“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,”
This phrase, misattributed to Voltaire, has largely come to dominate—and confuse—our understanding of the importance of free speech in a free society. That misunderstanding seems to be at the heart of the very lukewarm response elicited by the exposure of “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history” unearthed through discovery in Missouri v. Biden now before the Supreme Court.
The trouble with this framing of free speech is that it focuses on hateful speech, framing the imperative to defend the utterance of hateful speech as a form of polite, reciprocal tolerance, necessary for the smooth functioning of a liberal society. If ever there were a framing that caused one to miss the forest for the trees, this is it.
The primacy free speech enjoys here in the US has nothing whatever to do with some dewy-eyed ideal of tolerance. Rather, it owes its primacy to pragmatism. Freedom of speech is the best tool we have to ascertain the truth of any given matter. Like a sculptor transforming a shapeless piece of marble into a work of art, free and open debate chisels away at the falsehoods and misapprehensions in which the truth lays embedded. Restrict debate, and the gradual emergence of that truth will be delayed or deformed, with the result imperfect at times to the point of monstrosity.
The reason we must “defend to the death” the right to utter “intolerable speech,” is that failure to do so results in the swift and certain condemnation as “intolerable” all speech that diminishes the power or legitimacy of those in power. More succinctly, we must defend the pariah’s right to speak or everyone who crosses the regime, conveniently becomes a pariah. You either do as the ACLU did in 1978, defend the Nazi’s right to speak, or you have an explosion of government-designated “Nazis.” You may perhaps have noticed an exponential rise in the prevalence of “Nazis” and an ever-expanding panoply of -ists since our country’s commitment to free speech faltered? Yeah, me too.
No matter the political leanings or the content of the criticism, all those who have dared to critique the diktats of those in power for the last several years have been swiftly moved outside the pale, designated often times literal Nazis. It is this that explains the awesome scope of the censorship exposed in Missouri v. Biden, now before the Supreme Court.
We’re experiencing an information total war, resulting in blanket shutdown of any and all debate on each and every topic the government would prefer not to discuss. The cost to truth from this censorship carpet-bombing has been enormous. Lacking the refinement that comes from criticism and debate, the policies issuing from this informational hellscape are brutal and barbaric.
This information total war has been largely successful. Regime critics have been swiftly censored, defamed, and marginalized. The result is that most of the population continues to believe that the criticisms of government policies and actions over the past several years were levied by a bunch of cranks whose objections were largely based on gut level assumptions, political affiliation, or knee-jerk reactions. That many of those criticisms and warnings ended up being accurate is attributed to dumb luck. Thus, the public has little sympathy for the targets of government censorship, precisely because of the success of the censorship, and its complement, the propaganda generated to fill the vacuum left by the disappearance of truth. However, the public itself is harmed in myriad ways by this censorship, and not in any abstract fashion.
First and foremost, this censorship regime has harmed the public because the suppression of dissenting views resulted in the creation and deployment of a `whole` host of truly awful policies. Certain of its omniscience the government repeatedly censored, defamed and marginalized those who raised objections to its policies. Contrary to the propaganda narrative used to justify its censorship, the arguments against various strands of the government policies were based on sound reason, science, and data, the opponents often highly credentialed in the relevant field.
How many people know that one of the first critics of our maximalist approach to COVID was one of the most well-respected, frequently-cited scientists in the world, Stanford’s John Ioannidis? Or that his criticisms mirrored the guidance of the US’s actual extant pandemic plans?
How many people know that even from the very first, the opposition to masking was in fact based on its known futility, citing research from the CDC itself, published in May of 2020 (and recently vindicated by another systemic review by Cochrane)? Or that the most vocal opposition came from industrial hygienists (1, 2, 3) and others whose explicit job is to create specifications for safe work environments, including PPE?
How many people know that the opposition to the hysteria around hospital capacity was based on acknowledgement by hospital executives that 30 percent of COVID patients were in the hospital with COVID, versus for COVID? Or that this inflationary mis-characterization was incentivized by government payouts? Or that they were using HHS’s own data showing hospital capacity to have been no issue whatsoever in the US except in extremely localized areas and for extremely short periods—and hence easily remediable.
How many people know that the opposition to vaccine mandates, beyond being based on the obvious, and perfectly reasonable objection that there was no long-term data on their safety, was also based on published research showing no relationship between vaccination rates and disease transmission?
The answer to all of these questions is, far too few. The sole reason for this widespread ignorance is government censorship. We have censorship to thank for the creation and implementation of divisive, harmful, and unjust policies. Lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports all find their origins in the truth-starved, debate-deprived offices of our behemoth bureaucracies. Their continuance well after their futility was demonstrated empirically, and the harms they would cause already beginning to manifest can likewise be attributed to the same benighted bedfellows.
In addition to being harmed by the content of these censorship-protected policies, the public was further harmed by the division they created. Because these policies were propped up by censoring dissent and defaming dissenters, the debate was no such thing. Instead, framing it in Manichean terms of good and evil, the censors cast large groups of the population as enemies of the people, effectively engaging in a government-executed hate crime targeting tens of millions of people.
This censorship-fueled division didn’t just tear the country apart, it cut straight through the center of families, yielding countless divorces, and many millions of families estranging loved ones–all due to government-promoted lies. The polarization that has so demoralized us was a feature, not a bug, of the policies implemented by our politicians and bureaucrats.
Through the pervasive action of this wide-ranging government censorship/propaganda effort, vast swathes of the American people have been and continue to be weaponized against their fellow Americans. The faith these people had in institutions has been perverted to serve the institutions, not the people. This credulity-weaponization encompasses not just Joe Schmoe on the street, but extends all the way to the Supreme Court, where in oral arguments last year, several justices made claims whose easily verifiable falseness would have made them blush, if they weren’t so wholly taken in by the censorship and propaganda operations of the broader US government.
By acting as the witting or unwitting dupes of this vast censorship/propaganda operation, the credibility of virtually every civic institution in the US has been eroded possibly to the point of no return. Those whose credibility can be salvaged will be decades in the doing. Unfortunately, many, if not most, of our institutions and their denizens remain the censor’s reliable handmaidens, now seeming to hope the censors might somehow hide the gushing efflux of their credibility.
Among the harms that have been visited upon the American people through this censorship operation, vaccine injuries must also be counted. Our government not only censored questions and concerns, it acted as the marketing department for the vaccine manufacturers. However, there was one very important difference—if the manufacturers had been doing their own marketing, each ad would have had the long list of potential side effects and counter-indications that is required of all other pharmaceuticals. These risks were simply not communicated, except at the time of injection in the form of a long list of contra-indicated conditions.
However, if at that time one were to realize that one had one of the contra-indicated conditions, in many parts of the country, one would still have had no choice but to get the shot. Doctors who granted medical exemptions were threatened by the state to such a degree as to make exemptions virtually inaccessible, regardless of a doctor’s medical judgement. Vaccine mandates made getting the shot a requirement for engagement in public life and countenanced no exceptions.
This coercion effectively nullified informed consent for the entire American public, and thus, any adverse reaction ought to be considered fair game for redress. But it is the young and those who had already had COVID who present a picture of unalloyed harm. For these groups, the vaccines provided no benefit—only risk. Thus, every single adverse event incurred in these groups must be viewed as direct, personal harms caused by a government-sponsored censorship operation. That this particular strain of censorship benefited private companies at the same time that it harmed the American people adds grievous injury to the ongoing insult.
It is particularly demoralizing to realize that the polarization deliberately fomented by our government seems likely to protect its perpetrators from accountability. Everywhere, we see polls and articles about how fatigued people are by politics. And yet we have no other recourse to address this vast “censorship leviathan.” It is now the go-to tool with which our government effects policy.
The only way to change it is to remove from power those people who support this censorship regime and to dismantle the regime’s complex apparatus. Ultimately, government censorship reduces our society to just two groups of people: the censors and the censored. While it remains in place, the ranks of the censored will be ever-expanding as the censors require ever more censorship to ensure people continue to disbelieve their lying eyes.
Dr. Anthony Fauci and the CIA have some splainin’ to do.
According to a new letter from the House’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Fauci was admitted to CIA headquarters “without a record of entry” while the agency was conducting its official analysis of the origins of COVID-19.
The letter claims Fauci “participated in the analysis to ‘influence’ the Agency’s review.” The date of the alleged meeting is not disclosed.
Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R., Ohio), chair of the committee, gave the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services until October 10 to submit all requested items and pertinent communications related to the then-director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ clandestine meeting at Langley.
“The American people deserve the truth—to know the origins of the virus and whether there was a concerted effort by public health authorities to suppress the lab leak theory for political or national security purposes,” Wenstrup said.
Dr. Fauci has not yet made any public statements on the matter, but his alleged visit to CIA headquarters raises important questions.
Dr. Fauci has not yet made any public statements on the matter, but his alleged visit to CIA headquarters raises important questions.
Did Fauci request the meeting or the CIA?
Why was the meeting held in secret?
Was the CIA aware that Fauci had interests that may have conflicted with his ability to make an objective assessment of the origins of COVID-19?
Each of these questions is important, but let’s begin with the last one.
1. A Conflict of Interest?
As director of NIAID, Fauci, early in the pandemic, dismissed allegations that COVID-19 might have emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, calling these claims “conspiracy theories” and alleging it was “molecularly impossible.”
It was later learned that Fauci made these statements even though scientists he commissioned to author a paper on the origins of the virus privately said otherwise.
It turns out Dr. Fauci had a very good reason to conceal the fact that COVID-19 likely escaped from the lab in Wuhan, as most US government agencies now believe (including the FBI and the CIA).
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the agency that oversees NIAID, admitted in the fall of 2021 that for years the agency had been funding what was described as “risky virus research in Wuhan,” a charge Fauci had repeatedly and vociferously denied. Fauci, a longtime defender of gain-of-function research, had signed off on funding provided to the non-profit organization EcoHealth Alliance that had resulted in an “unexpected result”: an enhanced coronavirus from bats created in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
That NIH had funded gain-of-function research is now beyond dispute, evidenced by the recent termination of funding for WIV after NIH “determined that…WIV conducted an experiment that violated the terms of the grant regarding viral activity, which possibly did lead…to…unacceptable outcomes.”
According toVanity Fair reporter Katherine Eban, officials at EcoHealth Alliance say they informed NIH of this “unexpected result” (an enhanced coronavirus) in a progress report in 2018, but Fauci says he didn’t see the progress report prior to his congressional testimony.
All of this helps explain why Fauci was so insistent from the very beginning that COVID-19 originated naturally from a wet market, even though scientists who wrote the “Proximal Origin” paper in Nature in early 2020 told him it was “friggin’ likely” and “plausible” the virus emerged from the Wuhan lab.
Was the CIA aware of this potential conflict of interest when Fauci allegedly visited CIA headquarters in an attempt to “influence the Agency’s review”?
2. Why Was the Meeting Held in Secret and Who Authorized It?
Putting aside the question of conflicting interests, there is the simple question of secrecy.
One could argue Fauci visited CIA headquarters because he was director of NIAID and an infectious disease expert. The problem with this argument is that Fauci had already made many public statements on the origins of the virus, and if he was simply offering an elaboration of his points, there would be no need to hold such a meeting secretly.
Moreover, the CIA was conducting an independent review. That means the agency was supposed to reach its determination without outside influence.
A visit from Fauci has all the appearances of attempting to influence the outcome of the CIA’s report, which is no doubt why the visit went “without a record of entry.”
Who authorized the secret visit and why?
3. Who Requested the Meeting and Who Was Present?
The fact that Fauci’s alleged visit to Langley was done surreptitiously suggests that both the CIA and Fauci understood there were troubling ethics in making such a visit when the agency was conducting an independent review of COVID-19’s origins.
This raises an important question: Who requested the meeting, Fauci or the CIA?
This is not a trivial question. Mere weeks ago, a letter sent to CIA Director William Burns stated that a senior-level CIA whistleblower claimed the agency attempted to bribe six analysts who concluded with a low level of confidence that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan lab, allegedly offering six of the seven agents cash incentives to change their conclusions.
“The whistleblower,” the letter states, “contends that to come to the eventual public determination of uncertainty, the other six members were given a significant monetary incentive to change their position.”
If the charge is true, it means public officials attempted to bribe CIA analysts tasked with providing an official government assessment of the origins of the most deadly pandemic in a century to influence the outcome of their report.
That’s a very serious charge. The public deserves answers.
‘A Massive Coverup Spanning from China to DC’?
From the beginning of the pandemic, there has been a persistent government effort to silence and marginalize those who questioned NIH’s policies and conclusions.
It began with coordinated attacks on those who challenged the government’s COVID policies, which was first revealed when the American Institute for Economic Research published emails showing NIH Director Francis Collins instructing subordinates (including Fauci) on the need for “a quick and devastating published take down (sic)” of the premises of the Great Barrington Declaration, whose authors Collins described as “fringe epidemiologists.” (These “fringe” epidemiologists came from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford University.)
The attacks later shifted toward those who challenged the government’s assertion that COVID could only have originated naturally, a claim that was treated as dogma. Social media sites suspended users (at the behest of the government) who suggested COVID could have been man-made.
It’s become apparent that “fighting misinformation” was never NIH’s goal, or that of any other government agency. The goal was to fight information that conflicted with the government’s narratives, a common practice of authoritarian regimes.
David Asher, the man who led the State Department’s investigation into the origins of COVID-19, recently explained to New York magazine journalist David Zweig that the reason we have so little information about COVID’s origins is because people in power prefer it that way.
“Our own State Department told us ‘don’t get near this thing, it’ll blow up in your face,’” Asher told Zweig. “It’s a massive coverup spanning from China to DC.”
The unprecedented attacks on free speech Americans have witnessed the last three years stem directly from what Asher describes. During the pandemic, NIH was awarded $150 million to fight “misinformation,” a block of money that has been halted in the wake of NIH’s blunders and First Amendment challenges.
The most important thing to understand is that the war on “misinformation” isn’t an effort to spread the truth; it’s an effort to conceal it.
Free speech is truth’s greatest ally, which is precisely why authoritarian regimes throughout history have been so hostile to it. The famed Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis had it right when he observed, in Whitney v. California that “the freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.”
If Americans want the truth about the origins of COVID-19, they should stop supporting government-led efforts to censor speech and start pressing those in power to answer questions—starting with Dr. Fauci and the CIA.
Jeremy Farrar’s book from August 2021 is relatively more candid than most accounts of the initial decision to lock down in the US and UK. “It’s hard to come off nocturnal calls about the possibility of a lab leak and go back to bed,” he wrote of the clandestine phone calls he was getting from January 27-31, 2020. They had already alerted the FBI and MI5.
“I’d never had trouble sleeping before, something that comes from spending a career working as a doctor in critical care and medicine. But the situation with this new virus and the dark question marks over its origins felt emotionally overwhelming. None of us knew what was going to happen but things had already escalated into an international emergency. On top of that, just a few of us – Eddie [Holmes], Kristian [Anderson], Tony [Fauci] and I – were now privy to sensitive information that, if proved to be true, might set off a whole series of events that would be far bigger than any of us. It felt as if a storm was gathering, of forces beyond anything I had experienced and over which none of us had any control.”
At that point in the trajectory of events, intelligence services on both sides of the Atlantic had been put on notice. Anthony Fauci also received confirmation that money from the National Institutes of Health had been channeled to the offending lab in Wuhan, which meant that his career was on the line. Working at a furious pace, the famed “Proximal Origin” paper was produced in record time. It concluded that there was no lab leak.
In a remarkable series of revelations this week, we’ve learned that the CIA was involved in trying to make payments to those authors (thank you whistleblower), plus it appears that Fauci made visits to the CIA’s headquarters, most likely around the same time.
Suddenly we get some possible clarity in what has otherwise been a very blurry picture. The anomaly that has heretofore cried out for explanation is how it is that Fauci changed his mind so dramatically and precisely on the merit of lockdowns for the virus. One day he was counseling calm because this was flu-like, and the next day he was drumming up awareness of the coming lockdown. That day was February 27, 2020, the same day that the New York Times joined with alarmist propaganda from its lead virus reporter Donald G. McNeil.
On February 26, Fauci was writing: “Do not let the fear of the unknown… distort your evaluation of the risk of the pandemic to you relative to the risks that you face every day… do not yield to unreasonable fear.”
The next day, February 27, Fauci wrote actress Morgan Fairchild – likely the most high-profile influencer he knew from the firmament – that “be prepared to mitigate an outbreak in this country by measures that include social distancing, teleworking, temporary closure of schools, etc.”
