Trump, Beattie charged. His warning proved prophetic. Americans may disagree on whether we experienced a Biden "coup" or a Trump "insurrection," but most would agree that the events of November 3, 2020 to January 6, 2021 don't seem to qualify as a normal "election." Beattie Accuses "Atlanticists" When Beattie warned of "color revolution," he broke a fearsome taboo. The last person who tried to expose color revolutions on national TV was Glenn Beck in 2010.[1] Fox News cancelled Beck's show soon after. Now Beattie had taken up the torch. But he went farther. While Beck blamed George Soros for funding color revolutions, Beattie accused the U.S. government itself, specifically our "national security apparatus." Beattie pointed, in particular, to a cabal of foreign policy operatives known as "Atlanticists." Atlanticist is diplomatic jargon for a person who puts British interests over American ones. British Front Groups In my last article, "How the British Sold Globalism to America," I explained how British influence networks exert "soft power" in Washington, operating through front groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The primary mission of these British fronts is to push Atlanticism — the notion that America must always come to Britain's rescue when she embroils herself in wars. Prior to going on Tucker Carlson's show, Beattie had written a series of articles on the Revolver News site, which he edits. Beattie's series had exposed a snakepit of U.S. NGOs established and funded by the U.S. government, whose mission is to subvert elections and topple governments around the world, under the guise of "promoting democracy." Their weapon of choice is color revolution. Beattie referred to these groups as "Atlanticist NGOs." Frankenstein's Monster According to Beattie, these "Atlanticist networks" (again, Beattie's words) include such groups as the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group, The German Marshall Fund, The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its two daughter groups, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Beattie revealed that the same "color revolution professionals" who run these "Atlanticist-aligned" NGOs (as Beattie called them) can also be found playing leading roles in the anti-Trump "Resistance." In effect, Beattie was claiming that America had created its own Frankenstein's monster. The very weapons we had deployed to subvert other countries's elections were now being turned against us, to undermine our 2020 election. Who had done this? Who had the power to commandeer America's "democracy-promotion" NGOs and turn them against their own master, the U.S. government? Who were these "Atlanticists" whom Beattie accused? The Great Game The Oxford English Dictionary defines "Atlanticism" as "A policy or principle of close military, economic, and political cooperation between Europe and North America, or a European and North American country; spec. support for or advocacy of NATO." That definition may be true, but it is also misleading. It misses the point that the true purpose of Atlanticism is to consolidate the military alliance between the US and UK. The 1941 Atlantic Charter, which sets forth the guiding principles of Atlanticism, is an agreement between two countries, Great Britain and the United States. All other countries are simply pawns in the great game. NATO (sometimes called the "Atlantic Alliance") is the enforcement mechanism of the Atlanticist order. NATO's first secretary general Lord Hastings Ismay famously explained that NATO's purpose is, "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down." In 1944, when Charles de Gaulle objected to U.S. meddling in French affairs, Winston Churchill slapped him down with these words: "If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea. Every time I have to decide between you and Roosevelt, I will always choose Roosevelt." With those words, Churchill reminded De Gaulle that France's place in the so-called "Atlantic Community" was a minor one at best. British Propaganda The expression "Atlantic Community" was coined by American journalist Walter Lippmann in 1917. Like so many U.S. journalists at the time, Lippmann worked under the shadow of British handlers, especially one Norman Angell, a British Fabian who had somehow become an "unofficial member" of the editorial board of Lippmann's magazine, The New Republic. Angell had come over in 1915 on a grant from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Founded in 1910 by the Scottish-born steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, the Endowment pushed an Anglophile agenda which called for an end to U.S. "isolation" and U.S. support for Britain's war against Germany. Carnegie was an outspoken advocate of "British-American union," i.e. the merging of the US and UK in a global, English-speaking federation. Under Angell's influence, The New Republic moved from a neutral stance toward open support for Great Britain in the war. An English-Speaking "Nucleus of Power" Lippmann is widely hailed as the inventor of Atlanticism. On February 17, 1917, he wrote an article for The New Republic, titled "In Defense of the Atlantic World." It was an open call for war. Lippmann argued that America must stand with the "Western world" against the barbarous hordes of the East. He wrote: "[Germany's] war against Britain, France, and Belgium is a war against the civilization of which we are a part. … Because on the two shores of the Atlantic Ocean there has grown up a profound web of interest which joins together the Western world. … We cannot betray the Atlantic community…" Lippmann's article supposedly kicked off the Atlanticist movement. In reality, Lippmann was merely repeating shopworn British propaganda lines, which had long portrayed the British Empire as the West's final bulwark against Eastern barbarism. Sir Norman Angell later clarified the true meaning of Atlanticism when he wrote that any world government must be led by a "nucleus of authority" — specifically by "the West" — which in turn must be led by "the English-speaking world." The Round Table Agenda As explained in my earlier articles, "How the British Invented Globalism," and "How the British Sold Globalism to America," British leaders at the turn of the 20th century recognized that England could no longer afford to police its global empire. They formed a plan to transfer the cost of empire to the United States. The plan was for the Americans to police the world, at their own expense, while Britain would call the shots, retaining control of imperial policy. That is Atlanticism, in a nutshell. A secretive group called the Round Table was formed, partly with funds from the Rhodes Trust, to put this plan into action. From roughly 1909 to 1945, the Round Table gradually drew the United States into a web of interdependency with Britain. This was done, first, by establishing The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1921, to exercise backchannel control over U.S. foreign policy. Secondly, transnational entities were established, such as the UN, NATO and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, which further bound the U.S. to Britain's fate. By these means, the British ensured U.S. support for any future military operations they might wish to undertake. Having secured U.S. cooperation, the next step was decolonization — granting self-rule to Britain's colonies, so England would no longer bear the burden of policing and defending them herself. The Switch to "Informal Empire" One of the great myths of our time is the supposed "fall" or disintegration of the British Empire. No such thing ever happened. Decolonization was already planned well before World War I. The only thing holding up the plan was the need to subdue Germany and secure permanent U.S. military support for the new global order. These goals were achieved in 1945, with the partition of Germany and America's entry into the UN. Between 1946 and 1980, Britain granted self-rule to most of its colonies, but only slowly, one by one, and