Unhinged Faggot Lindsey Graham Calls for Putin’s Assassination

Holy: Lindsey Graham just called for Putin’s assassination. pic.twitter.com/UNvOJIApXV

— Kambree (@KamVTV) March 4, 2022

Sean Hannity has been calling for Vladimir Putin’s assassination.

But it’s a lot bigger deal for a sitting US Senator to come out and say it, as Lindsey Graham did this week both in a tweet and on Fox News. He called on a “Brutus” inside the Russian government to kill Putin.

It’s a violation of both US and international law to assassinate a foreign leader. It would also be impossible to assassinate Putin – I’m pretty sure that at this point, we can all agree he’s not stupid.

Unlike the American people, who are stupid.

Lindsey Graham, a flamboyant homosexual, is a representative of “American conservatives.”

This is what you get when you abandon God. (read more)

The Man Who Sold Ukraine

Volodymyr Zelensky is the current President of Ukraine. He was elected in a landslide victory in 2019 on the promise of easing tensions with Russia and resolving the crisis in the breakaway republics in east Ukraine. He has made no attempt to keep his word on either issue. Instead, he has greatly exacerbated Ukraine’s internal crisis while relentlessly provoking Russia. Zelensky has had numerous opportunities to smooth things over​ with Moscow and prevent the outbreak of hostilities. Instead, he has consistently made matters worse by blindly following Washington’s directives.

Zelensky has been lionized in the west and praised for his personal bravery. But—as a practical matter—he has failed to restore national unity or implement the crucial peace accord that is the only path to reconciliation. The Ukrainian president doesn’t like the so-called Minsk Protocol and has refused to meet its basic requirements. As a result, the ethnically-charged, fratricidal war that has engulfed Ukraine for the last 8 years, continues to this day with no end in sight. President Vladimir Putin referred to Zelensky’s obstinance in a recent speech delivered at the Kremlin. He said:

“At yesterday’s event… the Ukrainian leadership publicly declared that they were not going to abide by these agreements. Not going to abide by them. Well, what else can you say about that?” (Vladimir Putin)

Most Americans fail to realize that Zelensky’s rejection of Minsk was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Russian officials had worked for 8 years on Minsk hammering out terms that would be agreeable to all parties. Then—at the eleventh hour—Zelensky put the kibosh on the deal with a wave of the hand. Why? Who told Zelensky to scrap the agreement? Washington?

Of course.

And why did Zelensky deploy 60,000 combat troops to the area just beyond the Line of Contact (in east Ukraine) where they could lob mortal shells into the towns and villages of the ethnic Russians who lived there? Clearly, the message this sent to the people was that an invasion was imminent and that they should either flee their homes immediately or take shelter in their cellars. What objective did Zelensky hope to achieve by forcing these people to huddle in their homes in fear for their lives? And what message did he intend to send to Moscow whose leaders looked on at these developments in absolute horror?

Did he know his actions would set off alarms in Russia forcing Putin to call up his military and prepare them for a possible invasion to protect his people from– what looked to be– a massive ethnic cleansing operation?

He did.

So, how are these actions consistent with Zelensky’s campaign promises to restore national unity and peacefully resolve Ukraine’s issues with Russia?

They’re not consistent at all, they are polar opposites. In fact, Zelenskyy appears to be operating off a different script altogether. Take, for example, his complete unwillingness to address Russia’s minimal security concerns. Did Zelensky know that Putin had repeatedly said that Ukraine’s membership in NATO was a “red line” for Russia? Did he know that Putin has been saying the same thing over-and-over again since 2014? Did he know that Putin warned that if Ukraine took steps to join NATO, Russia would be forced to take “military-technical” measures to ensure their own security? Does Zelensky know that NATO is Washington-controlled Alliance that has engaged in numerous acts of aggression against other sovereign states. Here’s a short list of NATO’s accomplishments:

1. The destruction of Yugoslavia
2. The destruction of Afghanistan
3. The destruction of Libya
4. The destruction of Iraq
5. The destruction of Syria

Does Zelensky know that NATO is openly hostile to Russia and regards Russia a serious threat to its expansionist ambitions?

Yes, he knows all these things. Still, he publicly expressed his interest in developing nuclear weapons. What is that all about? Imagine the problem that would pose for Russia. Imagine if a US-backed puppet, like Zelensky, had nuclear missiles at his fingertips. How do you think that might impact Russia’s security? Do you think Putin could ignore a development like that and still fulfill his duty to protect the Russian people?

And why did Zelenskyy agree to allow shipment after shipment of lethal weaponry to be delivered to Ukraine if he sincerely sought peace with Russia? Did he think that Putin was too stupid to see what was going on right beneath his nose? Did he think he was normalizing relations by expanding his arsenal, threatening his own people, and jumping through whatever hoops Washington set out for him?

Or did he think that Putin’s requests for security assurances were unreasonable? Is that it? Did he think– that if the shoe was on the other foot– the US would allow Mexico to put military bases, artillery pieces and missile sites along America’s southern border? Is there any president in American history who wouldn’t have done the same thing that Putin did? Is there any president in American history who wouldn’t have launched a preemptive strike on those Mexican weapons and vaporized every living thing for a 20-mile radius?

No, Putin’s demands were entirely reasonable, but Zelenskyy shrugged them off anyway. Why?

Does Zelenskyy know that there are Right Sektor, neo-Nazis in the government, military and Security Services. Does he know that, while their numbers are small, they are a force to be reckoned with and factor heavily in the hatred and persecution of ethnic Russians? Does he know that these far-right elements participate in torchlight parades, imprint swastikas or SS tattoos on their arms, and revere the racialist ideology of Adolph Hitler? Does he realize that many these Nazis have engaged in criminal acts of brutality including the incinerating of 40 civilians at the Trade Union Building in Odessa in 2014? Does he think that the CIA’s covert programs to arm and train these right-wing militants builds confidence or does he think it reminds Moscow of a catastrophic war in which 27 million Russians were exterminated by Germany’s Wehrmacht?

Can you see how everything Zelensky has done, was done with the intention of provoking Russia?

All the talk of joining NATO, all the talk about building nukes, the steady buildup of lethal weaponry, the movement of troops to the east, the refusal to implement the Minsk Treaty and the rejection of Putin’s security demands. All of these were deliberate provocations. But, why? Why “bait the bear”; that’s the question?

Because Washington wants to lure Russia into a war so it can further demonize Putin, isolate Russia, launch a counterinsurgency operation against the Russian army, and impose harsh economic sanctions that will inflict maximum damage on the Russian economy. That’s Washington’s strategy in a nutshell, and Zelenskyy is helping Washington achieve its objectives. He’s allowing himself to be Washington’s tool. He is sacrificing his own country to advance the interests of the United States.

All this helps to underscore a point that is never considered by the media and never discussed by the pundits on cable news, that is, that Ukraine is going to lose the war, and Zelenskyy knows it. He knows the Ukrainian Armed Forces are no match for the Russian army. It is like a Giant swatting a fly. Ukraine is the fly. The public needs to hear this, but they’re not hearing it. Instead, they’re hearing blabber about heroic Ukrainians fighting the Russian invader. But this is nonsense, dangerous nonsense that is emboldening people to sacrifice their lives for a lost cause. The outcome of this conflict has never been in doubt: Ukraine is going to lose. That is certain. And, if you read between the lines, you’ll see that Russia is winning the war quite handily; they are crushing the Ukrainian army at every turn, and they will continue to crush them until Ukraine surrenders. (read more)

As a result, the country was not prepared to counter the invasion by Nazi Germany, which attacked our Motherland on June 22, 1941, without declaring war.

The country stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it, but this came at a tremendous cost.

The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people.

In the first months after the hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic importance, as well as millions of lives.

We will not make this mistake the second time.

We have no right to do so.

Those who aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia as their enemy.

They did so with impunity.

Make no mistake, they had no reason to act this way.

It is true that they have considerable financial, scientific, technological, and military capabilities.

We are aware of this and have an objective view of the economic threats we have been hearing, just as our ability to counter this brash and never-ending blackmail.

Let me reiterate that we have no illusions in this regard and are extremely realistic in our assessments.

— Putin 26FEB22

#38 Life in the West is forever changed

If you live in the West, and you believe that your life will continue on as normal because the war between Russia and Ukraine is on the other side of the globe, you should think again.

The United States and the EU are consumer-driven societies. What happens when all products are cut off, inflation goes ballistic, and raw materials foodstuffs, and energy are denied to you?

Those electric cars all use batteries. In two years they will need to be replaced. And Russia and China controls the materials and the manufacture of those batteries.

60% of Americans are on life-sustaining medicines. And 90% of the medicines are made in China. What then? No prosac, viagra, blood-pressure, cancer, or pain medicine...

America will become a zoo.

#44 Bioweapons

15 bioweapon facilities set up by the United States and run by the United States were in place on the Russian border.

During the initial salvo, every single one was hit with large thermobaric weapons. Most of them were absolutely and completely incinerated. None of this is reported anywhere in the West.

In spook language; this means that something was up BIG TIME.

#45 In spook circles it is believed that Putin prevented a NATO attack

Speaking of spook stuff…

Not published. Just unattributed raw intel.

But apparently Putin "jumped the gun" and prevented a nuclear attack that was to launch in the Summer of 2022.

Only one week (actually some reports say days) NATO and USA nuclear weapons would have been in position in the Ukraine by 9MAR22.

If so, then it would have been too late for Putin to stop the West. Doing so would mean direct confrontation with NATO and American military forces inside of the Ukraine. (source)

The Silent War

Every good thing in this world, we cry out for you.

Our war is a silent war. It cannot be measured in armaments or deployments, on geographical or topographical maps that show no discernible divisions, no potential battlefields. It is by nature a deceptive war, cloaked by belligerents who fly under the radar of populations and deploy their armaments into the bloodstream of innocents ill equipped to recognize their body as targets, having been sufficiently softened up by a lifetime of psychological disinformation shelling to their minds. These belligerents hide among their targets, masquerading as their trusted betters. They hide in plain sight on the boards of companies, in the administration of hospitals, at the captured agencies of governments, in the halls of Congress and Parliaments of the west and beside the overworked fiat printers of central banks, the greatest weapons of mass social destruction modernity has yet produced. They are the enemies of free peoples the world over. Their agenda is death and in the absence of it a subjugation to an engineered world of post humanist dystopia of their design and for their benefit.

In Silent Wars you do not recognize the enemy because you do not comprehend the war. You cannot discern the terms of battle. You are mocked and derided for entertaining conspiracies that dare recognize all its elements that have you surrounded. The victims who cannot see the frontiers of battle will suffer the brunt of the worst bombardments. There will be no nurse's station, no infirmary, no last rites for the volunteers who were conscripted out of fear, and submitted through coercion the greatest sacrifice of war, their lives unawares. They will wear no scars, bear no pain, win no honors or valiant parades posthumously. Their cries of suffering will be callously ignored by the institutions entrusted with rescuing them. Their widows or widowers will receive no letters of gratitude, no flags, no benefits or pensions. There will be no trace left that they were ever a casualty of a Silent War on humanity with no autopsy, and a death certificate that shrouds their status on behalf of the global evil that presently dominates all fronts.

Mortality is the great equalizer when the combatants are congruent on the terms of battle. There is no equalizer in a Silent War waged by forces hiding in plain sight performing as public servants of the self anointed ‘expert class’, who have captured minds as flags using psychological operations to deceive and coerce. The lies and propaganda are everywhere packaged as facts, data, science and truth, all unassailable weapons that must be blindly embraced by the captured minds, who will amplify them toward capturing further flags to be absorbed into the coalition of the hypnotized willing.

Now that war is upon us again, those needed to face it and fight it are noticeably absent. Absorbed by the very machine that will eat them, they do not even recognize an enemy, the stakes, the terms of battle for they have already passively surrendered as volunteers for the cannon fodder brigade. They are working on behalf of the enemy and against their own interests and the futures of ones they love and hold dearest.

There are no schools of study for Silent War tacticians to be prepared for battles on these fronts. The guidebooks for this war are in the great tombs of literature that already line our shelves, the words of writers like Orwell, Huxley, Plato, Aristotle, Mill, Locke, Hobbes, Paine, von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Aquinas, Aurelius and Seneca to name but a few. They are in books of behavioral psychology, a preferred weapon of management, the great global evil. These can be found in staples of propaganda studies, media and communications, logic and reason, political and social philosophy. Only damn fools would omit the gospels here, the teachings of Christ, the wisdom in doctrines of Buddhism, Hinduism’s dharma or ‘way of life’, Shinto’s orientation of ourselves among the natural world. There is no shortage of human knowledge or wisdom and guidance in written words that cannot be utilized to our benefit from all cultures of the world, from all faiths. It is the open mind, powered by objective reason, never closed to updating its software of new ideas nor fearful of challenging his own beliefs that will be in the greatest numbers possible, the fiercest brigade of resistance to global tyranny the world has ever known. They seek to seize these weapons with censorship and controlled demolitions of information and knowledge wherever it rises in sufficient numbers to challenge their power and undermine their agenda.