To be sure, twenty-plus days had passed between the time Fauci alerted intelligence and when he decided to become the voice for lockdowns. We don’t know the exact date of the meetings with the CIA. But generally until now, most of February 2020 has been a blur in terms of the timeline. Something was going on but we hadn’t known just what.
Let’s distinguish between a proximate and distal cause of the lockdowns.
The proximate cause is the fear of a lab leak and an aping of the Wuhan strategy of keeping everyone in their homes to stop the spread. They might have believed this would work, based on the legend of how SARS-1 was controlled. The CIA had dealings with Wuhan and so did Fauci. They both had an interest in denying the lab leak and stopping the spread. The WHO gave them cover.
The distal reasons are more complicated. What stands out here is the possibility of a quid pro quo. The CIA pays scientists to say there was no lab leak and otherwise instructs its kept media sources (New York Times) to call the lab leak a conspiracy theory of the far right. Every measure would be deployed to keep Fauci off the hot seat for his funding of the Wuhan lab. But this cooperation would need to come at a price. Fauci would need to participate in a real-life version of the germ games (Event 201 and Crimson Contagion).
It would be the biggest role of Fauci’s long career. He would need to throw out his principles and medical knowledge of, for example, natural immunity and standard epidemiology concerning the spread of viruses and mitigation strategies. The old pandemic playbook would need to be shredded in favor of lockdown theory as invented in 2005 and then tried in Wuhan. The WHO could be relied upon to say that this strategy worked.
Fauci would need to be on TV daily to somehow persuade Americans to give up their precious rights and liberties. This would need to go on for a long time, maybe all the way to the election, however implausible this sounds. He would need to push the vaccine for which he had already made a deal with Moderna in late January.
Above all else, he would need to convince Trump to go along. That was the hardest part. They considered Trump’s weaknesses. He was a germaphobe so that’s good. He hated Chinese imports so it was merely a matter of describing the virus this way. But he also has a well-known weakness for deferring to highly competent and articulate professional women. That’s where the highly reliable Deborah Birx comes in: Fauci would be her wingman to convince Trump to green-light the lockdowns.
What does the CIA get out of this? The vast intelligence community would have to be put in charge of the pandemic response as the rule maker, the lead agency. Its outposts such as CISA would handle labor-related issues and use its contacts in social media to curate the public mind. This would allow the intelligence community finally to crack down on information flows that had begun 20 years earlier that they had heretofore failed to manage.
The CIA would hobble and hamstring the US president, whom they hated. And importantly, there was his China problem. He had wrecked relations through his tariff wars. So far as they were concerned, this was treason because he did it all on his own. This man was completely out of control. He needed to be put in his place. To convince the president to destroy the US economy with his own hand would be the ultimate coup de grace for the CIA.
A lockdown would restart trade with China. It did in fact achieve that.
How would Fauci and the CIA convince Trump to lock down and restart trade with China? By exploiting these weaknesses and others too: his vulnerability to flattery, his desire for presidential aggrandizement, and his longing for Xi-like powers over all to turn off and then turn on a whole country. Then they would push Trump to buy the much-needed personal protective equipment from China.
They finally got their way: somewhere between March 10 or possibly as late as March 14, Trump gave the go ahead. The press conference of March 16, especially those magical 70 seconds in which Fauci read the words mandating lockdowns because Birx turned out to be too squeamish, was the great turning point. A few days later, Trump was on the phone with Xi asking for equipment.
In addition, such a lockdown would greatly please the digital tech industry, which would experience a huge boost in demand, plus large corporations like Amazon and WalMart, which would stay open as their competitors were closed. Finally, it would be a massive subsidy to pharma and especially the mRNA platform technology itself, which would enjoy the credit for ending the pandemic.
If this whole scenario is true, it means that all along Fauci was merely playing a role, a front man for much deeper interests and priorities in the CIA-led intelligence community. This broad outline makes sense of why Fauci changed his mind on lockdowns, including the timing of the change. There are still many more details to know, but these new fragments of new information take our understanding in a new and more coherent direction.
This independent documentary production is based on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, ‘The Real Anthony Fauci”, a New York Times bestseller with over 1,000,000 copies sold. It chronicles the career and dubious exploits of the top US government ‘public health’ bureaucrat, Anthony Fauci, and his nefarious role as a funding gatekeeper for the pharmaceutical industrial complex and its devastating effects on populations – not just in America, but globally. Watch:
Today, we are witnessing the nudging (manipulation) of the population to accept a ‘new normal’ based on a climate emergency narrative, restrictions on movement and travel, programmable digital money, ‘pandemic preparedness’ courtesy of the World Health Organization’s tyrannical pandemic treaty, unaccountable AI and synthetic ‘food’.
Whether it involves a ‘food transition’, an ‘energy transition’, 15-minute cities or some other benign-sounding term, all this is to be determined by a supranational ‘stakeholder’ elite with ordinary people sidelined in the process. An undemocratic agenda designed to place restrictions on individual liberty, marking a dramatic shift towards authoritarianism.
In the 1980s, to help legitimise the deregulation-privatisation neoliberal globalisation agenda, government and media instigated an ideological onslaught, driving home the primacy of ‘free enterprise’, individual rights and responsibility and emphasising a shift away from the role of the state, trade unions and the collective in society.
We are currently seeing another ideological shift: individual rights and freedoms are said to undermine the wider needs of society and the planet – in a stark turnaround – personal freedom is now said to pose a threat to national security, public health or the climate.
As in the 1980s, this messaging is being driven by an economic impulse. This time, the collapsing neoliberal project.
The Bank of England’s chief economist, Huw Pill, says that people should ‘accept’ being poorer. This is similar to the response of Rob Kapito, co-founder of the world’s biggest asset management firm, BlackRock. In 2022, the unimaginably rich and entitled Kapito said that a “very entitled” generation of (ordinary working) people who have never had to sacrifice would soon have to face shortages for the first time in their lives.
While business as usual prevails in Kapito’s world of privilege and that of major arms, energy, pharmaceuticals and food companies, whose megarich owners continue to rake in massive profits, Kapito and Pill tell ordinary people to get used to poverty and the ‘new normal’ as if we are ‘all in it together’ – billionaires and working class alike. They conveniently use COVID and the situation in Ukraine as cover for the collapsing neoliberalism.
But this is part of the hegemonic agenda that seeks to ensure that the establishment’s world view is the accepted cultural norm. And anyone who challenges this world view – whether it involves, for instance, questioning climate alarmism, the ‘new normal’, the nature of the economic crisis, the mainstream COVID narrative or the official stance on Ukraine and Russia – is regarded as a spreader of misinformation and the ‘enemy within’.
Although the term ‘enemy within’ was popularised by Margaret Thatcher during the miners’ strike in 1984-85 to describe the striking miners, it is a notion with which that Britain’s rulers have regarded protest movements and uprisings down the centuries. From the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381 to the Levellers and Diggers in the 17th century, it is a concept associated with anyone or any group that challenges the existing social order and the interests of the ruling class.
John Ball, a radical priest, addressed the Peasants’ Revolt rebels with the following words:
Good friends, matters cannot go well in England until all things be held in common; when there shall be neither vassals nor lords; when the lords shall be no more masters than ourselves.”
The revolt was suppressed. John Ball was captured and hung, drawn and quartered. Part of the blood-soaked history of the British ruling class.
Later on, the 17th-century Diggers movement wanted to create small, egalitarian rural communities and farm on common land that had been privatised by enclosures.
The 1975 song ‘The world Turned Upside Down’ by Leon Rosselson commemorates the Diggers. His lyrics describe the aims and plight of the movement. In Rosselson’s words, the Diggers were dispossessed via theft and murder but reclaimed what was theirs only to be violently put down.
Little surprise then that, in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher used the state machinery to defeat the country’s most powerful and trade union and the shock troops of the labour movement, the National Union of Mineworkers – ‘the enemy within’. She needed to do this to open the gates for capital to profit from the subsequent deindustrialisation of much of the UK and the dismantling of large parts of the welfare state.
And the result?
A hollowed-out, debt-bloated economy, the destruction of the social fabric of entire communities and the great financial Ponzi scheme – the ‘miracle’ of deregulated finance – that now teeters on the brink of collapse, leading the likes of Kapito and Pill to tell the public to get ready to become poor.
And now, in 2023, the latest version of the ‘enemy within’ disseminates ‘misinformation’ – anything that challenges the official state-corporate narrative. So, this time, one goal is to have a fully controlled (censored) internet.