under certain conditions. Before granting independence to any colony, the British would install local rulers willing to honor past business arrangements. Those who played ball were rewarded. Those who made trouble were removed. Britain thus switched from “direct” to “indirect” rule, from “formal” to “informal” empire. To put it in Marxist terms, Britain switched from a colonial empire to a "neocolonial" one. "Passive Resistance" To maintain the new system, Britain needed quieter, more discreet, methods for removing rebellious vassals. One such method turned out to be color revolution. British studies of “passive resistance” and “non-obedience” began as early as World War 1, when philosopher Bertrand Russell proposed that invading armies could be defeated without firing a shot, if civilians refused to comply with the occupiers. Russell's ideas influenced British military planners such as Basil Liddell Hart and Stephen King-Hall, who incorporated nonviolent resistance into Britain's growing arsenal of psychological weapons. Decolonizing Africa On February 3, 1960, British PM Harold Macmillan spoke before the South African Parliament. “The wind of change is blowing,” he said, and Britain must blow with it, by liberating its African colonies. The British insisted that other European powers follow their example. Britain didn't want its newly liberated colonies to be swallowed up by rival Europeans. Portugal refused to cooperate. The Portuguese declared they would fight to the death to hold onto Angola, Mozambique, and their other African possessions. The Carnation Revolution Portuguese dictator Antonio Salazar died in 1970, but his Estado Novo regime lived on, continuing its long-running colonial wars against African insurgents. On April 25, 1974, Portuguese Prime Minister Marcelo Caetano was suddenly overthrown in a “soft” military coup. It became known as the "Carnation Revolution," because demonstrators put carnations in the muzzles of soldier’s guns. The Carnation Revolution is the first example I know of a full-fledged “color revolution.” Britain denies taking part in the coup, but the signs of British psywar are evident. Prior to the coup, only days before Caetano was supposed to visit London, The Times reported a massacre of 400 people by Portuguese special forces in Mozambique. British Prime Minister Harold Wilson demanded that Caetano cancel his visit, accusing him of "genocide" and calling for Portugal's expulsion from NATO. By this means, Britain undermined support for Caetano, at a time when the future coup leaders were already issuing threats and demands. After the coup, Britain quickly recognized the new leftwing junta and offered guidance on how to dismantle Portugal's African empire. Gene Sharp, Psywar Operative Today’s activists revere Gene Sharp, an American pacifist, as the father of “strategic non-violence.” Sharp wrote the standard “playbook” for color revolution, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973). What the activists don’t realize is that Sharp was a psywar operative, with strong ties to both U.S. and British intelligence. Sharp spent 30 years at the Center for International Affairs, nicknamed the "CIA at Harvard." More importantly, Sharp spent 10 years in England (1955 to 1965), working with the British peace movement and earning a Ph.D. from Oxford. Sharp’s iconic work, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, was, in fact, his Oxford doctoral thesis. "Swarming Adolescents" In 1967, Australian psychologist Fred Emery, then director of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (TIHR) in London, predicted that “swarming adolescents” would soon be harnessed as a political weapon, capable of toppling governments by the 1990s. He was right. In 1989, a wave of non-violent uprisings swept the Soviet Bloc, toppling Communist regimes. The Czech uprising was nicknamed the “Velvet Revolution,” a term that later came to be used interchangeably with “color revolution.” The “velvet revolutions” of 1989 were largely orchestrated by Western governments, working through front groups. "Democracy Promotion" The Western front groups that helped bring down the Soviet Empire are, in many cases, the same "Atlanticist NGOs" whom Darren Beattie accused. In the NGO world, they are known as "pro-democracy," "democracy-building" or "democracy-promotion" groups. Promoting "democracy" has been a core agenda of the Atlanticists since Woodrow Wilson declared that America must fight to "make the world safe for democracy." Obviously, there are times when fighting for "democracy" is the right thing to do. The fall of the Soviet Union was undoubtedly good for the captured nations of Eastern Europe. Yet, all too often, cries of "democracy" and "freedom" have been used to enlist naïve young people into unsavory endeavors, such as the destabilization of Donald Trump's presidency. The Freedom House Model Most historians agree that the first "democracy-promotion" NGO was Freedom House, founded on October 31, 1941, in Washington DC. From its inception, Freedom House was a British intelligence front. Its original purpose was to fight "isolationism" and push for America's entry into World War II. In April, 1940, Winston Churchill created a special intelligence unit called British Security Coordination (BSC), to carry out covert operations against the U.S. antiwar movement. With the full cooperation of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, BSC set up offices in Rockefeller Center, under the command of Canadian intelligence operative William Stephenson, code-named Intrepid. Freedom House was formed by the merger of two pro-war organizations, Fight for Freedom (FFF) and The Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies (CDAAA). Both were BSC fronts, according to Thomas E. Mahl's Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-1944. The National Endowment for Democracy On November 17, 1983, the U.S. Congress authorized funding for a new entity called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a public-private entity which would receive U.S. government funding. NED's purpose was to serve as an umbrella group for a network of democracy-promotion NGOs, including two daughter groups which would eventually become known as the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). That same year, Gene Sharp, the British-trained psywar operative who had ostensibly invented color revolutions, formed a group of his own, the Albert Einstein Institution in Boston. All the above groups had two things in common. First, they all followed Gene Sharp's "playbook" for color revolution. Second, they all helped the U.S. government fund and organize color revolutions in other countries, for the ostensible purpose of promoting democracy. According to Darren Beattie, all of these groups took part in the destabilization and dubious termination of Trump's presidency. Cui Bono? It remains to be seen whether Beattie's accusations stand the test of time. One thing is certain, though. The British government is extremely pleased by Trump's ouster. On February 4, 2020, while Trump's second impeachment trial was in progress, the Royal Institute of International Affairs — also known as Chatham House — declared on its website that, "The Trial of Trump is Not Enough to Repair Democracy." Warning that election "disinformation" spread by Trump supporters poses a threat to democracy, Chatham House called for a "9/11"-style commission to further probe the January 6 "insurrection." London Calling Chatham House is not just any think tank. It operates under Royal Charter, under the patronage of Queen Elizabeth II. Moreover, it is the sister organization of the Council on Foreign Relations. Together, the two groups formulate and coordinate foreign policy for the US and UK. After all these years, it is starting to become clear what Norman Angell meant when he spoke of a "nucleus of power" at the core of the Atlantic Community. It appears the nucleus may be in London. This is the world the Atlanticists made. Welcome to the Atlantic Community.