[...]

Improvisation

We must heed the advice of Niccolò Machiavelli and be like both the lion and the fox while recognizing the moments to embrace the powers of each to our advantage. “The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.” If you wish to survive this Silent War on humanity you must be cunning enough to recognize the traps that lay all around you, psychological landmines to be stepped on, Manchurian candidates to be celebrated, controlled opposition who lure with promises of true opposition but are merely working for the wolves to trap those who did not have the cunning of the fox to recognize them for who they really were. The fox will dance around such figures, observing keenly from a distance to see how the sheep fared in following the false shepherds. These false leaders present themselves as viable alternatives to the status quo, but are always servants to themselves first, and will, having convinced the sheep to follow them toward the wrong pastures abandon them for the wolves at the first sign of self profit. The fox will not believe their promises or be enraptured by their writings or celebratory rallies. These false profits invade your mind and ask you to pay the Dane-geld, and as Rudyard Kipling1 warned “…the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the person that pays it is lost!”

We are so consumed with the atrocities of the present, the spectacle of pandemic insanities, hypnotic surrenders, mass psychosis, we often fail to focus on the dozens of other viruses lurking all around as personal choices for recreation or passing time. They have released viruses and plagues for our distraction and comfort and these too are landmines of a different sort we must be skeptical of blowing us off course. These will rot your mind, extract your attention, inhibit your focus, alter your reality, destroy your spirit by engineering your physical and mental maladies that will only lead to your dependence on their further landmines for the cures, which will simply be more traps that await you when you seek them. They will be proffered in further temptations to alleviate the suffering with more of the same source that caused it, while offering others of the very expensive pharmacological kind. We must observe all these landmines from a distance like the cunning fox, never hesitating for a hasty retreat before dancing too close to the ordinances. We must take great effort to heal ourselves of the maladies we’re currently embracing for they will lead us toward the wrong pastures and be masked as sources of comfort, at our own expense. I have taken the pains to outline these real viruses, social and psychological, in another essay “The Real Virus”, and observed there that we are constantly being primed by these trappings that make us a docile, frightened and subdued populace easy for exploiting:

A confident healthy peoples with coalescing values who present a unified moral front of comparable ethical standards would not be susceptible to exterior forces tearing it from within. They would be alert, protective, grounded in reason and suspicious of global interlopers dressing up progress with utopian language, especially if those interlopers were their own elected leaders. Their suspicions would be without paranoia or hysteria. A docile, subdued, divided social body riddled with neurosis and anxieties is easy to frighten and manipulate. This goes beyond both social and respiratory viruses to include the priming of climate hysteria around common natural weather events and all the dystopian plans they’re engineering around that.

It is not paranoia to assume the enemy combatants are all around us in white coats and fine suits, and in the captured minds of family and friends. We must not allow them to see what we see in them, without first attempting to guide them away from the landmines lurking beneath their feet. In time with consistent and compassionate efforts, a subtle craftiness will win back many of them in our favor. Action and behavior is always the most convincing model. They can only cease being sheep when they recognize around them those behaving as noble shepherds. Patience and understanding that undergirds a rational skepticism and the cunning of the fox will be more persuasive than facts and evidence. The frustrated and impatient lot who upon presenting what they believe to be such irrefutable evidence in their favor and still have their overtures rejected are left despondent, as they rush off in a huff of despair and resort to flexing like lions against the sheep who are already being herded by wolves dressed as shepherds. If they see us as lions rather than noble shepherds they will only keep running in the direction of the wolves, and in due time their fields of slaughter.

There can also be no redemption in embracing the methods of the wolves, this global evil, to save the sheep. Though when the time is right tactics of deterrence in being the lions will serve us well to send the wolves back into the shadows of the forest. This is not because there is redemption in our resistance and struggle for a different future than the one being presently engineered at our expense for their gain, but because there can be no redemption in those evil acts of savagery and inhumanity they employ.

Improvisation requires we recognize our enemies when the are making continuous mistakes, and leave them to it. At present the funding of anarcho-tyranny across the west to tear down the social fabrics of western nations is a mistake, for it will reveal as has been happening for two years now (to those not subsumed by their lies and propaganda) that there exist no more democracies across the west. There is nothing liberal about state policies toward their own people under pretenses of health and safety that isolate and suffer them indignities and humiliations, that pit one against another in a locked combat for accepting the tyrannies of state authority or fiercely resisting them. One fights on the side of his own subjugation to the state while demanding his neighbors do the same and does not recognize his neighbors attempts to liberate him from his own ignorance. The state stands idly by watching this combat with glee, while it engineers social anarchy in the streets to further divide its subjects. This is other half of the anarcho-tyranny mistake to be exploited.

By allowing anarchy to flourish, through passive policing, inequalities under the law, disbanding with bail bonds, they are imploding the legal foundations of the fair and just society people believed they lived in, immolating the social contract, and showing there is no justice or fairness through this global oligarch-funded madness. While it will destroy the legitimacy of the state and all its corrupted institutions working against the people, it will also prevent the masses of people from defending what they realize was never there. They want to instigate resistance and conflict to paint dissenters as domestic terrorists, and only a fool would fall into this trap to save something that doesn’t exist. The illusion of democracy, fairness, justice, the rule of law is not worth fighting for, not worth any sacrifices of those of us who see that allowing them to burn it down in plain sight will win over more to the cause of rebuilding the aftermath in humanity’s favor, and against the intentions of global evil engineering its destruction. We must adapt to that inevitability when the time is right, align our numbers toward a different outcome, one that embraces the enemy of evil, the source of its demise, one that cries out for every good thing in this world. (read more)

Buckle-up, Buccaroos. Looks like Russia has the receipts on the ARSH 2020 “election”. No wonder the Washington DC cabal is agitating for nuclear war.

It is a truism, to which I can personally testify, that malignant human beings will engage in all-out war against a person or persons who have eyewitnessed and “have the receipts” on the malignant actors’ hidden misdeeds and frauds as a preemptive tactic to avoid being exposed.

IF Russia has the receipts on the 2020 “election”, then YES, I believe the Washington DC deep state/New World Order would engage in literal nuclear war in order to maintain their power. Millions of casualties would be a feature, not a bug. Remember, they are Malthusians. They want a 90+% reduction in the human population, as soon as possible, with a preference for killing white, culturally Christian people first.

Stay confessed.

The Russian ambassador to the UN just said that Trump was the legitimate president and that he was ousted (by election fraud). pic.twitter.com/rOo1iIBB9u

— Let’s see what happens (@HTTP_404_NotF) March 2, 2022

(read more)

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.”

— Evita Ochel

THE VAX PUSHERS' PATHETIC LAST STAND

I live in the New York City Metro Area and watch about an hour of TV in an average week. Mostly, I watch snippets of las noticias to sharpen my Spanish. Excerpts of Latino Coronamania coverage are as hard to tolerate as US network news or Three’s Company re-runs. Univision is, like its Anglophone counterparts, a flagrantly biased Covid sensationalizer.

Every Six O’Clock News break contains multiple vax-pushing ads. This may also be true in your part of the world. How many billions of dollars have been wasted hectoring naive people to stay home, wear masks, test despite feeling fine and take unnecessary, experimental shots? Though the news seldom so acknowledges, all of these measures have failed spectacularly.

Many of the NYC vax ads are narrated by a municipal employee tool in medical garb, Dave Chokshi. Others are done by a slim, nattily besuited African-American bureaucrat and a stylishly graying Caucasian woman also on the city payroll. For good propagandist measure, the 2022 Mad Men also sprinkle in ads portraying recently injected everyday folk walking in slow motion or jogging in golden light cityscapes, accompanied by cheery instrumentals playing under voice-overs of those shown expressing their initial vax concerns and then explaining their pro-vax epiphanies. The ad agencies depict people of color to attempt to con others who look like the ad protagonists yet remain disproportionately and cannily unwilling to yield to the jab juggernaut. For a while, the shot resisters were labeled “vaccine hesitant.” It sounded like sordid Newspeak.

For many months, Tool—a/k/a Doctor—Dave told us that the vacunas—he awkwardly uses the vernacular—would prevent the injected from getting sick or spreading the virus. Then reality hit. The shots did neither of these things. They’ve been an epic fail, the worst part of which, long-term health damage, may lie ahead.

Accordingly, Tool Dave has backpedaled or, in 2022 parlance, pivoted and refined his messaging. Now, he patronizingly begins by saying “You may have noticed that some vaccinated people have gotten sick...”

Well, yes, Dave, not only have I noticed that, it’s been as undeniably plain as the nose on your face. Over a dozen injected people I know and a multitude of jabbed celebrities have gotten sick. During the same period, no uninjected person I know has contracted Covid.

A few months ago, you assured me the “vaxxes” were “safe and effective” and would end the “Pandemic.” I suspected you weren’t telling the truth. And you weren’t. You’ve also been wrong about the effectiveness of social distancing, masking, hand washing (?!) and testing. Having been so consistently wrong, why should anyone believe anything you or your fellow experts say?

Oh yes, the white jacket. My bad.

Unchastened by his errors, Dave continues, with misplaced paternalism, “You may also have wondered if it still makes sense to get the shot...”

No, Dave. I didn’t wonder about this. To me, it never made sense to inject. Like most of the population, I’m healthy and at functionally zero risk of death from a Coronavirus that resembles a cold or flu virus. My unadulterated immune system will easily handle such a challenge.

But now that you mention it, I can understand why many other people have recently become skeptical and are declining to inject or “boost.” Aside from the people I know who got Covid after vaxxing, I know four others who were injured and/or hospitalized after the shot itself. And I’ve seen the VAERS charts revealing that the shots have injured and/or killed tens of thousands of people. Dave, if your goal is to inform the public so they can make good health decisions, why not mention the killed or injured?

This is why governments have had to menacingly mandate vaxxes: many people know what Dave and his “expert” counterparts are hiding.

The Coronamaniacs’ recent, desperate scramble to save face reminds me of the denouement in The Wizard of Oz. When “The Great and Powerful Oz” is exposed as a fraud and failure, the bumbling Wizard roars, “Ignore that man behind the curtain!” Although the equally phony Fauci and his lockdown/mask/test/vax (“LMTV”) henchmen have also been exposed as frauds and failures, they double down, and say “Ignore the vax failures and injuries! Take your boosters!”

Worse, the tweaked jab ads audaciously continue to suggest—despite plain evidence to the contrary—that submitting to the shots is still somehow a moral duty/community service, the fulfillment of which supposedly, but inexplicably, protects others. Hearing this lie is enough to make even a semi-clued-in viewer go full Elvis postal. Instead, I find myself uncharacteristically cursing, in English, at the screen. It’s better than channeling the old Elvis: my neighbors would hear and report a shotgun blast, and I don’t have to replace the TV and patch the wall behind it.

If I didn’t hate the LMTV Mafia, e.g., Fauci, Biden, Walensky, Hochul, Murphy, Colbert, Maddow and Dave, for being smugly condescending and dishonest, and causing vast social, psychological and economic harm, as well as injury and death, I’d be embarrassed for them. But I’ve recently begun to enjoy watching them and all of Team Jab: the vaunted MDs, liberal TV, magazine and newspaper op-ed pundits, haughty Tweeters, Tik Tok vax-tribute singers/dancers and virtue-signaling Facebook vax card-posters fail, flail, equivocate and prevaricate as their purportedly sophisticated/enlightened "Covid-crushing” plan implodes.

Memo to Tool Dave and all the other formerly arrogant Vax Crusaders: instead of the repeatedly reconditioning vax propaganda, you should pool your money and buy super-abundant ad time to exhort the legions of obese Metro Area dwellers to lose weight. Confronting and lessening obesity would improve public health much more than would any shot. Further, unlike the jabs, weight loss causes only positive side effects.

The continuing zeal to promote a widely ineffective and harmful sequence of shots while they simultaneously ignore the obese American elephant in the room tells you everything you need to know about public officials’ inability to think and/or their insincerity, the media’s inability to report objectively and Pharma’s destructive, dollar-driven dominance. It underscores that the past two years have been a Scamdemic orchestrated by a cadre of evil people who are pursuing objectives other than public health. The LMTV-ers have operated in extremely bad faith throughout.

