State power operates only destructively, bent always on forcing every manifestation of life into the straitjacket of its laws. Its intellectual form of expression is dead dogma, its physical form brute force. The state can train subjects, but it can never develop free people who take their affairs into their own hands, for independent thought is the greatest danger that it has to fear.
--Rudolf Rocker
I
just heard the news! You’re in the fight! And you’re on our team! Mrs
Trevor in Trimley and I are thrilled by your protest. It’s like the
sixties all over again! Someone had to show those free expression types
at Spotify what for. The last thing we want is to hear both sides now!
There
really is only one side to this whole argument. Ours! Exceptional
talents like us Joni, with so much love in our hearts, don’t need to
listen to other opinions, we already know they’re rubbish. They must be,
because we’re right! It’s very simple logic!!
Inspired by your
oh so brave and well-considered stance, I have just this morning written
to the supplier of the paper I use for my letters. My demand was
simple. Stop allowing your paper to be used by any physician or
scientist who might write opinions on it that run contrary to those of
Joni Mitchell! They either comply with your views Joni, or I’m looking
for another paper supplier! Ker-pow!! That’ll show ‘em! It’s time to
stop this rampant freedom of expression! That’s the virus we really need
to stamp out!
To further that end Joni, and in your honour, I
have decided to form a protest movement that I am hoping will grow from
strength to strength across the world. I’ve called it, Protest Against People Exploring Things From A Variety Of Angles! Or PAPETFAVOA for
short. (A memorable name which I think you’ll agree trips easily off
the tongue after only a handful of attempts at saying it.)
The
good news doesn’t end there! As we evidently both agree that the free
expression of an individual must be denied if a majority of people
disagree with it (as has always been the case in science!) I have taken
the liberty of making some suggested changes to the lyrics of your
beautiful song Both Sides Now and have retitled it One Side Now, which
I think more aptly captures where we’re both coming from! Be aware, my
suggested version is shorter. Some of your original lyrics that once
read like transcendent poetry are now frivolous to articulating a
socially responsible message that serves the greater good, so I’ve cut
them.
But here’s the big news I’m really hoping will make your
day! Mrs Trevor in Trimley and I invite you, Joni Mitchell, to our
friend Dave’s garage/recording studio here in Trimley St Mary to record
this new version with us, with ALL proceeds (after expenses: tea bags,
digestives, milk, etc) going to PAPETFAVOA! (I can hold my own on a ukulele and Mrs Trevor in Trimley has always played an enthusiastic triangle.)
As
for my suggested changes, you’ll notice that I didn’t alter the lyric,
“I really don’t know love at all.” It seems more poignant now than ever.
One Side Now
By Joni Mitchell and Trevor in Trimley (based on Joni Mitchell’s Both Sides Now)
Rows and floes of angel hair
And vaccine castles in the air
And faces covered everywhere
I like COVID this way
But misinformers block the sun
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But they got in my way
I’ve looked at this from one side now
From my perspective to which all must bow
It’s just illusions they believe
They really don’t know this disease
But now old friends are acting strange
They shake their heads, they say I’ve changed
I turned away, there’s nothing gained
From listening anyway
I’ve looked at life from one side now
Learned nothing new, and still somehow
It’s my right to censor you
I really don’t know love at all
Looking forward to getting in the studio with you Joni!
“Perhaps for the ruling class the only thing that would be more
terrifying than seeing children go to school without masks is the idea
of losing elections.” — Grace Curley, The Spectator
The whopping untruths launched onto the people of Western Civ by
their governments reformatted the brains of millions so badly that they
shuffled obediently into a mass formation and ran over a buffalo jump.
What a stampede it has been!
But suddenly, the remaining buffaloes are balking at the cliff’s
edge, seeing the bodies pile up below. Some of the bulls have even
turned the other way and started charging back across the darkling
prairie at the creatures driving the herd with their klaxons of deceit.
All authority, from Vienna to Vancouver stands revealed as psychopathic —
it apparently seeks to kill and injure as many as possible. Talk about
the needle and the damage done! Why else persist with vaccines that
don’t work and which provoke the most lethal disease mechanisms as
side-effects?
The most mysterious element of the story, of course, is what
motivated the various actors in this accursed melodrama. You could start
by asking Dr. Anthony Fauci why he suggested this week the need for yet
another round of the same mRNA booster shots that already proved
completely ineffective against the omicron generation of Coronavirus.
People are dropping dead from the boosters. Each successive shot sends a
fresh cargo of toxic artificial spike proteins into the bloodstream,
which remain at work for more than a year, insidiously gumming up the
capillaries of vital organs and throwing toggle switches in the coded
proteins of immune systems that turn off the body’s natural defenses
against a panoply of diseases, including cancers. The life insurance
companies are starting to notice and squawk about the astounding rise in
all-causes mortality. Nobody else in the loop dares to speak up, most
conspicuously the doctors, except a brave few… McCullough, Malone, Kory,
Bhattacharya, Kheriaty, Cole, Risch, Marik, Urso….
Dr. Fauci, of course, has an entire career of public health
malpractice to cover up. In his quest for medical immortality, he
bungled the institutional response to the AIDS epidemic, introducing
toxic drug protocols still inexplicably in use today — namely, AZT,
which got FDA approval despite its botched 1986 Phase II trials. Next,
Dr. Fauci attempted a miracle cure for the terrifying Ebola virus:
remdesivir. More botched trials. Anyway, the drug didn’t work against
Ebola. But he hauled it out again for his crowning creation, Covid-19,
and got the NIH to anoint remdesivir as the standard-of-care for
hospital in-patients — at the same time that he got the bureaucracy to
ban and demonize effective early treatment protocols, including
ivermectin and HCQ — while pushing his next-gen miracle cure, the mRNA
vaccines, which also flunked their rushed and inept trials.
Remdesivir provokes renal failure in five days, leading to fluid
build-up in the lungs, and the doctors were unable to discern the deadly
side-effects from the supposed symptoms of Covid-19 itself. What’s
more, the public health authorities gave a $17,000 bonus to hospitals
for each course of remdesivir given, and additional cash for reporting
deaths as Covid-related. Quite a racket. The net result is hundreds of
thousands of deaths from mass medical malpractice, and ultimately the
ruin of the entire racketeering-based US medical system.
Henceforth, doctors will have to battle strenuously against being
regarded as dangerous quacks, while the entire scaffold of conglomerate
hospitals and group practices founders and falls. You have no idea what a
shitstorm of lawsuits is barreling toward the medical establishment
when the fog of propaganda finally lifts and the public can see what has
been perpetrated against it. Criminal indictments against Dr. Fauci and
some of his colleagues should follow in a sane world, and there’s a
chance that the world is beginning to swerve back a little closer to
sanity — where a respect for truth and the rule-of-law can re-energize
the collective public conscience.
The Democratic Party rode this public health fiasco into power in the
USA and has abused its prerogatives exorbitantly in its quest for power
without purpose… other than for more power to push people around. The
Democratic Party used Covid to enable the ballot fraud that drove its
nemesis, Mr. Trump, from office — and dearly wanted the same excuse to
use it again this year. For weeks now, the party has been dithering
between a quadrupling down of its insane Covid mandates and the fretful
recognition that too much news of its Covid crimes and turpitudes has
gotten out.
Tens of millions heard the three-hour Joe Rogan interviews with
Doctors McCullough and Malone, in which they laid out the shocking facts
about the rise of medical tyranny, the propaganda campaign supporting
it out of the old news media networks, and the obscene machinations of a
rogue pharmaceutical industry drunk on profits. Those two long and
thoughtful conversations with McCullough and Malone have shifted the
public’s perception of what has gone on, and their participation with
other doctors in Senator Ron Johnson’s recent hearings, have thrown the
Party of Covid and Chaos completely off-balance.
The uprising of Canadian truckers inspires a general resistance to
being pushed around by over-reaching elected officials and their
bureaucratic subalterns, and the truckers’ example is being followed all
over Western Civ. Wait until the American truckers get in the act,
representing a vast class of citizens who have taken a beating for more
than two years and, increasingly, have nothing left to lose.