The post How the British Invented Color Revolutions appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 There is a tremendous, unwarranted, unfair, unjust basketball gap that exists between whites and blacks, much to the disadvantage of the former. Simple elementary social justice requires that this divergence be closed as soon as possible; sooner than that if at all feasible. This is a situation that cries out to the heavens for redress. What are the facts of the matter? First, and most damning, around three quarters of the players in the National Basketball Association are black. This demographic comprises only 13 percent of the overall population. Why pick on the NBA to illustrate this socially unjust gap? Because their players are simply the best on the planet. Whenever a team chosen from their rosters play the best of the rest of the world, as in the Olympics, the others typically play only for the silver medal. But that is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Even within the NBA, the selection of the very best athletes tilts even more in favor of the black population. Consider the recently conducted All-Star game where 27 of the very best of the best, including LeBron James, Stephen Curry, and Kevin Durant met each other face to face. Of these 27 players, only four were white. Four, only 15 percent. The proportion skews even more heavily if the most valuable players of all the All-Star games are taken into account. MVPs and numbers are similar for college and high school teams. A brief perusal of March Madness, in which the best college basketball teams in the nation contend against one another, finds that the overwhelming proportion of players are black, despite comprising a mere 13 percent of the overall undergraduate population. This phenomenon reaches all the way down to the high school level. It turns out that there too, African Americans dominate this sport. What causes this disparity? First, white men can't jump, and vertical elevation is important not only in blocking and rebounding, but also in the ability to make a shot unimpeded. White men can't run either, as is well documented in races anywhere from sprints of 60 and 100 meters all the way up to the marathon; it is difficult to overstate the importance of pure speed in basketball. What should be done about this astronomical disparity? Why, affirmative action of course. The first step, if we want an NBA that "looks like America" would be to fire all black players above the 13 percent level. But that will only partially attain our goals of equity, for the best players will still be African or African American. Here's another possibility for leveling the playing field. For those of you who have not been Rip Van Winkling it for a number of decades, you know that a basket behind the line is now worth three points, while layups and short-range jumpers score only two. Well, let us keep that rule in place; but make it four/three for whites! That is, if a white player hits a three-point shot, his team is credited with four points, and for a shorter score, he is awarded with three points. If this does not yield our cherished "equity" we can always bump this up to five/four for whites, while leaving scoring at three/two for blacks.If you think that's not fair, you miss the point: it's equitable. A third possible rule change: If a white player just hits the rim, he gets two points; if he can hit the backboard, one point. Black athletes will get nothing for misses like that. What about the "airball" that hits nothing whatsoever? A half a point for whites! What could be fairer than that? Surely the admissions department at Harvard would salute this minor rule modification. But there are still more things we can do. Summer basketball camps for blacks should be forbidden, and subsidies given to whites who attend in their place. Let African Americans take swimming lessons instead; for the disparity in the pool is even more horrendous than that on the basketball court. It is past time that this sport got woke; it needs a good dose of equity. It is insufficient that players take knees, wear special uniforms promoting social justice, and that stadiums ostensibly support the Black Lives Matter movement. If the goals of "diversity and inclusion" are to be attained, the modest proposals suggested herein should be implemented forthwith. Basketball tryouts, whether at the NBA, college, high school, or middle school level, have a "disparate impact." If SAT and ACT scores, exams for policemen and firemen, auditions for musicians and numerous other such assessments can be dismissed as racist or sexist since they have a "disparate impact," well then, by gum and by golly, so too can this be applied to evaluations for basketball teams. (Note: This article is satirical and was written for the purpose of highlighting the absurdity of attempts to control racial composition among voluntary associations.) This originally appeared on Intellectual Takeout. The post Closing Basketball's Racial Gap appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." – William Casey, CIA Director, Feb. 1981 It is well known that the endless U.S. war on terror was overtly launched following the mass murders of September 11, 2001 and the linked anthrax attacks. The invasion of Afghanistan and the Patriot Act were immediately justified by those insider murders, and subsequently the wars against Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. So too the terrorizing of the American people with constant fear-mongering about imminent Islamic terrorist attacks from abroad that never came. It is less well known that the executive director of the U.S. cover story – the fictional 9/11 Commission Report – was Philip Zelikow, who controlled and shaped the report from start to finish. It is even less well known that Zelikow, a professor at the University of Virginia, was closely associated with Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush, Dickey Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Brent Scowcroft, et al. and had served in various key intelligence positions in both the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations. In 2011 President Obama named him to his President's Intelligence Advisory Board as befits bi-partisan elite rule and coverup compensation across political parties. Perhaps it's unknown or just forgotten that The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission repeatedly called for Zelikow's removal, claiming that his appointment made a farce of the claim that the Commission was independent. Zelikow said that for the Commission to consider alternative theories to the government's claims about Osama bin Laden was akin to whacking moles. This is the man, who at the request of his colleague Condoleezza Rice, became the primary author of (NSS 2002) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, that declared that the U.S. would no longer abide by international law but was adopting a policy of preemptive war, as declared by George W. Bush at West Point in June 2002. This was used as justification for the attack on Iraq in 2003 and was a rejection of the charter of the United Nations. So, based on Zelikow's work creating a magic mountain of deception while disregarding so-called molehills, we have had twenty years of American terror wars around the world in which U.S. forces have murdered millions of innocent people. Wars that will be continuing for years to come despite rhetoric to the contrary. The rhetoric is simply propaganda to cover up the increasingly technological and space-based nature of these wars and the use of mercenaries and special forces. Simultaneously, in a quasi-volte-face, the Biden administration has directed its resources inward toward domestic "terrorists": that is, anyone who disagrees with its policies. This is especially aimed at those who question the COVID-19 story. Now Zelikow has been named to head a COVID Commission Planning Group based at the University of Virginia that is said to prepare the way for a National COVID Commission. The group is funded by the Schmidt Futures, the Skoll Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and Stand Together, with more expected to join in. Zelikow, a member of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Global Development Program Advisory Panel, will lead the group that will work in conjunction with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. Stand together indeed: Charles Koch, Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, the Rockefellers, et al. funders of disinterested truth. So once again the fox is in the hen house. If you wistfully think the corona crisis will soon come to an end, I suggest you alter your perspective. Zelikow's involvement, among other things, suggests we are in the second phase of a long war of terror waged with two weapons – military and medical – whose propaganda messaging is carried out by the corporate mainstream media in the pursuit of the World Economic Forum's Great Reset. Part one has so far lasted twenty years; part two may last longer. You can be certain it won't end soon and that the new terrorists are