With natural immunity expanding, the shameless vax pushers are desperate to falsely claim credit for “crushing the virus” with their politically opportunistic public health interventions. They’ve done nothing of the sort.

At this stage of the Scamdemic, the LMTV-ers bring to mind the Monty Python and the Holy Grail scene in which King Arthur swiftly amputates, in a swordfight, all of the limbs of the previously formidable Dark Knight. Despite having been comprehensively mutilated, the limbless Knight blusters that he can still crush his foe, the King. Or at least “bite his leg off.”

This Holy Grail punchline is the analog of the last-ditch vax-promoting bromide, namely that “well, at least the ‘vaxxes’ will reduce your chance of dying.” After all of the incremental retreats the blood-gushing but unbowed vax hucksters have been forced to subtly, yet unapologetically, make in reaction to vax failures, I doubt that even this greatly attenuated pledge would withstand fair data collection and analysis. After all is said and done, the evidence will show that that the injections shortened more lives than they extended and that the media-anointed experts and Democrat governors and mayors were Covid misinformation super-spreaders.

Regardless, and this bears repeating, the Universal Vax Crusade never made sense because the vast majority of the population was never at serious risk. As reported this week, the CDC has withheld data revealing what any reasonable observer already knew: it never made sense to inject any reasonably healthy person under 50. Nevertheless, governments, employers and colleges still unconstitutionally compel them to do so.

Fauci and his LMTV acolytes resemble the pathetic, limbless, bleeding-out knight. Despite their supposed expertise, the LMTV-ers have failed miserably and disgracefully. But they’re desperately hoping people are still too blind to see the scam that’s been right in front of them for two years. And all of the harm caused.

Sadly, with the continued support of America’s Med/Pharma-bought media, and given many Americans’ persistent, abiding gullibility, the LMTV-ers just might be able to pull off this final, revisionist, profoundly false “Public health experts and Pharma saved the world!” phase of the Scamdemic.

We must never stop calling out all of their lies. (read more)

I'LL NEVER FORGIVE THE CORONAMANIACS

No one takes Joe Biden seriously. He’s clearly of below average intelligence and is as dishonest as anyone you will ever meet. I assume that most of what he says, mumbles or stammers is 180 degrees from the truth.

His speechwriters may be slightly smarter but they’re equally dishonest and evil.

On Tuesday night, Biden squintily asserted that the “vaxxes” had changed the course of a virus. They didn’t. The virus is seasonal. And the infection/death numbers have been gamed. That’s all that happened.

Sadly, many Americans are gullible enough to believe the Dimwitted Delaware Dissembler.

But many aren’t. After a year of vaxx failure, the now widespread refusal to take any more shots tells you—even more clearly than his abysmal polling numbers do—that more people are finally perceiving the vaxx lies. If the Pharma-bought media would fairly report the shots’ lack of efficacy and its side effects, almost no one would inject.

This winter, I knew a dozen people who got Covid. All were vaxxed. I know many who rejected the bullshit shots, as I did. We were all fine. After all of the infections that occurred among the injected, Biden has the temerity to continue to lie that the vaxxes have stopped the spread.

And to recommend that we should do more of what has obviously failed. And to do it to more children. Some government policy is so bad it’s almost funny. This isn’t. Kids are not at risk from this virus. Messing with their health is monstrous.

Worst of all, tacitly acknowledging that many Americans are very angry about having been subjected to two years of ineffective lockdowns, mask mandates and testing and tracing, Biden blithely suggested that we let bygones be bygones.

This is not remotely possible.

To begin, why should I even consider forgiving someone who just blatantly lied to me—again—a minute earlier? The shots not only failed, they’ve already caused much injury and death. These effects will likely increase multi-fold as time passes. Pfizer’s side effect report— issued yesterday—reveals why they tried—and almost succeeded—to keep these data sealed for 70 years.

Not only won’t I forgive the loathsome Biden, I refuse to forgive any of those who claimed I was killing people by refusing, and criticizing, the jive jabs. One Coronamaniac—some Internet stalker/censor/fascist who called himself “John Schroeder—” even tried to have me fired by reporting me to my employer because I criticized—correctly, as it turns out—the injections.

Despite Stasi Schroeder’s best efforts, I still have my job. Everything I said was true. Stalker Schroeder, you know where I live and work. Come, unarmed, to meet me.

Asking someone to forgive under after Coronamania would be like someone burning down my house one night and greeting me the next morning by saying, “Hey, let’s forget the whole thing happened. We had a difference of opinion.” It’s like an abusive boyfriend sending candy and flowers.

Forgiveness is not possible without contrition. Neither the wicked clown Biden, nor his mindless backers, will admit they were wrong. Biden declined to apologize for the deaths and injuries that have occurred to the vaxxed. He didn’t say he was sorry for his massive “pandemic of the unvaccinated” lie. Worse, he took no responsibility for unconstitutionally coercing, via his clearly unconstitutional OSHA mandate, tens of millions of Americans to take a shot they didn’t want. If someone violates their oath of office, why should anyone believe them?

I have—and I know you have—seen, up close, and heard many other accounts of, people whose lives have been turned upside down and permanently damaged by the lockdowns and school closures, which were effected to create a political opportunity for the Party of a deeply stupid and corrupt individual. I’ve heard stories of teens breaking down and crying in their rooms because their youth was being stolen. I’ve seen on-line graduation ceremonies and gowns mailed to students so they could take photos in their backyards. I’ve seen people unnecessarily unemployed for eight months, desperately seeking work, via computer, ten hours a day, seven days a week. Tens of thousands more people fatally overdosed than in an average year. I was barred from visiting my very ill mother in the hospital. How many families couldn’t gather, either to break bread or to mourn the death of a close relative? Weddings, and thus family building, has been postponed; how many children will not have been born because of Corona theater? Overall, how many billions of memories that could have been made, weren’t?

I’ve also seen families divided by the vaxx mandates. For what? A shot that no reasonably healthy person under 70 should have even considered, much less been required to take under a Sword of Damocles/ultimatum regarding one’s livelihood?

The cost of Corona theater has been immeasurably, unimaginably high. None of it saved any lives. It only further concentrated wealth and enabled the election of a clearly incompetent and corrupt individual.

I’ll never forget all of the harm strategically caused, and how many—and which—people staked out the stupid ground during Coronamania. You’re not my friends anymore. You’ll never again be.

It’s better that way. Anyone who didn’t see what a scam the past two years have been is not as smart--despite any academic credentials---as I need them to be. It's only worth it to share time with people who can apprehend reality and consider the larger consequences of their actions or the actions of others whom they support. As during other relationships at other times in life, once one sees how some people have bought the lies and overreacted to Covid, one can recall prior dubious conduct by the same individuals that was tolerated but shouldn’t have been. 

Goodbye to all you, and all that. (read more)

Ukraine Shows The World Why Gun Rights Are Human Rights

The people of Ukraine have a chance because they are armed. Imagine if they had been training with these weapons their whole lives.

The world is captivated by Ukraine’s resistance to Russian invasion, especially since much of Ukraine’s resistance comes from ordinary citizens taking up arms in defense of their homeland.

Ukraine has a fighting chance in part because it has taken dramatic steps to provide its people firearms. More than 25,000 automatic rifles and 10 million rounds of ammunition have been distributed to volunteers in Kyiv.  

In the United States, even supporters of draconian gun control are announcing they “stand with the brave Ukrainian people” in their armed resistance. The glaring contradiction between these positions — supporting gun confiscation one day and gun distribution the next — seemingly hasn’t dawned on many of these ideologues.

Their contradiction is apparent in actions, as well as in words. President Joe Biden’s rush to arm Ukrainians stands in contrast with his desire to disarm ordinary Americans.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is another prime example: engaging in tyrannical gun control at home while supplying the Ukrainian resistance with machine guns, pistols, carbines, and 1.5 million rounds of ammunition. The European Union shows a similar hostility to the self-defense rights of its people, even as it gives Ukraine about half a billion dollars’ worth of “lethal aid.”

Ukraine Late to Expand Gun Rights

Arming average citizens hasn’t always been the Ukrainian way, either. A 2014 report noted that the country had “inherited the Soviet civilian gun control system, which provides for restrictive gun owner licensing and the registration of all firearms.” According to that report, Ukraine initially considered imposing comprehensive gun laws during the 1990s. But politicians gridlocked over “whether or not private [gun] ownership would increase crime or improve security.”

Hopefully the events of 2022 have settled that question once and for all. An individual’s natural right of self-defense applies equally to the defense of his life as to the defense of his nation — and neither individual nor nation is secure without the ability to exercise it. This should never have been a question.

As it happened, Ukraine was tragically late to expand legal protection of gun rights. Its parliament acted on an emergency basis just before Russia invaded.

Better late than never, certainly. But imagine if the people of Kyiv had been training with these weapons their whole lives. Imagine if they knew them like the back of their hands, instead of quickly learning to handle them during an invasion. Their resistance, as well as their example to the world, would be all the more powerful.

Natural Right to Bear Arms

It’s also unfortunate that Ukraine’s government has left some significant restrictions on the self-defense rights of the Ukrainian people, and has only codified these rights in a statute rather than giving them full constitutional protection. In reality, the right to bear arms — in public and private — is a natural right that the Ukrainian people need no government permission to exercise. They just need the government to stay out of the way of their natural rights.

But in a time even many U.S. jurisdictions violate that natural right, it’s not surprising if other countries are confused about it.

Ukraine is certainly moving in the right direction on gun rights, something that can’t be said of the entire United States. The chairman of Ukraine’s parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk, says the new law is meant “to ensure that every citizen receives the sacred right to self-defense.”

The people of Ukraine have a chance because they are armed. It’s a lesson the world should never forget. (read more)

Washington cares less about Ukrainian independence and sovereignty than Russia.  Its primary interest in the territory is its location right next to Russia; its other interests lie in the resources and markets a Ukraine under US influence offers.  Of course, the latter also helps explain Russia’s determination not to let NATO assimilate Kyiv and the country it is the capitol of.  If Washington was truly interested in the independence of the Ukrainian people, it would call for a resolution granting autonomy to the eastern Donbass region of Ukraine, where a war for that region’s secession from Ukraine has been waging since at least 2014 when the US/NATO sponsored color rebellion overthrew the elected government in Kyiv.  It is that US-leaning government that Washington wants to preserve; a government first installed by US and NATO intelligence that may represent Ukrainian hopes, but certainly does not represent Ukrainian independence.  Only the Ukrainian people can determine that and their voice is both muffled and mixed.  Democratic socialists, unabashed capitalists looking towards the EU, families with old money stolen from the people after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, fascists whose legacy includes killing thousands of Jews and collaborating militarily with the Nazis, and millions of workers and farmers—these are the people of Ukraine.  In my mind it is the last demographic which should have the greatest say in their nation’s future.  However, if the rest of the world is any indication, their voice is the last to be heard.

— Ron Jacobs

The West’s SWIFT Kick is Aimed at Russia, But it Will Also Hit the US Dollar

As part of the western  response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, several regimes acted on February 26 to exclude certain Russian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT)  network. As of March 1, Reuters reports, SWIFT says it’s awaiting a list of the sanctioned banks so that it can cut them off.

SWIFT is a messaging service that connects banks worldwide. It’s not a bank itself. It’s not even, strictly speaking, a payment network. It carries instructions for transfers, but the transfers take place via other networks. It’s just one moving part in the world’s complex finance and trade system.

As with most such measures, giving Russian banks the boot from SWIFT  is certain to hurt the sanctioners along with the sanctioned. In this case, the potential victims with the most to lose are  the issuers and holders of US dollars.

Dollars aren’t the only currency that gets moved using SWIFT, but the dollar is the de facto “global reserve currency” and thus the most affected by such moves. Nearly everyone accepts the dollar. Nearly everyone wants to have a fat stack of dollars on hand. In particular, global trade in oil has been powered by the “petrodollar” for nearly 50 years.

If you want to buy a barrel of Brent crude from most sellers, you need to be able to plunk down (as I write this) 105.46 US dollars. Not 395.72 Saudi riyals. Not 7,983.35 Indian rupees. Not 665.78 Chinese yuan. $105.46 or no sale.

What happens when one of the world’s largest oil producers is 1) cut off from SWIFT; 2) doesn’t want US dollars as much as it used to because other sanctions make those dollars  difficult to spend; and 3) has trading partners who are watching these sanctions and fear they could be the next victims? Well, this:

A “rupee-rouble trade arrangement may get a push now that Russia is out of SWIFT,” reports The Times of India.  China will presumably likewise increase its yuan-ruble trade with Russia.