Following the lame, coordinate campaign to discredit Joe Rogan, the
Democrats and their accomplices in the news media went into a desperate
pivot this week, attempting brazenly to pretend that they can walk away
from what amounts to their abetting of mass murder. The midterm
elections loom darkly. Not only can they be kicked out of legislative
power, but there’s an excellent chance that their hapless, grifter
president, “Joe Biden” can be impeached and convicted by a new Congress
for bribery and treason, and the vice-president along with him for high
crimes, leading to the installing of a new speaker of the house (not a
Democrat) as president. Between the congressional investigations that
would follow, and the appointment of a new attorney general, the
prosecutions can commence and the country can begin the rehabilitation
of its conscience.
What can we make of a bunch of so-called “anarchists” whose response
to a major popular uprising taking place on their doorstep is to angrily
oppose it?
Anarchism has always been about people power, about the idea that we
need to come together to overthrow tyranny and state-corporate power to
create a world in which we are free to run our own lives.
We have now endured two years of the Great Fascist Reset
spearheaded by Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum and we might
imagine that the sight of rebels occupying a capital city and demanding
an end to the nightmare would spark stirrings of solidarity and support
in the hearts of genuine freedom-lovers.
But this is far from being the case with the Punch Up Collective of Ottawa.
In a bizarre and toxic February 6 article, ‘Organizing Against the Occupation of Ottawa‘, these self-described anarchists declare that “the convoy participants are our enemies”.
They echo the lies of WEF-groomed
Justin Trudeau by describing the freedom protesters as “authoritarian
occupiers” engaged in “right-wing adventures in ruining our lives”.
Without feeling the need to provide a shred of evidence, they claim
that “the problem with the convoy is that the content of their
disruption is racist, sexist, authoritarian, and hurts people” and that
it is “part of a broader eugenicist, overtly white supremacist
tendency”.
Authoritarian? Eugenicist? They seem to be getting mixed up regarding which side they are talking about, there!
As for “white supremacist”, this interviewed protester is one of many who has no difficulty in seeing through an obvious smear.
The same estrangement from truth was in evidence when Punch Up Collective member Chris Dixon (below), an American academic, insisted on Twitter that their aim was to “build actual freedom and collective liberation”.
Given their obvious instinct to side with power against ordinary
people, maybe Punch Up ought to consider changing their name to Punch
Down?
This reaction of a group of self-appointed rebels to a moment of real
actual revolt is reminiscent of certain UK anarchists’ condemnation of
the politically impure riots of 2011, and indeed of the law-and-order
brigade who subsequently took to the streets with much-mediatised brooms
to sweep away any traces of the popular insurrection which had so
rudely interrupted their comfortable lives.
Raw history in the messy making does not motivate Punch Up. They are much more concerned
with the kind of self-centred individual who wants “a loan of
noise-cancelling headphones” or who hopes that their “pets have a quiet
place to stay to escape the endless honking outside their house”.
Forget any idea, fellow radicals, of reclaiming the streets, storming
the citadels of power or pulling down the infrastructures of control,
because it might disturb the neighbours! Or their cat.
So what are the Punch Up Collective actually planning to do to
dislodge the Ottawa occupation, apart from spewing poisonous propaganda?
Rather undermining the message of their belligerent name, they admit:
“We were not prepared to mount a spirited anti-authoritarian collective
response to the convoy arriving and putting down roots in our town…
“Direct confrontation with the far right is important and can be
effective, but in the present moment in Ottawa it’s complicated to
mobilize in that way”.
You don’t say!
However, they are apparently “looking forward to coming together with
other like-minded groups to not only push back against the current
occupation in a variety of ways, but to also prepare for future
confrontations like this”.
To try to understand where this highly unpleasant little group is
coming from, we took a short trip back in time via their (mercifully
meagre!) archives from the last two years.
Before their reactionary outburst of February 6, the last the world
had heard from Punch Up was in October 2021, when they published an
earnest but painfully dull article detailing the public complaints process against the police.
Apart from a couple of statements of support for other campaigns, the
previous Punch Up post dates back to September 2020. This meandering reflection
on “solidarity with kids and their caregivers” ends with the statement
that “our collective well-being depends on what we’re prepared to
struggle for, together”.
Well, yeah.
We will skip rapidly past the June 2020 piece
setting out the minutiae of “various layers of decision-making to set
the Ottawa Police Services budget” to reach a post from April 2020.
Here, as lockdowns and authoritarian restrictions were being imposed
all over the world, the ever-so militant Punch-Up Collective called on
its supporters to “come together against the forces of capitalism and
colonialism” on May Day by… downloading and sharing images of flowers
and butterflies.
Our educational journey back in time finally brings us to March 2020, the very start of the Great Reset.
What a shame that the folks at Punch Up Collective had to postpone a planned fundraiser because of Covid.
Impressively, they managed to announce this
using the robotic newnormal-speak which had only just come into vogue:
“We want to do what we can to keep our community safe and healthy and
slow the spread of the virus… In the meantime, let’s practice physical
distancing and social solidarity!”
Intriguingly, they also provide a link to Operation Ramzieh, a food
distribution initiative set up by Cathy Chen and Kamiliya Akkouche, who,
according to Canada’s National Observer, were “drawn to making a positive impact amid the global calamity”.
If the word “impact”
set off your alarm bells there, you were justified, because the report
goes on to tell us that the pair are both “members of a prestigious
global club of young leaders backed by the World Economic Forum”, ie the
notorious impact-capitalism supporting Global Shapers.
In fact, Chen even “presented at three sessions at the WEF’s Davos
meeting of world leaders” in 2019. She is pictured here with Marco
Lambertini, director general of the land-grabbing colonialist WWF.
We thus see that the Punch Up Collective in Ottawa has reinforced the
official Covid line from the very start, promoting social distancing,
state narratives and even Klaus Schwab’s local WEF hub.
Little surprise, perhaps, that these “anarchists” regard the Canadian
people who are rising up against the Great Reset as their “enemies”!
Without deeper understanding of Chinese and
Russian civilizations, and their way of thinking, Westerners simply are
not equipped to get it, Pepe Escobar believes.
ISTANBUL – Emmanuel Macron is no Talleyrand. Self-promoted as
“Jupiterian”, he may have finally got down to earth for a proper
realpolitik insight while ruminating one of the former French Minister
of Foreign Affairs key bon mots: “A diplomat who says ‘yes’
means ‘maybe’, a diplomat who says ‘maybe’ means ‘no’, and a diplomat
who says ‘no’ is no diplomat.”
Mr. Macron went to Moscow to see Mr. Putin with a simple 4-stage plan
in mind. 1. Clinch a wide-ranging deal with Putin on Ukraine, thus
stopping “Russian aggression”. 2. Bask in the glow as the West’s
Peacemaker. 3. Raise the EU’s tawdry profile, as he’s the current
president of the EU Council. 4. Collect all the spoils then bag the
April presidential election in France.
Considering he all but begged for an audience in a flurry of phone
calls, Macron was received by Putin with no special honors. Comic relief
was provided by French mainstream media hysterics, “military
strategists” included, evoking the “French castle” sketch in Monty
Python’s Holy Grail while reaffirming every stereotype available about
“cowardly frogs”. Their “analysis”: Putin is “isolated” and wants “the
military option”. Their top intel source: Bezos-owned CIA rag The
Washington Post.
Still, it was fascinating to watch – oh, that loooooong table in the
Kremlin: the only EU leader who took the trouble to actually listen to
Putin was the one who, months ago, pronounced NATO as “brain-dead”. So
the ghosts of Charles de Gaulle and Talleyrand did seem to have engaged
in a lively chat, framed by raw economics, finally imprinting on the
“Jupiterian” that the imperial obsession on preventing Europe by all
means from profiting from wider trade with Eurasia is a losing game.
After a strenuous six hours of discussions Putin, predictably, monopolized the eminently quotable department, starting with one
that will be reverberating all across the Global South for a long
time: “Citizens of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia have seen how
peaceful is NATO.”
There’s more. The already iconic Do you want a war between Russia and NATO?