For instance, US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) recently awarded Accrete a contract for Argus to detect disinformation threats from social media. Argus is AI software that analyses social media data to predict emergent narratives and generate intelligence reports at a speed and scale to help neutralise viral disinformation threats.
In a recent press release, Prashant Bhuyan, founder and CEO of Accrete, boasts:
Social media is widely recognised as an unregulated environment where adversaries routinely exploit reasoning vulnerabilities and manipulate behaviour through the intentional spread of disinformation. USSOCOM is at the tip of the spear in recognising the critical need to identify and analytically predict social media narratives at an embryonic stage before those narratives evolve and gain traction. Accrete is proud to support USSOCOM’s mission.”
This is about predicting wrong think on social media. But control over the internet is just part of a wider programme of establishment domination, surveillance and dealing with protest and dissent.
The authors of the article ask us to consider some of the ways the US government is weaponizing its surveillance technologies to flag citizens as a threat to national security, whether or not they have done anything wrong – from flagging citizens as a danger based on their feelings, phone and movements to their spending activities, social media activities, political views and correspondence.
The elite has determined that the existential threat is you. The article ‘Costs of War: Peterloo’, written by UK Veterans for Peace member Aly Renwick, details the history of the brutal suppression of protesters by Britain’s rulers. He also strips away any notion that some may have of a benign, present-day ruling elite with democratic leanings. The leopard has not changed its spots.
As we saw during COVID, the thinking is that hard-won rights must be curtailed, freedom of association is reckless, free thinking is dangerous, dissent is to be stamped on, impartial science is a threat and free speech is deadly. Government is ‘the truth’, Fauci (or some similar figure) is ‘the science’ and censorship is for your own good.
The economic crisis is making many people poorer, so they must be controlled, monitored and subjugated.
The transitions mentioned at the start of this article along with the surveillance agenda (together known as the ‘Great Reset’) are being accelerated at this time of economic crisis when countless millions across the West are being impoverished. The collapsing financial system is resulting in an interrelated global debt, inflation and ‘austerity’ crisis and the biggest transfer of wealth to the rich in history.
As a result, the powers that be fear that the masses might once again pick up their pitchforks and revolt. They are adamant that the peasants must know their place.
But the flame of protest and dissent from centuries past still inspires and burns bright. So, with that in mind, let’s finish with Leon Rosselson’s lyrics in reference to the Diggers movement (Billy Bragg’s version of the song can be found on YouTube):
In sixteen forty-nine To St. George’s Hill A ragged band they called the Diggers Came to show the people’s will They defied the landlords They defied the laws They were the dispossessed reclaiming what was theirs
We come in peace they said To dig and sow We come to work the lands in common And to make the waste grounds grow This earth divided We will makе whole So it will be A common treasury for all
Thе sin of property We do disdain No man has any right to buy and sell The earth for private gain By theft and murder They took the land Now everywhere the walls Spring up at their command
They make the laws To chain us well The clergy dazzle us with heaven Or they damn us into hell We will not worship The God they serve The God of greed who feed the rich While poor man starve
We work we eat together We need no swords We will not bow to masters Or pay rent to the lords We are free men Though we are poor You Diggers all stand up for glory Stand up now
From the men of property The orders came They sent the hired men and troopers To wipe out the Diggers’ claim Tear down their cottages Destroy their corn They were dispersed Only the vision lingers on
You poor take courage You rich take care The earth was made a common treasury For everyone to share All things in common All people one We come in peace The order came to cut them down We come in peace The order came to cut them down
All research at a Fort Detrick laboratory that handles high-level disease-causing material, such as Ebola, is on hold indefinitely after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the organization failed to meet biosafety standards.
No infectious pathogens, or disease-causing material, have been found outside authorized areas at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases
The reasons for the shut down is questionable:
According to the Code of Federal Regulations, which also lists required training, records and biosafety plans, Federal Select Agents Program registration can be suspended to protect public health and safety.It is not clear if this is why the USAMRIID registration was suspended
However, the reasons they shut down the lab ranged from workers not getting recertified to the wastewater decontamination system that failed to meet the required safety standards:
The suspension was due to multiple causes, including failure to follow local procedures and a lack of periodic recertification training for workers in the biocontainment laboratories, according to Vander Linden. The wastewater decontamination system also failed to meet standards set by the Federal Select Agent Program
Shortly after, on January 30th, 2020, the coronavirus pandemic was announced. I am not saying that Covid-19 began in Ft. Dietrick, but it is worth reexamining what really happened that compelled CDC officials to order the shutdown of the lab over employees not getting recertified or problems with managing the wastewater decontamination system.
On March 13th, 2020, The New York Times headlined with ‘China Spins Tale That the U.S. Army Started the Coronavirus Epidemic’ which was based on China’s “conspiracy theories”, and that it was the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) based in Fort Detrick, Maryland who released Covid-19, “After criticizing American officials for politicizing the pandemic, Chinese officials and news outlets have floated unfounded theories that the United States was the source of the virus.”
Chinese authorities were referring to an article published from The New York Times on August 5th, 2019 ‘Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns’that claimed why the US military lab was shut down and had cancelled all research concerning lethal microbes “Safety concerns at a prominent military germ lab have led the government to shut down research involving dangerous microbes like the Ebola virus.” The spokesperson from the US Army, Ms. Vander Linden declared that “Research is currently on hold.” However, The NY Times had some positive news I suppose, “But there has been no threat to public health, no injuries to employees and no leaks of dangerous material outside the laboratory” But no more information from that point on, “In the statement, the C.D.C. cited “national security reasons” as the rationale for not releasing information about its decision.” Very strange in my opinion.
Cui Bono: Russia Exposes Who Benefits from the US Military’s Bioweapons Program
However, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, the Chief of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Protection Troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation recently conducted an important briefing on the U.S. military biological activities and present danger it imposes to all of us. In fact, it is a warning to what the U.S. government is capable of and that is releasing another biological weapon, whether dangerous or not for its geopolitical agendas including the long-stated goals of depopulating the earth. As for the globalists, less people on the planet will be much easier to control. Release a bioweapon, discover a vaccine as the cure, and then scare or force people to take the so-called “vaccine” or what I like to call “experimental shots.” Besides the goals of depopulation, the political and corporate establishment and their Big Pharma cartels have created long-term patients from the injuries caused by the Covid-19 experimental shots which in their perspective, is good for business.
The next pandemic is the second phase of a long-term war against humanity as Kirillov laid out the US government’s stated goals which “are primarily aimed at studying potential agents of biological weapons — anthrax, tularemia, coronavirus, as well as pathogens of economically significant infections — pathogenic avian influenza and African swine fever” he continued“there is a clear trend: pathogens that fall within the Pentagon’s area of interest, such as COVID-19, avian influenza, African swine fever, subsequently become pandemic, and American pharmaceutical companies become the beneficiaries.”Kirillov also mentioned Event 201, an exercise conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic on October 18th, 2019, that “simulated the epidemic of a previously unknown coronavirus that, according to the scenario, was transmitted from bats to humans via a porcine organism, the intermediary virus carrier.” For Russian authorities “the development of the pandemic under this scenario, as well as the implementation of EcoHealth Alliance projects, raises questions about the possible intentional nature of COVID-19 and U.S. involvement in the incident.”
So, the US Military Creates a Problem, Big Pharma Creates the Solution
The question remains, was the US government behind the Covid-19 outbreak? It’s hard to say at this point, but one thing is for sure, Big Pharma executives from Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca and other biotech companies were licking their lips for the future profits that they were about to make on the vaccines they produced. The propaganda campaign to scare humanity into taking these so-called vaccines worked to an extent despite those who fell into the trap of getting the Covid-19 experimental shot. However, it was estimated that more than 2 billion people did not take the Covid-19 experimental shot, and that should give us hope to be more optimistic about any future virus currently being created by Western funded biolabs around the world including those in the Ukraine and elsewhere.
A platform created by the Center for Global Development and the United Nations Development Programme called Pandem-ic.com published an updated report on August 6, 2023, ‘Mapping our unvaccinated world’and said that “Globally, 2.2 billion people are completely unvaccinated. This is the global tally as of today based on the latest information available. It represents the total number of people who have yet to receive their first shot.” And Thank God! Make no mistake, this was and still is biological warfare and many people around the world fought back and resisted Western authorities and their institutions such as Big Pharma, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
There is hope and optimism regarding the next ‘planned-demic’ because the people have awakened to the fact that there is a cult of death and destruction called the ‘globalists’ who want to depopulate our planet. But a new resistance will rise once again and face the same enemies of humanity.