The Times of India article reveals that this isn’t a sudden development: “India had entered into a rupee-rouble trade arrangement with Russia earlier to shield the two nations from unilateral sanctions from the United States.”

What makes the dollar valuable? The same thing that makes anything valuable: People wanting it. Between China and India, more than a quarter of the world’s population are in the process of wanting the dollar less than they used to. That, in turn, makes every dollar in your pocket worth less than it once was.

In the short term, the SWIFT kick and other sanctions may hurt Russia more than they hurt you. But the uncontested reign of the US dollar among global currencies seems to be nearing its end, in part because the US government is driving the world away from it with the constant threat of sanctions.

The smart move for Americans? Hold as few dollars as you can get by on. Trade your dollars for gold, silver, and cryptocurrency while they’re still worth something, to someone, somewhere. (read more)

ADDITIONAL READING:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/02/23/germany-can-no-longer-be-put-down/

http://johnhelmer.net/black-box-defence-for-the-russian-economy-dollar-debt-repayments-blocked-gas-and-oil-deliveries-to-germany-stopped-oligarch-assets-nationalized/

https://niccolo.substack.com/p/fuck-it-russias-final-break-with?utm_source=url

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2022/03/02/russias-attack-on-ukraine-represents-a-demand-for-a-new-world-order/

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/02/27/philip-giraldi-on-the-neocons-ukraine-russia-and-the-oligarchs/

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/03/01/jewish-subtexts-in-ukraine/

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/02/27/russia-from-sanctions-to-slump/

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-conflict-with-russia/

https://cluborlov.wordpress.com/

The CIA – 70 years in Ukraine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRicZc-cZ0I

The CIA in Ukraine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRicZc-cZ0I&t=405s

The Ukraine War Follows Decades of Warnings That NATO Expansion Would Provoke Russia

As fighting rages across Ukraine, two versions of reality that underlie the conflict stare across a deep divide, neither conceding any truth to the other.

The more widespread and familiar view in the West, particularly in the United States, is that Russia is and has always been an expansionist state, and its current president, Vladimir Putin, is the embodiment of that essential Russian ambition: to build a new Russian empire.

“This was … always about naked aggression, about Putin’s desire for empire by any means necessary,” President Joe Biden said on Feb. 24, 2022.

The opposing view argues that Russia’s security concerns are in fact genuine, and that NATO expansion eastward is seen by Russians as directed against their country. Putin has been clear for many years that if continued, the expansion would likely be met with serious resistance by the Russians, even with military action.

That perspective isn’t held just by Russians; some influential American foreign policy experts have subscribed to it as well.

Among others, Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995. That’s when Burns, then a political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, reported to Washington that “hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.”

NATO edging toward Russia

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, is a military alliance that was formed by the U.S., Canada and several European nations in 1949 to contain the USSR and the spread of communism.

Now, the view in the West is that it is no longer an anti-Russian alliance but is instead a kind of collective security agreementaimed at protecting its members from outside aggression and promoting peaceful mediation of conflicts within the alliance.

Recognizing the sovereignty of all states and their right to ally with whatever state they wish, NATO acceded over time to the requests of European democracies to join the alliance. Former members of the Soviet-established Warsaw Pact, which was a Soviet version of NATO, were also brought into NATO in the 1990s, along with three former Soviet republics – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – in 2004.

The Western view is that the Kremlin is supposed to understand and accept that the alliance’s activities, among them war games replete with American tanks staged in nearby Baltic states and rockets stationed in Poland and Romania – which the U.S. says are aimed at Iran – in no way present a threat to Russian security.

Many warnings about Russia’s reaction

Russian elite and broad public opinion have both long been opposed to such expansion, the placement of American rockets in Poland and Romania and the arming of Ukraine with Western weaponry.

When President Bill Clinton’s administration moved to bring Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, Burns wrote that the decision was “premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst.”

He continued, “As Russians stewed in their grievance and sense of disadvantage, a gathering storm of ‘stab in the back’ theories slowly swirled, leaving a mark on Russia’s relations with the West that would linger for decades.”

In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.”

In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Responding to Russia’s insecurity

There are different outcomes to the current crisis depending on whether you see its cause as Russian imperialism or NATO expansionism.

If you think the war in Ukraine is the work of a determined imperialist, any actions short of defeating the Russians will look like 1938 Munich-style appeasement and Joe Biden becomes the reviled Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who acceded to Hitler’s demands for territory in Czechoslovakia only to find himself deceived as the Nazis steadily marched to war.

If, however, you believe that Russia has legitimate concerns about NATO expansion, then the door is open to discussion, negotiation, compromise and concessions.

Having spent decades studying Russian history and politics, I believe that in foreign policy, Putin has usually acted as a realist, unsentimentally and amorally taking stock of the power dynamics among states. He looks for possible allies ready to consider Russia’s interests – recently he found such an ally in China – and is willing to resort to armed force when he believes Russia is threatened.

But at times he has also acted on the basis of his ideological predilections, which include his fabricated histories of Russia. Occasionally, he’s acted impulsively, as in seizing Crimea in 2014, and rashly, as in his disastrous decision to invade Ukraine. Annexing Crimea after Ukraine’s pro-democracy Maidan revolution in 2014 combined both a strategic imperative to hold onto the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol and a nationalist justification, after the fact, to bring the imagined cradle of Russian Christianity and a historic conquest of the czars back into the fold of the “motherland.”

Putin’s sense of Russia’s insecurity vis-à-vis a much more powerful NATO is genuine, but during the current impasse over Ukraine, his recent statements have become more fevered and even paranoid.

Usually a rationalist, Putin now appears to have lost patience and is driven by his emotions.

Putin knows enough history to recognize that Russia did not expand in the 20th century – losing parts of Poland, Ukraine, Finland and eastern Turkey after the 1917 revolution – except for a brief period before and after World War II when Stalin annexed the Baltic republics and pieces of Finland, and united lands from interwar Poland with Soviet Ukraine.

Putin himself was traumatized by the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, the loss of one-third of its former territory and half of its population. In an instant, the USSR disappeared, and Russia found itself much weaker and more vulnerable to rival great powers.

Many Russians agree with Putin and feel resentment and humiliation, along with anxiety about the future. But overwhelmingly they do not want war, Russian pollsters and political analysts say.

Leaders like Putin who feel cornered and ignored may strike out. He has already threatened “military and political consequences” if the currently neutral Finland and Sweden attempt to join NATO. Paradoxically, NATO has endangered small countries on the border of Russia, as Georgia learned in 2008, that aspire to join the alliance.

One wonders – as did the American diplomat George F. Kennan, the father of the Cold War containment doctrine who warned against NATO expansion in 1998 – whether the advancement of NATO eastward has increased the security of European states or made them more vulnerable. (read more)

Sanctions Seppuku: The Big Reveal: “Let them fly to space on their broomsticks”

Russia is beginning to respond to the insane sanctions, and the sanctions are insane.

“Russia will stop deliveries of rocket engines to US – Russian Space Agency chief. The Roscosmos chief added, “Let them fly into space on their broomsticks.”

And we all say OORAH!

OneWeb Pulls Workers from Russian-run Baikonur Satellite Launch Project

The London-based tech company OneWeb has removed its employees from Kazakhstan’s Baikonur Cosmodrone, where they had planned to send 36 Internet satellites into orbit using a Russian Soyuz rocket.

The move comes after Russian space agency Roscosmos demanded guarantees that their satellites wouldn’t be used for military purposes, and that the UK government – which owns shares in OneWeb – divest itself from the company.

The Russian (ROC) Paralympics athletes have just been banned by the Olympics Committee from taking part in the Olympics in Beijing.

But Coca-Cola will continue to operate in Russia

The ICC (International Criminal Court) is in the process of accepting the Ukraine’s complaint of war crimes or crimes against humanity against Russia and Belarus in the Ukraine. (Israel and Palestine comes to mind and also the Yemen). The complainer has to have membership of course, but the ICC has awarded a quasi membership to Ukraine from nowhere.

Russian individuals are facing hate-filled attacks, diplomatic buildings and athletes are being targeted for exclusion. Reports of Russians being discriminated against are spreading far and wide. This is similar to what happened the previous two years with Chinese citizens as a result of the propaganda against China.

There is a very dark underbelly to sanctions which are of course war by any other name. Trump called it! by calling it a Trade War, when it was against China. What the west wants, is to loot Russia from the ground up and just make them go away in some form or fashion, because they cannot take Russia by Dollar and/or Bomb.

Western governments, media, think tanks etc., are so desperate to believe their version of the outcome of the Ukraine war that they are seeing things which have no basis in reality. And their fear that things will not turn out the way they want them to, is visible. They are having Terrible Two Tantrums.

It is however filtering through to European leaders. They are figuring out that Russian sanctions are already having an impact and on them directly.

And the countries are not all in some special cahoots here. They are being threatened. We have news from India that they are being threatened with sanctions because they stood neutral in the last security council vote and did not condemn Russia in one or another fashion. Of course, they do not call it by name but rather: US weighing up sanctions against India over Russian military stockpiles (The Hill).   Please be aware, this is not some game, but the stakes are high, as the sanctions war and the cyber war are all, and I mean all, western attempts at regaining its lost power and luster.

We see how Russian-owned businesses, private jets, money, and real estate are being looted. The west is just stealing it, like oil and grain from Syria. This time they want to do to Russia what they did in the early 1990’s yet again. The idea is to rape Russia again, because how dare Russia charge for their oil and for their business. How dare Russia act like a country or even people that have the right to make a business, do trade, be concerned about their security and function in the wider world. What is being tried here, is to do to Russia exactly the same as what was done to Japan, after Japan surrendered in WWII, but this time they want to do as much as they can, without waging real war (so far). (read more)

America Defeats Germany for the Third Time in a Century

The MIC, OGAM and FIRE Sectors Conquer NATO

My old boss Herman Kahn, with whom I worked at the Hudson Institute in the 1970s, had a set speech that he would give at public meetings. He said that back in high school in Los Angeles, his teachers would say what most liberals were saying in the 1940s and 50s: “Wars never solved anything.” It was as if they never changed anything – and therefore shouldn’t be fought.

Herman disagreed, and made lists of all sorts of things that wars had solved in world history, or at least changed. He was right, and of course that is the aim of both sides in today’s New Cold War confrontation in Ukraine.

The question to ask is what today’s New Cold War is trying to change or “solve.” To answer this question, it helps to ask who initiates the war. There always are two sides – the attacker and the attacked. The attacker intends certain consequences, and the attacked looks for unintended consequences of which they can take advantage. In this case, both sides have their dueling sets of intended consequences and special interests.

The active military force and aggressor since 1991 has been the United States. Rejecting mutual disarmament of the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO, there was no “peace dividend.” Instead, the U.S. policy executed by the Clinton and subsequent administrations to wage a new military expansion via NATO has paid a 30-year dividend in the form of shifting the foreign policy of Western Europe and other American allies out of their domestic political sphere into their own U.S.-oriented “national security” blob (the word for special interests that must not be named). NATO has become Europe’s foreign-policy-making body, even to the point of dominating domestic economic interests.

The recent prodding of Russia by expanding Ukrainian anti-Russian ethnic violence by Ukraine’s neo-Nazi post-2014 Maiden regime was aimed at (and has succeeded in) forcing a showdown in response to America’s fear that it is losing its economic and political hold on its NATO allies and other Dollar Area satellites. These countries have seen major opportunities for gain to lie in increasing trade and investment with China and Russia.

To understand just what U.S. aims and interests are threatened, it is necessary to understand U.S. politics and “the blob,” that is, the government central planning that cannot be explained by looking ostensibly at democratic politics. This is not the politics of U.S. senators and representatives serving their congressional voting districts or states.

America’s three oligarchies in control of U.S. foreign policy

It is more realistic to view U.S. economic and foreign policy in terms of the military-industrial complex, the oil and gas (and mining) complex, and the banking and real estate complex than in terms of the political policy of Republicans and Democrats. The key senators and congressional representatives do not represent their states and districts as much as the economic and financial interests of their major political campaign contributors. A Venn diagram would show that in today’s post-Citizens United world, U.S. politicians represent their campaign contributors, not voters. And these contributors fall basically into three main blocs.

Three main oligarchic groups have bought control of the Senate and Congress to put their own policy makers in the State Department and Defense Department. First is the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) – arms manufacturers, such as Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. They have broadly diversified their factories and employment in nearly every state, and especially in the Congressional districts where key Congressional committee heads are elected. Their economic base is monopoly rent, obtained above all from their arms sales to NATO, to Near Eastern oil exporters and to other countries with a balance-of-payments surplus.