– followed by the ominous “there will be no winners”. Or take this
one, on Maidan: “Since February 2014, Russia has considered a coup
d’état to be the source of power in Ukraine. This is a bad sandbox, we
don’t like this kind of game.”
On the Minsk agreements, the message was blunt: “The President of
Ukraine has said that he does not like any of the clauses of the Minsk
agreements. Like it, or not – be patient, my beauty. They must be
fulfilled.”
The “real issue behind the present crisis”
Macron for his part stressed, “new mechanisms are needed to ensure
stability in Europe, but not by revising existing agreements, perhaps
new security solutions would be innovative.” So nothing that Moscow had
not stressed before. He added, “France and Russia have agreed to work
together on security guarantees.” The operative term is “France”. Not
the non-agreement capable United States government.
Anglo-American spin insisted that Putin had agreed not to launch new
“military initiatives” – while keeping mum on what Macron promised in
return. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov did not confirm any agreement.
He only said that the Kremlin will engage with Macron’s dialogue
proposals, “provided that the United States also agrees with them.” And
for that, as everyone knows, there’s no guarantee.
The Kremlin has been stressing for months that Russia has no interest
whatsoever in invading de facto black hole Ukraine. And Russian troops
will return to their bases after exercises are over. None of this has
anything to do with “concessions” by Putin.
And then came the bombshell: French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire –
the inspiration for one of the main characters in Michel Houellebecq’s
cracking new book, Anéantir – said that the launch of Nord
Stream 2 “is one of the main components of de-escalating tensions on the
Russian-Ukrainian border.” Gallic flair formulated out loud what no
German had the balls to say.
In Kiev, after his stint in Moscow, it looks like Macron properly
told Zelensky which way the wind blows now. Zelensky hastily confirmed
Ukraine is ready to implement the Minsk agreements; it never was, for
seven long years. He also said he expects to hold a summit in the
Normandy format – Kiev, the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk,
Germany and France – “in the near future”. A meeting of Normandy format
political advisers will happen in Berlin on Thursday.
Way back in August 2020, I was already pointing
to which way we were heading in the master chessboard. A few sharp
minds in the Beltway, emailing their networks, did notice in my column
how “the goal of Russian and Chinese policy is to recruit Germany into a
triple alliance locking together the Eurasian land mass a la Mackinder
into the greatest geopolitical alliance in history, switching world
power in favor of these three great powers against Anglo-Saxon sea
power.”
Now, a very high-level Deep State intel source, retired, comes down
to the nitty gritty, pointing out how “the secret negotiations between
Russia and the US center around missiles going into Eastern Europe, as
the US frantically drives for completing its development of hypersonic
missiles.”
The main point is that if the US places such hypersonic missiles in
Romania and Poland, as planned, the time for them to reach Moscow would
be 1/10 the time of a Tomahawk. It’s even worse for Russia if they are
placed in the Baltics. The source notes, “the US plan is to neutralize
the more advanced defensive missile systems that seal Russia’s airspace.
This is why the US has offered to allow Russia to inspect these missile
sites in the future, to prove that there are no hypersonic nuclear
missiles. Yet that’s not a solution, as the Raytheon missile launchers
can handle both offensive and defensive missiles, so it’s possible to
sneak in the offensive missiles at night. Thus everything requires
continuous observation.”
The bottom line is stark: “This is the real issue behind the present
crisis. The only solution is no missile sites allowed in Eastern
Europe.” That happens to be an essential part of Russia’s demands for
security guarantees.
Sailing to Byzantium
Alastair Crooke has demonstrated
how “the West slowly is discovering that that it has no pressure
point versus Russia (its economy being relatively sanctions-proof), and
its military is no match for that of Russia’s.”
In parallel, Michael Hudson has conclusively shown
how “the threat to US dominance is that China, Russia and Mackinder’s
Eurasian World Island heartland are offering better trade and investment
opportunities than are available from the United States with its
increasingly desperate demand for sacrifices from its NATO and other
allies.”
Quite a few of us, independent analysts from both the Global North
and South, have been stressing non-stop for years that the pop Gotterdammerung
in progress hinges on the end of American geopolitical control over
Eurasia. Occupied Germany and Japan enforcing the strategic submission
of Eurasia from the west down to the east; the ever-expanding NATO; the
ever de-multiplied Empire of Bases, all the lineaments of the
75-year-plus free lunch are collapsing.
The new groove is set to the tune of the New Silk Roads, or BRI;
Russia’s unmatched hypersonic power – and now the non-negotiable demands
for security guarantees; the advent of RCEP – the largest free trade
deal on the planet uniting East Asia; the Empire all but expelled from
Central Asia after the Afghan humiliation; and sooner rather than later
its expulsion from the first island chain in the Western Pacific,
complete with a starring role for the Chinese DF-21D “carrier killer”
missiles.
The Ray McGovern-coined MICIMATT
(military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think
tank complex) was not capable to muster the collective IQ to even begin
to understand the terms of the Russia-China joint statement issued on an already historic February 4, 2022. Some in Europe actually did – arguably located in the Elysée Palace.
This enlightened unpacking
focuses on the interconnection of some key formulations, such as
“relations between Russia and China superior to political and military
alliances of the Cold War era” and “friendship which shows no limits”:
the strategic partnership, for all its challenges ahead, is way more
complex than a mere “treaty” or “agreement”. Without deeper
understanding of Chinese and Russian civilizations, and their way of
thinking, Westerners simply are not equipped to get it.
In the end, if we manage to escape so much Western doom and gloom, we might end up navigating a warped remix of Yeats’ Sailing to Byzantium.
We may always dream of the best and the brightest in Europe finally
sailing away from the iron grip of tawdry imperial Exceptionalistan:
“Once out of nature I shall never take / My
bodily form from any natural thing, / But such a form as Grecian
goldsmiths make / Of hammered gold and gold enameling / To keep a drowsy
Emperor awake; / Or set upon a golden bough to sing /To lords and
ladies of Byzantium / Of what is past, or passing, or to come.”
Not since the Vietnam War – when liberals
behaved like peaceniks and not the Neocon country cousins they’ve become
– has the media seriously scrutinized the US government’s arguments for
military exploits abroad.
From the oilfields of Iraq, to the mountains of Afghanistan, to
Trump’s classic head fake in Syria when a few missiles demolished a
deserted airfield, triggering NBC host Brian Williams to get all choked
up over “the beauty of our weapons,” the MSM has dutifully played water
boy to Uncle Sam’s overseas misadventures. Somewhere, somehow along the
way Americans inherited a Fourth Estate that actively promotes military
aggression abroad.
Last week, however, it looked as though the White House press corps
experienced an awakening of sorts as the risk of Russia and NATO
stumbling headlong into Armageddon looked razor close. That epic moment
in US media history happened when State Department spokesman Ned Price,
fleshing out an earlier report from the Washington Post, claimed that
the Kremlin was producing a video of a mass casualty event in Ukraine to
be used as a pretext for a Russian invasion.
According to Price, the video is “fabricated by Russian intelligence
using crisis actors” and is “one of a number of options the Russian
government is developing as a fake pretext to initiate and potentially
justify military aggression against Ukraine.”
In the past, these zero-calorie morsels of intel from the State
Department would have been gobbled up by the press and regurgitated
across every front page the very next morning. But just as Price was
about to move on to more pressing matters, like maybe what flavor ice
cream the Commander-in-Chief prefers this week, something weird
happened.
Matt Lee, a veteran writer with the Associated Press, unexpectedly
pounced on Price, demanding to know how he can “support the idea that
there is some propaganda film in the making?” At one point Lee even
suggested “this is Alex Jones territory” with regards to the idea of
crisis actors being employed.
In other words, Lee wanted something that the White House hasn’t been
forced to produce since Monica Lewinsky’s stained blue dress surfaced
at Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment trial – gold ol’ fashioned, hardcore
evidence. Price, visibly stunned, apparently couldn’t believe that the
term “intelligence” no longer worked to mollify a roomful of reporters
as it once did.
What is so laughable about the Price-Lee standoff is how a US
reporter simply doing his job – pressing the State Department for
evidence regarding an unclassified intelligence report – has actually
turned into a major news story. And as the Price-Lee saga went viral,
the main question – the veracity of the ‘Russian video’ claim – went
conveniently missing in action. This shows how far the paying audience
has allowed the establishment to travel from that safe space known as
reality.
