The curious case of the United States
A government that has, since its inception, engaged in despotism domestically and abroad, cannot completely extinguish the flame of liberty amongst the domestic population.
To study the history of the United States is to wrap one’s mind around a relentless drumbeat of the most stupefying contradictions.
As one of the most glaring examples, the United States features one of the strongest checks on the unrestrained power of government in the federal Constitution.
And yet, in complete defiance of all logic, many of the framers of this constitution claimed it was justified to hold against their will hundreds of human beings, to be used and traded as commodities on the market no less than timber or tea.
James Madison, one of the staunchest advocates for a weak and restrained federal government, championed the inclusion of the ninth amendment in the bill of rights, which established that human beings have rights beyond what is listed in the first eight amendments, and that the government “shall not” abridge them.
And yet, barely a generation later, Madison was wielding that same government apparatus to all but conscript the civilian population for the purpose of staging a land invasion of Canada that was a disaster from its inception. When a New England mayor negotiated an end to the war, Madison, against the near total objection of the domestic population, charged the mayor with treason. A jury unanimously nullified Madison’s charge.
Some fifty years later, a man that ostensibly claimed to want to uphold the rule of law and the United States Constitution, ended up waging all-out war against both the eleven states who chose to lawfully secede from the union, and against the remaining twenty states, as well. Abraham Lincoln censored the northern press, implemented an incredibly severe draft, and directed his generals to commit war crimes in the Confederacy. Lincoln himself admitted that the preservation of the union was his foremost aim:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
I would be remiss not to mention one of the gravest crimes of both the United States federal government and of state governments, in conjunction: the near-decimation of the population indigenous to North America, with several estimates that tens to hundreds of millions of indigenous were slaughtered through a combination of war, famine and disease.
Suffice to say that there are many further examples of these glaring contradictions in United States history, but I would like to fast-forward to perhaps the most glaring contradiction of them all.
Over the past twenty years, the United States has boasted to the world that it is a bastion of freedom, and that the United States would like nothing more than to bring true peace to this world.
And yet, perhaps the foremost terrorist organization in the world in the nearly twenty years since the World Trade Center towers fell on 9/11/2001, under suspicious circumstances to say the least, has been the United States federal government, which has waged all-out war against both the domestic and foreign populations.
Internationally, the United States has punished sovereign governments that have attempted to liberate themselves from the yoke of the petro/nuclear-backed dollar, by committing some of the most heinous war crimes the world has ever seen. From commandeering the U.S. military to murder at least a million Iraqi civilians following an effort led by Suddam Hussein to ditch the dollar for the Euro, to brutally murdering the head of state of Libya following his promises to help create an African currency (with the U.S. Secretary of State openly cackling about it on national television), to playing a pivotal role in an effort led by Saudi Arabia to starve millions of Yemenis in order to advance Saudi Arabian interests in the region, the U.S. government has enforced an empire abroad, maintaining more than a thousand (known) military bases in dozens, if not hundreds of countries.
Domestically, Americans have seen their civil liberties implode in the span of a single generation. The corporate press has been commandeered to promote the most destructive policies to human health that one could possibly imagine; freedom of travel, assembly, speech, and religion are on life support; and, the sphere of public discourse has been drastically curtailed to the point where mammoth corporations in Silicon Valley have developed a near-total stranglehold on said discourse.
Indeed, it is rarely discussed how dramatically civilian life in the United States has been attacked in the past twenty years. The American population by and large, but most notably the younger generations, have become incredibly addicted to technology and social media, and these devices have a stranglehold on the American mind that cannot be overstated.
The American civil discourse has been strangled, warped and manipulated to the point that many Americans were convinced that Donald Trump presented a grave and immediate threat to the survival of the American Republic, while direct proof that the 2016 Democratic Primary was rigged from the very beginning to install Hillary Clinton, an incredibly dangerous warmonger, as the Democratic candidate and, indeed, as the President of the United States, was conveniently ignored.
Over the past four years, corporate media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times have shamelessly and breathlessly parroted the line that the U.S. President is a puppet of a foreign power. They have done so without presenting a shred of evidence to indicate that this is the case; indeed, many of Trump’s actions in the oval office have had gone against the interests of Russia, such as Trump’s efforts to block the implementation of a Russian pipeline in Europe.
This campaign by a significant arm of the mainstream corporate media to effectively overthrow a democratically elected President, has not been without consequences. A rather large percentage of the United States electorate has been convinced that the U.S. is under siege by Vladimir Putin, and that, as such, nearly any action to “remove hostile influence” and “restore democracy” is considered justified, including staging one of the most blatant election coups in recent American history.