Stocks for these companies soared immediately upon news of the Russian attack, leading a two-day stock-market surge as investors recognized that war in a world of cost-plus “Pentagon capitalism” (as Seymour Melman described it) will provide a guaranteed national-security umbrella for monopoly profits for war industries. Senators and Congressional representatives from California and Washington traditionally have represented the MIC, along with the solid pro-military South. The past week’s military escalation promises soaring arms sales to NATO and other U.S. allies, enriching the actual constituents of these politicians. Germany quickly agreed to raise its arms spending to over 2% of GDP.

The second major oligarchic bloc is the rent-extracting oil and gas sector, joined by mining (OGAM), riding America’s special tax favoritism granted to companies emptying natural resources out of the ground and putting them mostly into the atmosphere, oceans and water supply. Like the banking and real estate sector seeking to maximize economic rent and capital gains for housing and other assets, the aim of this OGAM sector is to maximize the price of its energy and raw materials so as to maximize its natural-resource rent. Monopolizing the Dollar Area’s oil market and isolating it from Russian oil and gas has been a major U.S. priority for over a year now, as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline threatened to link the Western European and Russian economies more tightly together.

If oil, gas and mining operations are not situated in every U.S. voting district, at least their investors are. Senators from Texas and other Western oil-producing and mining states are the leading OGAM lobbyists, and the State Department has a heavy oil-sector influence providing a national-security umbrella for the sector’s special tax breaks. The ancillary political aim is to ignore and reject environmental drives to replace oil, gas and coal with alternative sources of energy. The Biden administration accordingly has backed the expansion of offshore drilling, supported the Canadian pipeline to the world’s dirtiest petroleum source in the Athabasca tar sands, and celebrated the revival of U.S. fracking.

The foreign-policy extension is to prevent foreign countries not leaving control of their oil, gas and mining to U.S. OGAM companies from competing in world markets with U.S. suppliers. Isolating Russia (and Iran) from Western markets will reduce the supply of oil and gas, pushing up prices and corporate profits accordingly.

The third major oligarchic group is the symbiotic Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector, which is the modern finance-capitalist successor to Europe’s old post-feudal landed aristocracy living by land rents. With most housing in today’s world having become owner-occupied (although with sharply rising rates of absentee landlordship since the post-2008 wave of Obama Evictions), land rent is paid largely to the banking sector in the form of mortgage interest and debt amortization (on rising debt/equity ratios as bank lending inflates housing prices). About 80 percent of U.S. and British bank loans are to the real estate sector, inflating land prices to create capital gains – which are effectively tax-exempt for absentee owners.

This Wall Street-centered banking and real estate bloc is even more broadly based on a district-by-district basis than the MIC. Its New York senator from Wall Street, Chuck Schumer, heads the Senate, long supported by Delaware’s former Senator from the credit-card industry Joe Biden, and Connecticut’s senators from the insurance sector centered in that state. Domestically, the aim of this sector is to maximize land rent and the “capital” gains resulting from rising land rent.

Internationally, the FIRE sector’s aim is to privatize foreign economies (above all to secure the privilege of credit creation in U.S. hands), so as to turn government infrastructure and public utilities into rent-seeking monopolies to provide basic services (such as health care, education, transportation, communications and information technology) at maximum prices instead of at subsidized prices to reduce the cost of living and doing business. And Wall Street always has been closely merged with the oil and gas industry (viz. the Rockefeller-dominated Citigroup and Chase Manhattan banking conglomerates).

The FIRE, MIC and OGAM sectors are the three rentier sectors that dominate today’s post-industrial finance capitalism. Their mutual fortunes have soared as MIC and OGAM stock prices have increased following Russia’s military incursion. And moves to exclude Russia from the Western financial system (and partially now from SWIFT), coupled with the adverse effects of isolating European economies from Russian energy, promise to spur an inflow into dollarized financial securities.

As mentioned at the outset, it is more helpful to view U.S. economic and foreign policy in terms of the complexes based on these three rentier sectors than in terms of the political policy of Republicans and Democrats. The key senators and congressional representatives are not representing their states and districts as much as the economic and financial interests of their major donors. That is why neither manufacturing nor agriculture play a dominant role in U.S. foreign policy today. The convergence of the policy aims of America’s three dominant rentier groups overwhelms the interests of labor and even of industrial capital beyond the MIC. That convergence is the defining characteristic of today’s post-industrial finance capitalism. It is basically a reversion to economic rent-seeking, which is independent of the politics of labor and industrial capital.

The dynamic that needs to be traced today is why this oligarchic blob has found its interest in prodding Russia into what Russia evidently viewed as a do-or-die stance to resist the increasingly violent attacks on Ukraine’s eastern Russian-speaking provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk, along with the broader Western threats against Russia.

The rentier “blob’s” expected consequences of the New Cold War

As President Biden explained, the current U.S.-orchestrated military escalation (“Prodding the Bear”) is not really about Ukraine. Biden promised at the outset that no U.S. troops would be involved. But he has been demanding for over a year that Germany prevent the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from supplying its industry and housing with low-priced gas and turn to the much higher-priced U.S. suppliers.

U.S. officials first tried to stop construction of the pipeline from being completed. Firms aiding in its construction were sanctioned, but finally Russia itself completed the pipeline. U.S. pressure then turned on the traditionally pliant German politicians, claiming that Germany and the rest of Europe faced a National Security threat from Russia turning off the gas, presumably to extract some political or economic concessions. No specific Russian demands could be thought up, and so their nature was left obscure and blob-like. Germany refused to authorize Nord Stream 2 from officially going into operation.

A major aim of today’s New Cold War is to monopolize the market for U.S. shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG). Already under Donald Trump’s administration, Angela Merkel was bullied into promising to spend $1 billion building new port facilities for U.S. tanker ships to unload natural gas for German use. The Democratic election victory in November 2020, followed by Ms. Merkel’s retirement from Germany’s political scene, led to cancellation of this port investment. This left Germany without much alternative to importing Russian gas to heat its homes, power its electric utilities, and to provide raw material for its fertilizer industry and hence the maintenance of its farm productivity.

So the most pressing U.S. strategic aim of NATO confrontation with Russia is soaring oil and gas prices, above all to the detriment of Germany. In addition to creating profits and stock-market gains for U.S. oil companies, higher energy prices will take much of the steam out of the German economy. Thus looms the third time in a century that the United States will have defeated Germany – each time increasing its control over a German economy increasingly dependent on the United States for imports and policy leadership, with NATO being the effective check against any domestic nationalist resistance.

Higher gasoline, heating and other energy prices also will hurt U.S. consumers and those of other nations (especially Global South energy-deficit economies) and leave less of the U.S. family budget for spending on domestic goods and services. This could squeeze marginalized homeowners and investors, leading to further concentration of absentee ownership of housing and commercial property in the United States, along with buyouts of distressed real estate owners in other countries faced with soaring heating and energy costs. But that is deemed collateral damage by the post-industrial blob.

Food prices also will rise, headed by wheat. (Russia and Ukraine account for 25 percent of world wheat exports.) This will squeeze many Near Eastern and Global South food-deficit countries, worsening their balance of payments and threatening foreign debt defaults.

Russian raw-materials exports may be blocked by Russia in response to the currency and SWIFT sanctions. This threatens to cause breaks in supply chains for key materials, including cobalt, palladium, nickel and aluminum (the production of which consumes much electricity as its major cost – so higher electricity prices will make that metal more expensive). If China decides to see itself as the next nation being threatened and joins Russia in a common protest against the U.S. trade,financial warfare and military threats, the Western economies are in for a serious shock.

The long-term dream of U.S. New Cold Warriors is to break up Russia, or at least to restore its Yeltsin/Harvard Boys managerial kleptocracy, with oligarchs seeking to cash in their privatizations in Western stock markets. OGAM still dreams of buying majority control of Yukos and Gazprom. Wall Street would love to recreate a Russian stock market boom. And MIC investors are happily anticipating the prospect of selling more weapons to help bring all this about.

Russia’s intentions to benefit from America’s unintended consequences

What does Russia want? Most immediately, to remove the neo-Nazi anti-Russian core that the Maidan massacre and coup put in place in 2014. Ukraine is to be neutralized, which to Russia means basically pro-Russian, dominated by Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. The aim is to prevent Ukraine from becoming a staging ground of U.S.-orchestrated anti-Russian moves a la Chechnya and Georgia.

Russia’s longer-term aim is to pry Europe away from NATO and U.S. dominance – and in the process, create with China a new multipolar world order centered on an economically integrated Eurasia. The aim is to dissolve NATO altogether, and then to promote the broad disarmament and denuclearization policies that Russia has been pushing for. Not only will this cut back foreign purchases of U.S. arms, but it may end up leading to sanctions against future U.S. military adventurism. That would leave America with less ability to fund its military operations as de-dollarization accelerates.

Now that it should be obvious to any informed observer that (1) NATO’s purpose is aggression, not defense, and (2) there is no further territory for it to conquer from the remains of the old Soviet Union, what does Europe get out of continued membership? It is obvious that Russia never again will invade Europe. It has nothing to gain – and had nothing to gain by fighting Ukraine, except to roll back NATO’s proxy expansion into that country and the NATO-backed attacks on Novorossiya.

Will European nationalist leaders (the left is largely pro-US) ask why their countries should pay for U.S. arms that only put them in danger, pay higher prices for U.S. LNG and energy, pay more for grain and Russian-produced raw materials, all while losing the option of making export sales and profits on peaceful investment in Russia – and perhaps losing China as well?

The U.S. confiscation of Russian monetary reserves, following the recent theft of Afghanistan’s reserves (and the Bank of England’s seizure of Venezuela’s gold stocks held in London) threatens every country’s adherence to the Dollar Standard, and hence the dollar’s role as the vehicle for foreign-exchange savings by the world’s central banks. This will accelerate the international de-dollarization process already started by Russia and China relying on mutual holdings of each other’s currencies.

Over the longer term, Russia is likely to join China in forming an alternative to the U.S.-dominated IMF and World Bank. Russia’s announcement that it wants to arrest the Ukrainian Nazis and hold a war crimes trial seems to imply that an alternative to the Hague court will be established following Russia’s military victory in Ukraine. Only a new international court could try war criminals extending from Ukraine’s neo-Nazi leadership all the way up to U.S. officials responsible for crimes against humanity as defined by the Nuremberg laws.

I expect Russia to withdraw this week. I can’t imagine that it has any intention of expending resources and lives on occupation. Its first task was to stop the attack on the Russian-speaking eastern provinces and to protect Crimea. Its second task was to wipe out the neo-Nazi military forces, capturing their leaders if possible and bringing them to trial for war crimes — and then proceeding up the ladder to their U.S. sponsors, NED etc.

It is of course possible that Europe will break away. In that case, Russia will turn toward China and its fellow SCO members. Europe will suffer severe supply chain issues, commodity-price inflation, and budget squeezes for its population and governments.

Did the American blob actually think through the consequences of NATO’s war?

It is almost black humor to look at U.S. attempts to convince China that it should join the United States in denouncing Russia’s moves into Ukraine. The most enormous unintended consequence of U.S. foreign policy has been to drive Russia and China together, along with Iran, Central Asia and other countries along the Belt and Road Initiative.

At the end of the Cold War, Russia dreamed of creating a new world order, but it was U.S. adventurism that has driven the world into an entirely new order – one that looks to be dominated by China as the default winner now that the European economy is essentially torn apart and America is left with the reserves that it has grabbed from Russia and Afghanistan, but without the ability to gain future support.

And everything that I have written above may already be obsolete as Russia and the U.S. have gone on atomic alert. My only hope is that Putin and Biden can agree that if Russia hydrogen bombs Britain and Brussels, that there will be a devil’s (not gentleman’s) agreement not to bomb each other.

With such talk I’m brought back to my discussions with Herman Kahn 50 years ago. He became quite unpopular for writing Thinking about the Unthinkable, meaning atomic war. As he was parodied in Dr. Strangelove, he did say that there would indeed be survivors. But he added that for himself, he hoped to be right under the first atom bomb, because it was not a world in which he wanted to survive. (read more)

Public Health Erred on the Side of Catastrophe [to Further the Democrat's & Globalist's Agenda and the Great Reset]

Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, proponents of lockdowns, shelter-in-place orders, mask mandates and other coercive government interventions have characterized these measures as benevolently “erring on the side of caution.”

Now, as the grim toll of those public health measures comes into ever-sharper focus, it’s increasingly clear those characterizations were terribly wrong.

What’s less readily apparent, however, is how the very use of the “erring on the side of caution” framing was injurious in itself—by thwarting reasoned debate of public health policies, diverting attention from unintended consequences, and buffering the Covid regime’s architects from accountability.