At a time when so many media stories are generously peppered with
anonymous citations from various ‘former senior intelligence officials’
and ‘high-ranking diplomats,’ it’s no wonder that government officials
feel they too are at liberty to spew ‘intelligence’ without the need to
demonstrate its authenticity. Why should Lee have expected anything more
than a verbal assurance when the majority of news channels and
publications are themselves guilty of such shoddy standards (even the
highly respected journalist Seymour Hersh was called out for the
excessive use of anonymous attribution, as he did in his windy
10,128-word essay detailing the US military’s 2011 raid on Osama Bin
Laden’s compound in Pakistan)?
While it is necessary for the media and government to ‘protect
national security secrets,’ this excuse has been tossed around so many
times in the past that the majority of news stories “might have been
written by Lewis Carroll,” to borrow a line from Hersh’s abovementioned
fantasy piece. It’s no wonder that fake news of the Russiagate variety,
alongside military disasters based on ‘intelligence errors’ like Iraq,
flourish like the Tom Clancy shelf at the local bookstore.
Following this unseemly showdown at the State Department, Rice and
Lee reportedly made amends in a phone call and everything was hunky
dory. So hunky dory, in fact, that the media practically carried out a
false flag itself, possibly as an act of penance for Lee wandering so
far off the reservation.
On Saturday, Bloomberg News agency, instead of maybe doing a deep
dive on the wild Russian video claim, ‘accidentally’ hit ‘publish’ on a
headline that read, ‘Live: Russia invades Ukraine’. It just so happened
that the editors at the news agency, so the story goes, had that
apocalyptic headline all type-set and ready to go, you know, just in
case. Incredibly, this latest media glitch just happened to target the
all-time favorite bogeyman (aside from Donald Trump) of the Democratic
Party and just hours after the White House was forced to walk back its
‘Russian false flag’ conspiracy theory.
It was not the Russians who staged a false flag attack, but rather a
major US news agency – and on a Saturday night, of all nights, when
cognitive thinking abilities are most likely to be severely impaired.
The question now is: how much lower can the mainstream media go?
Currently, 57% of Democrats say they trust the media and only 18% of
Republicans, according to Edelman’s annual trust barometer as reported
by Axios. At the same time, 58% think that “most news organizations are
more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than
with informing the public.”
With the prospect of a possible war-by-proxy or worse erupting
between Russia and NATO over highly volatile Ukraine, which Zbigniew
Brzezinski listed as one of the “critically important geopolitical
pivots” on the grand chessboard, the importance of a viable and
trustworthy media to hold government officials to task has rarely been
greater. Yet here we have a media industrial complex that, in the best
case, acts as a ‘weapon of mass distraction,’ and, in the worst case,
one of potential mass destruction. Americans must expect better from its
floundering media; there is simply too much at stake.
The Iron Curtain of the 1940s and ‘50s was ostensibly designed to
isolate Russia from Western Europe – to keep out Communist ideology and
military penetration. Today’s sanctions regime is aimed inward, to
prevent America’s NATO and other Western allies from opening up more
trade and investment with Russia and China. The aim is not so
much to isolate Russia and China as to hold these allies firmly within
America’s own economic orbit. Allies are to forego the benefits of
importing Russian gas and Chinese products, buying much higher-priced
U.S. LNG and other exports, capped by more U.S. arms.
The sanctions that U.S. diplomats are insisting that their allies
impose against trade with Russia and China are aimed ostensibly at
deterring a military buildup. But such a buildup cannot really be the
main Russian and Chinese concern. They have much more to gain by
offering mutual economic benefits to the West. So the underlying
question is whether Europe will find its advantage in replacing U.S.
exports with Russian and Chinese supplies and the associated mutual
economic linkages.
What worries American diplomats is that Germany, other NATO nations
and countries along the Belt and Road route understand the gains that
can be made by opening up peaceful trade and investment. If there is no
Russian or Chinese plan to invade or bomb them, what is the need for
NATO? What is the need for such heavy purchases of U.S. military
hardware by America’s affluent allies? And if there is no inherently
adversarial relationship, why do foreign countries need to sacrifice
their own trade and financial interests by relying exclusively on U.S.
exporters and investors?
These are the concerns that have prompted French Prime Minister
Macron to call forth the ghost of Charles de Gaulle and urge Europe to
turn away from what he calls NATO’s “brain-dead” Cold War and beak with
the pro-U.S. trade arrangements that are imposing rising costs on Europe
while denying it potential gains from trade with Eurasia. Even Germany
is balking at demands that it freeze by this coming March by going
without Russian gas.
Instead of a real military threat from Russia and China, the problem for American strategists is the absence
of such a threat. All countries have come to realize that the world has
reached a point at which no industrial economy has the manpower and
political ability to mobilize a standing army of the size that would be
needed to invade or even wage a major battle with a significant
adversary. That political cost makes it uneconomic for Russia to
retaliate against NATO adventurism prodding at its western border trying
to incite a military response. It’s just not worth taking over Ukraine.
America’s rising pressure on its allies threatens to drive them out
of the U.S. orbit. For over 75 years they had little practical
alternative to U.S. hegemony. But that is now changing. America no
longer has the monetary power and seemingly chronic trade and
balance-of-payments surplus that enabled it to draw up the world’s trade
and investment rules in 1944-45. The threat to U.S. dominance is that
China, Russia and Mackinder’s Eurasian World Island heartland are
offering better trade and investment opportunities than are available
from the United States with its increasingly desperate demand for
sacrifices from its NATO and other allies.
The most glaring example is the U.S. drive to block Germany from
authorizing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to obtain Russian gas for the
coming cold weather. Angela Merkel agreed with Donald Trump to spend $1
billion building a new LNG port to become more dependent on highly
priced U.S. LNG. (The plan was cancelled after the U.S. and German
elections changed both leaders.) But Germany has no other way of heating
many of its houses and office buildings (or supplying its fertilizer
companies) than with Russian gas.
The only way left for U.S. diplomats to block European purchases is
to goad Russia into a military response and then claim that avenging
this response outweighs any purely national economic interest. As
hawkish Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland,
explained in a State Department press briefing on January 27: “If
Russia invades Ukraine one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move
forward.”[1] The problem is to create a suitably offensive incident and depict Russia as the aggressor.
Nuland expressed who was dictating the policies of NATO members
succinctly in 2014: “Fuck the EU.” That was said as she told the U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine that the State Department was backing the puppet
Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Ukrainian prime minister (removed after two years
in a corruption scandal), and U.S. political agencies backed the bloody
Maidan massacre that ushered in what are now eight years of civil war.
The result devastated Ukraine much as U.S. violence had done in Syria,
Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not a policy of world peace or democracy
that European voters endorse.
U.S. trade sanctions imposed on its NATO allies extend across the
trade spectrum. Austerity-ridden Lithuania gave up its cheese and
agricultural market in Russia, and is blocking its state-owned railroad
from carrying Belarus potash to the Baltic port of Klaipeda. The port’s
majority owner complained that “Lithuania will lose hundreds of millions
of dollars from halting Belarus exports through Klaipeda,” and “could
face legal claims of $15 billion over broken contracts.”[2]
Lithuania has even agreed to U.S. prompting to recognize Taiwan,
resulting in China refusing to import German or other products that
include Lithuanian-made components.
Europe is to impose sanctions at the cost of rising energy and
agricultural prices by giving priority to imports from the United States
and foregoing Russian, Belarusian and other linkages outside of the
Dollar Area. As Sergey Lavrov put matters: “When the United States
thinks that something suits its interests, it can betray those with whom
it was friendly, with whom it cooperated and who catered to its
positions around the world.”[3]
America’s sanctions on its allies hurt their economies, not those of Russia and China
What seems ironic is that such sanctions against Russia and China
have ended up helping rather than hurting them. But the primary aim was
not to hurt nor to help the Russian and Chinese economies. After all, it
is axiomatic that sanctions force the targeted countries to become more
self-reliant. Deprived of Lithuanian cheese, Russian producers have
produced their own, and no longer need to import it from the Baltic
states. America’s underlying economic rivalry is aimed at keeping
European and its allied Asian countries in its own increasingly
protected economic orbit. Germany, Lithuania and other allies are told
to impose sanctions directed against their own economic welfare by not
trading with countries outside the U.S. dollar-area orbit.