It has been rather shocking, to say the least, to witness a significant portion of the American electorate be willing to actually champion and enforce perhaps the most draconian and illogical policies in American history. That the government could effectively convince millions of people that a policy of requiring the entire population to wear a mask whenever they’re outside, and that a nationwide house arrest policy is going to have a positive impact on health, is a testament to the effectiveness and sophistication of the national brainwashing apparatus.
Thankfully, an also-significant portion of the United States population is savvy to the many lies, deceits and distortions promoted by government. The first amendment has come under intense assault and curtailment, but the “powers that be” have not been nearly as successful in curtailing the U.S. second amendment - the right of the people to keep and bear arms, “being necessary for the security of a free State”.
It is the opinion of this author that this bulwark of the American domestic population, that is ready and willing to wage war against the government for its all-out assault on civil liberties and on life itself, has prevented the United States from falling into complete and total Orwellian despotism; that the very group that is condemned by Silicon Valley, the corporate media, and the modern American liberal, has in fact been the most staunch defender of the liberty of all.
In 1991, former United States naval intelligence officer William Cooper published a book called “Behold a Pale Horse”. In the book, Cooper detailed the coming effort of the U.S. government to disarm the American population:
“The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of military firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus enflame the antigun lobby. This plan is well underway, and so far is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the second amendment.”
It is little wonder that the United States government has worked so hard in this recent period to attempt to confiscate the guns of the American population. Recent world history is riddled with examples of despotic governments making gun confiscation their top priority. No less than Adolf Hitler stated as follows:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.”
In 1972, the first order of business for the newly despotic regime under Ferdinand Marcos was to confiscate weapons:
“"NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No.1081 dated September 21, 1972, do hereby order that henceforth and until otherwise ordered by me or by my duly designated representative, no person shall keep, possess or carry outside of his residence any firearm unless such person is duly authorized to keep, possess or carry any such firearm and any person violating this order shall forthwith be arrested and taken into custody and held for the duration of the emergency unless ordered released by me or by my duly designated representative."
Over the course of the past few decades, many “western” governments have engaged in similar campaigns to the one described by Cooper in the United States, and those projects have been much more successful. The government in Great Britain all but led the way in the western world in passing extremely restrictive gun control policies in the 1960’s. In 2002, Australia followed suit with its own massive gun confiscation push. In 2019, the New Zealand government passed its own regulations for mandatory gun registration; Prime Minister Jecinda Ardern stated that “[o]wning a firearm is a privilege not a right”.
Though the United States has certainly experienced a massive advancement into full-blown Orwellian despotism in the past year and some months, the policies promoted in the above countries have by and large been even more draconian than what has been experienced in America.
I’d like to examine the kinds of policies that each of these governments has implemented in the past fifteen months. Let’s start with a brief examination of the policies promoted in the United States.
First, it’s extremely important to note that, in spite of the non-stop, full-throated warnings of the Democratic party, corporate press and Silicon Valley that a hostile regime has taken over the oval office, hell-bent on destroying the American system, the United States was one of the few countries in the world not to implement a national lockdown. It’s also important to consider how a Hillary Clinton Presidency would have operated in the same set of circumstances. This author imagines that a radically different set of policies would have been promoted, out of which it is uncertain that the United States, or the world, could have survived.
Because the federal government did not impose a national lockdown, it was left to the states to determine a course of action. That same unholy trinity mentioned above promoted Andrew Cuomo as the “savior of the country” and the model of Democratic Governors, while the Governor of my state of Ohio, “Republican” Mike DeWine, was championed as the “national guide to the crisis”.
“When Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced a ban on spectators at the Arnold Classic, a juggernaut of a sports festival that brings tens of millions in revenue, the move seemed radical. It was March 3, and the state, after all, had not even had a single confirmed case of the novel coronavirus.
But within days, large-capacity events were being canceled nationwide.
A week later, DeWine recommended that his state’s colleges suspend in-person classes. Across the country, they soon did. He then closed Ohio’s public schools. Other states followed.
And on Sunday, DeWine ordered all restaurants and bars be shuttered. By Monday, they were turning out the lights in New York, New Jersey and Maryland, too.
As a global pandemic each day transforms the unthinkable into America’s new reality, the path is being guided by an unlikely leader: the short and bespectacled 73-year-old Republican governor of America’s seventh-most-populous state.
DeWine might have helped set the national agenda for responding to the coronavirus again Monday, announcing a lawsuit against his state to delay in-person voting in the primary that had been slated for Tuesday. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Richard A. Frye rejected DeWine’s lawsuit Monday night, throwing the primary into chaos. The plaintiffs planned to immediately appeal.
“We cannot conduct this election tomorrow,” DeWine declared at his regular afternoon news conference, which has become a must-watch event for residents across the state — and for anyone in the country who wants to know where the crisis is headed next.”