The worldwide resistance against the Covid-19 lockdowns, vaccine mandates, facemasks, and social distancing at the height of the pandemic was and still is, inspiring for us all. Although they were many people who resisted the medical establishment worldwide, I want to mention several countries, resistance groups, organizations and the people who have resisted the lies and they all should be recognized for it.
Big Pharma’s Major Problem: The Global Resistance
Kirillov said that when the US military works with dangerous pathogens “American pharmaceutical companies become the beneficiaries” which is a factual statement. Whatever the US government and Big Pharma are planning behind closed doors, they will fail. It’s just like that old saying, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. The good news is that there is no trust in Big Pharma around the world, especially in most African countries. On March 9th, 2021, Afrobarometer, a pan-African, nonpartisan survey research network published ‘Who wants COVID-19 vaccination? In 5 West African countries, hesitancy is high, trust low’ based on a survey on five countries in Africa where they conducted face to face interviews on their views about Covid-19 vaccines:
This dispatch is based on data collected during the period October 2020-January 2021 in five West African countries: Benin, Liberia, Niger, Senegal, and Togo. In each country, Afrobarometer conducted face-to-face interviews in the language of the respondent’s choice with a nationally representative sample of 1,200 adult citizens that yields country-level results with a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points at a 95% confidence level
Here are the most important findings to consider in the Survey:
*In the five surveyed countries in West Africa, most citizens – 92% on average – say they are “somewhat well informed” or “very well informed” about the COVID-19 pandemic and efforts to combat it
*Only three in 10 respondents (31%) say they trust their government “somewhat” or “a lot” to ensure that any vaccine is safe before it is offered to citizens. Mistrust is particularly high in Senegal (83%) and Liberia (78%)
* Six in 10 citizens (60%), on average, say they are unlikely to try to get vaccinated, including 44% who consider it “highly unlikely.” Senegalese (79%) and Liberians (66%) are most likely to express a reluctance to take the vaccine
*Vaccine hesitancy/resistance skyrockets alongside doubts about the government’s ability to ensure that vaccines are safe. Those who fully trust their government on this score are five to 10 times as likely to want the vaccine as those who don’t trust it
*Large majorities in Niger (89%), Liberia (86%), and Senegal (71%) believe that prayer is more effective than a vaccine in preventing coronavirus infection. Views are more divided in Benin (41%) and Togo (40%)
*Poor respondents express a greater reluctance to get vaccinated than their better off counterparts.
“Except in Liberia, citizens with more formal education are not significantly more likely to want the vaccine than their less educated counterparts“
“Vaccine hesitancy is significantly stronger in cities than in rural areas in Benin, Togo, and Niger“
In another report published on November 24th, 2022, this time by the BBC ‘The vaccine hesitancy in North Africa’s Covid ‘black hole’ reported on Morocco’s population and their high-rate of vaccinations as to those in the Western Sahara who were not, “according to one international survey published in 2019 before the pandemic began, 80% of Moroccans trusted vaccines to be safe, among the highest rates in the world.” However, in the Western Sahara, it is a different story:
But that high level of trust may be far lower among the 600,000 people living in Western Sahara – a non-self-governing territory that is administered by Morocco. When it comes to the Covid-19 pandemic, Western Sahara is a black hole: no information exists. The area is a blank spot on the World Health Organization’s global map of Covid-19 cases and vaccines because Morocco refuses to publish data about how many Sahrawis have been vaccinated in this politically sensitive region
In the Western Sahara, the BBC interviewed a truck driver by the name of Hanzali who knows people who bought a vaccine certificate to avoid taking the vaccine, “even the people who took the vaccine took it not because they wanted to but because they were told to or had to” Hanzali continued “I’m not against the vaccine – I’m against the people who try to force me to get the vaccine.” There were unvaccinated Sahrawis who do not trust their politicians, they were the ones that pushed these vaccines on the Sahrawis, “several unvaccinated Sahrawis told the BBC that their hesitancy stems from the fact that Morocco’s politicians – not its doctors – have been at the forefront of the country’s vaccination campaign.” An unnamed student of media and technology in Laayoune told BBC “In my opinion the government used ‘corona’ for political purposes” he continued “In Casablanca and Rabat, there were lots of protests against the government – and here too [in Laayoune]. It’s because it comes from the government that people don’t agree.” The highlight of the story is that the unnamed student still refuses the vaccine, “three years into the pandemic, he says he still refuses to take the vaccine. His view is shared by others the BBC spoke to in the region.”
Africa: The Continent of Resistance
In a article by World Bank Blogs written by several authors including Neia Prata Muloongo Simuzingili, Zelalem Yilma Debebe, Fedja Pivodic and Ernest Massiah titled ‘What is driving COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Sub-Saharan Africa?’ on the reasons why so many Africans are rejecting Covid-19 vaccines:
In Africa, there are multiple drivers of vaccine hesitancy . Concerns about safety, side effects, and effectiveness are widespread—and observed among health workers in Zimbabwe, Ghana, South Africa, Kenya, Sudan, and Ethiopia. The Africa CDC survey noted that respondents viewed COVID-19 vaccines as less safe and effective than other vaccines, similar findings have been observed in Uganda, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Cameroon and South Africa. The suspension of AstraZeneca’s roll out in some European countries, the South African data on its effectiveness and the temporary suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the United States to evaluate reports of blood clotting, affected confidence in COVID-19 vaccination. Ultimately, AstraZeneca’s vaccine was refused by several African countries
So why Africans reject Big Pharma’s experimental shots? Authorities blame the internet and social media for the “conspiracy theories” that spreads medical misinformation:
Access to social media has facilitated the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. In the Africa CDC study, people with high levels of hesitancy were more likely to use social media and be exposed to disinformation. Half of those surveyed in South Africa believed the virus was linked to 5G technology. In another South African study, approximately a third of those who would refuse the vaccine trusted social media as a primary source of information. A small study in Addis Ababa showed that hesitancy was 3.6 times higher among those who received their information from social media compared to those who relied on television and radio
The African people are awake to the fact that they don’t want to be guinea pigs in any form:
However, Tanzania has repeatedly struggled to counter misinformation and people’s reluctance to be vaccinated. To quell growing scepticism against COVID-19 vaccines, Tanzania’s Ministry of Health embarked on community mobilisation campaigns that included community influencers.
Community health workers, musicians and others have become part of the government-led communication strategy to share reliable information about the pandemic, dispel the tide of misinformation and boost the vaccine numbers
If the statistics are correct, with a population of 62 million, only half has been vaccinated, so over 30 million people did not. Many in Tanzania are not falling for the propaganda that Covid-19 experimental shots are safe and effective.
The legacy of John Magafuli will be that he opposed the dictates of Western institutions and Big Pharma. History will remember him as a hero for the Tanzanian people because since the Covid pandemic was announced, he warned the people about the dangers of Big Pharma and their Western institutions. John Magafuli will be remembered as a hero not only to the Tanzanian people and to continent of Africa, but to all of us around the world who oppose the globalist operators and their agenda of vaccinating the planet to either create a sick population that will benefit Big Pharma or just eliminate the “useless eaters” that are in their way of achieving their goals.
Forget Opposing an Illegal Occupation, the Palestinians are now Anti-Vaxx Conspiracy Theorists!
If any of us were Palestinian living in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, or other areas in and around Palestine, I would absolutely reject the Covid-19 vaccine for several reasons. First, would you take a vaccine from Western countries who have been supporting Israel unconditionally since 1948? How would you know if they are safe? Second, would you trust Western biotech corporations who produced a vaccine in under several months while most vaccines had acquired many years of studies and tests before they were approved?
