Of course, all of the evidence that there was a U.S. coup in February 2014 in Ukraine, and that Ukraine has been controlled by the U.S. regime ever since, is likewise hidden from the public.
For example, there is no mention of this fact in an 18 December 2023 Washington Post ‘news’-report that headlined “Listening devices found in office of Ukraine’s top general, Valery Zaluzhny”, though the fact that a power-struggle is now taking place within that U.S. colony (‘ally’) is crucially important to understanding what’s happening there; and, so, that WP ‘news’-story blocks truthful understanding of what is going on. (That ‘news’-story even fails to mention, or even hint, that what is going on is a power-struggle within Ukraine’s government; and, then, it is even so bold as to speculate that this spying upon Ukraine’s General Zaluzhny was done “possibly by Russian special services,” and the WP provided zero evidence for that extremely unlikely alternative explanation.)
Here is a 26-minute-long video discussion of these events which comes from a non-regime news-source and provides the necessary context in order to understand what’s actually happening to Ukraine’s government now — and it makes clear that a ferocious power-struggle is now going on within the government of Ukraine. Here is a different presentation — an article instead of a video — that likewise is from a non-Establishment news-site that’s not censored. Both the video and the article offer facts that the billionaires want the public not to know: that Ukraine’s government is now falling apart.
Similarly, the fact that (as I documented on 17 December 2023) “Polls Show Americans Wildly Deceived About Gaza War” is blocked from the public, by the U.S. regime (which censorship actually explains WHY “Polls Show Americans Wildly Deceived About Gaza War”).
What happens when a public are so extremely deceived, as this? How is it even POSSIBLE for such a nation to BE a democracy? IS it possible?
Americans were blatantly lied-to by our Government and by its ‘news’-media (both Republican and Democratic) in the lead-up to our invasion and destruction of Iraq in 2003, which ‘news’ not only failed to expose and contradict the regime’s lies about “Saddam’s WMD” which were provably lies even at the time they were being reported; and, yet, despite the Government’s and media’s having lied in order to produce popular support to perpetrate that atrocity, Americans continue, even to this day, to subscribe to these same lying ‘news’-media, a full twenty years after the fact. First, the lies were reported as-if they were instead truths; then when the falsehoods could no longer be denied to have been falsehoods, ‘intelligence errors’ were said to have caused the falsehoods; but never was the truth published: that both the Government and its ‘news’-media had intentionally deceived their public in order to carry-out the U.S. empire’s program as being the result of a ‘democracy’ — not as it actually was: the result of a dictatorship. It is a dictatorship by and for an ‘elite’ who consist of the richest 1% (and mainly by the richest 0.1%) of the richest 1% of the American public, an aristocracy of extreme wealth.
America’s aristocrats do not themselves and directly do the censoring-out of the key facts, but, instead, their corporations carefully hire (and, when dissatisfied, demote or fire) the employees and agents who do this dirty-work of deceiving the public, on their behalf. This is the way that the empire — and ANY empire — functions.
It has become not merely the norm but the rule within the U.S. empire, and it is yet another historical example of the solidly established fact that censorship is essential to any dictatorship and toxic to any democracy.
“When the song of the angels is stilled, when the star in the sky is gone, when the kings and princes are home, when the shepherds are back with their flocks, the work of Christmas begins: to find the lost, to heal the broken, to feed the hungry, to release the prisoner, to rebuild the nations, to bring peace among the people, to make music in the heart.”—Howard Thurman, theologian and civil rights activist
The Christmas story of a baby born in a manger is a familiar one.
The Roman Empire, a police state in its own right, had ordered that a census be conducted. Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary traveled to the little town of Bethlehem so that they could be counted. There being no room for the couple at any of the inns, they stayed in a stable (a barn), where Mary gave birth to a baby boy, Jesus. Warned that the government planned to kill the baby, Jesus’ family fled with him to Egypt until it was safe to return to their native land.
Yet what if Jesus had been born 2,000 years later?
What if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, Jesus had been born at this moment in time? What kind of reception would Jesus and his family be given? Would we recognize the Christ child’s humanity, let alone his divinity? Would we treat him any differently than he was treated by the Roman Empire? If his family were forced to flee violence in their native country and sought refuge and asylum within our borders, what sanctuary would we offer them?
Those nativity scenes were a pointed attempt to remind the modern world that the narrative about the birth of Jesus is one that speaks on multiple fronts to a world that has allowed the life, teachings and crucifixion of Jesus to be drowned out by partisan politics, secularism, materialism and war, all driven by a manipulative shadow government called the Deep State.
The modern-day church has largely shied away from applying Jesus’ teachings to modern problems such as war, poverty, immigration, etc., but thankfully there have been individuals throughout history who ask themselves and the world: what would Jesus do?
What would Jesus—the baby born in Bethlehem who grew into an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day (namely, the Roman Empire) but spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire—do about the injustices of our modern age?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer asked himself what Jesus would have done about the horrors perpetrated by Hitler and his assassins. The answer: Bonhoeffer was executed by Hitler for attempting to undermine the tyranny at the heart of Nazi Germany.
Martin Luther King Jr. asked himself what Jesus would have done about America’s warmongering. The answer: declaring “my conscience leaves me no other choice,” King risked widespread condemnation as well as his life when he publicly opposed the Vietnam War on moral and economic grounds.
Even now, despite the popularity of the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) in Christian circles, there remains a disconnect in the modern church between the teachings of Christ and the suffering of what Jesus in Matthew 25 refers to as the “least of these.”
Yet this is not a theological gray area: Jesus was unequivocal about his views on many things, not the least of which was charity, compassion, war, tyranny and love.
After all, Jesus—the revered preacher, teacher, radical and prophet—was born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of the American police state. When he grew up, he had powerful, profound things to say, things that would change how we view people, alter government policies and change the world. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “Love your enemies” are just a few examples of his most profound and revolutionary teachings.
When confronted by those in authority, Jesus did not shy away from speaking truth to power. Indeed, his teachings undermined the political and religious establishment of his day. It cost him his life. He was eventually crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be.
Can you imagine what Jesus’ life would have been like if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, he had been born and raised in the American police state?
Consider the following if you will.
Had Jesus been born in the era of the America police state, rather than traveling to Bethlehem for a census, Jesus’ parents would have been mailed a 28-page American Community Survey, a mandatory government questionnaire documenting their habits, household inhabitants, work schedule, how many toilets are in your home, etc. The penalty for not responding to this invasive survey can go as high as $5,000.
Instead of being born in a manger, Jesus might have been born at home. Rather than wise men and shepherds bringing gifts, however, the baby’s parents might have been forced to ward off visits from state social workers intent on prosecuting them for the home birth. One couple in Washington had all three of their children removed after social services objected to the two youngest being birthed in an unassisted home delivery.