Quite apart from the threat of actual war resulting from U.S.
bellicosity, the cost to America’s allies of surrendering to U.S. trade
and investment demands is becoming so high as to be politically
unaffordable. For nearly a century there has been little alternative but
to agree to trade and investment rules favoring the U.S. economy as the
price of receiving U.S. financial and trade support and even military
security. But an alternative is now threatening to emerge – one offering
benefits from China’s Belt and Road initiative, and from Russia’s
desire for foreign investment to help modernize its industrial
organization, as seemed to be promised thirty years ago in 1991.
Ever since the closing years of World War II, U.S. diplomacy has
aimed at locking Britain, France, and especially defeated Germany and
Japan, into becoming U.S. economic and military dependencies. As I
documented in Super Imperialism, American diplomats broke up
the British Empire and absorbed its Sterling Area by the onerous terms
imposed first by Lend-Lease and then the Anglo-American Loan Agreement
of 1946. The latter’s terms obliged Britain to give up its Imperial
Preference policy and unblock the sterling balances that India and other
colonies had accumulated for their raw-materials exports during the
war, thus opening the British Commonwealth to U.S. exports.
Britain committed itself not to recover its prewar markets by
devaluing sterling. U.S. diplomats then created the IMF and World Bank
on terms that promoted U.S. export markets and deterred competition from
Britain and other former rivals. Debates in the House of Lords and the
House of Commons showed that British politicians recognized that they
were being consigned to a subservient economic position, but felt that
they had no alternative. And once they gave up, U.S. diplomats had a
free hand in confronting the rest of Europe.
Financial power has enabled America to continue dominating Western
diplomacy despite being forced off gold in 1971 as a result of the
balance-of-payments costs of its overseas military spending. For the
past half-century, foreign countries have kept their international
monetary reserves in U.S. dollars – mainly in U.S. Treasury securities,
U.S. bank accounts and other financial investments in the U.S. economy.
The Treasury-bill standard obliges foreign central banks to finance
America’s military-based balance-of-payments deficit – and in the
process, the domestic government budget deficit.
The United States does not need this recycling to create money. The
government can simply print money, as MMT has demonstrated. But the
United States does need this foreign central bank dollar recycling to
balance its international payments and support the dollar’s exchange
rate. If the dollar were to decline, foreign countries would find it
much easier to pay international dollar-debts in their own currencies.
U.S. import prices would rise, and it would be more costly for U.S.
investors to buy foreign assets. And foreigners would lose money on U.S.
stocks and bonds as denominated in their own currencies, and would drop
them. Central banks in particular would take a loss on the Treasury’s
dollar bonds that they hold in their monetary reserves – and would find
their interest to lie in moving out of the dollar. So the U.S. balance
of payments and exchange rate are both threatened by U.S. belligerency
and military spending throughout the world – yet its diplomats are
trying to stabilize matters by ramping up the military threat to crisis
levels.
U.S. drives to keep its European and East Asian protectorates locked
into its own sphere of influence is threatened by the emergence of China
and Russia independently of the United States while the U.S. economy is
de-industrializing as a result of its own deliberate policy choices.
The industrial dynamic that made the United States so dominant from the
late 19th century up to the 1970s has given way to an
evangelistic neoliberal financialization. That is why U.S. diplomats
need to arm-twist their allies to block their economic relations with
post-Soviet Russia and socialist China, whose growth is outstripping
that of the United States and whose trade arrangements offer more
opportunities for mutual gain.
At issue is how long the United States can block its allies from
taking advantage of China’s economic growth. Will Germany, France and
other NATO countries seek prosperity for themselves instead of letting
the U.S. dollar standard and trade preferences siphon off their economic
surplus?
Oil diplomacy and America’s dream for post-Soviet Russia
The expectation of Gorbachev and other Russian officials in 1991 was
that their economy would turn to the West for reorganization along the
lines that had made the U.S., German and other economies so prosperous.
The mutual expectation in Russia and Western Europe was for German,
French and other investors to restructure the post-Soviet economy along
more efficient lines.
That was not the U.S. plan. When Senator John McCain called Russia “a
gas station with atom bombs,” that was America’s dream for what they
wanted Russia to be – with Russia’s gas companies passing into control
by U.S. stockholders, starting with the planned buyout of Yukos as
arranged with Mikhail Khordokovsky. The last thing that U.S. strategists
wanted to see was a thriving revived Russia. U.S. advisors sought to
privatize Russia’s natural resources and other non-industrial assets, by
turning them over to kleptocrats who could “cash out” on the value of
what they had privatized only by selling to U.S. and other foreign
investors for hard currency. The result was a neoliberal economic and
demographic collapse throughout the post-Soviet states.
In some ways, America has been turning itself into its own version of
a gas station with atom bombs (and arms exports). U.S. oil diplomacy
aims to control the world’s oil trade so that its enormous profits will
accrue to the major U.S. oil companies. It was to keep Iranian oil in
the hands of British Petroleum that the CIA’s Kermit Roosevelt worked
with British Petroleum’s Anglo-Persian Oil Company to overthrow Iran’s
elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1954 when he sought to nationalize
the company after it refused decade after decade to perform its promised
contributions to the economy. After installing the Shah whose democracy
was based on a vicious police state, Iran threatened once again to act
as the master of its own oil resources. So it was once again confronted
with U.S.-sponsored sanctions, which remain in effect today. The aim of
such sanctions is to keep the world oil trade firmly under U.S. control,
because oil is energy and energy is the key to productivity and real
GDP.
In cases where foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia and
neighboring Arab petrostates have taken control, the export earnings of
their oil are to be deposited in U.S. financial markets to support the
dollar’s exchange rate and U.S. financial domination. When they
quadrupled their oil prices in 1973-74 (in response to the U.S.
quadrupling of its grain-export prices), the U.S. State Department laid
down the law and told Saudi Arabia that it could charge as much as it
wanted for its oil (thereby raising the price umbrella for U.S. oil
producers), but it had to recycle its oil-export earnings to the United
States in dollar-denominated securities – mainly in U.S. Treasury
securities and U.S. bank accounts, along with some minority holdings of
U.S. stocks and bonds (but only as passive investors, not using this
financial power to control corporate policy).
The second mode of recycling oil-export earnings was to buy U.S. arms
exports, with Saudi Arabia becoming one of the military-industrial
complex’s largest customers. U.S. arms production actually is not
primarily military in character. As the world is now seeing in the
kerfuffle over Ukraine, America does not have a fighting army.
What it has is what used to be called an “eating army.” U.S. arms
production employs labor and produces weaponry as a kind of prestige
good for governments to show off, not for actual fighting. Like most
luxury goods, the markup is very high. That is the essence of high
fashion and style, after all. The MIC uses its profits to subsidize U.S.
civilian production in a way that does not violate the letter of
international trade laws against government subsidy.
Sometimes, of course, military force is indeed used. In Iraq, first
George W. Bush and then Barack Obama used the military to seize the
country’ oil reserves, along with those of Syria and Libya. Control of
world oil has been the buttress of America’s balance of payments.
Despite the global drive to slow the planet’s warming, U.S. officials
continue to view oil as the key to America’s economic supremacy. That is
why the U.S. military is still refusing to obey Iraq’s orders to leave
their country, keeping its troops in control of Iraqi oil, and why it
agreed with the French to destroy Libya and still has troops in the
oilfields of Syria. Closer to home, President Biden has approved
offshore drilling and supports Canada’s expansion of its Athabasca tar
sands, environmentally the dirtiest oil in the world.
Along with oil and food exports, arms exports support the
Treasury-bill standard’s financing of America’s overseas military
spending on its 750 bases abroad. But without a standing enemy
constantly threatening at the gates, NATO’s existence falls apart. What
would be the need for countries to buy submarines, aircraft carriers,
airplanes, tanks, missiles and other arms?
