Uncategorized
WEDNESDAY, JAN 19, 2022
University of London professor Angus Dalgleish, who co-authored a paper in summer 2020 after spotting “unique fingerprints” in Covid-19 samples that point to genetic manipulation, says that he’s been the victim of a “disgusting whitewash,” and that anyone suggesting a non-natural origin for Covid-19 has been silenced by peers.
“This goes back to the days of Copernicus and Galileo – it is the death of science,” said the oncologist – who in 1984 discovered how HIV enters and kills cells.
Dalgleish’s work was roundly rejected by a string of journalists before it was eventually published in a ‘watered-down form,’ according to the Express.
In February 2020, the Lancet had published a letter that “strongly condemned conspiracy theories” suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin. This highly influential letter – subsequently cited in thousands of scientific publications – was signed by 27 experts including Wellcome Trust head and former Sage member Sir Jeremy Farrar.
However, it has since emerged that two weeks before the letter was published, Sir Jeremy stated in private emails that some senior scientists believed a ‘likely explanation’ was that the virus was man-made. -Express
Indeed, Farrar led a February 1, 2020 teleconference (one day after Farrar emailed Anthony Fauci about a Zero Hedge article suggesting Covid may have come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology) – in which one virologist was “80 percent sure this thing had come out of a lab,” with others sharing his view.Jeremy Farrar
Dalgleish is the author of a book on Covid which claims the virus has “no credible natural ancestor.” He says his team found amino acids within the Covid-19 spike protein with a positive charge – allowing the virus to cling to negative parts of the body.
But it was highly unusual to find so many positive charges in a row because they also repel each other, he said.
“We realised when they released the sequence of the virus it broke the laws of physics for a natural virus meaning it was genetically modified.
“At the time my position was supported by Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 who now chairs the University of London board of trustees.”
However, when they tried to publish their work they were turned down by numerous papers, including the Lancet.
“My paper was rejected within five hours”, he said. “Normally it takes three weeks before it is even peer reviewed.” -Express
According to Dalgleish, “It was a political decision for this to be suppressed,” adding that after the paper was released, “I was ostracised. I was fearful – really frightened at the way I was being treated.”
“I was told I was not an expert on coronavirus’ and should just shut up. People tried to push us away. We were told our theory had no rationale and it was a conspiracy theory. I am so angry about this. I have more virus papers cited than most virology experts and they tried to push me aside.
“They did not even look at the science. It was obvious it was a gain of function escape from a lab and I say escape, but that is generous. We had this data in late February after the sequences were released.
“This has been a whitewash. This whole thing has killed science. Science is meant to look at evidence. It is truly unbelievable.“
According to Jacques van Helden, a bioinformatics professor at Aix-Marseille University in France, Peter Daszak’s February 2020 Lancet letter effectively shut down debate over the origins of Covid-19.
“By labeling anyone with different views a conspiracy theorist, the Lancet letter was the worst form of bullying in full contravention of the scientific method,” said van Helden,” adding “To say that something has leaked from a lab does not make it a conspiracy theory.”
“Why was that letter signed by so many people? Why can’t we discuss this issue in a scientific journal? I do not want to have to resort to an open exchange on Twitter.”
America is over. Dementia. Pathetic. Enough.
Every fact Paul Watson quotes can be verified. He speaks the truth.
We must stop “businessmen”, and other so-called psychopaths from ruling the world. No more Kings, no Queens, just humans.
John Pilger: “Tory scandals are a facade for war. The unreported facts are: Russian troops are in Russia. British troops are on Russia’s borders. Russia is ringed by US missiles. The elected govt in Ukraine was overthrown by Obama and replaced with an anti-Russian regime infested with Nazis.”
January 18, 2022
A top Israeli vaccine advisor argued their vaccine passport scheme should be ended, and that the government made serious mistakes with lockdown policies.
Professor Cyrille Cohen, the head of Immunology at Bar Ilan University and a senior vaccine advisor to the Israeli government, spoke to Unherd’s Freddie Sayers in a long form interview about his country’s response to the virus, and what the future was likely to hold.
Despite being a proponent of the COVID-19 vaccines, Cohen noted that “their effectiveness against contamination is reduced” from their original release, adding that he and his fellow scientists were “surprised to discover at the end of the day that the vaccines are not protecting us, are not causing what we call sterilising immunity.”