Then again, had Jesus’ parents been undocumented immigrants, they and the newborn baby might have been shuffled to a profit-driven, private prison for illegals where they first would have been separated from each other, the children detained in make-shift cages, and the parents eventually turned into cheap, forced laborers for corporations such as Starbucks, Microsoft, Walmart, and Victoria’s Secret. There’s quite a lot of money to be made from imprisoning immigrants, especially when taxpayers are footing the bill.
From the time he was old enough to attend school, Jesus would have been drilled in lessons of compliance and obedience to government authorities, while learning little about his own rights. Had he been daring enough to speak out against injustice while still in school, he might have found himself tasered or beaten by a school resource officer, or at the very least suspended under a school zero tolerance policy that punishes minor infractions as harshly as more serious offenses.
Had Jesus disappeared for a few hours let alone days as a 12-year-old, his parents would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed for parental negligence. Parents across the country have been arrested for far less “offenses” such as allowing their children to walk to the park unaccompanied and play in their front yard alone.
Rather than disappearing from the history books from his early teenaged years to adulthood, Jesus’ movements and personal data—including his biometrics—would have been documented, tracked, monitored and filed by governmental agencies and corporations such as Google and Microsoft. Incredibly, 95 percent of school districts share their student records with outside companies that are contracted to manage data, which they then use to market products to us.
Jesus’ anti-government views would certainly have resulted in him being labeled a domestic extremist. Law enforcement agencies are being trained to recognize signs of anti-government extremism during interactions with potential extremists who share a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”
While traveling from community to community, Jesus might have been reported to government officials as “suspicious” under the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” programs. Many states, including New York, are providing individuals with phone apps that allow them to take photos of suspicious activity and report them to their state Intelligence Center, where they are reviewed and forwarded to law-enforcement agencies.
Viewed by the government as a dissident and a potential threat to its power, Jesus might have had government spies planted among his followers to monitor his activities, report on his movements, and entrap him into breaking the law. Such Judases today—called informants—often receive hefty paychecks from the government for their treachery.
Had Jesus used the internet to spread his radical message of peace and love, he might have found his blog posts infiltrated by government spies attempting to undermine his integrity, discredit him or plant incriminating information online about him. At the very least, he would have had his website hacked and his email monitored.
Had Jesus attempted to feed large crowds of people, he would have been threatened with arrest for violating various ordinances prohibiting the distribution of food without a permit. Florida officials arrested a 90-year-old man for feeding the homeless on a public beach.
Had Jesus spoken publicly about his 40 days in the desert and his conversations with the devil, he might have been labeled mentally ill and detained in a psych ward against his will for a mandatory involuntary psychiatric hold with no access to family or friends. One Virginia man was arrested, strip searched, handcuffed to a table, diagnosed as having “mental health issues,” and locked up for five days in a mental health facility against his will apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait.
Without a doubt, had Jesus attempted to overturn tables in a Jewish temple and rage against the materialism of religious institutions, he would have been charged with a hate crime. More than 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books.
Had anyone reported Jesus to the police as being potentially dangerous, he might have found himself confronted—and killed—by police officers for whom any perceived act of non-compliance (a twitch, a question, a frown) can result in them shooting first and asking questions later.
Rather than having armed guards capture Jesus in a public place, government officials would have ordered that a SWAT team carry out a raid on Jesus and his followers, complete with flash-bang grenades and military equipment. There are upwards of 80,000 such SWAT team raids carried out every year, many on unsuspecting Americans who have no defense against such government invaders, even when such raids are done in error.
Instead of being detained by Roman guards, Jesus might have been made to “disappear” into a secret government detention center where he would have been interrogated, tortured and subjected to all manner of abuses. Chicago police have “disappeared” more than 7,000 people into a secret, off-the-books interrogation warehouse at Homan Square.
Indeed, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, given the nature of government then and now, it is painfully evident that whether Jesus had been born in our modern age or his own, he still would have died at the hands of a police state.
Thus, as we draw near to Christmas with its celebration of miracles and promise of salvation, we would do well to remember that what happened in that manger on that starry night in Bethlehem is only the beginning of the story. That baby born in a police state grew up to be a man who did not turn away from the evils of his age but rather spoke out against it.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, French economist
Pay no heed to the circus politics coming out of Washington DC. It’s just more of the same grandstanding by tone-deaf politicians oblivious to the plight of the citizenry.
Don’t allow yourselves to be distracted by the competing news headlines cataloging the antics of the ruling classes. While they are full of sound and fury, they are utterly lacking in substance.
Tune out the blaring noise of meaningless babble. It is intended to drown out the very real menace of a government which is consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population.
Focus instead on the steady march of the police state at both the national, state and local levels, and the essential freedoms that are being trampled underfoot in its single-minded pursuit of power.
While the overt and costly signs of the despotism exercised by the increasingly authoritarian regime that passes itself off as the United States government are all around us—warrantless surveillance of Americans’ private phone and email conversations by the FBI, NSA, etc.; SWAT team raids of Americans’ homes; shootings of unarmed citizens by police; harsh punishments meted out to schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance; drones taking to the skies domestically; endless wars; out-of-control spending; militarized police; roadside strip searches; privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing Americans; fusion centers that collect and disseminate data on Americans’ private transactions; and militarized agencies with stockpiles of ammunition, to name some of the most appalling—you rarely hear anything about them from the politicians, the corporations or the news media.
So what’s behind the blackout of real news?
Surely, if properly disclosed and consistently reported on, the sheer volume of the government’s activities, which undermine the Constitution and dance close to the edge of outright illegality, would give rise to a sea change in how business is conducted in our seats of power.
Yet when we’re being bombarded with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days, it’s difficult to stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this.
As with most things, if you want to know the real motives behind any government program, follow the money trail.
When you dig down far enough, you quickly find that those who profit from Americans being surveilled, fined, scanned, searched, probed, tasered, arrested and imprisoned are none other than the police who arrest them, the courts which try them, the prisons which incarcerate them, and the corporations, which manufacture the weapons, equipment and prisons used by the American police state.
These injustices, petty tyrannies and overt acts of hostility are being carried out in the name of the national good—against the interests of individuals, society and ultimately our freedoms—by an elite class of government officials working in partnership with megacorporations that are largely insulated from the ill effects of their actions.
Everywhere you go, everything you do, and every which way you look, we’re getting swindled, cheated, conned, robbed, raided, pickpocketed, mugged, deceived, defrauded, double-crossed and fleeced by governmental and corporate shareholders of the American police state out to make a profit at taxpayer expense.
Examples of this legalized, profits-over-people, government-sanctioned extortion abound.
On the roads: Not satisfied with merely padding their budgets by issuing speeding tickets, police departments have turned to asset forfeiture and speeding and red light camera schemes as a means of growing their profits. Despite revelations of corruption, collusion and fraud, these money-making scams have been being inflicted on unsuspecting drivers by revenue-hungry municipalities. Now legislators are hoping to get in on the profit sharing by imposing a vehicle miles-traveled tax, which would charge drivers for each mile behind the wheel.