As the United States has de-industrialized, its trade and
balance-of-payments deficit is becoming more problematic. It needs arms
export sales to help reduce its widening trade deficit and also to
subsidize its commercial aircraft and related civilian sectors. The
challenge is how to maintain its prosperity and world dominance as it
de-industrializes while economic growth is surging ahead in China and
now even Russia.
America has lost its industrial cost advantage by the sharp rise in
its cost of living and doing business in its financialized
post-industrial rentier economy. Additionally, as Seymour
Melman explained in the 1970s, Pentagon capitalism is based on cost-plus
contracts: The higher military hardware costs, the more profit its
manufacturers receive. So U.S. arms are over-engineered – hence, the
$500 toilet seats instead of a $50 model. The main attractiveness of
luxury goods after all, including military hardware, is their high price.
This is the background for U.S. fury at its failure to seize Russia’s
oil resources – and at seeing Russia also break free militarily to
create its own arms exports, which now are typically better and much
less costly than those of the U.S. Today Russia is in the position of
Iran in 1954 and again in 1979. Not only do its oil sales rival those of
U.S. LNG, but Russia keeps its oil-export earnings at home to finance
its re-industrialization, so as to rebuild the economy that was
destroyed by the U.S.-sponsored shock “therapy” of the 1990s.
The line of least resistance for U.S. strategy seeking to maintain
control of the world’s oil supply while maintaining its luxury-arms
export market via NATO is to Cry Wolf and insist that Russia is on the
verge of invading Ukraine – as if Russia had anything to gain by
quagmire warfare over Europe’s poorest and least productive economy. The
winter of 2021-22 has seen a long attempt at U.S. prodding of NATO and
Russia to fight – without success.
U.S. dreams of a neoliberalized China as a U.S. corporate affiliate
America has de-industrialized as a deliberate policy of slashing
production costs as its manufacturing companies have sought low-wage
labor abroad, most notably in China. This shift was not a rivalry with
China, but was viewed as mutual gain. American banks and investors were
expected to secure control and the profits of Chinese industry as it was
marketized. The rivalry was between U.S. employers and U.S. labor, and
the class-war weapon was offshoring and, in the process, cutting back
government social spending.
Similar to the Russian pursuit of oil, arms and agricultural trade
independent of U.S. control, China’s offense is keeping the profits of
its industrialization at home, retaining state ownership of significant
corporations and, most of all, keeping money creation and the Bank of
China as a public utility to fund its own capital formation instead of
letting U.S. banks and brokerage houses provide its financing and siphon
off its surplus in the form of interest, dividends and management fees.
The one saving grace to U.S. corporate planners has been China’s role
in deterring U.S. wages from rising by providing a source of low-priced
labor to enable American manufacturers to offshore and outsource their
production.
The Democratic Party’s class war against unionized labor started in
the Carter Administration and greatly accelerated when Bill Clinton
opened the southern border with NAFTA. A string of maquiladoras were
established along the border to supply low-priced handicraft labor. This
became so successful a corporate profit center that Clinton pressed to
admit China into the World Trade Organization in December 2001, in the
closing month of his administration. The dream was for it to become a
profit center for U.S. investors, producing for U.S. companies and
financing its capital investment (and housing and government spending
too, it was hoped) by borrowing U.S. dollars and organizing its industry
in a stock market that, like that of Russia in 1994-96, would become a
leading provider of finance-capital gains for U.S. and other foreign
investors.
Walmart, Apple and many other U.S. companies organized production
facilities in China, which necessarily involved technology transfers and
creation of an efficient infrastructure for export trade. Goldman Sachs
led the financial incursion, and helped China’s stock market soar. All
this was what America had been urging.
Where did America’s neoliberal Cold War dream go wrong? For starters,
China did not follow the World Bank’s policy of steering governments to
borrow in dollars to hire U.S. engineering firms to provide export
infrastructure. It industrialized in much the same way that the United
States and Germany did in the late 19th century: By heavy
public investment in infrastructure to provide basic needs at subsidized
prices or freely, from health care and education to transportation and
communications, in order to minimize the cost of living that employers
and exporters had to pay. Most important, China avoided foreign debt
service by creating its own money and keeping the most important
production facilities in its own hands.
U.S. demands are driving its allies out of the dollar-NATO trade and monetary orbit
As in a classical Greek tragedy, U.S. foreign policy is bringing
about precisely the outcome that it most fears. Overplaying their hand
with their own NATO allies, U.S. diplomats are bringing about
Kissinger’s nightmare scenario, driving Russia and China together. While
America’s allies are told to bear the costs of U.S. sanctions, Russia
and China are benefiting by being obliged to diversify and make their
own economies independent of reliance on U.S. suppliers of food and
other basic needs. Above all, these two countries are creating their own
de-dollarized credit and bank-clearing systems, and holding their
international monetary reserves in the form of gold, euros and each
other’s currencies to conduct their mutual trade and investment.
This de-dollarization provides an alternative to the unipolar U.S.
ability to gain free foreign credit via the U.S. Treasury-bill standard
for world monetary reserves. As foreign countries and their central
banks de-dollarize, what will support the dollar? Without the free line
of credit provided by central banks automatically recycling America’s
foreign military and other overseas spending back to the U.S. economy
(with only a minimal return), how can the United States balance its
international payments in the face of its de-industrialization?
The United States cannot simply reverse its de-industrialization and
dependence on Chinese and other Asian labor by bringing production back
home. It has built too high a rentier overhead into its economy
for its labor to be able to compete internationally, given the U.S.
wage-earner’s budgetary demands to pay high and rising housing and
education costs, debt service and health insurance, and for privatized
infrastructure services.
The only way for the United States to sustain its international
financial balance is by monopoly pricing of its arms, patented
pharmaceutical and information-technology exports, and by buying control
of the most lucrative production and potentially rent-extracting
sectors abroad – in other words, by spreading neoliberal economic policy
throughout the world in a way that obliges other countries to depend on
U.S. loans and investment.
That is not a way for national economies to grow. The alternative to
neoliberal doctrine is China’s growth policies that follow the same
basic industrial logic by which Britain, the United States, Germany and
France rose to industrial power during their own industrial takeoffs
with strong government support and social spending programs.
The United States has abandoned this traditional industrial policy
since the 1980s. It is imposing on its own economy the neoliberal
policies that de-industrialized Pinochetista Chile, Thatcherite Britain
and the post-industrial former Soviet republics, the Baltics and Ukraine
since 1991. Its highly polarized and debt-leveraged prosperity is based
on inflating real estate and securities prices and privatizing
infrastructure.
This neoliberalism has been a path to becoming a failed economy and
indeed, a failed state, obliged to suffer debt deflation, rising housing
prices and rents as owner-occupancy rates decline, as well as
exorbitant medical and other costs resulting from privatizing what other
countries provide freely or at subsidized prices as human rights –
health care, education, medical insurance and pensions.
The success of China’s industrial policy with a mixed economy and
state control of the monetary and credit system has led U.S. strategists
to fear that Western European and Asian economies may find their
advantage to lie in integrating more closely with China and Russia. The
U.S. seems to have no response to such a global rapprochement with China
and Russia except economic sanctions and military belligerence. That
New Cold War stance is expensive, and other countries are balking at
bearing the cost of a conflict that has no benefit for themselves and
indeed, threatens to destabilize their own economic growth and political
independence.
Without subsidy from these countries, especially as China, Russia and
their neighbors de-dollarize their economies, how can the United States
maintain the balance-of-payments costs of its overseas military
spending? Cutting back that spending, and indeed recovering industrial
self-reliance and competitive economic power, would require a
transformation of American politics. Such a change seems unlikely, but
without it, how long can America’s post-industrial rentier
economy manage to force other countries to provide it with the economic
affluence (literally a flowing-in) that it is no longer producing at
home?
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-january-27-2022/.