Continue:
https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-01-18-covid-19-pandemic-a-shameful-disaster.html
by: Mary Villareal
January 18, 2022
Professor Ehud Qimron, the head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University, slammed the global management of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, saying that it was a shameful disaster driven by false propaganda.
In a letter, Qimron touched on the deliberate failure to pursue herd immunity and the futility of lockdowns and unnecessary mass testings. He also identified the people responsible for the aforementioned failure while crucifying public health officials for branding the unvaccinated as the enemies.
“When you compare the destructive policies you are pursuing with the sane policies of some other countries – you can clearly see that the destruction you have caused has only added victims beyond the vulnerable to the virus,” he wrote. “The economy you ruined, the unemployment you caused, and the children whose education you destroyed are the surplus victims as a result of your own actions only.” (Related: Israel now has more covid infections per capita than any country in the world, even as “booster shots” are being widely administered there.)
Supreme Court expresses skepticism of Biden’s COVID strategies
In the U.S., the majority of the Supreme Court seemed to be leaning toward blocking the White House’s pandemic strategies as they expressed their skepticism of the Biden administration’s legal power to mandate large employers to require their employees to get vaccinated or undergo frequent testing.
The court looks like it is more likely to allow a separate mandate that requires health care workers at government-funded facilities to be vaccinated. However, the employer mandate was more lopsided: The regulation is one of the most far-reaching policies imposed by the president in a bid to control the pandemic, and it could potentially affect 84 million workers employed by large companies.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that the regulation is too far-reaching in converting all large employers. She noted that while meatpacking plants and dental offices may be subject to regulation, for instance, other jobs such as landscaping, should not be.
The more liberal justices, however, insisted that the mandate was a needed response to the public health crisis. With nearly a million people dead, it is “by far the greatest public health danger that this country has faced in the last century.”
Fourth COVID jab not yet needed
As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, some nations are already rolling out a fourth dose of COVID vaccines. Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett announced that adults 60 and older, medical workers and individuals with suppressed immune systems could receive their fourth dose if at least four months have passed since their third.
German health minister Karl Laughterbach also said that a fourth dose will only be needed to maintain protection against the omicron variant.
In the United States, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci said that it is too early to be discussing a potential fourth dose for most people. He said that one of the things that need to be followed carefully is the durability of the protection following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine.
“If the protection is much more durable than the two-dose, non-boosted group, then we may go a significant period of time without requiring a fourth dose. So, I do think it’s premature — at least on the part of the United States — to be talking about a fourth dose,” he said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will examine and consider whether or not getting the fourth dose is necessary or if there is a need for them to be a nationally, however, it seems that the third doses appear to be providing “durable protection,” according to CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “If there’s science and when there’s science that demonstrates that that is necessary, we will certainly be reviewing that,” she said.
Some vaccine manufacturers also acknowledged that more time is needed to determine whether or not a fourth dose is necessary for the U.S., and how quickly the protection might wane following the third dose.
Moderna’s chief medical officer, Paul Burton, said that they will be waiting for a couple of months until they can see how data develop and mature to understand when the additional booster dose needs to be given.
Watch the video below to get updates regarding Biden’s COVID-19 policies.
https://www.brighteon.com/embed/804086cc-bbdc-4485-bc53-b6ffe5d3ec5e
This video is from the “All The World’s a Stage” channel on Brighteon.com.
More updates about COVID-19 are available at Pandemic.news.
Sources include:
Global Research
January 18, 2022
***
Earlier this month (January 2022), Scott Davison, the CEO of OneAmerica, a $100 billion insurance company based out of Indiana, made headline news in the Alternative Media when he announced that the death rate on life insurance claims skyrocketed an unprecedented 40% among those between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2021.
The usual corporate media “fact-checkers” quickly published articles trying to contain the damage, and I received a few emails from gullible people who don’t bother researching things for themselves and didn’t bother to fact check the “fact-checkers” to see if in fact they actually did debunk the story.
They didn’t, of course, but in typical fashion, they set up a straw man to knock down in most cases, by stating that Scott Davison never blamed the excess in deaths on the rollout of the COVID-19 shots in 2021.