To understand how the misuse of “erring on the side of caution” performed a sort of mass hypnosis that coaxed populations into two years of submission to disastrous, overreaching policies, consider how the expression is typically used.

In everyday life, one might err on the side of caution by:

• Leaving for the airport an extra 30 minutes early 
• Carrying an umbrella when there’s a 25% chance of rain
• Opting for a less-challenging ski slope
• Going back into the house to make sure the iron is unplugged
• Getting a second medical opinion 

Generally speaking, “erring on the side of caution” in everyday life means lowering risk with a precaution that has a negligible cost.

When mandate proponents portrayed their edicts as “erring on the side of caution,” it had the effect of tacitly assuring the public—and themselves—that there’d be little or no harm associated with extreme measures like: 

• Shutting down businesses for months at a time
• Knowingly forcing millions of people into unemployment
• Halting in-person attendance at schools and colleges 
• Ordering people of all ages and risk profiles to wear masks 
• Denying people opportunities to socialize, recreate and enjoy living

That implicit low-downside assurance not only fostered unthinking support for draconian measures among citizens and experts alike, it also cultivated an atmosphere of intolerance toward those who questioned the wisdom of these interventions and predicted the great many harms that have resulted.

“Overconfident, unnuanced messaging conditioned us to assume that all dissenting opinions are misinformation rather than reflections of good faith disagreement or differing priorities,” write Rutgers professors Jacob Hale Russell and Dennis Patterson in their essay, The Mask Debacle. “In doing so, elites drove out scientific research that might have separated valuable interventions from the less valuable.”

Of course, in addition to its implicit assurance that a risk-reduction measure comes at little cost, “erring on the side of caution” conveys an assumption that the precaution will actually be effective. 

That hasn’t been the case with Covid mandates. Though many continue embracing the illusion of government control over Covid, the contrary studies and real-world observations are stacking far too high to be denied any longer by the intellectually honest among us. 

Public Health Threw Out the Playbook and Threw Pandora’s Box Wide Open 

The masses who’ve chanted “I trust science,” as they praise each government intervention and idolize those who impose them, are likely unaware that, before Covid-19, the well-considered scientific consensus was against lockdowns, broad quarantines and masking outside of hospital settings—particular for a virus like Covid-19 that has a 99% survival rate for most age groups. 

For example, a 2006 paper published by the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center—focusing on mitigation measures against another contagious respiratory illness, pandemic influenza—reads like a warning label against many of the policies inflicted on humanity in the face of Covid-19: 

• “There is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences…are likely to be considerable.”
• “Widespread closures [of schools, restaurants, churches, recreations centers, etc] would almost certainly have serious adverse social and economic effects.”
• “The ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus…There are few data available to support the efficacy of N95 or surgical masks outside a healthcare setting. N95 masks need to be fit-tested to be efficacious.”

The point of that and other pre-2020 research into pandemic mitigation was to be prepared, in times of crisis, with policies that reflected a well-reasoned and dispassionate weighing of costs and benefits. 

However, when the pandemic arrived, panicking public health officials and academics threw out the playbook and took their policy inspiration from the government that was first to confront the virus. Sadly for the world, that was communist China.

The breadth of the resulting harms from the ensuing plunge into public health authoritarianism is staggering. Far from erring on the side of caution…

Public health erred on the side of a mental health crisis. Anxiety and depression have surged, particularly among adolescents and young adults, where symptoms have doubled during the pandemic. 

“I have never been as busy in my life and I’ve never seen my colleagues as busy,” New York psychiatrist Valentine Raiteri told CNBC. “I can’t refer people to other people because everybody is full.”

Public health erred on the side of juvenile suicide attempts. In the summer of 2020, emergency room visits for potential suicides by children leapt over 22% compared to the summer of 2019. 

Public health erred on the side of drug overdoses. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, overdose deaths surged 30% in 2020 to a record-high of more than 93,000. Among the factors cited: social isolation, people using drugs alone, and decreased access to treatment.

Public health erred on the side of auto fatalities. Traffic deaths had been on a general downtrend since the 60s, reaching a near-record low in 2019. However, even with shutdown-lightened traffic, deaths jumped 17.5% in the summer of 2020 compared to 2019, and kept rising into 2021. 

Blame increased drug and alcohol use, along with psychological fallout from people being denied life’s fundamental pleasures. University of Texas cognitive scientist Art Markman told The New York Times that anger and aggression behind the wheel in part reflects “two years of having to stop ourselves from doing things that we’d like to do.”

Public health erred on the side of domestic violence. A review of 32 studies found an increase in domestic violence around the world, with the increases most intense during the first week of lockdowns. “The home confinement led to constant contact between perpetrators and victims, resulting in increased violence and decreased reports,” the researchers found. 

Public health erred on the side of riots, arson and looting. It’s my own conviction that 2020’s eruption of summer violence following a Minneapolis police officer’s callous homicide of George Floyd was greatly magnified by the period of forced mass confinement that preceded it. 

Floyd’s death was a match dropped into a tinderbox of humanity confined to veritable house arrest. People blocked from restaurants and bars were suddenly granted a societal waiver to venture out into enormous crowds, where they found excitement, socialization and, far too often, a senselessly destructive means of venting months of pent-up energy, anxiety and frustration. It stands as the costliest civil unrest episode in American history. 

Public health erred on the side of confining people where the virus is transmitted most. Lockdowns ordered people away from workplaces, schools, restaurants and bars and into their homes, where New York contract tracers found 74% of Covid spread was happening, compared to just 1.4% in bars and restaurants and even less in schools and workplaces. 

Public health erred on the side of obesity. According to the CDC, “the risk of severe COVID-19 illness increases sharply with higher BMI [Body Mass Index].” So what happens when public health “experts” shut down schools, workplaces and recreation options and told people to stay home to stay “safe”?

The CDC found that, in 2020, the rate by which BMI increased among 2- to 19-year olds doubled. Another study found that 48% of adults gained weight during the pandemic, with those who were already overweight most likely to add even more. Among other factors, the study pointed to psychological distress and having schoolchildren at home. 

Public health erred against fresh air, exercise and Vitamin D. Governments raced to shut down playgrounds, basketball courts and other outdoor recreation facilities. In a move that’s profoundly emblematic of heavy-handed, counterproductive authoritarianism in the age of Covid, the city of San Clemente, California filled a skate park with 37 tons of sand.

Public health erred on the side of impaired child development. “We find that children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic,” say the authors of a study from Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland (PERUKI). 

“Results highlight that even in the absence of direct SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 illness, the environmental changes associated [with the] COVID-19 pandemic [are] significantly and negatively affecting infant and child development.”

Public health erred on the side of learning loss. Children are less vulnerable to Covid-19 than they are to the flu, and rarely transmit it to teachers. Unfortunately, American public health officials and teacher unions prevailed in halting in-person instruction (and socialization) in favor of “remote learning.” 

It was a poor substitute that fell hardest on the youngest learners. For example, according to curriculum and assessment provider Amplify, the percentage of first-graders scoring at or above the goals for their grade in mid-school-year dropped from 58% before the pandemic to just 44% this year. 

Public health erred on the side of pointlessly masking schoolchildren. When schools did open, mask mandates abounded—despite children’s relative invulnerability to the virus and the documented rarity of in-school transmission. A Spanish study showed no discernible difference in transmission among 5-year-olds—who aren’t required to mask—and 6 year olds, who are. 

“Masking is a psychological stressor for children and disrupts learning. Covering the lower half of the face of both teacher and pupil reduces the ability to communicate,” wrote Neeraj Sood, director of the Covid Initiative at USC, and Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford. “Positive emotions such as laughing and smiling become less recognizable, and negative emotions get amplified. Bonding between teachers and students takes a hit.”

“Most of the masks worn by most kids for most of the pandemic have likely done nothing to change the velocity or trajectory of the virus,” writes University of California associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics Vinay Prasad. “The loss to children remains difficult to capture in hard data, but will likely become clear in the years to come.”

Public health erred on the side of giving masked people a false sense of security. As I wrote in August, “Covid-19 particles are astoundingly small. Hard as it is to imagine, the imperceptible gaps in surgical masks can be 1,000 times the size of a viral particle. Gaps in cloth masks are well larger.” That’s to say nothing of the respirated air that simply goes around the mask’s edges. 

Earlier in the pandemic, questioning cloth masks triggered outrage and swift social media censorship. Now, even mandate-happy CNN medical analyst Leanna Wen has declared they’re “little more than facial decorations.” Mask skepticism is sprouting elsewhere in mainstream media; the Washington Post and Bloomberg even published an essay titled “Mask Mandates Didn’t Make Much of a Difference Anyway.” 

When public health officials exaggerated the power of masks, they did more than promote pointless discomfort and a dystopian way of life. “Naively fooled to think that masks would protect them, some older high-risk people did not socially distance properly, and some died from Covid-19 because of it,” said epidemiologist, biostatistician and former Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff. 

Public health erred on the side of killing small businesses. Thanks in large part to government’s targeting of so-called “non-essential businesses,” the first year of the pandemic brought an additional 200,000 business closures over prior levels. 

Public health erred on the side of harming women’s careers. Women comprise a greater proportion of the sectors hid hardest by lockdowns, and the closing of schools and child care centers prompted many more women than men to put their careers on hold. 

Public health erred on the side of inflation. To offset the massive economic destruction inflicted by public health shutdowns, the federal government plunged into an astounding spending spree, handing out cash to individuals, businesses and city and state governments. 

It was money the government didn’t have, so the Federal Reserve essentially created it out of thin air. Pushing all that new fiat money into circulation debases the currency, fueling today’s surging price inflation—which is a stealth tax with no maximum rate, which hits poor people hardest. 

Note: Lockdowns and other mandates weren’t the exclusive driver of many of the various harms I’ve described; general fear of the virus also contributed to some of them. However, it should also be noted that public health officials—and media that overwhelmingly emphasized negative stories—whipped up a level of fear that led people to overstate the level of danger actually posed by the virus.

There’s one more way in which characterizing lockdowns and other mandates as “erring on the side of caution” plays a psychological trick: Since the phrase is embedded with the notion of good intentions, it conditions citizens to be forgiving of the bureaucrats and politicians who imposed them.

Note, however, that in most everyday usage of “erring on the side of caution,” the choice to “err” is made voluntarily by individuals who bear the consequences of their own decisions—or by others, like an airplane pilot or a surgeon, to whom we’ve voluntarily and unmistakably granted control of our well-being. 

The grim impacts of lockdowns and other mandates, however, were coercively imposed on society, to say nothing of the fact that so many of the edicts represented gross usurpations of power and violations of human rights. 

On top of all that, the edicts were reinforced by Orwellian censorship and ostracism leveled at those who dared raise questions that have now proven valid. 

Overreaching public health officials and politicians—and the journalists-in-name-only who served as their mindless, unquestioning megaphones—have fully earned our withering condemnation. Indeed, holding them accountable is essential to sparing ourselves and future generations from repeating this dystopian chapter of human history. (read more)

The Nudge: Ethically Dubious and Ineffective

More and more people in the US will be wising up to their government’s use of behavioural science – or ‘nudging’ – as a means of increasing compliance with Covid-19 restrictions. These psychological techniques exploit the fact that human beings are almost always on ‘automatic pilot,’ habitually making moment-by-moment decisions without rational thought or conscious reflection. 

The use of behavioural science in this way represents a radical departure from the traditional methods – legislation, information provision, rational argument – used by governments to influence the behaviour of their citizens. But why expend all that time and energy when, by contrast, many of the ‘nudges’ delivered are – to various degrees – acting upon the public automatically, below the level of conscious thought and reason? 

By going with the grain of how we think and act, the state-employed ‘nudgers’ can covertly shape our behaviour in a direction deemed desirable by the regime of the day – an appealing prospect for any government. The ubiquitous deployment of these behavioural strategies – which frequently rely on inflating emotional distress to change behaviour – raises profound moral questions.

The UK has been an innovator in these methods, but they are now raising widespread disquiet here. In fact serious concerns about our Government’s use of behavioural science were previously raised in relation to other spheres of government activity. In 2019, a Parliamentary report found that the distress evoked in people targeted by behavioural insights in relation to tax collection may, in some instances, have led to victims taking their own lives. 

In the Covid-19 era, it appears the behavioural scientists have been given free reign. As a retired consultant clinical psychologist, I – and 39 professionals from the psychology/therapy/mental health sphere – have become so concerned we are calling on the UK Parliament to formally investigate the government’s use of behavioural science. People across the world can glean from the UK experience what may also have been done to them, and what may be next.