In the schools: The public schools have become a microcosm of the total surveillance state which currently dominates America, adopting a host of surveillance technologies, including video cameras, finger and palm scanners, iris scanners, as well as RFID and GPS tracking devices, to keep constant watch over their student bodies. Likewise, the military industrial complex with its military weapons, metal detectors, and weapons of compliance such as tasers has succeeded in transforming the schools—at great taxpayer expense and personal profit—into quasi-prisons. Rounding things out are school truancy laws, which come disguised as well-meaning attempts to resolve attendance issues in the schools but in truth are nothing less than stealth maneuvers aimed at enriching school districts and court systems alike through excessive fines and jail sentences for “unauthorized” absences. Curiously, none of these efforts seem to have succeeded in making the schools any safer.
In the endless wars abroad: Fueled by the profit-driven military industrial complex, the government’s endless wars are wreaking havoc on our communities, our budget and our police forces. Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $93 million per hour. Future wars and military exercises waged around the globe are expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053. Talk about fiscally irresponsible: the U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford. War spending is bankrupting America.
In the form of militarized police: The Department of Homeland Security routinely hands out six-figure grants to enable local municipalities to purchase military-style vehicles, as well as a veritable war chest of weaponry, ranging from tactical vests, bomb-disarming robots, assault weapons and combat uniforms. This rise in military equipment purchases funded by the DHS has, according to analysts Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz, “paralleled an apparent increase in local SWAT teams.” The end result? An explosive growth in the use of SWAT teams for otherwise routine police matters, an increased tendency on the part of police to shoot first and ask questions later, and an overall mindset within police forces that they are at war—and the citizenry are the enemy combatants. Over 80,000 SWAT team raids are conducted on American homes and businesses each year. Moreover, government-funded military-style training drills continue to take place in cities across the country.
In profit-driven schemes such as asset forfeiture: Under the guise of fighting the war on drugs, government agents (usually the police) have been given broad leeway to seize billions of dollars’ worth of private property (money, cars, TVs, etc.) they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity. Then—and here’s the kicker—whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure. The police have actually being trained in seminars on how to seize the “goodies” that are on police departments’ wish lists. According to the New York Times, seized monies have been used by police to “pay for sports tickets, office parties, a home security system and a $90,000 sports car.”
By the security industrial complex: We’re being spied on by a domestic army of government snitches, spies and techno-warriors. In the so-called name of “precrime,” this government of Peeping Toms is watching everything we do, reading everything we write, listening to everything we say, and monitoring everything we spend. Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it is all being recorded, stored, and catalogued, and will be used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government’s choosing. This far-reaching surveillance, carried out with the complicity of the Corporate State, has paved the way for an omnipresent, militarized fourth branch of government—the Surveillance State—that came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum. That doesn’t even touch on the government’s bold forays into biometric surveillance as a means of identifying and tracking the American people from birth to death.
By a government addicted to power: It’s a given that you can always count on the government to take advantage of a crisis, legitimate or manufactured. Emboldened by the citizenry’s inattention and willingness to tolerate its abuses, the government has weaponized one national crisis after another in order to expand its powers. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands. Now that the government has gotten a taste for flexing its police state powers by way of a bevy of COVID-19 lockdowns, mandates, restrictions, contact tracing programs, heightened surveillance, censorship, overcriminalization, etc., “we the people” may well find ourselves burdened with a Nanny State inclined to use its draconian pandemic powers to protect us from ourselves.
This perverse mixture of government authoritarianism and corporate profits has increased the reach of the state into our private lives while also adding a profit motive into the mix. And, as always, it’s we the people, we the taxpayers, we the gullible voters who keep getting taken for a ride by politicians eager to promise us the world on a plate.
This is a far cry from how a representative government is supposed to operate.
Indeed, it has been a long time since we could claim to be the masters of our own lives. Rather, we are now the subjects of a militarized, corporate empire in which the vast majority of the citizenry work their hands to the bone for the benefit of a privileged few.
Adding injury to the ongoing insult of having our tax dollars misused and our so-called representatives bought and paid for by the moneyed elite, the government then turns around and uses the money we earn with our blood, sweat and tears to target, imprison and entrap us, in the form of militarized police, surveillance cameras, private prisons, license plate readers, drones, and cell phone tracking technology.
With every new tax, fine, fee and law adopted by our so-called representatives, the yoke around the neck of the average American seems to tighten just a little bit more.
All of those nefarious deeds by government officials that you hear about every day: those are your tax dollars at work.
It’s your money that allows for government agents to spy on your emails, your phone calls, your text messages, and your movements. It’s your money that allows out-of-control police officers to burst into innocent people’s homes, or probe and strip search motorists on the side of the road. And it’s your money that leads to Americans across the country being prosecuted for innocuous activities such as growing vegetable gardens in their front yards or daring to speak their truth to their elected officials.
“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.
As the Elite program to kill or enslave us all proceeds virtually unimpeded, one way in which this is being accomplished is by using two of the Elite’s oldest known tools: War and genocide. With the active complicity of its agents in governments and elsewhere, the Elite is killing off substantial numbers of ‘ordinary’ people (but certainly not Elite members or agents) in wars between various countries, most notably, Ukraine and Russia, as well as in genocidal attacks such as that by Israel against the Palestinian ghetto of Gaza.
While I have previously explained how the war between Russia and Ukraine (along with the latter’s NATO allies) is being used to advance the Elite program – see ‘The War in Ukraine: Understanding and Resisting the Global Elite’s Deeper Agenda’ – it is equally clear that wars anywhere, as well as genocides, serve the same purpose.
Unfortunately, very few people are perceiving this connection and the fundamental threat it poses to us all and, in the sense that this is being achieved, the genocide in Gaza is successfully distracting people from the wider program to kill or enslave everyone.
This is obvious from any candid assessment of the evidence readily available to those seeking it. Let me start with an overview of the evidence in relation to Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza.
In the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: ‘Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas’. See ‘Analysis: Another Concept Implodes: Israel Can’t Be Managed by a Criminal Defendant’.
Did it actually matter that Hamas appears to have achieved movement in the direction of its stated goals – as noted by Ritter: to reassert the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland, release of the 10,000-plus Palestinian political prisoners (including children) locked up in Israel, a return to the sanctity of the Al Aqsa Mosque – as Ritter claims and despite or even because of the enormous ‘sacrifice’ made by the ordinary men, women and children of Gaza?
Did all of those Palestinians – including children – who weren’t consulted about the raid and have been (or will be) killed during Israel’s genocidal response knowingly and willingly sacrifice their lives? Or were they hapless victims of the violent ideology of their leaders who do not value ‘ordinary’ lives?
Despite the truism that Ritter identifies – ‘you can’t solve a problem unless you first properly define it…. any solution which has nothing to do with the problem involved is, literally, no solution at all’ – with which I agree, Ritter has a very limited, essentially military, interpretation of the conflict and what will be necessary to resolve it. That is, he suggests, the conflict is between the Israeli government and Hamas, it is military in nature and it will be won (or lost) according to political shifts the military resistance offered by Hamas generates in other parts of the world (including the Arab/Islamic worlds and the United States).