Dismissing reporters’ comments that “what the Germans have said
publicly doesn’t match with what you’re saying exactly,” she explained
the U.S. tactics to stall Nord Stream 2. Countering a reporter’s point
that “all they have to do is turn it on,” she said: “As Senator Cruz
likes to say … it is currently a hunk of metal at the bottom of the
ocean. It needs to be tested. It needs to be certified. It needs to have
regulatory approval.” For a recent review of the increasingly tense
geopolitics at work, see John Foster, “Pipeline Politics hits Multipolar
Realities: Nord Stream 2 and the Ukraine Crisis,” Counterpunch, February 3, 2022. ↑
Andrew Higgins, “Fueling a Geopolitical Tussle in Eastern Europe: Fertilizer,” The New York Times, January 31, 2022. The owner plans to sue Lithuania’s government for hefty damages. ↑
Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry,
“Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions from Channel
One’s Voskresnoye Vremya programme,” Moscow, January 30, 2022. Johnson’s Russia List, January 31, 2022, #9. ↑
I
am working on a new essay titled The Victimization of Anthony Fauci, to
be published within the next few days, which also includes commentary
on Justin Trudeau and the Truckers Freedom Convoy. However, I had to
take a few moments today to write this shorter piece about Covid/genomic
testing.
I cannot stress how important this is! If you wish to
take a deeper dive, you’ll find a list of the essays I’ve written on
this subject at the end of this piece. What I discuss here is an
extension of my essays W'aR, specifically about testing,and The Three Faces of Evil, about Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci and Joe Biden.
Everything
about this pandemic was carefully planned and anyone who doesn’t see it
either hasn’t bothered researching it properly (and doesn’t care) or
knows full well what’s going on (and doesn’t care or is a part of it).
Bill
Gates and his right-hand man, Anthony Fauci, are at the center of this
three-ring circus. This money-making and power-grabbing scheme. This
biggest con in history.
But it’s so much more than that.
On September 30, 2020, Life Science Companies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation published a Joint Communique“Commitments to Expanded Global Access for Covid-19 Diagnostics, Therapeutics and Vaccines.
Note the expansive list of drug companies and the ONE foundation connecting them all:
AstraZeneca;
Bayer; bioMérieux; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Eisai;
Eli Lilly; Gilead; GSK; Johnson & Johnson; Merck & Co. (known as
MSD outside the U.S. and Canada); Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany;
Novartis; Pfizer; Roche; and Sanofi together with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation each pledged ourselves to the fight against COVID-19.
They promise:
Collectively, we have launched the most expansive and ambitious pandemic R&D response effort in history,
with the promise of a range of interventions that can help end the
pandemic. Creating these innovations is not enough, however. Through
partnerships with other stakeholders we are committed to ensuring global
access to diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that will help to
accelerate the end of the pandemic.
But as I’ve previously
discussed and will further elaborate in my next essay, none of these
parties have any interest in ending the spread of viruses in general.
Beyond the obvious motivator of greed, something even more nefarious is going on with testing.
I
have a sense of urgency in writing this because despite all of the
evidence showing how bad of an idea this testing is, the Joe Biden
administration has just awarded a $1.3 billion contract to iHealth, a
subsidiary of China’s Andon Health Co. Ltd. that will supply millions of
COVID-19 tests to the United States.
Keep in mind that this type
of testing didn’t happen overnight. They have been “testing” the testing
on humans for a while now and it is only with Covid that they coalesced
testing into one type for the entire planet.
As one example of the preparation they have undertaken we can look to an article in the Times of India:
“In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the
Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes
expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and
globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation
since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott
Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies,
Quest Diagnostics, and Siemens—each of which produces products to test
for or treat hepatitis C infection.”
And, of course, as we saw in the Life Science Companies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Joint Communique, Bill Gates has his grubby fingers in all of it.
Along
with every other insane decision that is being made by the Biden
administration, this focus on testing and the buying of tests from the
very country that unleashed this virus on us all, demonstrates clearly -
if there was ever any doubt - that our government does not care about
protecting the American people, either from this virus (is that what it
is?) or from infiltration by foreign entities.
There are so many
distractions keeping us from thinking about testing. We even have a
potential war looming. Yet, if we do not stop it, this testing will
prove the stealth weapon destroying us all from the inside out, without
ever firing a shot.
A recent article in the Washington Free Beaconsaid that “in announcing
the contract with iHealth and two other companies, the Department of
Defense said the administration will purchase almost 400 million kits in
a deal that totaled
nearly $2 billion. Rep. Don Bacon (R., Neb.) called the arrangement
with a Chinese manufacturer "ridiculous" given China has "not been
transparent one iota on what happened at Wuhan." Prior to the Pentagon
contract, the FDA in December approved iHealth’s request to manufacture at-home COVID-19 tests for Americans.”
Imagine
the irony of the United States Department of Defense ordering these
testing kits from China. I mean, it just boggles the mind.
Always siding with China, Anthony Fauci said in December that we simply had
to purchase these testing kits from China because American
manufacturers were already "going full speed,” but somehow, we are just
inadequate in our production abilities.
I don’t know how many
times or in different ways I have to say it. I am one small voice, but
please listen. Expert scientists keep on talking about these tests as if
they actually mean something.
They do not work. They never have.
With
all due respect, even those scientists, doctors and researchers on the
side of transparency regarding vaccine injuries and ending mandates, (I
name no names, what’s the point), do not address this simple fact upon
which the entire narrative falls apart. Even they are not in agreement,
anyway. Some say the vaccines are good for the elderly, some say the
vaccines are bioweapons, all of them quote data that has been collected
to support their point of view.
Here’s the problem. If the tests
themselves were never accurate, any data collected on either side of the
aisle is worthless. Stop sharing it. Stop arguing over it. Stop getting
bogged down in numbers that are constantly being fiddled with to prove
one side or the other.
Any chart of deaths or whatever you want to put on them is bogus. Pouring over these charts is an absurdity.
For
more about the vaccines, (or if you are offended by that term because
it is inaccurate, call it whatever you want) you can read Covid and the Greater Good.
Adding
insult to injury, not only are we subjecting ourselves and our children
to the humiliating process of taking these tests, but we are buying
this snake oil from the country that got us into this mess in the first
place. With our government’s blessing! And far from objecting, people
are grabbing up these “free” tests and any other ones they can find as
if we have all turned into mindless, obedient animals.
Increasingly,
I get the feeling that we have all fallen down the rabbit hole and are
now in some kind of nonsensical Alice in Wonderland world. Except at
least Alice had the gumption to talk about it, stomp her foot at that
obnoxious queen and refuse to do her bidding.
In contrast, few raise the issue of these tests. Instead, arguments abound about everything else,
ignoring the very obvious contradictions at the heart of the matter as
if they simply don’t exist or at least don’t matter very much.
This is part of the mass psychosis that I talked about in my essay Utopian Madness, written, by the way, months before Joe Rogan and Dr. Robert Malone burst upon the scene, although I’m glad they did.
However,
once the MSM tried to debunk mass psychosis, it would have been helpful
if Malone et all had explained, as I explain in Utopian Madness, that
mass psychosis only comes about after a good dose of menticide: the
process of systematically altering beliefs and attitudes, especially
through the use of drugs, torture, or psychological stress techniques;
brainwashing.
If one understands all of these factors, it becomes
clear why governments across the globe have so easily been able to
insist that everyone take these ridiculous tests.
Everyone talks about vaccine mandates. What if the bigger goal is collection of genetic data?
Editing human embryos
Yes,
I realize that many of these home testing kits do not require samples
to be sent in to a lab. This is beside the point. It’s too late to make
this argument. I explain this in W’aR. We can never go back to the days before our DNA became more precious than gold and we gave it away for a pot of stew.
Millions
and soon to be billions of people have become accustomed to testing,
testing, testing. Once the transition is made to all humans being
microchipped people will find it a relief that their data is being
collected in a much easier fashion.
If you haven’t taken a test yet, you can check out this example at Very Well Health suggests The 9 Best At-Home COVID-19 Tests of 2022 (verywellhealth.com). Most tests require a sample being sent into a lab.
Understand, they do not care whether the test is accurate or not, whether you have “Covid” or not. They know it is all bogus.
The important thing is that you test.