But that hardly debunks the numbers from the life insurance industry that was truly a major news story, clearly showing that deaths dramatically increased in 2021, the year of the COVID-19 experimental “vaccine” rollout.
I did my own investigation to corroborate what he was reporting, and examined the number of deaths the CDC was reporting through December 2020, before they revised their website and changed the total number of people who died in 2020, the year the pandemic scam started, which clearly showed that total deaths in 2020 were about the same as the previous two years and that all they basically did was eliminate most of the flu deaths and blame those on COVID-19.
The result of this investigation was that we saw about an additional 400,000 deaths in 2021, the year of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out.
See: 2021: COVID Deaths Increase, Flu Deaths Disappear, 400,000+ More Total Deaths than 20202021: COVID Deaths Increase, Flu Deaths Disappear, 400,000+ More Total Deaths than 2020
Since publishing that report, Petr Svab of the Epoch Times has also done an investigation on this issue, looking at death certificates from the CDC website of people between the age of 18 and 49 in 2021.
He examined the data by state, and he found that in some states the deaths in this age group had increased by as much as 65% compared to the same period in 2018 and 2019.
Here are the two articles he published that report this:
EXCLUSIVE: Nationwide Surge In Deaths Among People Aged 18-49: A State by State Overview and EXCLUSIVE: States Investigating Surge in Mortality Rate Among 18–49-Year-Olds, Majority Unrelated to COVID-19
If you hit a paywall, ZeroHedge News has also published them:
Nationwide Surge In Deaths Among People Aged 18-49: A State By State Overview and
States Investigating Surge In Mortality Rate Among 18–49-Year-Olds, Majority Unrelated To COVID-19
Some excerpts:
Deaths among people aged 18 to 49 increased more than 40 percent in the 12 months ending October 2021 compared to the same period in 2018–2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to an analysis of death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by The Epoch Times.
The increase was notable across the country and in no state was COVID reported in more than 60 percent of the excess deaths. Some states experienced much steeper hikes than others.
Nevada was the worst with a 65 percent prime-age mortality surge of which only 36 percent was attributed to COVID. Texas was second with a 61 percent jump of which 58 percent was attributed to COVID. Arizona and Tennessee recorded 57 percent increases with 37 percent and 33 percent attributed to COVID respectively. Not far behind was California at 55 percent and 42 percent attributed to COVID as well as New Mexico (52 percent, 33 percent), Florida (51 percent, 48 percent), and Louisiana (51 percent, 32 percent).
Health departments in several states confirmed to The Epoch Times that they are looking into a steep surge in the mortality rate for people aged 18 to 49 in 2021—a majority of which are not linked to COVID-19.
Texas saw the 18 to 49 age mortality jump 61 percent, the second-highest increase in the country. Of that, less than 58 percent was attributed to COVID-19.
“Our Center of Health Statistics is looking at the data,” said Chris Van Deusen, the head of Media Relations at the Texas Department of State Health Services, via email. “We’ll get back with you.”
Florida, which saw an increase of 51 percent, 48 percent of that attributed to COVID-19, is also probing the matter.
“I am looking into it to see if there is some sort of correlation/causation,” said Jeremy Redfern, spokesman for the Florida Department of Health via email.
Petr Svab was careful to not link or blame the excess in deaths to the COVID-19 shots, probably to try and avoid the same “fact-checkers” trying to discredit his investigation.
But the correlation to the COVID-19 shots now is irrefutable, just from using the U.S. Government’s own data from the CDC, and also from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
This is a national catastrophe of the magnitude that this nation has never before faced, and the total collapse of the United States now seems inevitable.
*
Featured image is from HINThe original source of this article is Health Impact NewsCopyright © Brian Shilhavy, Health Impact News, 2022
https://www.rt.com/news/546337-israel-omicron-booster-trial/
An Israeli study suggests that an additional booster failed to prevent a large number of infections
FILE PHOTO. © Getty Images / Morsa Images
RT
Jan 18,2022
A fourth dose of coronavirus vaccine showed dwindling effectiveness against the Omicron variant, according to a trial conducted in Israel, with one its lead researchers saying the immunization is simply “not good enough.”