As is plainly seen, the Washington Post full-throatedly endorsed a Governor who has made a complete and total mockery of the state and federal constitutions, who was ready to scrap the electoral process, and, as of late August 2020, was ordering public colleges and universities to set aside space for “isolation facilities” for allegedly Covid-positive patients.
At the time DeWine implemented a statewide lockdown, there were 351 alleged cases, 83 alleged hospitalizations, and less than five alleged deaths, in a statewide population of over eleven million.
Not only has DeWine taken tens of thousands in donations from the pharmaceutical industry, he actually owns stock in Pfizer. It is little wonder that such a figure would take every action within, or much more frequently, beyond his authority, in order to effectively promote the highest vaccination rates that he possibly could.
While many Republican governors did impose draconian lockdown policies, it is clear to this author that the Democratic Party/Silicon Valley/corporate media alliance were the primary drivers of lockdown policies in the United States, as this conglomerate attempted to smear, defame, and attack any Governor that resisted the call to implement a lockdown policy.
Take, for instance, this article from Vox, published on April 12, 2020:
“States resisting stay-at-home orders are playing a dangerous game
They’re copying a strategy that’s failed over and over again.
Even as most of America shelters in place to halt the spread of the coronavirus, a handful of governors have resisted the trend and declined to issue stay-at-home orders or comparable sweeping measures.
Arkansas’s Asa Hutchinson, governor of one of the holdout states, appeared on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday morning and defended his approach as a form of watchful waiting.
“If we need to do more, we will do more,” he said. “So that’s always an option on the table if we have to shelter in place. But right now, what we’re doing proves to be successful, this targeted approach.”
The outbreak in his state is currently not bad, in other words, and if it gets bad he can always change his mind. This is true in a broad sense, and in fact his state has about 1,200 confirmed cases as of April 12. But given the virus’s exponential growth rate and potentially asymptomatic transmission, it’s a dangerous approach.
People in Arkansas could be infecting others now, and those infections — as well as spread resulting from those infections — wouldn’t be apparent for weeks. And as jurisdictions from Wuhan to Lombardy to New York have shown over and over again, bending the coronavirus curve is a relatively slow process. If you wait until the epidemic is already raging out of control, a lot of people end up dead before sterner measures take effect.”
As the article notes, at the time of publishing, Arkansas reported roughly 1,200 cases of Covid-19, out of a population of just over 3,000,000 people.
Not deaths, not hospitalizations, cases.
And yet, this unholy trinity were hysterically condemning and maligning the Arkansas governor because he chose not to violate his oath of office by implementing the most draconian restrictions on the domestic population in Arkansas history, for an illness that was categorically and factually not causing mass death in the state.
In each of New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom, the national government implemented a nationwide lockdown.
Let’s examine each country in turn.
In the United Kingdom, after initially resisting media calls to implement a national lockdown, Prime Minister Boris Johnson, without Parliamentary approval, did so on March 23, 2020.
From the UK government website:
“When we reduce our day-to-day contact with other people, we will reduce the spread of the infection. That is why the government has introduced (23 March 2020) three new measures.
Requiring people to stay at home, except for very limited purposes.
Closing certain businesses and venues.
Stopping all gatherings of more than two people in public.
Every person in the UK must comply with these new measures, which came into effect on Monday 23 March. The relevant authorities, including the police, have been given the powers to enforce them – including through fines and dispersing gatherings.
The government will look again at these measures after three weeks, and relax them if the evidence shows this is possible.”
In New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern imposed a national lockdown of her own on March 25, 2020:
“At 11.59 p.m. on Wednesday 25 March 2020, New Zealand entered a nationwide lockdown …Entry into the country…was restricted, while New Zealanders stranded overseas struggled to return home as flights were cancelled and airlines suspended services. On 19 March, for the first time in the country’s history, the government closed the borders to anyone who wasn’t a citizen, permanent resident, or their partner or child (who could enter New Zealand only if travelling with them). Those arriving were required to self-isolate for 14 days.
…By Saturday 21 March, the total number of confirmed and probable cases had reached 88. On the same day, in a historic address to the nation, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern introduced a new four-level alert system which restricted human contact, travel and business operations. The country immediately moved to Alert Level 2, which required New Zealanders to stay at home as much as possible, including by working from home and limiting non-essential travel.
Two days later, as total confirmed and probable cases doubled to 173, Ardern announced that the country would move immediately to Alert Level 3, to be followed two days later by a move to Alert Level 4, the highest level. Under level 4 restrictions, all New Zealanders were instructed to stay at home and to have physical contact only with those in their ‘bubble’. The decision came after public health officials were unable to trace the source of two cases of community transmission. At a press conference announcing the change, Ardern explained the reason for the looming lockdown:
[W]e now consider there is transmission within our communities. If community transmission takes off in New Zealand, the number of cases will double every five days. If that happens unchecked, our health system will be inundated, and tens of thousands of New Zealanders will die. … Right now we have a window of opportunity to break the chain of community transmission, to contain the virus, to stop it multiplying, and to protect New Zealanders from the worst. Our plan is simple. We can stop the spread by staying at home and reducing contact. Now is the time to act.