domestic dissidents. Did anyone think the freedoms lost with The Patriot Act were coming back some day? Does anyone think the freedoms lost with the corona virus propaganda are coming back? Many people probably have no idea what freedoms they lost with the Patriot Act, and many don't even care. And today? Lockdowns, mandatory mask wearing, travel restrictions, requirements to be guinea pigs for vaccines that are not vaccines, etc.? Who remembers the Nuremberg Codes? And they thought they were free, as Milton Mayer wrote about the Germans under Hitler. Like frogs in a pot of cold water, we need to feel the temperature rising before it's too late. The dial is turned to high heat now. But that was so long ago and far away, right? Don't exaggerate, you say. Hitler and all that crap. Are you thankful now that government spokespeople are blatantly saying that they will so kindly give us back some freedoms if we only do what they're told and get "vaccinated" with an experimental biological agent, wear our masks, etc.? Hoi polloi are supposed to be grateful to their masters, who will grant some summer fun until they slam the door shut again. Pfizer raked in $3.5 billion from vaccine sales in the first quarter of 2021, the first three months of the vaccine rollouts, and the company projects $26 billion for the year. That's one vaccine manufacturer. Chump change? Only a chump would not realize that Pfizer is the company that paid $2.3 billion in Federal criminal fines in 2009 – the largest ever paid by a drug company – for being a repeat offender in the marketing of 13 different drugs. Meanwhile, the commission justifying the government's claims about COVID-19 and injections (aka "vaccines") will be hard at work writing their fictive report that will justify ex post facto the terrible damage that has occurred and that will continue to occur for many years. Censorship and threats against dissidents will increase. The disinformation that dominates the corporate mainstream media will of course continue, but this will be supplemented by alternative media that are already buckling under the pressure to conform. The fact that there has been massive censorship of dissenting voices by Google/ YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, etc., and equally massive disinformation by commission and omission across media platforms, should make everyone ask why. Why repress dissent? The answer should be obvious but is not. The fact that so many refuse to see the significance of this censorship clearly shows the hypnotic effects of a massive mind control operation. Name calling and censorship are sufficient. Perfectly healthy people have now become a danger to others. So mask up, get your experimental shot, and shut up! Your body is no longer inviolable. You must submit to medical procedures on your body whether you want them or not. Do not object or question. If you do, you will be punished and will become a pariah. The authorities will call you crazy, deviant, selfish. They will take away your rights to travel and engage in normal activities, such as attend college, etc. Please do not recall The Nuremberg Code. Especially number 7: "Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death." (my emphasis) "Now is the time to just do what you are told," as Anthony Fauci so benevolently declared. I am not making a prediction. The authorities have told us what's coming. Pay attention. Don't be fooled. It's a game they have devised. Keep people guessing. On edge. Relieved. Tense. Relaxed. Shocked. Confused. That's the game. One day this, the next that. You're on, you're off. You're in, you're out. We are allowing you this freedom, but be good children or we will have to retract it. If you misbehave, you will get a time out. Time to contemplate your sins. If you once thought that COVID-19 would be a thing of the past by now, or ever, think again. On May 3, 2021 The New York Times reported that the virus is here to stay. This was again reported on May 10. Hopes Fade for Global Herd Immunity. You may recall that we were told such immunity would be achieved once enough people got the "vaccine" or enough people contracted the virus and developed antibodies. On May 9, on ABC News, Dr. Fauci, when asked about indoor mask requirements being relaxed, said, "I think so, and I think you're going to probably be seeing that as we go along, and as more people get vaccinated." Then he added: "We do need to start being more liberal, as we get more people vaccinated." But then, in what CNN reported as a Mother's Day prediction, he pushed the date for "normality" out another year, saying, "I hope that [by] next Mother's Day, we're going to see a dramatic difference than what we're seeing right now. I believe that we will be about as close to back to normal as we can. We've got to make sure that we get the overwhelming proportion of the population vaccinated. When that happens, the virus doesn't really have any place to go. You're not going to see a surge. You're not going to see the kinds of numbers we see now." He said this with a straight face even though the experimental "vaccines," by their makers own admissions, do not prevent the vaccinated from getting the virus or passing it on. They allege it only mitigates the severity of the virus if you contract it. Notice the language and the vaccination meme repeated three times: "We get more people vaccinated." (my emphasis) Not that more people choose to get vaccinated, but "we get" them vaccinated. Thank you, Big Daddy. And now we have another year to go until "we will be about as close to back to normal as we can." Interesting phrase: as we can. It other words: we will never return to normality but will have to settle for the new normal that will involve fewer freedoms. Life will be reset, a great reset. Great for the few and terrible for the many. Once two vaccines were enough; then, no, maybe one is sufficient; no, you will need annual or semi-annual booster shots to counteract the new strains that they say are coming. It's a never-ending story with never-ending new strains in a massive never-ending medical experiment. The virus is changing so quickly and herd immunity is now a mystical idea, we are told, that it will never be achieved. We will have to be eternally vigilant. But wait. Don't despair. It looks like restrictions are easing up for the coming summer in the northern hemisphere. Lockdowns will be loosened. If you felt like a prisoner for the past year plus, now you will be paroled for a while. But don't dispose of those masks just yet. Fauci says that wearing masks could become seasonal following the pandemic because people have become accustomed to wearing them and that's why the flu has disappeared. The masks didn't prevent COVID-19 but eliminated the flu. Are you laughing yet? Censorship and lockdowns and masks and mandatory injections are like padded cells in a madhouse and hospital world where free-association doesn't lead to repressed truths because free association isn't allowed, neither in word nor deed. Speaking freely and associating with others are too democratic. Yes, we thought we were free. False consciousness is pandemic. Exploitation is seen as benevolence. Silence reigns. And the veiled glances signify the ongoing terror that has spread like a virus. We are now in a long war with two faces. As with the one justified by the mass murders of September 11, 2001, this viral one isn't going away. The question is: Do we have to wait twenty years to grasp the obvious and fight for our freedoms? We can be assured that Zelikow and his many associates at Covid Collaborative, including General Stanley McChrystal, Robert Gates, Arnie Duncan, Deval Patrick, Tom Ridge, et al. – a whole host of Republicans and Democrats backed by great wealth and institutional support, will not be "whacking moles" in their search for truth. Their agenda is quite different. But then again, you may recall where they stood on the mass murders of September 11, 2001 and the endless wars that have followed. Reprinted with the author's permission. The post Second Stage Terror Wars appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Vaccination against Covid-19 has been sold to the public as a ticket back to normality, but a new poll has found that those who've taken the jab are even more scared of socializing than the unvaccinated. Nearly half of all American adults have had their first dose of a coronavirus vaccine, and 35% are fully vaccinated against Covid-19. President Joe Biden has urged the remainder to "get the shot," and in a speech last week, Biden described the ongoing vaccination drive as "a serious step toward a return to normal." But vaccinated Americans aren't rushing to return to normal. Glancing through comments on social media reveals a whole host of people – usually political liberals – who proudly proclaim that they'll continue to mask up outdoors even after receiving their two vaccine shots. It's not just internet crazies either. A Morning Consult poll published on Wednesday shows that vaccinated Americans are less comfortable about returning to public activities than their unvaccinated counterparts.