A study involving 154 medical staffers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv found that a fourth shot of the Pfizer vaccine gave only marginal protection against the Omicron strain compared to previous mutations. A separate group of 120 volunteers were also given a fourth dose of Moderna’s inoculation following three rounds with Pfizer, but their immune response was similar.
“We see an increase in antibodies, higher than after the third dose. However, we see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” said Gili Regev-Yochay, one of the head researchers on the trial, adding that while “the vaccine is excellent against the Alpha and Delta [variants],” for Omicron “it’s not good enough.”
Despite the new findings, Israeli health officials already moved ahead with fourth doses for the elderly, the immunocompromised and medical workers beginning earlier this month, with some 500,000 receiving a second booster on top of an initial two-dose regimen as of Sunday.
Read more Rare condition listed as possible side effect of Covid-19 shots
Though the trial is still in an early phase and the hospital did not offer specific figures, Regev-Yochay said she made its preliminary conclusions public as boosters are a matter of “high public interest,” according to the Times of Israel. She noted that giving fourth doses to high-risk residents is “probably” still the best approach, but suggested the booster campaign should be limited to an even older age group than the current over-60 guideline.
Both the World Health Organization and the EU’s drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency, have cautioned against the over-use of boosters, though for different reasons. The WHO has called for a more even distribution of vaccine doses around the world, observing that some nations are moving ahead with third and fourth shots before many in poorer countries receive their first. The EMA, meanwhile, pointed to potential adverse effects of booster shots last week, warning that repeated vaccinations in a short period of time could result in “problems with immune response.”
One of the most vaccinated countries in the world, Israel was the first to roll out fourth vaccine doses as it saw a significant spike in coronavirus infections linked to the Omicron strain. Deaths and hospitalizations have only seen a slight uptick in recent months, however, in line with findings suggesting the latest ‘variant of concern’ produces milder symptoms than previous mutations. Despite the misgivings of world health bodies, Chile, Denmark and Hungary have since followed suit in administering fourth shots, while officials in Austria have recommended them on an “off-label” basis for healthcare personnel.
Western powers seem to have largely lost institutional brakes on waging war. Someone cries “human rights,” and we seem prepared to obliterate entire nations with hardly any debate, discussion, or any long-term plan. The consent for war, or “kinetic action”, is simply contrived by myriad think-tanks, often directly or indirectly funded by the military-industrial complex. With unhindered access to the media, these organizations produce rhetoric that rationalizes hostility, demonization of targeted adversaries and justifications for war.
Finian Cunningham is a former editor and writer for major news media organizations. He has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Jan 15, 2022
The Western empire-builders are weakened and exposed in the eyes of their own populations and thus are disarmed politically to pursue confrontation.
Author and commentator Alex Krainer explains in the following interview why Russia is now strong enough to take a definitive stand against the United States and its Western empire-builders. This is the wider historical context for high-level negotiations being conducted this week between Russia and the U.S. and NATO in which Moscow has asserted red lines for its national security.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S.-led Western powers became deluded with arrogant entitlement. As Krainer points out, the Western empire-builders presumed to have the right to wage wars and flout international law.
For much of the past three-decade period, Russia was too weak economically and politically to challenge this reckless aggression. But now it has grown strong enough to “check-mate the empire’s global ambitions”. This is why war or regime change in Russia has become an obsessive goal for the U.S. and Western partners. It accounts for the relentless sanctions, Russophobia, and surge in tensions over Ukraine and more recently Kazakhstan.
Russia is perceived as an obstacle to Western control over the strategically vital Eurasian continent. The prize of Eurasia has long been coveted by Western imperialists, from the British Empire’s Sir Halford Mackinder to the U.S. strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski.
As Krainer notes, it was this imperial calculation by the Anglo-American capitalists that led to the building up of Nazi Germany as a bludgeon to destroy the Soviet Union and purportedly to give the empire-builders global hegemony. This imperial machination led to World War II and the greatest conflagration in human history with as many as 85 million dead. The Soviet Union and China accounted for more than half of the death toll.
Today, the Western imperialists are prepared to start another catastrophic war, even if it risks a nuclear Armageddon, contends Krainer. But he says that Russia is strong enough to now force the Western imperialists into political detente. He believes that the Russian leadership has calculated that the Western empire-builders are weakened and exposed in the eyes of their own populations and thus are disarmed politically to pursue confrontation.