Bottom line, Palestinians don’t want to be test subjects like the Israelis. “The CEO of Pfizer said he chose Israel to be the “one country” to demonstrate his company’s anti-COVID vaccine because he was “impressed, frankly, with the obsession of your prime minister” according to allisraelnews.com. “He called me 30 times. He would call me at 3 o’clock in the morning and he would ask me about the (coronavirus) variants, what data we have,” Bourla continued “and I would say, ‘Prime Minister, it’s 3 o’clock in the morning,’ and he would say, ‘No, no, don’t worry, just tell me.’ Or he would call me to ask about children, ‘I need to vaccinate the schools.’ Or about pregnant women.” Bourla said “he convinced me, frankly, that he would be on top of things” and that “we placed our bet with Israel and we are so happy because of the way that you executed the vaccination. And a year from the declaration of the pandemic by the WHO (World Health Organization) we were able today to issue a press release together with the Ministry of Health of your country about the results.” In a scientific report from 2022 based on the results from Big Pharma’s experimental shots on the 16–39-year-old population in Israel with factors associated between Covid-19 infection rates and those who received the Covid-19 vaccine are as follows:
Using a unique dataset from Israel National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) from 2019 to 2021, the study aims to evaluate the association between the volume of cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome EMS calls in the 16–39-year-old population with potential factors including COVID-19 infection and vaccination rates. An increase of over 25% was detected in both call types during January–May 2021
The report admits that there are legitimate concerns, “While not establishing causal relationships, the findings raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side-effects and underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.”
On July 23rd, 2021, Al Jazeera‘Reluctance and distrust define vaccine attitudes in Gaza’ reported on the mistrust of Covid-19 vaccines among Palestinians. “Suhair Zakkout, spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in the Gaza Strip, said its health sector has long faced major systemic issues” but concerns remain because a third of people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank refuse to get vaccinated with Covid-19 experimental shots:
The reluctance of people to get vaccinated, however, has raised concerns and prompted the ICRC – alongside the health ministry and the ministry of endowment and religious affairs – to launch a campaign aimed at increasing awareness about the positive effects of the shots
On June 15th, 2021, The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) found that “35% (37% in the West Bank and 32% in the Gaza Strip) say they and their families are not willing to take the vaccine when it becomes available to them.” One third of the Palestinian people will not take any Covid-19 experimental shot and that is a good thing.
Yemen’s Houthi Movement and the Resistance against Covid-19 Vaccines
Opinions on the coronavirus in Yemen are as divided as the country itself. While the south is awaiting the first vaccines, the north claims to have no need for immunization. What the two sides have in common is a health sector in shambles and a striking love for conspiracy theories
They say Yemen is divided between the Yemeni government in the south who are eagerly waiting for their first vaccines while the north which is controlled by the Houthi movement who has been fighting the Saudi coalition since March 26th, 2015, had declared, they don’t want them:
While countries across the world are racing to provide their citizens with the coronavirus vaccine, the Yemeni authorities remain confused and divided. The internationally recognized Yemeni government on the one hand is trying to gradually obtain the vaccine for free, while the Houthi movement (Ansar Allah) on the other hand categorically rejects the vaccine
Daraj mentioned the war and storage issues are some factors on why the Yemeni population has not been vaccinated, but residents who live in the north such as 31-year-old Ahmed Al-Washali who said that “We do not want vaccines, there is no corona in Yemen, we are fine” and that “It has not affected us. While other countries were imprisoned in their homes, and could not work, we lived normally and nothing happened.” Daraj reporters asked 52 people who live in Houthi territory about the Covid vaccine and here is the result:
Our team met with 53 people in areas under control of the Houthi movement, most of whom hold a university degree, are employed in the public or private sector and have an average age of 27 to 35.
We found that 42 out of 53 people refuse to receive the vaccine if it were available. Because they did not need it, most said, while 17 claimed the vaccine may be a “conspiracy” posing a threat to their health. Of the 9 people willing to receive the vaccine, 7 stipulated it should be free of charge. Two people said to have never heard about a vaccine against the virus
The results are inspiring to say the least. Western-backed organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) are not trusted at all:
Some people found the lack of a complete outbreak of the epidemic a reason to reject the vaccine and denounce the integrity of the WHO. A doctor in Taiz, who requested anonymity, said he supported the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement signed by thousands of scholars in the field of medicine and public health calling for an alternative approach to the Covid pandemic based on “focused protection” of those most at risk.
Despite the low rate of illiteracy compared to other governorates, in Taiz too resistance to vaccination remained high. And here too it was not just limited to religious people but included holders of university degrees and secular people. For 49-year-old teacher Jamil, for example, corona was “just an illusion”
In the city of Aden, the results were similar:
Things were not too different in Aden, as fear for the vaccine prevailed. In a poll conducted by our team among 121 residents in the city of Aden, over 84% refused to have the vaccine. The main reason was a lack of confidence in the authorities responsible for importing the vaccine and a fear for the conditions in which the vaccine would be cooled and stored. Even some health workers feared the vaccine in terms of safety and potential side effects
The Houthi movement and the people who support them are clearly awake to the fact that Western nations and their Big Pharma corporations are promoting dangerous Covid-19 experimental shots. They see the dangers.
The Houthi movement knows that these Covid-19 experimental shots are used as another weapon of war, a bioweapon that can used to depopulate their society. At least we know that in the next manufactured pandemic, the Houthi movement will continue to resist Western countries and Big Pharma just like they been resisting the Western-backed Yemeni government led by Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi and a coalition of military forces led by Saudi Arabia since 2014.
Vaccine Hesitancy in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean
A Brazilian study on vaccine hesitancy by Cardenos De Saude Publica (CSP), English translation ‘Reports in Public Health’ called ‘COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Latin America and Africa: a scoping review’said that several countries had a percentage of people who refused Covid-19 experimental shots for various reasons:
In the case of vaccination against COVID-19, studies conducted in African and Latin American countries showed that hesitancy was linked with religious beliefs, association between vaccination and surveillance of government authorities, lack of information about adverse events, vaccine safety and efficacy, and dissemination of fake news
Who were the main Latin American countries with high rates of hesitancy?
In Latin American countries, the highest vaccine hesitancy rate of 26.1% and the lowest 8.4% were reported in Brazil. In Ecuador, hesitancy ranged from 73% to 9%, depending on the vaccine efficacy. In Chile, 28% were hesitant and 23% refused the vaccine. Peru had 10.1% refusal and 19.5% hesitancy. In Venezuela, vaccine hesitancy was 28.75%
One point that the Brazilian study reflected on was the history of the Global North (Western Nations) which was the legacy of colonialism and the violence (military invasions, regime change and their depopulation schemes) which the people in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean remember from their histories with Western Imperial powers:
Underdeveloped countries were repeatedly used for tests with human beings, which today resulted in vaccine refusal due to the fear of being laboratory subjects. The power relationship between the Global North and the Global South, expressed in a past of coloniality and violence still alive in the memory of colonized countries, is reflected in the rejection of practices that supposedly come from the North. Then vaccines are seen by different groups as population control strategies in underdeveloped countries, as “western malevolence”, or as a method to extinguish undesirable groups
The people who refused Covid-19 vaccines in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean during the last pandemic will continue to resist Western nations and their Big Pharma scams because they know that there is an agenda in the next manufactured pandemic.
Vaccine Resistance in Western nations
Forbes magazine reported on March 8th, 2021, ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Is Worse In E.U. Than U.S.’claimed that the “but getting shots into the arms of European Union (E.U.) residents has proven to be much trickier. The U.S. is vaccinating at a faster pace than any member of the E.U., and three times the E.U. average” and that is in a way the good news. Polls suggest that the Europeans don’t trust Big Pharma as well since “only 36% of the surveyed Europeans strongly agree with the statement that vaccines are safe.” In fact, Europe has a history of resistance against Big Pharma’s AstraZeneca vaccine:
In Europe, even approved products that don’t necessarily have supply issues have faced stiff resistance. In France and Germany, for example, the approved AstraZeneca vaccine has an image problem, which means many are reluctant to take it, including healthcare workers on the front lines. Poor, inconsistent messaging has fueled the public’s confusion over the safety and efficacy of AstraZeneca’s vaccine. President Macron’s claim last month that the vaccine was “quasi-ineffective” for the elderly didn’t help matters. He has since reversed himself and is now pleading that people get vaccinated with whatever vaccine is available to them. But the damage was already done
The Europeans of both political movements, whether far-left or far-right, are usually anti-establishment so obviously, they don’t trust Big Pharma’s Covid-19 experimental shots as well:
Europe’s degree of Covid-19 vaccine aversion is perhaps surprising, but not if one views it in the context of fiercely anti-establishment politics on the far-left and far-right, and a particularly virulent anti-science sentiment that existed long before Covid-19 hit. To illustrate, the far-right Lega and leftist Five Star Movement in Italy have both incited fearmongering about vaccines. Likewise, far-right and far-left political leaders in France, such as Le Pen and Mélenchon, have stoked anti-vaccine attitudes
From Africa, the Middle East, Latin America to Europe and even in the United States where one-third of the population did not take the Covid-19 experimental shots for whatever reason, there will be another popular resistance against Big Pharma’s experimental shots and a possible future lockdown.