For example, just 17% of vaccinated adults would feel comfortable going on a cruise, compared to 37% who haven't got the shot. Only 15% of vaccinated adults would travel abroad, while 32% would happily take a foreign trip with no vaccination. 27% would feel comfortable going to the gym after vaccination, while 43% of the unvaccinated would happily pump iron. The only public activities that more than half of all vaccinated adults would feel comfortable partaking in are shopping at a mall and dining at a restaurant. To be fair, there are some issues with the poll. The 'vaccinated' category includes people who have received a single shot as well as people who are fully vaccinated. The former may be more likely to wait until their second dose to return to a more normal life. Those who have been vaccinated are more likely to be older and more vulnerable to serious illness, and as such could have been given higher priority for the shot. Also, while vaccination has been proven to dramatically reduce the likelihood of transmission, there is still a slim chance that vaccinated people can pass Covid-19 to others, which may explain this cohort's caution. On the other side, some unvaccinated people may fall into the 13% who say they'll outright refuse the shot altogether. This minority likely paid little heed to guidelines on masking and social distancing to begin with. In recent weeks, the Biden administration has focused its vaccine messaging on the "millions of Americans who just need a little bit of encouragement to get the shot," as the president put it at a press conference last week.He announced a new website and SMS service that will help the public locate their closest vaccination center, as well as partnerships with stores to offer freebies and incentives to those getting vaccinated. For the hesitant, Biden said that the government will recruit "spokespersons that… people listen to," to spread the pro-vaccine message. However, the latest poll suggests that the administration will need to convince those that have already taken the shot that they can, in fact, partake in normal life again. Research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found that vaccines are 90% effective at stopping transmission and infection, and the agency's guidelines clear fully vaccinated people to return to public events (though masks and social distancing are still recommended in some cases). Speaking to governors on Tuesday, Biden said that the White House would launch "a more aggressive effort on our part to lay out that once vaccinated, it's not only you can hug your grandchildren, you can do a lot more." Reprinted from RT News. The post Vaccinated Americans More Scared of Socializing Than Those Without the Jab—Poll appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 In any given year during the past decade in the United States, more than 2.5 million Americans have died—from all causes. The number has grown in recent years, climbing from 2.59 million in 2013 to 2.85 million in 2019. This has been due partially to the US's aging population, and also due to rising obesity levels and drug overdoses. In fact, since 2010, growth rates in total deaths has exceeded population growth in every year. In 2020, preliminary numbers suggest a jump of more than 17 percent in all-cause total deaths, rising from 2.85 million in 2019 to 3.35 million in 2020. The increase was not all due to covid. At least one-quarter to one-third appear to be from other causes. In some cases, more than half of "excess deaths" were attributed to "underlying causes" other than covid. But whether due to untreated medical conditions (thanks to covid lockdowns), or drug overdoses, or homicides, total death increased in 2020. In other words, total excess mortality is a partial proxy for covid deaths. Whatever proportion of total deaths covid cases may comprise, it stands to reason that if total deaths decline, then covid deaths are declining also. Moreover, looking at total deaths helps cut through any controversies over whether or not deaths are properly attributed to covid. What has been the trend with these "excess deaths" in recent months? Well, according to data through mid-March reported by Our World in Data and by the Human Mortality Database, excess mortality began to plummet in early January and is now back to levels below the 2015-2019 average: 
Excess mortality peaked the week of January 3 and then it began to collapse, dropping back to summer 2020 levels by mid February. By March 14, excess mortality was at 1 percent above the 2015-2019 average. All this occurred even as very few Americans were vaccinated. When excess deaths began to drop, less than one percent of Americans had been fully vaccinated. At the end of January, less than two percent of Americans had been fully vaccinated. By the end of March, when excess mortality returned to 2019 levels, 15 percent of the population had been fully vaccinated. As of May 11, only one-third of Americans had been fully vaccinated, although “experts” insist 60 to 70 percent of the population must be vaccinated before we can expect to see a drop-off in deaths like that which occurred earlier this year. Yet, as of the week of March 22—excess mortality was below both the 2015-2019 average and below the total for the last year before the official beginning of the covid pandemic (2019). 
It’s likely these facts won't stop "public health" bureaucrats from continuing to insist that another "wave" of covid deaths and cases is right around the corner. These activists have many strategies for pushing vaccine passports, mask mandates, and even continual precautionary business closures. They'll tell us that new covid variants are sweeping the globe. This is what they were saying in January, for instance, when Vox was telling us it was too dangerous to even visit the grocery store. At least one expert in late January warned us that the coming weeks would be "the darkest weeks of the pandemic." It's now clear such predictions were spectacularly wrong. By late January, totals deaths were already in precipitous decline. But what about the lag in data? We’re only looking at data up to mid-March because it tends to take several weeks for estimates of total deaths to become reasonably reliable. Yes, that data shows a big drop off. But what about the numbers for April and May? Should we expect those death totals to surge again with a promised "fourth wave" of new covid death? If we consider the more recent case and death totals attributed to covid, we see few signs of a new surge. Although Anthony Fauci and other government employed technocrats have been unable to provide any explanation at all for it, the fact remains that months after Texas and Florida and Georgia have either abolished or greatly scaled back all social-distancing and mask mandates, cases and deaths are generally declining, and total deaths per million (attributed to covid) remain below what we’ve seen in states with severe lockdowns. 