Alex Krainer is a commodities trader and hedge fund manager whose market analysis can be found at I-System Trend Following. He is also a commentator on international politics at thenakedhedgie.com.
A recent article reassesses the British “appeasement policy” towards Hitler in the 1930s arguing the real aim was to weaponize the Third Reich against the Soviet Union. He refers to this deeper historical account to demolish false analogies made today by Western politicians and pundits who absurdly compare Russia and Putin with Nazi Germany and Hitler. Krainer is the author of the ground-breaking book “Grand Deception: the Truth About Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act, and Anti-Russian Sanctions”.
Interview
Question: Some American and European politicians are demanding that there should be “no appeasement” towards Russia over the mounting tensions and security crisis regarding Ukraine and Europe generally. The insinuation is that Russia is comparable to Nazi Germany in the 1930s by allegedly posing an existential threat to Europe’s security. You point out that there is a grossly distorted analogy here with how Britain and France are accused of “appeasement” of Nazi Germany in the lead-up to the Second World War. Can you explain?
Alex Krainer: Western powers seem to have largely lost institutional brakes on waging war. Someone cries “human rights,” and we seem prepared to obliterate entire nations with hardly any debate, discussion, or any long-term plan. The consent for war, or “kinetic action”, is simply contrived by myriad think-tanks, often directly or indirectly funded by the military-industrial complex. With unhindered access to the media, these organizations produce rhetoric that rationalizes hostility, demonization of targeted adversaries, and justifications for war.
Today, as tensions with Russia have escalated to a boiling point, some of them draw historical parallels between today’s Russia and Nazi Germany. Among others, Victoria Nuland and Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger have recently invoked Britain’s 1938 policy of appeasement that caused the destruction of Czechoslovakia and empowered Hitler.
The insinuation is that today, Ukraine is Czechoslovakia, Donbas is Sudetenland and that Vladimir Putin is Hitler. If the parallels were valid, they would imply that we should pay almost any price to avoid repeating Neville Chamberlain’s errors of judgment that plunged Europe into the tragedy of World War II. Of course, the parallels are entirely false, but unfortunately, this is not widely understood.
Question: Going deeper into the history of that fateful pre-WWII period, you contend that the British Conservative government of Neville Chamberlain was not so much “appeasing” Hitler’s Nazi Germany but rather London was covertly green lighting Berlin’s expansionism and the annexation of the Czech Sudetenland territory. Therefore, can British policy be blamed for starting the war in Europe and the subsequent criminal aggression of Nazi Germany?
Alex Krainer: London was definitely covertly green lighting Berlin’s expansionism. However, it’s quite possible that they did much more than that. Today we have compelling evidence that Hitler was actually recruited, cultivated and empowered to carry water for the globalist agenda of the empire builders based on Wall Street and the City of London. In fact, Western powers do this as a matter of course: they incubate nationalistic leaders they can plant in different nations but who would remain loyal to them.
Examples include Russia’s Alexey Navalny and Venezuela’s Juan Guaido. The problem was that Adolf Hitler was massively empowered with capital and military technology and became something of a monster in the heart of Europe. He also had his own ideas about his historical mission and didn’t hesitate to bite the hands that had fed him. But some of these facts remain obscured to this day as the victors made sure to write a sanitized and airbrushed history of World War II. With regard to appeasement, the distortion was that the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain only appeased Hitler and sacrificed Czechoslovakia in order to preserve peace in Europe.
In other words, Chamberlain had good intentions but made a bad error of judgment. This is not what happened; Chamberlain and his foreign policy cabal which included Lord Halifax, Sir Horace Wilson, Sir John Simon, Lord Runciman, and Sir Samuel Hoare took a very active role in the negotiations between Hitler’s Germany and Czechoslovakia and the result – Germany’s taking over of Czechoslovakia’s most developed and most industrialized region of Sudetenland – was exactly what they had intended.
Question: It is not widely known, as you point out, that British and American finance capital was heavily supporting the Third Reich in the run-up to WWII. What were the geopolitical objectives behind this support from Britain and the United States for Nazi Germany?