The Behavioural Insights Team

The appetite for using covert psychological strategies as a means of changing people’s behaviour was boosted by the emergence of the ‘Behavioural Insights Team’ (BIT) in 2010 as ‘the world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy.’ The membership of BIT rapidly expanded from a seven-person unit embedded in the UK Government to a ‘social purpose company’ operating in many countries across the world. A comprehensive account of the psychological techniques recommended by the BIT is provided in the document, MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy, where the authors claim that their strategies can achieve ‘low cost, low pain ways of nudging citizens … into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act.’ 

Since its inception in 2010, the BIT has been led by Professor David Halpern who is currently the team’s chief executive. Professor Halpern and two other members of the BIT also currently sit on the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B), which advises the Government on its Covid-19 communications strategy. Most of the other members of the SPI-B are prominent UK psychologists who have expertise in the deployment of behavioural-science ‘nudge’ techniques.

‘Nudges’ of concern: fear inflation, shaming, peer pressure

The BIT and the SPI-B have encouraged the deployment of many techniques from behavioural science within the UK Government’s Covid-19 communications. However, there are three ‘nudges’ which have evoked most alarm: the exploitation of fear (inflating perceived threat levels), shame (conflating compliance with virtue) and peer pressure (portraying non-compliers as a deviant minority) – or “affect,” “ego” and “norms,” to use the language of the MINDSPACE document.

Affect and Fear

Aware that a frightened population is a compliant one, a strategic decision was made to inflate the fear levels of all the UK people. The minutes of the SPI-B meeting dated the 22nd of March 2020 stated, ‘The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent’ by ‘using hard-hitting emotional messaging.’ Subsequently, in tandem with the UK’s subservient mainstream media, the collective efforts of the BIT and the SPI-B have inflicted a prolonged and concerted scare campaign upon the UK public. The methods used have included: 

– Daily statistics displayed without context: the macabre mono focus on showing the number of Covid-19 deaths without mention of mortality from other causes or the fact that, under normal circumstances, around 1,600 people die each day in the UK.

– Recurrent footage of dying patients: images of the acutely unwell in Intensive Care Units.

– Scary slogans: for example, ‘IF YOU GO OUT YOU CAN SPREAD IT, PEOPLE WILL DIE,’ typically accompanied by frightening images of emergency personnel in masks and visors.

Ego and Shame

We all strive to maintain a positive view of ourselves. Utilising this human tendency, behavioural scientists have recommended messaging that equates virtue with adherence to the Covid-19 restrictions and subsequent vaccination campaign. Consequently, following the rules preserves the integrity of our egos while any deviation evokes shame. Examples of these nudges in action include: 

– Slogans that shame the non-compliant: for example, ‘STAY HOME, PROTECT THE NHS, SAVE LIVES.’

– TV advertisements: actors tell us, ‘I wear a face covering to protect my mates’ and ‘I make space to protect you.’

– Clap for Careers: the pre-orchestrated weekly ritual, purportedly to show appreciation for NHS staff.

– Ministers telling students not to ‘kill your gran.’

– Shame-evoking adverts: close-up images of acutely unwell hospital patients with the voice-over, ‘Can you look them in the eyes and tell them you’re doing all you can to stop the spread of coronavirus?’

Norms and Peer Pressure

Awareness of the prevalent views and behaviour of our fellow citizens can pressurise us to conform, and knowledge of being in a deviant minority is a source of discomfort. The UK Government repeatedly encouraged peer pressure throughout the Covid-19 crisis to gain the public’s compliance with their escalating restrictions, an approach that – at higher levels of intensity – can morph into scapegoating. 

The most straightforward example is how, during interviews with the media, Government ministers often resorted to telling us that the vast majority of people were ‘obeying the rules’ or that almost all of us were conforming. 

However, in order to enhance and sustain normative pressure, people need to be able to instantly distinguish the rule breakers from the rule followers; the visibility of face coverings provides this immediate differentiation. The switch to the mandating of masks in community settings in summer 2020, without the emergence of new and robust evidence that they reduce viral transmission, strongly suggests that the mask requirement was introduced primarily as a compliance device to harness normative pressure.  

Ethical questions

Compared to a government’s typical tools of persuasion, the covert psychological strategies outlined above differ in both their nature and subconscious mode of action. Consequently, there are three main areas of ethical concern associated with their use: problems with the methods per se; problems with the lack of consent; and problems with the goals to which they are applied.

First, it is highly questionable whether a civilised society should knowingly increase the emotional discomfort of its citizens as a means of gaining their compliance. Government scientists deploying fear, shame, and scapegoating to change minds is an ethically dubious practice that in some respects resembles the tactics used by totalitarian regimes such as China, where the state inflicts pain on a subset of its population in an attempt to eliminate beliefs and behavior they perceive to be deviant.

Another ethical issue associated with these covert psychological techniques relates to their unintended consequences. Shaming and scapegoating have emboldened some people to harass those unable or unwilling to wear a face covering. More disturbingly, the inflated fear levels will have significantly contributed to the many thousands of excess non-Covid deaths that have occurred in people’s homes, the strategically-increased anxieties discouraging many from seeking help for other illnesses. 

Furthermore, a lot of older people, rendered housebound by fear, may have died prematurely from loneliness. Those already suffering with obsessive-compulsive problems about contamination, and patients with severe health anxieties, will have had their anguish exacerbated by the campaign of fear. Even now, after all the vulnerable groups in the UK have been offered vaccination, many of our citizens remain tormented by ‘COVID-19 Anxiety Syndrome’), characterised by a disabling combination of fear and maladaptive coping strategies.    

Second, a recipient’s consent prior to the delivery of a medical or psychological intervention is a fundamental requirement of a civilised society. Professor David Halpern explicitly recognised the significant ethical dilemmas arising from the use of influencing strategies that impact subconsciously on the country’s citizens. The MINDSPACE document – of which Professor Halpern is a co-author – states that, ‘Policymakers wishing to use these tools … need the approval of the public to do so’ (p74).

More recently, in Professor Halpern’s book, Inside the Nudge Unit, he is even more emphatic about the importance of consent: ‘If Governments … wish to use behavioural insights, they must seek and maintain the permission of the public. Ultimately, you – the public, the citizen – need to decide what the objectives, and limits, of nudging and empirical testing should be’ (p375). 

As far as we are aware, no attempt has ever been made to obtain the UK public’s permission to use covert psychological strategies.

Third, the perceived legitimacy of using subconscious ‘nudges’ to influence people may also depend upon the behavioural goals that are being pursued. It may be that a higher proportion of the general public would be comfortable with the government resorting to subconscious nudges to reduce violent crime as compared to the purpose of imposing unprecedented and non-evidenced public-health restrictions. Would UK citizens have agreed to the furtive deployment of fear, shame and peer pressure as a way of levering compliance with lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccination? Maybe they should be asked before the government considers any future imposition of these techniques.

A truly independent and comprehensive evaluation of the ethics of deploying psychological ‘nudges’ – during public health campaigns and in other areas of government – is now urgently required, not only in Britain, but in all countries where these interventions have been used. (read more)

US/NATO is in the Grip of a Daemonic Death-Wish & the Entire World is Threatened

Not wanting to sound hyperbolic, but I am starting to conclude that the nuclear madmen running the U.S./NATO New Cold War they started decades ago are itching to start a nuclear war with Russia.

Their hypocrisy and nihilistic thirst for death and destruction are so extreme that it boggles my mind.  They accuse Russia of starting a New Cold War when they did so decades ago and have been pushing the envelope ever since.  Now they act shocked that Russia, after many years of patience, has struck back in Ukraine.

In 2017, Oliver Stone released his four-part interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin.  The Putin Interviews were conducted between 2015, the year after the US engineered the coup d’état in Ukraine installing Nazis to power in that country bordering Russia, and 2017.

Stone was of course bashed for daring to respectfully ask questions and receive answers from the Russian leader who the American media has always cast, like all the mythic bogeymen, as the new Hitler intent on conquering the world, when it is the United States, not Russia, that has over 750 military bases throughout the world and has attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria – the list is endless.

In his Putin interviews, Oliver Stone, a man of truth and honor, lets viewers catch a glimpse of the real Vladimir Putin and the matters that concern him as the leader of Russia.  In 2018, I wrote of those interviews:

In the years since those interviews, U.S./NATO has consistently tightened the noose around Russia, including fueling the Ukrainian attacks on the Donbass, killing thousands, all the while pleading innocent and expecting no reply. Now the reply has come.

Although I have no inside information, I get the sense that the Western Empire is planning/initiating counter-measures far more extreme than the highly publicized economic sanctions.

While it is true, as many commentators such as Ray McGovern and Pepe Escobar have pointed out, that a paradigm shift is underway and the once dominant US/NATO bully boys must now contend with the Sino-Russian alliance that has ushered in a dramatic change, nevertheless, as in the past decades, the so-called leaders of the US are a dumb bunch driven by unquenchable demons.

As McGovern says:

Yet, there remain unsettling indications coming from Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, Antony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan that senior administration ‘dolts’ (copyright North Korean leader Kim Jong Un) in the Washington Swamp still don’t get it.

I’m afraid they don’t and never will.  That is what frightens me.  While it seems counterintuitive and totally irrational that these people would be planning to use some type of nuclear weapon in this current situation, I am not so sure.

They obviously pushed Russia to have no alternative but to attack Ukraine, and now that they have accomplished that goal, it seems to me that they will up the ante. Diplomacy is not their way; violence is.

Pepe Escobar has just written:

This is what happens when a bunch of ragged hyenas, jackals and tiny rodents poke The Bear: a new geopolitical order is born at breathtaking speed.

From a dramatic meeting of the Russian Security Council to a UN history lesson delivered by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the subsequent birth of the Baby Twins – the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk – all the way to the breakaway republics’ appeal to Putin to intervene militarily to expel the NATO-backed Ukrainian bombing-and-shelling forces from Donbass, it was a seamless process, executed at warp speed.

The (nuclear) straw that (nearly) broke the Bear’s back – and forced it to pounce – was Comedian/Ukrainian President Volodymy Zelensky, back from the Russophobia-drenched Munich Security Conference where he was hailed like a Messiah, saying that the 1994 Budapest memorandum should be revised and Ukraine should be nuclear-rearmed.

As usual, his analysis is correct, but it may fail to grasp the unspeakable nature of the madness that drives desperadoes.

If those running US foreign policy feel that a new geo-political order is being born “at breathtaking speed” as a result of Russia’s move into Ukraine, then they are capable of extreme acts. And they have all the mainstream western media behind them, barking out their non-stop propaganda.

We are inexorably moving toward a global war that will become nuclear if an international movement doesn’t quickly arise to stop it.  Most people bemoan the thought of such a war to end all wars, but refuse to analyze the factors leading to it.

It seems so unimaginable, but It happens step-by-step, and many steps have already been taken with more coming soon.  It’s so obvious that most can’t see it, or don’t want to.

The corporate mainstream media are clearly part of the continuation of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, and those who still rely on t/hem for the truth are beyond reach.  We need to use all alternative means to raise the alarm and make sure the ultimate nightmare /never occurs.

Perhaps hyperbole is the only way to do so, for it may be closer to the truth than we want to believe. (read more)

Sunday Talks, Psaki Gives Away the Ukraine Game – Russia Is Needed As Fall Guy for Biden Energy Policy and Economic Damage

During an ABC interview today, White House Spokesperson Jennifer Psaki gave away the game for the Biden Administration’s intent on exploiting the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

Keep in mind, as the Biden team were getting pummeled for negative economic outcomes, massive inflation, skyrocketing energy costs and gas prices set to double, the White House worked to create an urgent defense by manufacturing the crisis.

While Joe Biden ate his pudding, the people behind the scenes told Zelenskyy and Putin that Ukraine was about to enter NATO {December 2021}.  The White House then seeded details through China knowing the intel would get back to Putin.  Russia took the bait and intervened.

The collective left (far more western leader beneficiaries on a global scale) now have a quick and strategic pivot point to go from COVID-19 as the excuse for all the economic ills, to Russia.   The Russia-Ukraine crisis transfers the cost of the Build Back Better climate change agenda from COVID-19 to Russia/Ukraine.  We can now watch COVID just disappear.