But as will be obvious from my explanation below, Ritter does not understand this conflict, particularly the global forces driving it and their reasons for doing so and that, from the perspective of ‘ordinary’ people, the ‘gains’ from the raid he nominates (and the genocide following) are worth nothing, and that the deaths of both ordinary Israelis and Palestinians as a result is a terrible price to pay.
In any case, whatever the origin of the military raid by Hamas (and its ongoing engagement with Israeli forces in Gaza), the evidence of the killing of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians is well documented.
In his thoughtful analysis of the situation, former UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine Professor Richard Falk offers a similar conclusion:
My analysis leads me to conclude that this ongoing war is not primarily about security in Gaza or security threats posed by Hamas, but rather about something much more sinister and absurdly cynical.
Israel has seized this opportunity to fulfill Zionist territorial ambitions amid “the fog of war” by inducing one last surge of Palestinian catastrophic dispossession. Whether it is called “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” is of secondary importance, although it already qualifies as one of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes of the 21st century. See ‘Israel-Palestine war: Israel’s endgame is much more sinister than restoring “security”’.
While Hasan Illaik argues that the plan to ‘displace millions of Palestinians’ is ‘nigh impossible to achieve’ and notes that the plan has been rejected by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi – see ‘The US is fueling, not avoiding, a regional war’ – even its substantial or just partial fulfillment would open new possibilities for Israel and the United States.
Nevertheless, despite the evidence presented above and the considered opinion of the experts cited, Scott Ritter argues that Israel will find it extraordinarily difficult to defeat Hamas. Ritter offers historical evidence of battles taking place in confined spaces where damage has been inflicted by prior bombing that impedes subsequent ground operations because of the vast quantities of rubble. He also cites other battles where large tunnel networks were extremely difficult to neutralize. In Ritter’s view, Hamas has both of these battlefield advantages in Gaza, including over 500 kilometres of tunnels. See ‘Israel Faces “Near Impossible Task” in Gaza’.
Unfortunately, however, there is some evidence that Israel is planning to flood Hamas tunnels with nerve gas – see ‘Israel-Palestine war: Israel plans to flood Hamas tunnels with nerve gas, source says’ – but, whether or not it does so, a ground invasion is not the only way to ‘clear’ Gaza of its ‘surface’ population with another weapon already being used by Israel against Gaza.
As in earlier manifestations of war and genocide, military forces have sometimes laid siege to a trapped population to starve it to death. And this is now happening in Gaza. According to Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant: ‘We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed. We are fighting against human animals, and we are acting accordingly.’ See ‘Israeli Defense Minister Announces Siege On Gaza To Fight “Human Animals”’.
You can see photos of the devastation in Gaza and its genocidal impact on the Palestinian people in the compilation presented by Antonio C. S. Rosa here: ‘Genocide in Pictures: Worth a Trillion Words’.
In any case, if we step back from the immediacy of this conflict and consider the Elite perspective on what is taking place, plenty of people are being killed and other Elite objectives are being achieved by what is happening.
A Regional War?
Beyond what happens in Gaza, however, the conflict includes evidence that this war could be expanded beyond Israeli and Palestinian borders into the wider region so that the killing can be compounded and a wider set of Elite objectives fulfilled.
In fact, as Chossudovsky points out in his most recent video interview, Israel has a vast military (including nuclear) capability compared to the poorly-armed Palestinians and is reinforced by both extensive military aid from the United States as well as a major US military presence (including two aircraft carrier battle groups, a substantial fleet of fighter aircraft and special forces troops) that has been deployed to the Middle East to engage in a wider war in pursuit of long-standing US political objectives to subjugate Iran and reshape the Middle East. See ‘A Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran is Contemplated: The U.S. led War on the People of Palestine and the Middle East is a Criminal Undertaking’.
Professor Michael Hudson agrees. In an interview, Hudson indicated that ‘the United States has always viewed Israel as just our foreign military base, not Israel…. [our] landed aircraft carrier… takeoff point’ for the US to control the Middle East with its vast oil and gas reserves. But in elaborating his explanation, Hudson goes on to highlight that the US supports Netanyahu (rather than Israel itself), ‘an unpleasant, opportunist, and corrupt person’ to distract attention from the US role in supplying the military weapons to kill people in Gaza and the West Bank which is essentially designed to provoke a response from Hezbollah in Lebanon. Why? By using the corporate media to keep talking about Hamas and Hezbollah as puppets of Iran, the intention is to use any military response from Hezbollah to ‘justify’ a ‘move not only against Lebanon, but all the way via Syria, Iraq, to Iran’ with the aim of controlling Middle Eastern oil. This would make it possible ‘to cut off oil and gas and to sanction any country that tries to go multipolar, any country that tries to resist US unipolar control.’ In essence, Hudson summarizes, ‘Basically, there’s a fight for who is going to control the world right now’. Watch ‘Why Does the US Support Israel?’
Many analysts have discussed the possibility of a wider war with Hasan Illaik arguing that ‘Both in practice, and publicly, the US government and military are running this Israeli war’ with the intention of fueling a wider one. See ‘The US is fueling, not avoiding, a regional war’. Huseyin Vodinali considers the possible role of countries like Yemen and Turkey as the war expands and argues that ‘China and Russia support Palestine and declare that they will stand by Syria and Iran.’ See ‘“A Big Event is Coming, its Name is a Regional War”? The Danger Waiting for Turkiye’.
In contrast, however, Scott Ritter cogently argues that the US and Israel combined do not have the logistical capacity to successfully fight and defeat Iran. See ‘US Not Ready for War With Iran’.
Military and geopolitical analyst Andrei Martyanov agrees. In a wide-ranging interview in which he referred to the two US aircraft carriers now in the region as ‘sitting ducks’, he offered an outline of Iran’s sophisticated air-defense systems and its ballistic missile capabilities (which could easily knock out all US bases in the Middle East, the carrier battle groups now in the region and leave ‘Tel Aviv and Jerusalem… burning’) as just two of the problems confronting the US and Israel in any consideration of an attack on Iran. Beyond these problems and among others, he mentioned that the mythology attached to the Israeli military was largely propaganda from 1967 and 1973 and did not apply now. He described the Israeli army as a ‘very well equipped police force’ and also briefly discussed the debilitating decline in US military production and noted that ‘the decline and degradation of the American political class is astonishing’. Watch ‘The US and Israel cannot defeat Iran’.
In contrast, and despite the use of a nuclear weapon on Gaza being advocated by Israeli government Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, Timothy Alexander Guzman argues that ‘There is no doubt that Russia and other world powers including China would not allow Israel to hit Iran with a nuclear bomb. If Israel decided to use a nuclear weapon anywhere in the Middle East, it would unite all Muslims against Israel’ and that is something for which Tel Aviv and Washington are not prepared. See ‘“Drop a Nuclear Bomb on Gaza”: Israeli Minister Says Using Nukes on Gaza an Option’.