Alex Krainer: As with every empire, the British Empire’s objective was world domination, and the arrangement they had envisioned and planned was a “three-block” system. As Lord Halifax articulated it after the Munich conference in September 1938, the three blocks included control of the far-Eastern dominions in alliance with Japan, control of the Euro-Atlantic block in alliance with the United States and the control of central and eastern European continent through Germany as the hegemon in that region.
Germany was also intended as the bludgeon to wield against and destroy Russia and thus eliminate the British Empire’s perennial rival in controlling the Eurasian landmass. The empire builders have not given up on this three-block vision of the new global order, which is perhaps most visibly exemplified by the Trilateral Commission, co-founded in 1973 by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The difference is that today the agenda is being pursued through ostensibly democratic institutions of the European Union while still consistently empowering Germany as the dominant power among the supposed equals. And Russia remains the rival to destroy either through war or regime change. However, it seems to me that their game is up and the fantasy of dominating the world has receded beyond reach today.
Question: If we apply that kind of understanding of history to today, are you contending that the United States, Britain and other NATO powers are trying to similarly contain Russia through fomenting tensions and aggression in Europe, albeit in the language of “defending Ukraine”?
Alex Krainer: There’s no doubt about that – the more you pay attention, the more obvious it is. The foundational principle of the conflict between Russia and the U.S. and Britain is the struggle for control of the Eurasian landmass which has been the empire builders’ overarching imperative ever since Sir Halford Mackinder explicitly formulated it in 1904 in his Heartland Theory. In “Democratic Ideals and Reality,” he wrote that, “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-island; who rules the World-island controls the world.”
Since then, the empire changed headquarters from London to Washington DC, but this imperative has not changed. Zbigniew Brzezinski reaffirmed it again in his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard,” explaining also the empire builders’ rationale for this ambition: “For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. … About 75% of the world’s people live in Eurasia and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world’s GDP and about 3/4ths of the world’s known energy resources.”
This obsession is part and parcel of Western policy toward Russia continuously to this day. In August 2018 in a briefing to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee by the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Wess Mitchell stated that the “central aim of the [Trump] administration’s foreign policy is to defend U.S. domination of Eurasian landmass as the foremost U.S. national security interest and to prepare the nation for this challenge.”
Mitchell also said that the administration was “working with our close ally the UK to form an international coalition for coordinating efforts in this field.” Now, if Russia reasserts itself as the dominant power in Eastern Europe, this pretty much check-mates the empire’s global ambitions, so containing Russia and limiting its influence in Europe is absolutely critical and I think they will not give up on this even at the price of a nuclear war.
Question: Russia has put forward security proposals to the U.S. and NATO calling for a written guarantee of no further eastward expansion of the bloc to include membership of Ukraine and other neighboring countries. Moscow also wants guarantees of no American strike weapons to be installed in neighboring territories. Critics of Russia say these demands are an unreasonable ultimatum from Moscow that impinges on nations’ freedom of choice to determine their security options. How do you see it?
Alex Krainer: I think that much of the West is torn between cooperation and trade with Russia and the policy of Cold War and confrontation. As British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has recently put it addressing “our friends” in Europe, “a choice is shortly coming between mainlining ever more Russian hydrocarbons in giant new pipelines and sticking up for Ukraine” and championing the cause of peace and stability. He literally put it in those terms and I think his words do reflect the continent’s dilemma.
For the ordinary people and most businesses, the choice is between having a strong export market for their products and abundant energy keeping their homes warm and their societies running and an acute energy crisis and the risk of a hot war with a nuclear power. For the empire builders it is equally clear: no matter how delusional, they will never give up on their ambition to rule the world. As late John Kenneth Galbraith noted, “People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage”.
I think that the Russian leadership has no illusions about the nature of their conflict with the West, but in putting forward their tough security proposals they have chosen the moment of fractious politics across much of the West to force a showdown between the forces representing legitimate democratic concerns in the Western societies and those representing the interest of the empire builders.
Today those proposals may seem unreasonable to some, but this is only because we all got accustomed to the idea that Western powers somehow have the right to do as they well please while other powers have no right to object or assert their own security concerns.
Question: Do you think Russia can be faulted for not being more proactive in past years on objecting to NATO expansion? Moscow maintains it was given verbal guarantees in the late 1990s by U.S. leaders that there would be no eastward expansion of the military bloc.