The BBB agenda, domestically known as the Green New Deal, intentionally makes energy costs skyrocket.  By creating the Ukraine crisis, gas prices specifically are no longer blamed on COVID-19 (the original fraudulent justification).  Gas prices are now rising because of Russia and the villainous Vladimir Putin.  Climate change policy outcomes are made palatable by blaming Putin.  Cue Jen Psaki, (Prompted)

(read more)

Biden’s CIA Director Doesn’t Believe Biden’s Story about Ukraine

If you’ve followed the diplomacy over Ukraine closely, you may have noticed that the Biden administration has relied heavily on CIA Director William J. (Bill) Burns. In November it dispatched him to Moscow where, according to CNN, he served as a “key intermediary” between the US and Vladimir Putin. In January he flew to Germany to discuss Ukraine with the new government in Berlin. This all makes sense. Burns is the Biden administration’s highest-ranking Russia expert. He’s a fluent Russian speaker who has served twice in the US embassy in Moscow, the second time as ambassador. Which makes it all the more striking that Burns, in his memoir, flatly contradicts the Biden administration’s narrative about how this crisis came to be. Remarkably, one of the most trenchant critics of official US discourse on Russia and Ukraine is the sitting director of the CIA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But first a word about next week’s Zoom call. We’ve delayed Ahmad Khalidi’s session on the history of Palestinian nationalism until later in the month so we can discuss something more timely: The report that Amnesty International released last week entitled, “Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians.” What is “apartheid” and how does it apply—or not apply—to Israeli control over Palestinians? I have my own thoughts, but I’ll put them aside on Friday to moderate a conversation between two smart people with very different views on the subject. Philip Luther is Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa Research and Advocacy Director. He was intimately involved in drafting the report. Michael Koplow is the chief policy officer of Israel Policy Forum. He critiqued the report after it came out. I’m thrilled they’ll both join us. I hope you will too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Bill Burns. To hear the Biden administration tell it, the Ukraine crisis is the product of one man: Vladimir Putin. Putin fears that if Ukraine joins NATO and becomes a pro-Western democracy, Russians will want the same for themselves and thus rise up against his tyrannical rule. The idea that Russians genuinely think NATO poses a security threat is transparent bunk.

The Biden narrative isn’t entirely false. Putin surely does fear that a democratic, pro-Western Ukraine could inspire popular uprisings in his country. But it is partially false because it suggests that were Putin not in power, Russia’s government would have no problem with Ukraine joining NATO. And it implies that the US bears no responsibility for the current standoff. According to Bill Burns, Biden’s own CIA Director, neither of those claims are true.

Two years ago, Burns wrote a memoir entitled, The Back Channel. It directly contradicts the argument being proffered by the administration he now serves. In his book, Burns says over and over that Russians of all ideological stripes—not just Putin—loathed and feared NATO expansion. He quotes a memo he wrote while serving as counselor for political affairs at the US embassy in Moscow in 1995. ‘Hostility to early NATO expansion,” it declares, “is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.” On the question of extending NATO membership to Ukraine, Burns’ warnings about the breadth of Russian opposition are even more emphatic. “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” he wrote in a 2008 memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

While the Biden administration claims that Putin bears all the blame for the current Ukraine crisis, Burns makes clear that the US helped lay its foundations. By taking advantage of Russian weakness, he argues, Washington fueled the nationalist resentment that Putin exploits today. Burns calls the Clinton administration’s decision to expand NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic “premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst.” And he describes the appetite for revenge it fostered among many in Moscow during Boris Yeltsin’s final years as Russia’s president. “As Russians stewed in their grievance and sense of disadvantage,” Burns writes, “a gathering storm of ‘stab in the back’ theories slowly swirled, leaving a mark on Russia’s relations with the West that would linger for decades.”

As the Bush administration moved toward opening NATO’s doors to Ukraine, Burns’ warnings about a Russian backlash grew even starker. He told Rice it was “hard to overstate the strategic consequences” of offering NATO membership to Ukraine and predicted that “it will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” Although Burns couldn’t have predicted the specific kind of meddling Putin would employ—either in 2014 when he seized Crimea and fomented a rebellion in Ukraine’s east or today—he warned that the US was helping set in motion the kind of crisis that America faces today. Promise Ukraine membership in NATO, he wrote, and “There could be no doubt that Putin would fight back hard.”

Were a reporter to read Burns’ quotes to White House press secretary Jen Psaki today, she’d likely accuse them of “parroting Russian talking points.” But Burns is hardly alone. From inside the US government, many officials warned that US policy toward Russia might bring disaster. William Perry, Bill Clinton’s Defense Secretary from 1994 to 1997, almost resigned because of his opposition to NATO expansion. He has since declared that because of its policies in the 1990s, “the United States deserves much of the blame” for the deterioration in relations with Moscow. Steven Pifer, who from 1998 to 2000 served as US ambassador to Ukraine, has called Bush’s 2008 decision to declare that Ukraine would eventually join NATO “a real mistake.” Fiona Hill, who gained fame during the Trump impeachment saga, says that as national intelligence officers for Russia and Eurasia she and her colleagues “warned” Bush that “Putin would view steps to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO as a provocative move that would likely provoke pre-emptive Russian military action.”

Burns’ criticisms of past US policy toward Russia and Ukraine don’t mean he opposes Biden’s policy today. He may believe that while pushing NATO expansion helped bring about the current standoff, it would be a mistake to pull back from it now—at the point of a Russian gun. Until his next memoir, we’ll likely never know. But Burns’ criticisms are crucial nonetheless because they expose a fallacy in the current debate. Hawks say that if you criticize US policy toward Russia you’re whitewashing Putin’s aggression. What Burns shows is that it’s possible to recognize Putin’s malevolence while also recognizing that the US, by repeatedly humiliating Russia when it was weak, made it more likely that a figure like him would arise and seek to settle old scores. The US has a habit of this: By abandoning the Iran deal, for instance, and discrediting the Iranian moderates who negotiated it, the US helped ensure the election of Ebrahim Raisi, a brutal hardliner. Obviously, America’s power over what happens in other nations is limited. But the message of Biden’s CIA Director is that we haven’t wielded it as wisely as we could. (read more)

Former Russian Ambassador and Current CIA Director, Bill Burns, Knew Exactly What Would Trigger Vladimir Putin to Enter Ukraine

Current CIA Director William “Bill” Burns was the former ambassador to Russia and Jordan.  Bill Burns had a 33-year career at the State Department under both Republican and Democratic presidents and speaks fluent Russian. If the people in the background of Joe Biden wanted an intelligence operative to trigger a specific result from Russia, there’s no one more strategically perfect for the job than CIA Director Bill Burns.

The article by Beinart is mainly focused on pointing out the irreconcilable nature of Joe Biden implying Ukraine could join NATO, while his own CIA Director has a history of giving serious warnings emphasizing the “brightest of all red lines” about that specific point.

[…]  “Two years ago, Burns wrote a memoir entitled, The Back Channel. It directly contradicts the argument being proffered by the administration he now serves. In his book, Burns says over and over that Russians of all ideological stripes—not just Putin—loathed and feared NATO expansion. He quotes a memo he wrote while serving as counselor for political affairs at the US embassy in Moscow in 1995. ‘Hostility to early NATO expansion,” it declares, “is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.”

On the question of extending NATO membership to Ukraine, Burns’ warnings about the breadth of Russian opposition are even more emphatic. “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” he wrote in a 2008 memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” (read more)

Against this backdrop of Bill Burns, the details about the lead up to the Russia-Ukraine crisis gain quite a bit of clarity.

The CIA Director is crystal clear that Russia would be seriously triggered about any prospect of Ukraine entering NATO.

Yet, in December of 2021, the exact same time when U.S. backchannel intelligence was being shared with China about Russian troop movements on the border with Ukraine, Joe Biden was telling Ukraine that membership in NATO was in their hands.

“U.S. President Joe Biden assured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that Kyiv’s bid to join the NATO military alliance was in its own hands, Zelenskiy’s chief of staff said after the two leaders spoke on Thursday. (link)

Joe Biden was publicly saying something his CIA Director knew to a certainty would trigger Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This is not a mistake.

This is not a strategic blunder or internal messaging error.

This level of provocation now seems completely purposeful.

As noted by ABC during the announcement of Bill Burns as a nominee for CIA Director:

Burns called intelligence the first line of defense for the country and the basis for making sound policy decisions. He also said he would deliver the intelligence to Biden and policymakers “without a hint of partisanship.”

Burns is perhaps an unconventional choice for the CIA job that many thought would go to a career intelligence officer.

However, he is also deeply experienced in the kind of cloak-and-dagger secret contacts that is a hallmark of the agency and won plaudits for his analysis and reporting abilities while he served as an American diplomat overseas. Burns was the author of some of the most insightful State Department cables that were published by Wikileaks in 2010 and is widely respected throughout the national security community. (read more)

If the U.S. was simultaneously influencing Ukraine military to keep targeting the breakaway regions in Eastern Ukraine, well, put it all together and a picture emerges of the people in/around the White House setting up a scenario for months that led up to Russia finally taking the bait and going into Ukraine.

The New York Times expose’ of U.S. intelligence contacting China should be reviewed from the perspective that U.S. intelligence and State Dept operatives were planting information into China – knowing it would be shared with Russia.  The U.S. intelligence apparatus, with CIA Director Bill Burns in place, was seeding information into Russia via China for three months prior to the triggering point.  Bill Burns would know exactly what type of intelligence would be needed to create maximum anxiety for Vladimir Putin.

WHY?

The Biden team was getting pummeled for negative economic outcomes, massive inflation, skyrocketing energy costs and gas prices set to double.  Support for the administration was/is collapsing as the policy outcomes of the administration were felt.

Within the book of instructions for the ideological crew, the Alinsky people behind Biden, there are chapters on how to create off-ramps to cloud their agenda.

If they need a bigger cloud, they create a crisis. The crisis then becomes the cover, the justification to explain the outcomes of their agenda.

As we have witnessed, the White House is shifting blame for the collapsing economy, surging oil prices, massive gas price increases and overall U.S. inflation.

The manufactured crisis in Ukraine then takes on a geopolitical angle and a domestic angle.  The rate of inflation, rising oil and gas prices, are now being blamed on Russia-Ukraine.

It is not coincidental that ABC (think George Stephanopolous) took the lead in helping to push this narrative as a cover story for the problems in the economy that are specifically driven by U.S. energy policy (chasing Green New Deal objectives), environmental policy, regulatory policy and massive spending.

The politics of policy are to blame for inflation, so it is the deployment of politics again used to create the cover.  WATCH

The manufactured Russia-Ukraine crisis now becomes the cover story for why the U.S. economy is collapsing.  The pain being felt by middle class, blue-collar workers is now shifted to be an outcome of geopolitical events that are Vladimir Putin’s fault. It’s always someone else’s fault.

Do not underestimate how many people in the U.S. will buy into this nonsense, and keep in mind the Republican wing of the UniParty has a vested interest in allowing the narrative to embed in the psyche of voters.  Both wings of the DC vulture will help promote this fraud, just as both wings of the DC uniparty sold out our Main Street economy on behalf of their multinational benefactors.

The ruse of the European crisis around Russia-Ukraine also helps the manipulative ideologues in the World Economic Forum (WEF), World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and central banking system create a deflection of the bigger economic crisis created by their COVID agenda and the Great Reset.

The influence agents and multinationals, those who direct the politicians on what policies to execute on a domestic and geopolitical scale, benefit from these obfuscations and false narratives.

The amount of money the multinationals have taken from the economy into their centralized (and sometimes personal) control is obscured by the deployment of these distractions.

Q    What should Americans be braced for?  What could they possibly be facing?  The President has already said Americans will be facing some economic fallout or some hardships.  Can you explain to Americans what exactly will they face if this happened?

KAMALA HARRIS: Sure.  As the President talked about in his speech, we are aware that, again, when America stands for her principles and all of the things that we hold dear, it requires sometimes for us to put ourselves out there in a way that maybe we will incur some cost.  And in this situation, that may relate to energy costs, for example.  But we are taking very specific and appropriate, I believe, steps to mitigate what that cost might be if it happens. (LINK)

The economic consequences from climate change policy were always considered the biggest hurdle by the Davos elite.

The economic and financial pain that would be felt by the working class folks, would need to be managed.  This is the reason why false justifications for economic pain are collectively pushed by media.  The media do not need to be told what to do, they already know the larger goal is pretending not to know things.

As a result, the domestic political elites are managing the pitchforks by distracting voters about the cause.  If you do not buy into their obtuse justifications, well, you then become a target – ergo, a conspiracy theorist.

Climate change policy is a tool – a means to an end.

COVID-19 policy is a tool – a means to an end.

Behind all the layers of obfuscation, you find all the individual roadmaps converge onto a single path that leads to centralized control.

…. Because they wanted it to happen.

(read more)

I could write the State of the Union speech for the Senile Demented Vegetable. It would be the shortest in American history. “The State of the Union is shit and you, (the American people) are absolutely screwed beyond belief.”

— James, February 28, 2022 1:30 am