In essence, while there are sound political and military reasons for both Israel and the US to avoid the use of nuclear weapons, given the insanity of some key figures in this conflict, it is difficult to assert anything with certainty in this regard.
Moreover, irrespective of the many factors that might be considered in relation to the ‘wider war’ issue, it should be noted that there are plenty of ‘minor’ military clashes already taking place throughout the Middle East. As reported by the highly reputable ‘South Front’, and confirmed by the Telegram channel ‘War Monitor’, ongoing military engagements are being reported taking place involving Hezbollah (for example, targeting Israeli army positions on the Lebanese-Palestinian border), Syria (for example, using air defences to confront Israeli targets in the vicinity of Damascus), Yemen (for example, with the Houthis reporting the targeting of sensitive sites in Israel’s Eliat area on the Gulf of Aquaba) and the US Pentagon (reporting engagement by pro-Iranian groups in both Syria and Iraq).
These reports are also confirmed in the article by Professor Adham Saouli who suggests that, like the US, ‘Hezbollah is using the time to set the stage for a regional war should that become necessary.’ See ‘Hezbollah and the 2023 Israeli War on Gaza’.
Before proceeding however, there is one more critical issue to consider, nothwithstanding what has been written above.
What is the prospect of the US orchestrating a false flag attack – perhaps on a US vessel in one of its two carrrier strike groups in the region – to ‘justify’ an attack on Iran? With the USS Gerald R. Ford and escort vessels stationed in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and escorts currently operating in the Gulf of Oman off the Arabian Peninsula – see ‘Aircraft Carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Now in Gulf of Oman’ – such an attack could ignite a regional war (and easily expand beyond the Middle East).
How might this be done?
Most simply by directing Israel to launch a missile (from land, sea or air) at the designated target and then deluging the corporate media with the claim that it was Iran that launched the missile.
Under cover of the initial confusion, it would be simple enough to initiate military action against Iran (and, possibly, certain allies) by Israeli and US forces to ‘respond’ to this attack and any debate about the source of the attack would be relegated to the backburner while the war quickly inflamed and national populations were manipulated to ‘rally around the flag’.
You might ask, of course, why would this be done? Why start a war where there is none?
The answer is the same as it has been throughout history. If you like, you can read brief accounts of 42 false flag attacks in the past century. See ‘42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks’.
Wars enable Elites to consolidate and expand their power, and make vast profits. Every weapon fired represents profit; every weapon, building and other asset destroyed represents profit (for example, in subsequent rebuilding); every country subjugated represents profit in the form of control of its resources (strategic minerals, fossil fuels, fresh water, cultural heritage…); every person killed represents progress in the Elite depopulation program; and every war presents opportunities for tightening Elite control (particularly while submissively frightened populations tolerate government actions supposedly to enhance ‘national security’ but really to enslave us in one of the Elite’s increasingly technocratic prisons cities).
Have you ever wondered why governments are never really interested in avoiding or even winning wars (despite rhetoric to the contrary)?
The Elite most effectively consolidates its power and maximizes its profit by ensuring perpetual war. And it simply ensures that its agents in government make this happen.
In this scheme of things, you are the victim in every sense of the word: You vote in elections believing you are living in a ‘democracy’, you pay the taxes to buy the weapons, you join the military to fight (believing you are defending ‘your country’), you are the soldier or civilian who is killed (not a member of the Elite profiting from your killing/dying), and you do the suffering when someone you love dies.
War is one of the Elite’s most profitable enterprises and control of everything from the human ‘socialization’ (that is, terrorization) process and ‘education’ systems to the messaging of the corporate media and ‘entertainment’ industry means that you learn that violence is not only ‘necessary’ but really the ‘only’ effective way to deal with international conflict.
So far, however, Putin has shown himself to be adept at avoiding direct military confrontation with the USA over the war in Ukraine and, from a nation-state perspective, the latter clearly lacks the capacity to engage Russia directly for the reasons Martyanov gave in relation to the USA and Iran.
But to elaborate my point above: There are plenty of powerful vested interests with a stake in this conflict and a lot of insane individuals involved too which means that there are enormous pressures pushing for a wider regional war. However, if the war expands beyond Israel and Palestine, there is no guarantee it will remain contained within the region either.
And, as explained just above, it doesn’t matter what countries are involved or how many are killed. The Elite will carefully consider its options with the inclination to expand its power and increase its profits at every opportunity.
The Rothschilds
Before departing this immensely complex subject, about which a great deal has been written, there is another dimension to this conflict that is invariably ignored. And that dimension concerns the role of the Rothschild family.
Why highlight the Rothschild family? Consider the following.
As noted by Richard S. Dunn in his historical overview of events leading to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine – see ‘Israel Should Know: “What Thou Sowest, Thou Shall Also Reap”’ – the letter advising the Jews of the British government intention was sent to Lionel Rothschild.
According to the official Rothschild Archive:
On November 2, 1917, the British Government expressed its sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations and announced that it would use its “best endeavours” to facilitate “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. The announcement came in a letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lionel Walter, 2nd Lord Rothschild (1868-1937), the unofficial leader of the British Jewish community. The Balfour agreement became the diplomatic foundation stone of the state of Israel….
The Balfour Declaration used deliberately vague language. The term “national home” was chosen in order to minimize the Zionist dream, to make Palestine a Jewish state. The Arabs, whose “civil and religious” (not national and political) rights were not to be prejudiced as the declaration put it, were referred to only as “existing non-Jewish communities”. You can read the letter and the Rothschild commentary on it here: ‘Walter Rothschild and the Balfour Declaration’.
The Rothschild commentary on this development includes these words: ‘Beginning in 1916, the British hoped that in exchange for their support of Zionism, “the Jews” would help to finance the growing expenses of the First World War, which was becoming increasingly burdensome. More importantly, policy-makers in the Foreign Office believed that Jews could be prevailed upon to persuade the United States to join the War.’
Since the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 (at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians), in which they played such a critical role, the Rothschilds have continued to exercise their enormous political and economic clout to both build the state of Israel and ‘defend’ Israel, including by mobilizing the military and financial support for it from the United States. While some of this support is publicly known (such as that of James de Rothschild in financing the building of the Knesset in Israel), as with the bulk of Rothschild affairs (including in the US), most of this support is concealed behind a myriad of Rothschild-controlled corporations, front groups and ‘third parties’, many with significant public profiles.
And this explains why supposedly scholarly books such as Jews in American Politics do not reference the Rothschilds even once while Benjamin Ginsberg, one of the authors, readily acknowledges that ‘the greatest triumph of American Jewish organizations during the postwar period [was] recognition of the state of Israel. Despite the opposition of large segments of the British government and the U.S. State and Defense departments, American Jewish groups succeeded in securing President Truman’s support for the creation of a Jewish state to house Jewish refugees from Europe. Over the ensuing decades, American Jews successfully urged the U.S. government to provide Israel with billions of dollars in American military and economic assistance. In recent years, Jewish groups have fought not only for aid for Israel but for American humanitarian intervention in other regions of the world as well.’