Yet as we know, NATO membership was given to former Warsaw Pact nations Poland and Hungary in 1999, then to the Baltic states in 2004, and in 2008 an offer made to the former Soviet Republics of Ukraine and Georgia. Therefore, has Russia been complacent in passively allowing the present security crisis to evolve in Europe? In other words, does the appeasement argument actually run in reverse, namely that Russia has been at fault for appeasing the United States and NATO?
Alex Krainer: After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia very nearly disintegrated. Its economy collapsed and experienced the longest depression recorded anywhere during the 20th century. It was in a very weak position and Western powers took advantage of that weakness to expand NATO eastward to secure that imperative of dominating Eastern Europe and through it the Eurasian landmass.
It is true that Russia suffered this breach of faith rather passively, but Russian leadership probably judged that they were not in the position to credibly counter the West, that they were too vulnerable to Western sanctions and that they needed to rebuild their economic, political, diplomatic and military muscle.
I think you have a point in saying that the appeasement argument might run in reverse, but in this case, I believe Russia’s strategy has been to play a long game and wait to confront the West from a position of strength. Twenty years ago, Russia was broken while today it is a force to reckon with. We’ll see how things play out, but one thing is certain – the empire builders now have a worthy adversary.
Question: Do you see a diplomatic solution to the crisis?
Alex Krainer: A diplomatic solution will have to be found – this is inevitable. Even if we see a hot war break out between Russia and the U.S. and NATO, such a conflict would not last forever and in the end the adversaries would still have to sit at a table and sign some sort of a treaty. Of course, for 99.99% of all involved, a diplomatic solution now would be preferable to one following a nuclear Armageddon.
I tend to be more optimistic and hope that we won’t see a war break out, but I’ve already lived through the breakout of war and I know firsthand that the unthinkable can actually happen so we shouldn’t be complacent either. To the extent that the legitimate institutions and mechanisms of democracy still function in the West, we ought to use them to put pressure on our policymakers to defend peace. I would certainly prefer to see Russian hydrocarbons in giant new pipelines rather than another tragic European war fought ultimately for someone’s delusional agenda of world domination.
Endnote: By way of demonstrating the reality of which nation is most responsible for war and destruction since the end of World War II, Alex Krainer cited the following study and comment. The astounding disconnect with public perception says a lot about the propaganda function of Western media.
He writes:
In June of 2014, a group of American researchers published an article in the American Journal of Public Health, pointing out that,
“Since the end of World War II, there have been 248 armed conflicts in 153 locations around the world. The United States launched 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and 2001, and since then, others, including Afghanistan and Iraq.”
To be sure, each of these wars was duly explained and justified to the American public and for all those Americans who believe that their government would never deceive them, each war was defensible and fought for a good reason.
Nonetheless, the fact that one nation initiated more than 80% of all wars in the last seventy years does require an explanation.”
timesofisrael.com
A man displays the Green Pass on his cellphone in Jerusalem, October 4, 2021. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Finance Minister Avigdor Liberman calls for an end to the widespread usage of the “Green Pass” proof of COVID vaccination to enter certain locations.
“There is no medical or epidemiological logic in the Green Pass, many experts agree,” says Liberman. “There is, however, direct harm to the economy, to daily operations and a not insignificant contribution to daily panic among the public.”
Liberman says he is working with “all the authorities” in order to get rid of the Green Pass and “maintain a normal life routine for all of us.”
Currently, admittance to many public and private facilities requires a Green Pass vaccination card, which is only valid following a booster shot or within six months of a second vaccine dose.
Initial data shows that the current widespread Omicron variant is able to bypass the vaccine in many cases.
I am human. Probably failed. Virus-infected mofo from another dimension that only the Webb telescope will get,
I used to sneak into the diners nearby and use a quarter to listen to three Stones songs.
Do you know that sometimes my words are changed by AI?
Holy crap. I was born in a previous century. No, I am not a vampire, I abhor blood.
Life is strange and you know it. It is exhilarating and tragic. Beautiful beyond words and ugly right to the soul of Satan.
Anyway, what I am getting at is this: I want to integrate all my efforts into one site. And I like Tales. I want to spice it up again.