The trend in the United States overall is similar. Indeed, it appears that nearly all states have seen sizable drops in both cases and deaths, regardless of the mask or social-distancing policies in place. Notably, it's only in recent weeks that "CDC guidelines" are beginning to admit the reality. It wasn't until April 26 that the CDC declared that fully vaccinated Americans are allowed to venture outside without masks on. The CDC states these "recommendations" unironically as if it weren't the case that most Americans—outside of true-believer hotspots like San Francisco and Chicago—stopped wearing masks outside a long time ago. The hermetically sealed world of government employees and corporate journalists appears unaware that at least half the country pretty much went back to normal last fall. So now what? The technocrats know that they need to keep pressing hard for more de facto vaccine mandates—pushed mostly by corporate America for low-risk younger populations. Most Americans can already see that covid numbers are already in decline in spite of months of Americans flouting mask mandates and social distancing guidelines. People can see that children—an increasing number of whom are returning to schools—aren’t a significant factor in the spread of disease. So it will be important for the regime to push vaccines for children more aggressively before people stop listening to the “experts” completely. Don’t expect the regime to admit it has been wrong about anything. If anything, it will double down on the usual narrative. It’s worked pretty well so far. Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute. The post Excess Mortality in the US Has Plummeted to Pre-Covid Levels appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 …of Christendom. No, this will not be a story of the Reformation. The Age of Paradise: Christendom from Pentecost to the First Millennium, by John Strickland By the middle of the eighth century, the southern territories of Christendom had been all but consumed by the conquests of the Umayyad Caliphate…. It will also not be a story of iconoclasm by the Muslims. But first, a backstory. By this point, the integrity of the Roman Empire had been greatly compromised. Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa were all overrun by Muslim armies. Despite having second-class status, the Christians in these lands were granted some toleration as they constituted the majority in these lands and were necessary for effective administration. They also had religious autonomy, however they could not convert Muslims, build new churches, even maintain existing churches. The cross could not be displayed, and bells could not be rung. Even with this, many of the Christian clergy supported this Arab colonization: Bishops enjoyed a privileged status under the caliphate, being assigned the responsibility of overseeing their fellow dhimmis. A large number of these bishops were Monophysites, persecuted under Byzantine rule; they saw the Arabs as a lesser evil. Becoming both agents and victims of this long-term subjugation, resistance to the pressures of apostasy would dissolve. The Syrian and Coptic churches survive to this day, but the numbers are rather insignificant. The rest of Christendom would have suffered a similar fate if not for two men: Byzantine Emperor Leo III in the East, and Charles Martel in the West. In 718, the Arab forces against Byzantium finally relented; in 732, Martel was victorious in the Battle of Tours. European Christendom was saved, only to fall into another internally divisive period. For Muslims and Jews, the making of images was precluded; however, icons were prevalent throughout Christendom. This would change under Emperor Leo III, who formed the conviction that the widespread use of icons was causing the empire to lose its faith. Leo decided in 726 to launch Christendom's first iconoclastic movement, preceding the Reformation by about 800 years. It began with the icon of Christ Pantocrator, standing at the top of the Chalke Gate. As the workers assembled to remove it, a riot broke out; the foreman of the crew was lynched. This did not dissuade Leo. He continued, persecuting and deposing any bishops who opposed him – no separation of church and emperor here. Leo died in 740. His son and heir, Constantine V, only increased the policy; he convened a council of his bishops – not an ecumenical council, despite the claim. Suffice it to say, the vast majority of bishops did not agree with the conclusion. The iconoclastic argument was refuted by John of Damascus. How did John manage this? He argued that as God commanded the Israelites to make graven images of cherubim, icons were acceptable. But what of Jesus? His humanity was as real as his divinity; the transcendent God had entered creation and assumed human form. It was this human form that was captured; the Incarnation was at the center of the defense of icons. In 787, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, John's arguments carried the day. But this did not last long. Constantine VI and his mother, Irene, offered the latest chapter in Byzantine court intrigue. He an iconoclast, she an iconophile. As he was young, the two would be co-emperors – but such an arrangement wouldn't last long. In 790, Constantine would move to remove Irene from power, acting with great cruelty, blinding his enemies at the court, including his own uncle. His actions led to a return to iconoclasm, despite the ruling of the recent council. Seven years later, Irene returned to prominence at the court and had her son arrested. She gave orders to have him blinded in the very room in which he was born. He died soon after. And for the first time, a woman was named Emperor of the Romans. In the West, these events were looked at with difficulty. The situation was exacerbated when Emperor Leo reassigned certain territories from the papacy in southern Italy to the Byzantine state. And of course, Pope Gregory II condemned Leo's attack on icons. Leo sent agents to murder the pope, but Gregory enjoyed protection given the universal dismay over iconoclasm. After Gregory's death, Leo attempted the same with the new pope, but the ship of the agents foundered in the Adriatic. Unsuccessful at killing the pope, Leo transferred further lands from Italy to Constantinople. Some mark these events as the final turning point in destroying relations between East and West. The pope would turn to the Franks for military support; eventually Pepin would be anointed by the pope himself. Which brings us to a great forgery known as The Donation of Constantine. That it was a forgery was not known for seven hundred years; in the meantime, it served its purpose: Constantine, who relocated the capital to Constantinople, "donated" the entire western half of his empire to Sylvester, the bishop of Rome. Further, the other patriarchates were to be subject to Rome's authority. In this came a clue, not realized for centuries: included in the list of sees now to be under Rome were sees not even in existence at the time of the "donation." Conclusion We now come to Charlemagne, Pepin's son. The relationship between the Franks and the Papacy was showing great promise. Charlemagne proved to be a great protector of the Church – at least the Western half; he expanded the empire (violently, certainly) in almost every direction. Pope Leo III was in trouble, accused of (likely false) charges of sexual immorality and financial misdeed. Charlemagne organized a formal investigation, arriving in Rome in 800. Charlemagne was at the height of his influence; Leo was still working his out. Leo commissioned a mosaic: At the center stood the apostles; on the left Christ was flanked by Pope Sylvester and Emperor Constantine, an immediate reminder of the emerging myth of the Donation of Constantine. …At its center was the Apostle Peter, flanked, in this case, by representations of Pope Leo III and King Charlemagne, the latter-day successors to Sylvester and Constantine. Well, Leo's verdict was secure: he would place his hand on the Gospel, swearing his innocence; all charges were dropped. Those who accused him were sentenced to death. And on Christmas Day, Charlemagne was declared Emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo. For Christians there had been one Church and one empire. Roman meant Christian. No longer: In a single act, Pope Leo's coronation of Charlemagne changed all of that. Christendom still may have possessed only one Church, but now there were two Roman Empires to claim her. Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito. The post The First Iconoclasts… appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 The aluminium adjuvant that's used in multiple childhood vaccines has come under the scrutiny of multiple scientists from around the world over the past couple of years. It's been discovered that a number of these vaccines have far more or far less aluminum adjuvant than listed on their FDA approved product labels, and as a result two formal petitions (access them here and here) were filed with the FDA on May 4th and May 6th of this year. The petitions demand that the agency do its job and assure that vaccine manufacturers are disclosing accurate information about the amount of aluminum adjuvant that's actually present in their childhood vaccines. You can access the most recent legal update, here. A team of the world's foremost experts in aluminum toxicology, led by Christopher Exley (initiator of the petition), a Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry for the last 29 years with more than 200 published peer reviewed articles regarding aluminum, made this discovery. Six vaccine products contained statistically significant greater amounts of aluminum (Pentacel, Havrix, Adacel, Pedvax, Prevnar 13, and Vaqta) and four childhood vaccines were found to contain a statistically significant lower quantity of aluminum adjuvant than what is outlined on the label for these products (Infanrix, Kinrix, Pediarix, and Synflorix. This discovery was published in The Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology where researchers point to the fact that since aluminum is a known toxin in humans and specifically a neurotoxin, it's content in vaccines should be accurate and independently monitored to ensure both efficacy and safety. Another paper of interest for readers might be this one, titled The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science. It also outlines the concerns being raised. The petition states, These deviations from the products' labels are extremely concerning. Doses with more than the approved amount of aluminum adjuvant raise serious safety concerns, and doses with less than the approved amount raise questions regarding efficacy. Indeed, aluminum adjuvant is a known cytotoxic and neurotoxic substance used to induce autoimmunity in lab animals, and which numerous peer-reviewed publications implicate various autoimmune conditions….These deviations also render the products and manufacturers not in compliance with various federal statutes and regulations, requiring immediate action from the FDA. The Petitions therefore demand that the FDA immediately and publicly release documentation sufficient to establish that the aluminum content in each vaccine at issue is consistent with the amount provided in its labeling and that the FDA pause distribution of the vaccines at issue until it has done so. Nothing can be more important than the safety of vaccines injected into babies.