While not discounting the roles of other prominent individuals and families, it is nevertheless the case that the long-standing Rothschild practice of obscuring their role has ensured that much of what it does is concealed. This is why, for example, few people know that the Rothschilds control the US Federal Reserve and own substantial holdings (again, often through tightly-controlled ‘third parties’) in the global (including US) weapons industry. So while Molly Gott and Derek Seidman offer a fine report on ‘Corporate Enablers of Israel’s War on Gaza’ and even name some prominent individual donors to pro-Israeli lobby groups, rarely do studies of this nature expose the human individuals who ultimately own the weapons corporations.
But now with a significantly expanded range of ways of obscuring the family investments, such as through the private but major asset management corporation Vanguard, the Rothschilds will benefit handsomely from President Biden’s recent announcement of a ‘giant’ weapons package to Israel – see ‘Biden asks Congress for Israel, Ukraine aid in giant defense package’ – with most of the money going to US weapons corporations in which the Rothschilds have substantial investments. Profiting from war (and military conflict generally) is the second oldest trick (after profiting from money) in the Rothschild money-making machine. See Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing.’
And there is a third old trick too: ownership of massive resource corporations, starting with oil and gas.
While Felicity Arbuthnot, in the 2013 article just cited, nominated the interest of the BG Group in Gaza’s gas and oil reserves, in early 2016, the BG Group became part of Shell Global. See ‘Combining Shell and BG: a simpler and more profitable company’.
Of course, Shell has been a Rothschild corporation since the very early 20th century. According to the Rothschild Archive: ‘As it turned out, Rothschilds had a decisive influence in shaping Royal Dutch Shell, more so than anyone had previously imagined.’ See ‘Searching for oil in Roubaix’. But Shell does not represent the only Rothschild investment in energy supplies.
Another motivation for Rothschild involvement concerns a long-standing interest of the family’s. Following a brief discussion with British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli on 14 November 1875, Lionel Rothschild agreed to finance the British Government’s purchase of 177,000 shares in ‘one of the world’s great commercial and strategic assets’, the Suez Canal Company, from Egypt’s debt-ridden Khedive for £4,000,000 at 3% interest. See The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait pp. 150-152. This gave the British government a majority holding in the waterway that enabled commercial and military shipping to bypass the Cape of Good Hope in traveling from Europe to Asia and Oceania.
In 1882 the UK invaded and occupied Egypt, taking control of the country as well as the Suez canal which then became a geopolitical weapon during subsequent wars. It also later became critical for the transport of oil from the Middle East to Europe (and elsewhere).
During and following World War II, Britain maintained a vast military complex at Suez with a garrison of some 80,000 soldiers.
But following a military coup that removed the Egyptian monarchy in 1952 and in the context of a geopolitical world in considerable turmoil on various levels (including the decolonization process, the Cold War, and the Arab-Israeli conflict), ownership of the Suez Canal became increasingly contentious. Thus, on 26 July 1956, the Suez Canal Company was nationalized by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. This led to the Suez Crisis in October when Israel and, subsequently, the UK and France invaded Egypt and Gaza in an attempt to remove President Nasser and restore western control. Pressure from the United States and the UN led to withdrawal of the invaders.
The plan was eventually shelved, presumably at least in part because the fallout from the nuclear explosions would have made the environmental cost of the project prohibitive. But what if such a plan was now feasible and the shortest route went through Gaza?
Is there a more ‘acceptable’ (that is, non-nuclear) weapon that could be deployed to create the canal now?
The obvious domain to look for possible answers is the expanding range of geoengineering weapons.
Why?
After many years spent researching geoengineering weapons, in a 1996 article, Dr. Rosalie Bertell summarized 50 years of destructive programs targeting control of the upper atmosphere. She concluded the article with the following words: ‘The ability of the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination to deliver very large amounts of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle
So if one considers the range of geoengineering weapons that might be used in this context, one possibility would be to use HAARP: the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. HAARP is currently ‘the most important facility used to generate extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation in the ionosphere. In order to produce this ELF radiation the HAARP transmitter radiates a strong beam of highfrequency (HF) waves modulated at ELF…. high-power ELF radiation generated by HF ionospheric heaters, such as the current HAARP heater, can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and strong localized heating.’ See ‘High-power ELF radiation generated by modulated HF heating of the ionosphere can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and localized heating’.
If this weapon could be used, it would need to be calibrated to perform the massive task of excavating the canal (or at least pulverizing the materials that need to be excavated into a readily removable form).
So, as in the case in relation to the HAARP ELF radiation option, if this weapon was to be used to construct another canal, it would need to be calibrated to be less destructive than those used in Turkey.
But whatever technological challenges might remain in choosing the geoengineering weapon(s) and deploying it/them effectively, the financial rewards of having a second canal would be vast. And given existing Rothschild financial interests in infrastructure – ‘Over the last 200 years the Rothschilds have systematically gained control of much of the infrastructure of the modern industrial world.’ See Enemies of the People: The Rothschilds and their corrupt global empire p. 23. – and geoengineering – see ‘The Rothschilds and the Geoengineering Empire’ – it is reasonable to postulate their interest in financing such a project and profiting from it indefinitely into the future.
Beyond its profound control of money, weapons, energy and infrastructure (not to mention other sectors), the Rothschilds own a substantial proportion of the corporate media, again both directly and through agents. For example, by the late C19th their Paribas Bank ‘controlled the all-powerful news agency Havas, which in turn owned the most important advertising agency in France.’ See Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War p. 214.
But Rothschild interests in the corporate media extend far beyond France. If you would like to read more about the extensive Rothschild ownership and control of the media, Paul Cudenec offers more examples in his thoughtful and wide-ranging overview of the family’s extraordinary violence and exploitation in Enemies of the People: The Rothschilds and their corrupt global empire.
Their extensive media ownership means that the Rothschilds have significant control of the primary narrative presented in worldwide ‘news’ outlets, including in relation to Israel: the ‘victim’ Israel must always ‘defend’ itself. So that even when some accurate and graphic media get through some corporate social media channels (Facebook, X, Youtube…) or some events not sponsored by the Elite, such as the current wave of pro-Palestinian demonstrations around the world, are reported in the corporate media – see ‘Around the world, people take to the streets for Palestine’ and ‘More Demonstrations for Palestine’ – it doesn’t mean anything. Even footage of demonstrations that are protesting the genocide in Gaza can be blandly presented as demonstrations ‘calling for a ceasefire’ or something equally effective at distracting people from the truth. And even if they do not, demonstrations are routinely ignored. History records the futility of such protest demonstrations even when they garner some attention for a secondary narrative.
Because for any particular tactic (action) to have strategic value, it must be derived from a strategy that has been designed to alter the power relationship between the actual perpetrator and their victim. If there is no comprehensive strategy to guide tactical choice, or if the tactic is chosen to achieve a political objective rather than a strategic goal – see ‘The Political Objective and Strategic Goal of Nonviolent Actions’ – it is not possible for the tactic to achieve a strategic gain (although it might allow those doing the action to let off a little emotional steam and feel good about themselves).