For the next manufactured pandemic, the globalists, and the Pentagon, including all their institutions including the elephant in the room, Big Pharma will face a resistance by people from all walks of life and they will fail because the 2 billion people around the world will continue to oppose Big Pharma’s Covid-19 experimental shots and that is something the globalists are not looking forward to.
On critical matters, our medical authorities have no interest in settling the science. Instead, battles are won in the arena of smear and insinuation
The reality is that most of us are not ready for the truth. We want reassurance. We cling to our comfort blankets because the idea that we live in a world in which our and our families’ interests are not paramount is too disturbing.
The idea that our fates are entirely dependent on a giant Ponzi scheme that might come crashing down at any moment from any one of multiple design flaws – an ecological crisis, a nuclear catastrophe, a pandemic or a hubristic mis-step with Artificial Intelligence – is simply too terrifying.
So, even as we mock a figurehead like Donald Trump, Joe Biden or Boris Johnson, we remain deeply invested in the system that keeps producing them. We need to believe – and just as desperately as a child refusing, a little longer, to give in to suspicions that Father Christmas might not exist. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, our societies, we insist, are on a continuous upwards trajectory named progress.
Few are willing to consider that we might actually be in a death spiral. So instead of doing something to change the world, we bury our heads. We ignore every sign, however blatant, of the system’s inherent dysfunction and corruption.
Horse dewormer
These dark thoughts are prompted in part by the very belated concession from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – whispered by government lawyers in a court hearing – that for two years it has been peddling disinformation about both Ivermectin and the fact that doctors were not authorised to prescribe it in the treatment of Covid.
Ok, let’s pause right there. Because already I sense you reaching for the remote to change channels. Isn’t Ivermectin a horse drug that only anti-vaxxers and Covid deniers ever talk about?
Before I lose you entirely, let me hurriedly issue a disclaimer. This piece isn’t really about Ivermectin – least of all its efficacy in the treatment of Covid. I’m not a doctor and I’m not qualified to judge. I talk about things I am familiar with, that I have some insight on.
I’m not interested in medical debates about Ivermectin. I’m interested in deconstructing the political debates around it – and what they tell us about the way medical matters, and much else besides, have been entirely captured by political and commercial interests.
I can assure you I have no shares in Ivermectin and won’t profit either way, whether its use increases or declines. Unlike Big Pharma, that’s not the reason I’m taking an interest.
It just so happens that Ivermectin is a particularly fascinating case study – both of the corruption of our governance and regulatory systems, and of our own unwillingness to recognise that corruption out of fear of what it might signify.
Ivermectin provides one more data point that might help drag each of us out of our carefully constructed cocoon of ideological comfort. It might make us a little angrier, a little more willing to fight for our species’ survival.
‘Merely quips’
After all, the general assumption that Ivermectin is a horse dewormer didn’t come from nowhere. It was a view cultivated in us by the FDA and the corporate media. Here is the tweet the agency sent out exactly two years ago to persuade us that only dangerous nutjobs talk about Ivermectin:
I am guessing that those 108,000 likes make it one of the most influential tweets ever by the FDA. There is a reason why it went so viral.
The corporate media worked overtime to promote exactly the same messaging: that Ivermectin was only good for horses and cows. The media echoed the FDA in implying very strongly that the drug’s use in humans was not safe. There was not a late-night show host who did not mock Ivermectin as a horse drug and ridicule its supporters, even leading doctors.
Super-star podcaster Joe Rogan’s admission that he had been prescribed Ivermectin by his doctor when he fell ill with Covid were enough to foment demands for his banning from social media for spreading misinformation.
Social media giants like Youtube played their own part, treating any reference to Ivermectin, in pretty much any positive context, even by doctors, as “misinformation”. The algorithms were adjusted accordingly, which is why I will have to avoid mentioning Ivermectin when I post this story on social media.
And yet now, two years on, the FDA is quietly admitting that it, not Rogan, outright lied. Ivermectin isn’t a medicine used only by vets. It’s a human drug that’s been prescribed billions of times – and so successfully that it won the Nobel prize for medicine in 2015.
And not just that. It is now the FDA – not Rogan – admitting that Ivermectin is safe and that doctors, including Rogan’s, do indeed have the authority to prescribe the drug, not just to treat parasites but to treat Covid too.
It was tweets like the one above that instigated a witch-hunt by US state medical boards against doctors who prescribed Ivermectin, the matter at the heart of the case currently before the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
With the FDA’s statements about Ivermectin now being harshly criticised by the judges hearing the case, the US government has fallen back on the barely credible argument that its comments were meant as “merely quips”.
So why would the FDA lie about Ivermectin – and maintain that lie for at least two years until forced to come clean under cross-examination by the courts?
And why did all those expert medical correspondents working for Big Media, journalists who knew only too well that Ivermectin was a human drug, conspire with the FDA in promoting a blatant lie?
Here, for example, is Dr Sunjay Gupta of CNN being put on the spot by Rogan when he appeared on his show. He is forced to admit, uncomfortably, that the media were not telling the truth about Ivermectin.
Emergency use
Which brings us to the politics surrounding Ivermectin – which is far more revelatory than any medical debate about it.
Remember, the FDA’s drug division receives three-quarters of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry. That doesn’t just mean the continuing salaries of many thousands of government officials depend on keeping Big Pharma happy. It also ensures wider political pressures. Washington prefers not to alienate Big Pharma and then have to foot the FDA’s budget through higher taxes. And, as we shall see, leading politicians have every incentive to avoid picking a fight with a corporate America.
The reality is that Ivermectin and other drugs that might have been repurposed for Covid posed an enormous threat in principle to the FDA and its funders in Big Pharma – completely aside from the practical question of whether those drugs actually work against Covid.
The new, experimental mRNA vaccines could only be rushed out for use in humans on the basis of an emergency authorisation so long as no other drug could be shown to be an effective treatment for Covid.
Well, that was a good thing, I hear you say. Those vaccines reduced the severest symptoms, even if sadly they didn’t actually stop transmission.
Let’s pull back a second and try to see the bigger picture for a moment. Let’s do precisely what the FDA and Pfizer don’t want us to do: engage our critical faculties.
Ivermectin has been off-patent for years. No one can make any serious money from it, and certainly not giant pharmaceuticals based in the United States. Any Indian factory with the right approvals can knock out the tablets for a few cents.
So in short, Big Pharma, which was poised to become fabulously enriched by its new vaccines, had every financial incentive imaginable to make sure there were no rivals in the stakes for a Covid miracle cure. The focus had to be entirely and exclusively on the vaccines.
Endless profiteering
The corporate media had exactly the same priorities. Why?
A superficial, if truthful analysis is that companies like Pfizer subsidise the corporate media as heavily as they do the FDA. Just watch this short compilation video to get a sense of quite how complete Big Pharma’s stranglehold of sponsorship is on the main TV networks:
But a deeper analysis is that Big Pharma and Big Media are just separate wings of the same Big Business empire headquartered in the US. What’s good for Big Pharma is good for Big Weapons is good for Big Farming is good for Big Food is good for Big Media, and so on.
What is important for all of them is the maintenance of a political and economic climate that allows for Big Everything’s permanent profiteering. What is good for one of them is good for all.
So Ivermectin was never going to be allowed a look-in, irrespective of whether it worked.
But that doesn’t really matter, I hear you interject, because Ivermectin doesn’t work against Covid.
And how do we know that? The anwer is we don’t. Our assumption that Ivermectin is useless against Covid is nothing more than that. It is an assumption. Some studies suggest it doesn’t help, while others suggest possible effectiveness.
Medicine has an established way to deal with such uncertainties. It settles them with an expensive, large-scale, randomised, controlled study.
In a time of profound crisis such as a pandemic, politics has an additional way to settle such questions: move heaven and earth to carry out emergency trials of drugs that look like they may be suitable for repurposing against the threat. Shift into a war footing.
Which is exactly what would have happened – not just for Ivermectin but for other promising potential treatments like the mis-named sunshine hormone Vitamin D – if we lived in a world in which scientific principles, not profiteering by a tiny wealth-elite, guided our societies’ decisions.