If you would like to provide the FDA a comment regarding the petitions filed regarding aluminum levels in childhood vaccines, you can do so here and here. Exley and his work is supported by many scientists from around the world, yet he is facing a potential set back with regards to continuing his research on aluminum and disease. One hundred scientists came together and recently wrote a letter of support, stating, We are writing to express our concern over the possible interruption of research on aluminum and disease conducted by Christopher Exley and his group in your (Keele) University. We feel that Christopher Exley's work conducted for so many years in line with the previous research of late Pr Birchall at Keele University has been an important service to the scientific community, patients and society in Europe and globally. We firmly declare that Pr Exley has always defended rigorous research independent of commercial conflicts of interest, and has freely carried out his research without any control by any of his sponsors.
You can read more about what's going on with regards to this situation, and access the correspondence that's happened between Keele University (Exley's employer), Exley, and the academics who support his work, here. Exley has provided his own comment on the petition that reads as follows, Once these data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines were known to me I asked myself about their absolute significance. What were the data witnessing. Sloppy processing by manufacturers? If so then why weren't these issues flagged up by internal auditing of the products? Do manufacturers not actually measure the final content of aluminium in their vaccines? It looks that way. If they do not are they still assuming that the information they give on the patient information leaflet is accurate? Presumably they are as this amount of aluminium per dose of vaccine has been extensively researched and optimised by the manufacturer to give the antibody titre necessary for the vaccine to be effective. Since the vaccine is wholly ineffective in the absence of the aluminium adjuvant then the amount of aluminium adjuvant injected into the infant must be tightly controlled in providing a safe and effective vaccine. Isn't that correct? How can vaccine manufacturers be so complacent about such a critical issue? Is there a darker side to all of this? It may or it may not be true that manufacturers carefully optimise the aluminium content of infant vaccines. However, how often do manufacturers monitor the efficacy of their vaccine in receiving infants? How do they know that the data they must have for their clinical trials is reproduced in real time vaccinations in infants. Simply, how do they know that their vaccine works against its target disease? Do they even care? These data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines suggest very strongly that from the moment the vaccine is aliquoted to its vial ready for subsequent administration to an infant the manufacturer has no interest in whether it is either effective or safe. No one is monitoring the former and vaccine manufacturers have no responsibility for the latter. Vaccine manufacturers are businesses first and foremost, it is not up to them to make sure that their products are safe and effective. It is the responsibility of the FDA and the FDA is clearly neglecting this responsibility as is the European Medicines Agency. A cartel of neglect and complacency that puts infants all of the world at risk, not only from the disease the vaccine is meant to be effective against but critically from the injection of an unknown amount of a known neurotoxin into vulnerable infants. I know that many of you have given me your support in a myriad of ways and I am eternally thankful. You may be interested to know that the 'academic' Aluminium Family has also played a part and you can read all about this through this link. If you have any questions or comments about this please direct them to Professor Romain Gherardi (RKG75@protonmail.com) who kindly instigated this effort on my behalf.
The Takeaway: The politicization of science has become quite a large issue these days. In my opinion, science that seems to support a narrative that is in favour of certain government and/or corporate interests is heavily promoted and explored, while science that calls these narratives into question is heavily scrutinized, censored and unacknowledged within the mainstream. If science is raising a cause for concern, especially regarding something like aluminum toxicity that is so prevalent in our lives today, why can't we as a society embrace, support, and acknowledge the study of it openly and collectively? What is going on here? You might imagine that everybody would support research like the kind Exley and his team are doing, as it only seeks to make a healthier world. Then again, it may not be in the best interest of pharmaceutical companies and their business model. Isn't human health and 'doing no harm' the key oath public health is interested in upholding? The implications of science should not impede progression of health, but rather accelerate it. Reprinted with permission from Collective Evolution. The post Improper Amounts of Aluminum Discovered in Multiple Childhood Vaccines appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 You see, bloggers and reporters, here is the problem (one among many, actually). You have no background. You don't understand that every time you write a medical piece, there is a context which should inform your every move: The modern medical system kills and maims huge numbers of people. To put it another way, THE MODERN MEDICAL SYSTEM KILLS AND MAIMS HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE. Let me help you out. ONE: "The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs." The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and was the 2013 recipient of ASA's [American Sociological Association's] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University. Donald Light: "Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures." (ASA publication, "Footnotes," November 2014) TWO: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998: "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients." The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate: Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs. Beyond that, every year 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs. The authors write: "…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered." So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed or maimed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn't begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as consequence of the drugs, at home. THREE: July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; "Is US health really the best in the world?" Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that's 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again. In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. Here is an excerpt: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000? The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the 'best health in the world'. In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame? The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency). Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system? NO. Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year? Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this. Aren't your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices? They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy. Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies? Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system. Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US? No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated. Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it? It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that 'it would not be interesting to readers'! Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals? I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace. —end of interview excerpt— FOUR: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: "It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing 'serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.'" The report called this "one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity." The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA's own database of "serious adverse [medical-drug] events." Therefore, to say the FDA isn't aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn't saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans. Every public health agency knows the truth. FIVE: None of the above reports factor in death or injury by vaccine. The US system for reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken. Barbara Loe Fisher, of the private National Vaccine Information Center, has put together a reasonable analysis: "But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, 'Introducing MEDWatch,' JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]" "There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences." "Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, 'Vaccine safety,' Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]" "However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events [per year]. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually." SIX: Here is a stunning quote from a doctor who has quite probably read and analyzed as many medical-drug studies as any other doctor in the world: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
Compare that quote with one from "the father of COVID science," Tony Fauci. In an interview with the National Geographic, Fauci stated: "Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they're talking about…If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously." They take things so seriously at the New England Journal, they routinely publish glowing studies of medical drugs which, as evidence shows, are killing people in great numbers. So…you medical bloggers living in mommy's basement, and you medical reporters who live in New York and Georgetown and pull down nice paychecks, you now have some background. Every time you write a Mockingbird article (aka puff piece), you can fathom how deep your lies really go, and how much crime you're really involved with. It's never too late to tell the truth. I'm offering you a way out.