But to return to the theme above, if you believe that the Rothschilds do not leverage their ownership and control of such vast assets (in money, weapons, energy, infrastructure and media to name just a few key sectors) to achieve outcomes in the perceived interest of the family, including by manipulation of political leaders, you can read relevant Rothschild history – and even the official biography written by Niall Ferguson cited above – which documents a rather endless list of ‘gifts’ (that is, bribes) to a range of monarchs, including the British Crown, and political leaders.
Moreover, while many people are a little squeamish in response to the profoundly distasteful images of Palestinian children mangled by Israeli-fired weapons, the Rothschilds had turned their backs on such suffering more than 200 years ago. You cannot profit by financing both sides of wars for more than 200 years and have any sense of human compassion. From the Rothschild perspective and compared to other mass slaughters from which they have profited enormously, such as World Wars I and II, the genocide in Gaza is inconsequential.
Hence, if we are to understand the current Israeli genocidal campaign against the Palestinians in Gaza, it is necessary to understand the foundations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the background role that the Rothschilds continue to play. Using a longstanding network of allies and agents, which includes corrupt (that is, ‘bought’) politicians in Israel and the United States as well as such networks as the ‘The Israel Lobby’ in the USA, it is not difficult to shape the words that come out of the mouths of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Biden as well as the military actions that follow.
They do not answer to their electorates and Netanyahu and Biden are well aware of that. As long as they serve their masters faithfully, their roles are secure (however they unfold), even despite their extensively-documented corruption as well. See ‘Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption scandals, explained’ and ‘Joe Biden – Corrupt’.
Of course, Rothschild allies and agents ensure that these two individuals are surrounded and supported by a wide coterie of equally corrupt and politically unaccountable agents ranging from a wide spectrum of other national political leaders, to members of the US Congress and Israeli Knesset.
In fact, issuing statements is an industry in itself and highlights the powerlessness of a staggering array of actors, some of whom might be more meaningfully engaged in the struggle to liberate Palestine were they given strategically impactful actions to take. See ‘War of the Statements: The unusual way Americans have processed the Israel-Hamas War’.
Consequently, and despite possible initiatives by third parties, a critical variable that cannot be ignored is that containing the insane Global Elite that is driving these wars and genocides as well as the overall descent into technocracy is extraordinarily difficult. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.
And it means that their wars, genocides and the ongoing imposition of their technocracy won’t be stopped by statements, petitions, lobbying politicians, protests or legal challenges although Elite-controlled media will talk about these as part of their strategy to ensure our dissent is absorbed and dissipated.
Summary
Thus, as is happening behind the scenes of mass slaughter of ordinary (mainly Ukrainian but also Russian) soldiers in Ukraine, where the creation of all of the infrastructure necessary to impose the Global Elite’s technocracy on both populations proceeds apace with Presidents Putin and Zelensky fully complicit – again, see ‘The War in Ukraine: Understanding and Resisting the Global Elite’s Deeper Agenda’ – there is little doubt that the heavily technocratized Israel at the behest of the United States and (intentional or otherwise) complicity of Hamas, is simply killing Palestinians in Gaza (and the West Bank) while displacing as many as possible. This is being done to precipitate responses from other countries that will enable the United States to ‘justify’ pursuit of a range of geopolitical goals – inevitably involving more killing – on behalf of its Elite masters, while facilitating the more elaborate imposition of the necessary ‘smart city’ technologies on whatever population lives in Gaza when the genocide is concluded and the inevitable technocratic rebuilding commences.
My point is unpalatable but simple: The Global Elite is in the process of implementing its long-planned and complex program to kill off vast numbers of people and imprison those left alive as transhuman slaves in their technocratic cities. So while there is value in considering events from various perspectives, it is important that sight is not lost of this fundamental Elite program and the insight that this perspective offers.
Of course, the Elite’s ‘kill or enslave’ program is being implemented everywhere, not just in war zones and zones of obvious genocide. And all governments are complicit, not just the US and Israeli governments and the Palestinian leadership.
So whatever position we might take on any given war, genocide or other violent conflict, we also need to understand and resist the fundamental Elite program – see below – if we are to successfully defend ourselves and those we love, from both its genocidal programs and rapidly advancing technocracy.
In addition, as always, if we want to end war as an instrument of Elite policy, we must strategically campaign to do so. See ‘Strategic Goals for Ending War’.
And if national populations such as the Palestinians wish to defend themselves from genocidal attacks, rather than simply lobby for the beneficial intervention of third parties, they must use an appropriate strategic response (modified from this template). See ‘Strategic Goals for Defeating a Genocidal Assault’.
Of course, it they wish to liberate themselves from occupation, they must bypass the corrupt Palestinian leadership in both the West Bank and Gaza and mobilize ‘ordinary’ Palestinians and international solidarity activists to campaign strategically to do so, as I have been explaining since the early 1990s. See ‘Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy’ or, for the fullest elaboration, The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach.
This means they must do far more than encourage involvement in just a few tactics as advocated by the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. Of course, these tactics could usefully form part of a comprehensive strategy.
Needless to say, there are a great many social groups (within Palestine, in Israel and in third-party countries) – identified on the ‘Strategic Goals’ page – who can be mobilized to take action, as well as a large number of nonviolent acts of noncooperation and intervention – listed in ‘198 Tactics of Nonviolent Action’ – from which the appropriate combination of tactics can be strategically chosen as explained in ‘Strategic Considerations in the Selection and Implementation of Nonviolent Tactics’. By following this process, concerned people anywhere can take solidarity action with Palestine (not just protest) to end the genocide in the short term and the occupation in the medium term.
The reality is simple: Unless Palestinians commit to developing and implementing a comprehensive nonviolent strategy of liberation, Palestine will continue to be the victim of forces beyond its control at the cost of an enormous number of lives, whatever optimism some might feel at the outpouring of popular support being exhibited by those attending Palestinian solidarity demonstrations around the world at the moment.
Strategy is determinative; not numbers.
Resisting the Elite’s Technocracy
Beyond the defense of Palestine, if you are committed to being strategic in your resistance to the Elite’s ongoing imposition of its genocidal and technocratic programs on us all, you are welcome to participate in the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ campaign which identifies a list of 30 strategic goals for doing so.
More simply, and as a minimum, you can download the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 23 languages (Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Malay, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Slovak and Turkish) with more languages in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: ‘One-page Flyer’.
And you might also consider organizing or participating in a local strategy to halt the deployment of 5G, given its crucial role in making the Elite’s ‘smart city’ technocratic prisons function. See ‘Halting the Deployment of 5G’.
If you like, you can also watch, share and/or organize to show, a short video about the campaign here: ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ video.
Moreover, if this strategic resistance to the ‘Great Reset’ (and related agendas) appeals to you, consider joining the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ Telegram or Signal groups (with advice on accessing the necessary links on the website).