By the way, I escaped from regulated slavery last year, I retired last year after over 40 years of work.
I feel like I don’t know if it’s the end of my life or the beginning of a new one. I know a lot of things. I am human, therefore ignorant.
By the way, if you like music, give this a listen, you won’t regret it.
Yo! Come to Victoria, BC, Canada. I’ll introduce you. You will be a hit here.
Brilliant. I want to be in this band. I want to understand how the musicians got their genius-level playing ability?
Here you go, Einstein was a socialist. Does it surprise anybody that one of the smartest men that ever lived thinks that socialism is the answer?
Source: Beyond Capitalism – Albert Einstein, 1949 | Creative by Nature
With permission of
creativesystemsthinking.wordpress.com
Jan 18, 2016
The following are excerpts from Albert Einstein’s essay “Why Socialism?” published in the May 1949 issue of the Monthly Review. In this article, Einstein describes the systemic problems with capitalism. How as wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few the elites form an oligarchy, gaining control of the media and being able to sway politicians to make laws in their favor. In this way, democracy is subverted…
~*~
“Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones.
The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organised political society.
This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population.
Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights…
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an army of unemployed almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job.
Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence.
Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions.
Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals.. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism.
Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system that would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion.
A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.
The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual.
The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening?
How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition…”
~Albert Einstein,
Monthly Review (May 1949)
Back to Black
He left no time to regret
Kept his dick wet
With his same old safe bet
Me and my head high
And my tears dry
Get on without my guy
You went back to what you knew
So far removed
From all that we went through
And I tread a troubled track
My odds are stacked
I’ll go back to black
We only said goodbye with words
I died a hundred times
You go back to her
And I go back to
I go back to usI love you much
It’s not enough
You love blow and I love puff
And life is like a pipe
And I’m a tiny penny
Rolling up the walls inside
We only said goodbye with words
I died a hundred times
You go back to her
And I go back to
We only said goodbye with words
I died a hundred times
You go back to her
And I go back to
Black, black
Black, black
Black, black
Black
I go back to
I go back to
We only said goodbye with words
I died a hundred times
You go back to her
And I go back to
We only said goodbye with words
I died a hundred times
You go back to her
And I go back to black
“Invisible Sun”
(One, two, three, four, five, six
Oh oh oh oh oh oh)
I don’t want to spend the rest of my life
Looking at the barrel of an Armalite
I don’t want to spend the rest of my days
Keeping out of trouble like the soldiers say
I don’t want to spend my time in hell
Looking at the walls of a prison cell
I don’t ever want to play the part
Of a statistic on a government chart
There has to be an invisible sun
It gives its heat to everyone
There has to be an invisible sun
That gives us hope when the whole day’s done
It’s dark all day and it glows all night
Factory smoke and acetylene light
I face the day with my head caved in
Looking like something that the cat brought in
There has to be an invisible sun
It gives its heat to everyone
There has to be an invisible sun
That gives us hope when the whole day’s done
And they’re only going to change this place
By killing everybody in the human race
They would kill me for a cigarette
But I don’t even wanna die just yet
There has to be an invisible sun
It gives its heat to everyone
There has to be an invisible sun
That gives us hope when the whole day’s done
(Oh oh oh oh oh oh…)
Most new B.C. COVID-19 infections now in fully vaccinated people
Of the 22,512 new confirmed cases the week of Dec. 30 to Jan. 5, 82.8 per cent were in fully vaccinated people
Finally, the truth is starting to come out. This is from my town. Tomorrow, the world.
With nearly 90 per cent of B.C. residents aged 12 and up having had two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, the rapidly spreading Omicron variant is infecting vaccinated people in four out of five new cases, according to the latest data from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control.
Of the 22,512 new confirmed cases the week of Dec. 30 to Jan. 5, 82.8 per cent were in fully vaccinated people, 2.5 per cent had one dose of vaccine and 14.6 per cent were not vaccinated.
Truth: 90% of the population will accept it because they have to pay mortgages and student loans, etc.
I am sick of humans. It’s time for another evolution. These homo sapiens are crude, brutal, stupid, and deserve to be extinct.
And they smell like monkeys.
Tales from the Conspiratum 