SOURCES: (forthcoming) Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport's blog. The post Memo to Medical Bloggers Living in Mommy's Basement appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 | Thursday 13 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Despite strong resident protests, the US Environmental Protection Agency and Florida agencies have approved controversial release of millions of genetically-modified or "gene edited" killer mosquitoes into the Florida Keyes. At the same time the controversial Presidential Science Adviser nominee of Biden is involved in development of the CRISPR technology being used to genetically modify everything from the mosquitoes to the Pfizer and Moderna coronavirus mRNA "vaccines" to gene-edited salmon. How Bill Gates, the Pentagon and the eugenics lobby come together now is alarming to put it mildly . On April 30 the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District and the Oxitec biotechnology company announced they will begin release of what will ultimately be some 750 million genetically manipulated or gene-edited Aedes Aegypti mosquitos using CRSPR gene editing technology. The Aedes Aegypti makes up only about 4% of the mosquito population in the Keys. The release is bitterly opposed by residents and environmental groups who demanded a referendum in last year's election ballot, but which the Mosquito Control Board refused, curiously. Oxitec and the Board claim the release is to kill off the presence of the Aedes Aegypti mosquito which is believed to carry dengue fever, Zika and other diseases. The project, which sounds positive in the press statements, is alarming in many respects. First, the refusal to allow a citizen vote on the controversial GMO release. Second, there exists no cost-benefit analysis of the risks versus benefits of releasing millions of mosquitoes whose genetic traits are mutating in often unpredictable ways. Is it worth the risk that an ever more robust variety of mosquito will mutate from the project? No one can say. Traditional mosquito control techniques have worked well until now. The CEO of Oxitec, Grey Frandsen, has a dark history with the US State Department in the Balkans, as an advisor to the US Navy, and as a Fellow of the George Soros' International Crisis Group that played a key role in the destruction of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. With no previous experience in biotechnology, Frandsen appears as CEO of Oxitec in 2017. Oxitec, a UK company, is now owned by Third Security, a US venture capital firm in Radford, Virginia headed by Randal J. Kirk who also owns the gene-edited salmon producer, AquaBounty. Brazil failure At another trial by Oxitec for the same Aedes Aegypti gene-edited mosquito in Bahia, Brazil, in a test to see if the gene-edited mosquitoes would mate with local mosquitoes carrying Zika, malaria or other mosquito-borne diseases, following an initial reduction of the target population of mosquitoes, after some months the "population which had been greatly suppressed rebounded to nearly pre-release levels," according to a study published in Nature Reports journal. A team of scientists from Yale University and several scientific institutes in Brazil monitored the progress of the experiment. What they found was that after an initial period in which the target mosquito population markedly declined, after about 18 months the mosquito population recovered to pre-release levels. Not only that, the paper noted that some of the mosquitos likely have "hybrid vigor," in which a hybrid of the natural with the gene-edited created "a more robust population than the pre-release population" which may be more resistant to insecticides, in short, resistant "super mosquitoes." That Brazil Oxitec study concluded, "It is unclear how this may affect disease transmission or affect other efforts to control these dangerous vectors." In short, the genetic mutations were unpredictable. Another 2020 scientific study revealed that the "sterile" insects revert back to being fertile, resulting in resistant GMO populations persisting in the environment. The study, published by scientists in China, Germany and the USDA in the United States, shows that spontaneous mutations in laboratory flies can arise, leading to genetic resistance to the intended trait. In other words, "super flies," or mosquitoes. Moreover, it is not as if the incidence of dengue fever or Zika in the Florida Keys is a grave problem. According to the official CDC report, there was not one incidence in all the US in 2020 of Zika from the indigenous population and only 4 from foreign travelers. As to the far milder and rarely fatal dengue fever, with symptoms similar to flu, in 2020 there were some 26 cases in the Florida Keyes. That was the first outbreak in almost ten years. Suspiciously, it was a small outbreak of dengue fever in 2010 that Oxitec used to argue for release of its gene edited mosquito in Florida. The new outbreak in 2020 was also suspiciously convenient for Oxitec's effort to release the gene edited mosquitoes in Florida, which was approved in 2020. Oxitec, Gates and DARPA What further draws suspicions about the entire gene edited mosquito release in Florida is the fact that the Oxitec project is being supported by two highly controversial agencies—The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA. Gates— not only a major financial backer of the gene-edited COVID-19 "vaccines" of Pfizer and Moderna, and the largest private donor to the WHO–has funded gene-editing research for more than a decade. Gates is well aware of the malevolent potential of gene-editing technology. It can be used as a bioweapon maker. In 2016 Gates declared, "the next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus." In July 2017, John Sotos, of Intel Health & Life Sciences, stated that gene editing research could "open up the potential for bioweapons of unimaginable destructive potential." In 2016 Gates' foundation gave $1.6 million to the PR firm, Emerging Ag, to block a broad effort to get a UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) moratorium on gene drive technology until its safety could be established. According to emails obtained by ETC Group, Emerging Ag recruited more than 65 experts, including a Gates Foundation senior official, a DARPA official, and scientists who had received DARPA funding. They were successful. Entomological Warfare? DARPA has been working for several years on genetic editing of mosquitoes. Through its "Insect Allies" program, DARPA has been working, using CRISPR gene-editing and gene drive technologies, on manipulating the Aedes Aegypti mosquito. The US Department of Defense has spent at least $100 million in the controversial technology known as "gene drives" making the US military a top funder and developer of the gene-modifying technology. "Gene drives are a powerful and dangerous new technology and potential biological weapons could have disastrous impacts on peace, food security and the environment, especially if misused," said Jim Thomas, co-director of ETC Group, an environment safety group. "The fact that gene drive development is now being primarily funded and structured by the US military raises alarming questions about this entire field." Entomological warfare is a type of biological warfare that uses insects to transmit diseases. The Pentagon, using DARPA research, has allegedly performed such entomological tests secretly in the Republic of Georgia and Russia. Is the DARPA development, together with Gates' foundation and Oxitec, of the gene edited mosquitoes a covert program in entomological warfare? The Pentagon presently has top security bio laboratories in 25 countries across the world funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program– Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP). They are in former Soviet Union countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa. Among their projects, Phlebotomine sand fly species were collected under the heading, "Surveillance Work on Acute Febrile Illness," in which all (female) sand flies were tested to determine their infectivity rate. A third project, also including sand flies collection, studied the characteristics of their salivary glands. This is weaponization research. The controversial person picked by the Biden Administration to become the first Cabinet-level science advisor, Eric Lander, came from the MIT-Harvard Broad Institute. Lander is a specialist in gene drive and gene editing technologies and played a major role in the flawed US Human Genome Project. This is not the kind of science we need to be supporting. It is rather part of what is obviously a larger eugenics agenda and Bill Gates is again playing a key role. Reprinted with the author's permission. The post Why Are Gates and the Pentagon Releasing GMO Mosquitoes in the Florida Keys? appeared first on LewRockwell.  |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.