Thus, what happens now in a particular global, regional, national or even local context has been fundamentally shaped by detailed Elite plans that have been ongoingly formulated and refined, as well as progressively implemented over the past 5,000 years. And we have long ago past the point in which a local population confronts a local Elite in what might once have been a local fight.
Consequently, what happens in this world system is an outcome of power. Laws and legal systems, human rights and human needs count for nothing in this world, unless they do not impact power relationships. Whatever laws exist are breached when it is convenient for powerful actors to do so. And no-one holds those responsible for such breaches accountable. Do you really think that anyone in Israel, or the Rothschild family and its agents, will be held accountable for the genocidal atrocities inflicted on Gaza?
However, just because the Elite and its agents are extraordinarily powerful, operate beyond the rule of law and have no conception of morality, it does not mean that they cannot be stopped. But if we are to stop them in any context, we must work together both strategically and in sufficient numbers. Turning up at a demonstration or doing any one or more of a million things when it suits us will not stop them.
Thus, if we are to resolve any conflict, including those that involve military violence, several things are necessary.
Primarily, the conflict configuration must be analyzed very carefully so that it is fully understood. This includes an understanding of who, most fundamentally, is driving the conflict, why (and for what purposes and benefits) and how they are doing so. This is essential and in sharp contrast to just assuming the conflict is how it is routinely presented or even how it superficially appears.
We must then design a strategy that, if implemented, will succeed in achieving our desired outcome. And, finally, we must mobilize sufficient people to participate in implementing this strategy.
For example, in the current context, it is easy to perceive that people like Klaus Schwab, Yuval Noah Harari and Bill Gates are benefiting from the World Economic Forum push to impose a technocracy on us all, but they are just the front men, positioned to act on behalf of far more powerful global actors.
And it is easy to identify that Benjamin Netanyahu is benefiting from the violence in Palestine but this is utterly superficial. Like any politician he is the lackey of more powerful global actors who offer him trinkets (but of value to him) to do their bidding.
So we have a choice. Whether as a global population or a local one, we can continue to be the victims while we attribute blame to the puppets (political leaders and a vast range of organizations) put in place to perform on behalf of others.
Or, as I have tried to do in this article, we can do the work to understand how the world works, who really exercises power, the means they are using to exercise it, and then mobilize enough people to participate in carefully-designed nonviolent strategies to stop them.
If we do not take the latter course very soon now, those of us left alive will all be enslaved in one of the Elite’s technocratic (‘smart city’) prisons.
Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is here.
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.
In a tyrannical dictatorship, the press is operated by employees of the government. In a Free Democracy™️, the press is operated by employees of the oligarchs who operate the government.
The New York Times has published another CIA press release disguised as news, this time aimed at whipping up paranoia toward anyone who criticizes the US proxy war in Ukraine.
The article is titled “Putin’s Next Target: U.S. Support for Ukraine, Officials Say”. Its author, Julian E Barnes, has written so many New York Times articles with headlines ending in the words “Officials Say” that we can safely assume the primary reason for his continued employment in that paper is because empire managers within the US government have designated him someone who can be trusted to print what they want printed. This designation would make him a reliable supplier of “scoops” (read: regurgitations of unevidenced government claims) for The New York Times.
“American officials said they are convinced that Mr. Putin intends to try to end U.S. and European support for Ukraine by using his spy agencies to push propaganda supporting pro-Russian political parties and by stoking conspiracy theories with new technologies,” Barnes writes.
Of course the report never gets any more specific than that, and of course the “American officials” Barnes cites promote their unevidenced assertions under cover of complete anonymity.
“The American officials spoke on the condition their names not be reported so they could discuss sensitive intelligence,” Barnes writes.
One of the most pathetic attempts at proxy war propaganda to date. If you criticize the US role in fueling the Ukraine war, then you have fallen under the spell of the all-powerful Putin’s “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories.” https://t.co/83OlgOUAQd
The only named source cited in the article is a CIA veteran named Beth Sanner, who says that “Russia will not give up on disinformation campaigns,” but adds that “we don’t know what it is going to look like.”
And that’s really the whole article right there. Putin is going to be using his spy agencies to promote political parties and messages which support ending the practice of pouring billions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine, but nobody knows what that will look like exactly, so we all have to just be sort of generally distrustful toward anyone who doesn’t think it’s a swell idea to perpetuate a horrific war with potentially world-ending consequences, because they might be part of an unspecified Russian influence operation.
We saw a similar report from CNN a few weeks ago, in which the public was warned that Russia’s FSB is working to convert westerners into mouthpieces for Russian propaganda using methods so sneaky and subtle that those westerners wouldn’t even know it’s happening. Again, details were extremely vague and the only obvious response to the information provided is for everyone to just get really paranoid toward anyone saying anything that doesn’t support current US foreign policy toward Russia.
As a thought experiment, imagine what it would look like if the CIA or some other agency wanted to advance US information interests by making the public distrustful of any people or information which go against US strategic objectives. Try to imagine some of the things they might say or do.
Do you imagine it would look much different than what we’re seeing currently? Feeding trusted mainstream news reporters extremely vague stories about the Kremlin trying to deceive people into opposing the longstanding agendas of the US intelligence cartel, using online media and social subversion? Can you think of a more effective way to help shore up trust in your preferred narratives and sow distrust in narratives you do not prefer?
Here’s another one: imagine a state media outlet for a tyrannical dictatorship. Think about how its news stories are made, how it would often take orders from the government on what to report and what not to report, and how all its printing or broadcasting would always align with the information interests of that government.
Now ask yourself: in what material way is that reporting different from these CIA press releases we’re seeing from outlets like The New York Times and CNN? In both scenarios the government is feeding the media information it wants printed, and in both scenarios there will be consequences if the media don’t obey. In our hypothetical dictatorship those consequences might be more severe, but in our real life scenario the consequences are no less real.
If Mr Barnes had refused to work on this story, he would have lost his “scoop” and it would have been given to someone else, perhaps at a competing outlet. If Barnes ceased uncritically reporting unevidenced assertions from anonymous government officials, his prominence in the mainstream media would quickly fizzle, and his career would dry up. If The New York Times ceased functioning as a reliable outlet for the credulous printing of unevidenced government claims, then the government agencies who’ve been elevating the paper to prominence with their artificial “scoops” can take those hot stories to another competing outlet and let them get the subscriptions and the glory.
In both scenarios, the government is able to get its propaganda messaging printed as hard news reporting. In one scenario the reporter reports what the government wants because they work for the government, in the other scenario the reporter reports what the government wants because that’s the only way to have a career in media outlets that are owned and controlled by the plutocrats who benefit from the political status quo the government is premised upon. The only major difference is that in our hypothetical dictatorship, the public probably knows it’s being fed propaganda, and is therefore more likely to take what they’re being told with a grain of salt.
In a tyrannical dictatorship, the press is operated by employees of the government. In a Free Democracy™️, the press is operated by employees of the oligarchs who operate the government. In both cases you’re getting state propaganda, but in one of them the propaganda is disguised as objective news reporting.
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.
After the Crash 