What, then, do
they care about? First of all, training people to be compliant and take
the tests, and second of all, collecting the data from the tests, and
third of all, getting richer and gaining a monopoly on the market
because of the tests.
Know that the ultimate goal is and always has been the data.
In W’aR,
I write my most extensive piece about the relationship between DNA
collection and Covid testing. I talk about BGI, a Chinese company which
has sold millions of Covid testing kits to more than 80 countries since
the beginning of the pandemic.
Bill Gates, the Chinese government, even those within the United States government were prepared. They knew what
they wanted to do before Covid ever burst upon the scene. Go back and
look at Fauci’s increasing battles with President Donald Trump, which I
document in my most popular essay to date, The Demonization of the Unvaxxed.
Please, arm yourself with knowledge to withstand the attacks that are coming.
According to a 2015 Financial Times article, in
2010, Bill Gates “visited an unremarkable building in an industrial
estate on the outskirts of Shenzhen, China. With row after row of
high-tech machinery humming inside, the place could easily be mistaken
for an anonymous data warehouse. But Mr. Gates and Ray Yip, head of the
Gates Foundation’s China operation, saw something else that day. As they
toured the BGI headquarters, the two men were stunned by the ambition
of the scientists working at the biotech company. Inside, more than 150
state of the art genetic sequencing machines were analysing the
equivalent of thousands of human genomes a day. The company is working
towards a goal of building a huge library based on the DNA of many
millions of people. BGI executives see this not as the end-game, but as
the springboard for new drug discoveries, advanced genetic research and a
transformation of public health policy.”
In September of 2012, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation signed
a “Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to form a collaboration on global
health and agricultural development with the goal of achieving common
objectives in health and agricultural development.”
Besides
“scientific breakthroughs in the areas of human, plant and animal
genomics.” the collaboration focused on sequencing genomes:
“Having
contributed to the Human Genome Project as well as sequencing the
genomes of many critical plant and animal species and human diseases,
including the initial sequencing of the rice genome as well as our
involvement in the Rice 10,000 Genome Project, the 1,000 Plants and
Animals Genome Project, the International 1,000 genomes project, the
1,000 Rare Diseases Project, the International Cancer Genome Project,
Autism Genome 10K, among others, BGI looks forward to partnering with
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in this significant
collaboration to apply genomics research to benefit global human
health.”
Then, lo and behold in March of 2021, the National Pulse revealed that BGI Genomics—the Chinese Communist Party-linked genomics firm flagged by U.S. officials as “mining” the DNA of Americans—has collaborated extensively with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
As I said, China knew well ahead of time and prepared accordingly. So did Bill Gates.
With Covid, BGI quickly took over the testing market. BGI created a portable lab called “the Huo-Yan Air Laboratory,
which can be set up anywhere in a very short amount of time. By June
2021, BGI Genomics has built more than 90 Huo-Yan Laboratories in 30
countries and regions worldwide, providing in the aggregate the results
of up to one million COVID tests per day. BGI Genomics continues to
export the Huo-Yan Lab solution worldwide, contributing to the battle
against the further spread of the disease.
A CBS News article
from January 2021 explains how when Covid first broke in Washington in
March of 2020, BGI came to the rescue, proposing to build its labs and
help run them. Out of desperation, such offers around the world were
accepted. The quest to control our biodata – and, in turn, control
health care's future - is what it’s all about yet governments shrug this
off. Why?
Bill Evanina who stepped down in 2021 from his
position as the top counterintelligence official in the U.S., a veteran
of both the FBI and CIA, was so concerned by BGI's COVID testing
proposals, and who would ultimately get the data, that he authorized a
rare public warning: "Foreign powers can collect, store and exploit
biometric information from covid tests."
Evanina describes these Covid tests as the “Trojan Horse” invading our shores.
Supervisory
Special Agent Edward You is a former biochemist turned FBI
investigator: They are building out a huge domestic database. And if
they are now able to supplement that with data from all around the
world, it's all about who gets the largest, most diverse data set. And
so, the ticking time bomb is that once they're able to achieve true
artificial intelligence, then they're off to the races in what they can
do with that data.
Jon Wertheim: You're saying biggest data set wins?
Edward You: Correct.
Think
of DNA as the ultimate treasure map, a kind of double-helixed chart
containing the code for traits ranging from our eye color to our
susceptibility to certain diseases. If you have 10,000 DNA samples,
scientists could possibly isolate the genetic markers in the DNA
associated with, say, breast cancer. But if you have 10 million samples,
your statistical chances of finding the markers improve dramatically,
which is why China wants to get so much of it.
Edward
You: What happens if we realize that all of our future drugs, our future
vaccines, future health care are all completely dependent upon a
foreign source? If we don't wake up, we'll realize one day we've just
become health care crack addicts and someone like China has become our
pusher.
Bill Evanina: Personal data. Current estimates
are that 80% of American adults have had all of their personally
identifiable information stolen by the Communist Party of China.
The
concern is that the Chinese regime is taking all that information about
us - what we eat, how we live, when we exercise and sleep - and then
combining it with our DNA data. With information about heredity and
environment, suddenly they know more about us than we know about
ourselves and, bypassing doctors, China can target us with treatments
and medicine we don't even know we need.
Edward You:
Think about the dawn of-- the Internet of Things and the 5G networks and
the-- and smart homes and smart cities. There are going to be sensors
everywhere. It's gonna be tracking your movement, your behavior, your
habits. And ultimately, it's gonna have a biological application,
meaning that based on the data that gets collected, they'll be able to
analyze that and look at improving your health. That data becomes
incredibly relevant and very, very valuable.
Jon Wertheim: You're describing data almost as-- as a commodity.
Edward You: Data is absolutely gonna be the new oil.
Yes. Data is the new oil.
Think about it. Then think about the implications for your children.
Do not let them get tested. Do not let them grow accustomed to living under the government’s microscope.
All sounds terrible because it will be in the hands of China, right?
Wrong!
China
is a front to make us think they are the bogyman we all have to fear.
With spoon-feeding us information, demonizing China, attention is
deflected away from the real issues.
It doesn’t matter which
country we are told is gathering this information. Because you can be
sure that if China is doing it, so are we. Those who are running this
scam want us to throw up our hands in horror that China would do this to
us so that we will then turn around and accept the United States doing
the exact same thing.
Forget it. I no more want the United States freely accessing information about my body and my mind than I do China.
We
are led to believe that China is our rival. Okay, sure they are, just
as Russia is. But there is a deeper level where those who are in control
purposely foment these rivalries to weaken connections between ordinary
people so that they can better control us. United States good. China
bad. We can’t trust China with our personal data, but we can trust our
own government.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said it was "unacceptable"
that the administration "would spend American taxpayer dollars on COVID
tests from Communist China, which just goes directly to supporting
General Secretary Xi and his genocidal regime, instead of supporting
American manufacturers and jobs."
This makes it sound as if it’s all about jobs and keeping the money in our own country.
But
as I am saying here in the strongest terms possible, it isn’t about
that at all. It’s about a few powerful oligarchs controlling us all and
using our DNA to create more advanced AI, bioweapons, military
“Terminators” and ultimately to unlock the secrets to immortality.
future soldier
If you doubt it, please read my other essays dealing with this topic:
Designer Babies and the Rise of the Master Race: When
the day comes that we realize these experiments aren’t for the sake of
humanity but for the sake of a privileged class, will it be too late to
reverse the course? July 9, 2021
Offering Our Children on Big Pharma’s Altar: mRNA
vaccines are the gateway drugs to universal addiction and the
transformation of our children into the "Internet of Bodies" September
12, 2021
Covid and the Greater Good: Everything is wired and the last thing that isn’t wired is the human body. September 25, 2021
Empire of Deceit:“Fly!
Fly! About with your ship and fly! Row, row, row for your lives away
from this accursed shore. This is the Island where Dreams come true.” ~
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, C. S. Lewis. November 13, 2021
W’aR: "...the grief of stepping over the corpses of history pressed upon my heart." Yoko Ota. December 9, 2021
Skinned Alive: The
Trafficking of Humanity - "Once a person has all the things they need
to live, everything else is entertainment." ~ Neal Stephenson. January
20, 2022