Instead, all of us – even children who were under no threat from Covid – were forced to worship exclusively at the altar of the novel vaccines.
That should make your blood boil.
Many millions of people died. Some of them might have been helped through the use of safe, potentially beneficial treatments before the vaccines were rolled out.
Some of those who refused to take the vaccines – the heretics – might have had their lives saved through the approval of other treatments.
Everyone, even the vaccinated and multi-boosted, might have had even better outcomes with the help of treatments to complement the vaccines.
Instead, the response to the pandemic prioritised one thing only: not saving lives, but maximising to the greatest extent possible the profits of Big Pharma.
I don’t know whether Ivermectin would have helped. You don’t know whether it would have helped. But what’s important – what is scandalous – is that the FDA doesn’t know either, and still doesn’t care to know whether lives would have been saved through the use of treatments in place of, or in addition to, the vaccines.
That is a violation both of fundamental medical ethics and of the social contract. I can barely believe I need to spell it out – and even less that I will be called irresponsible for doing so by the vaccine cultists.
Smears and insinuation
The issue isn’t whether Ivermectin works against Covid. That narrow issue is the one Big Pharma, Big Media and the FDA want you focusing on. Because they have made sure the question will only ever be settled in the arena of official smear amd insinuation, in misleading social media soundbites like the FDA’s horse drug one.
That isn’t science, it’s propaganda.
To run a controlled trial of Ivermectin for treating Covid – even now, three years too late – costs a small fortune. One that can be afforded only by Big Pharma or governments. And in the circumstances, neither has any interest to find out.
Why does this matter? It shouldn’t need stating. But from reactions on social media, I see that it very much does.
It matters because it shows that we live in a world where “facts” are of no interest, where science is not followed, unless it can be monetised. Science is no longer for the benefit of all. It has become private property – the property of powerful, unaccountable corporations – like everything else in our societies. Science has been weaponised to further enrich a corrupt wealth-elite.
It matters because, if we continue to resign ourselves so passively to these constant mind-games and manipulations, we must also accept that the profiteering they conceal should take priority over our health, over saving lives.
Ivermectin isn’t the issue. It’s a waymark: to the depths of corruption to which our supposedly Enlightened, rational civilisation has been sunk by money and its worship.
“Trust the experts,” we are constantly being told, whatever the topic of discussion. The problem with this advice is that the so-called “experts” are frequently wrong, sometimes as a result of plain incompetence and other times because it is their function to propagandize rather than to educate.
For instance, I got my start doing citizen journalism speaking out against the US government’s planned war on Iraq. In 2002 and early 2003, the government claimed that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, active weapons manufacturing programs, and an active nuclear program aimed at producing a nuclear bomb. Mainstream media outlets like the New York Times uncritically parroted the government’s claims. All the “expert” analysts and commentators towed the official line.
When I would point out to people that there was no credible evidence to support the government’s claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that the documentary record rather indicated that Iraq had been disarmed of the weapons it produced during the 1980s with the support of the US government, I was frequently confronted with the idea that we should trust the expert intelligence analysts because surely government policymakers must have classified information supporting their case that they just couldn’t share with the public.
Later, when the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) issued its official report acknowledging that Iraq had indeed been disarmed by UN inspectors by 1991 and never restarted its weapons programs, a whole new propaganda narrative was developed to whitewash how the US government lied to the American people and the world. We were then fed the myth that there had been an “intelligence failure”, the truth being that the government had successfully waged a disinformation campaign against the public for the purpose of manufacturing consent for an illegal war of aggression that left Iraq devastated, with negative ripple effects throughout the Middle East, including the war’s precipitation of the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Another example is the housing bubble that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. The mainstream “experts” insisted that there was no bubble, that the economy was rolling along nicely. Right up to the bubble’s peak, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke refused to see it. In the New York Times, throughout the 2000s, Keynesian economist Paul Krugman lauded the Fed’s inflationary monetary policy that was the principal cause of the housing bubble only to ludicrously blame the bubble on the forces of the free market after it burst.
Meanwhile, free market economists schooled in the ideas of Austrian economics, so called because its founders and early luminaries hailed from Austria, were accurately warning how the Fed’s policy of maintaining artificially low interest rates—meaning rates below where they would otherwise be if determined by the market rather than by a roomful of policymakers—was fueling a housing bubble that would cause economic devastation when it inevitably burst. Congressman Ron Paul famously warned about this as early as 2001, yet we were consistently told by the mainstream “experts” that we shouldn’t listen to him or other advocates of liberty in the marketplace.
The preposterousness of the mainstream narrative was so overwhelming, it prompted me to write a book titled Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian Economics in the Financial Crisis, which ended up getting a rave review by none other than Barron’s. Gene Epstein, the former Economics and Books editor for Barron’s said of it:
Any work of economics that can make you laugh is at least worth a look. If in less than 100 pages it also informs you about a subject of great importance, it might just qualify as a must-read. Jeremy Hammond, a political journalist self-taught in economics and a writer of rare skill, has produced such a book…. This short work conveys more insight into the causes and cures of business cycles than most textbooks, and more about the recent business cycle than most volumes of much greater length.
Once again, we could see that there is a whole class of “experts” whose primary function was not to truly educate us about how the economy functions but to manufacture consent for the existence of central banking—the Fed being a government-legislated private monopoly over the currency supply.
That episode also once again illustrates how any non-expert willing to commit the time to self-education can easily see through the lies and deceptions propagated by the “experts”.
Arguably, there is no more perfect example of how the “experts” get things completely wrong than the governmental responses to the COVID‑19 pandemic. While I and others fervently opposed the lockdown measures from the start on the grounds that they would do more harm than good, the thought-controlling media insisted that we must trust the government’s “experts” like Dr. Anthony Fauci. We should “follow the science” we were told, while Fauci claimed to be science incarnate, deeming himself beyond reproach by proclaiming that to criticize him was to attack science itself.
While all the “experts” in the so-called “public health” establishment were proclaiming that widespread acceptance of the mRNA COVID‑19 vaccines would end the pandemic by conferring herd immunity, dissident voices like my own were being censored for telling the truth that there was no scientific evidence that the vaccines would induce durable sterilizing immunity that would prevent infection and transmission of the virus.
I was also warning since very early into the mass vaccination campaign that the policy goal of getting everyone vaccinated could prolong the pandemic and worsen outcomes in the long-term because of the immunologic phenomenon of “original antigenic sin” and the opportunity cost of superior natural immunity. These warnings, too, proved prescient as we now know from the available scientific evidence that the mRNA COVID‑19 vaccines do result in an “immune imprinting” so that vaccinated individuals are stuck generating a suboptimal immune response to circulating SARS‑CoV‑2 variants.
After it became obvious from the data that the vaccines failed to prevent infection and transmission of the virus, the media went so far in their efforts to defend the criminal regime of lockdowns and coerced mass vaccination by gaslighting us and absurdly denying that the COVID‑19 vaccines were sold to the public on the basis of lies.
We’re also supposed to trust doctors, but my own household’s experience with the medical establishment led us to the opposite conclusion. The doctors were not just unhelpful; they were less than useless. Especially in my wife’s case, listening to them caused more harm than good. In fact, it wasn’t until we learned to stop listening to the doctors and started trusting our own judgment that my wife and I both found a path to healing from the respective health problems we used to have (leaky gut in my case and mercury toxicity from dental amalgams in my wife’s).
Throughout the time that I was seeking help from the so-called “health care” system, I was repeatedly confronted by doctors whose ignorance was matched only by their arrogance and condescension. I ultimately bypassed the doctors by researching our symptoms directly in the medical literature; we diagnosed ourselves and successfully treated the root cause of our respective symptoms (taking steps to heal my gut and getting the mercury fillings safely removed followed by a two-year mercury detox regimen, respectively).
The supposed “experts” with an “MD” after their name were far more interested in lazily pushing pharmaceutical products on us to treat symptoms than in doing their job to try to figure out what the root cause was, much less in figuring out treatments aimed at addressing the underlying cause.
So, the next time you hear someone telling you to place your trust in the “experts”, emphasize the foolishness of placing blind faith in supposed authorities in lieu of doing one’s own research and thinking for oneself, and remind the person how the “experts” are frequently nothing more than professional propagandists serving a given political or financial agenda.
After the Crash 