As New Zealanders prepared to enter a nationwide lockdown, many raced to get home from other regions before Alert Level 4 came into effect. Others, uncertain about how long the lockdown would last, began panic buying. Supermarket shelves were cleared of bread, flour and toilet paper, homeware stores of bread makers, cookware and other kitchen utensils, and hardware stores of home improvement materials. The government also declared a state of national emergency on 25 March. This would last for close to two months until it was lifted on 13 May 2020.
On the morning of 26 March, New Zealanders awoke to a strange new world of empty streets, parks, playgrounds and roads. Gatherings – including tangihanga, funerals and weddings – were prohibited and public venues shut, and travel outside local areas was restricted. All businesses, save for those deemed essential, closed, as did educational facilities. Such action was unprecedented in peacetime New Zealand. Activities such as exercising and going to the supermarket or to medical appointments were still permitted.”
The situation in Australia was much the same:
“SYDNEY (REUTERS) - Australia began living under strict new lockdown rules on Monday (March 23) … As new restrictions closing non-essential services came into effect, there were clear signs of economic and social stress with long queues forming outside offices of the main welfare agency across the country … Most states have now closed their borders to travellers from other parts of the country and effected their own lockdown laws, in addition to the national curbs announced on Sunday.
Western Australia on Monday banned passengers on board the Swiss-owned MSC Magnifica cruise ship from disembarking … “I will not allow what happened in Sydney to happen here,” West Australian Premier Mark McGowan said. “We will not allow passengers or crew to wander the streets.” A spokesman for MSC Cruises did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
New measures…mean many non-essential services, including pubs, clubs, cinemas, gyms and houses of worship, were closed on Monday.
“There will be no more going to the pub after work, no more going to the gym in the morning, and no more sitting down for brunch at a cafe,” Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison told Parliament on Monday.
Morrison…warned Australians to prepare for shutdowns that could last six months.
Despite warnings to practice social distancing, thousands flocked to Sydney’s Bondi Beach and frequented bars and restaurants over the weekend.
Morrison said the new measures were needed to enforce social distancing, and more draconian measures could be enacted down the line.
Supermarkets, pharmacies, freight and retail will continue to trade, while cafes and restaurants will only be able to offer takeaway and delivery services.
The economic fallout of the crisis was visible on the streets on Monday with hundreds of Australians lining up outside government offices in Sydney and Melbourne to register for social security payments. Many tried to practice social distancing as lines stretched around the block.”
On August 14, 2020, New Zealand Director-General Ashley Bloomfield announced that all members of the general public who tested positive for Covid-19 would be involuntarily placed in “isolation facilities”:
“Authorities in New Zealand have said that they will put all new coronavirus infectees and their close family members in “quarantine facilities.”
The new measure was announced by Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield during a press conference yesterday.
“All cases, confirmed cases, are to be managed in quarantine facilities,” said Bloomfield, adding that the move showed “how serious we are about limiting any risk of ongoing transmission – even in self-isolation and including to others in the household.”
New Zealand now has "Quarantine Camps" pic.twitter.com/7DRbByBoFr
— reddpill (@_reddpill) August 13, 2020
“This will apply to any cases and also to close family members who might be at risk,” said Bloomfield.
In a separate video, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made it clear that anyone in the quarantine facility who refused to take a coronavirus test would simply be held there for at least 14 days.
How do you expose a dictator, make them act like one. pic.twitter.com/xYA9oaCIVb
— reddpill (@_reddpill) August 12, 2020
Earlier this week, New Zealand took the decision to impose a new level three lockdown in Auckland and a level two lockdown across the rest of the country after just 4 new COVID-19 cases were discovered, with all the infectees being part of the same family.
This led to schools, businesses and restaurants all being closed for a 3 day period which Ardern made clear could be extended.
Before that, there hadn’t been a single recorded case of coronavirus across the entire country for 102 days.
The total coronavirus death toll for New Zealand amounts to just 22 people over the course of the entire pandemic.
In neighboring Australia, police have been given the power to enter homes without a warrant to perform quarantine spot checks.
One wonders what will happen to people in New Zealand who refuse to be held in a government quarantine camp against their will.”
Frankly, I could go on and on about the despotic measures imposed by governments both domestically and abroad over the past fifteen months. However, I feel it is important to highlight the extent to which national governments across the world have implemented full-blown fascistic and Orwellian dictates upon the domestic population.
The Virus that Wasn’t
All of these policies are based on the pretense of stopping the spread of an infectious pathogen that has not even been isolated and shown to exist.
If you’ll allow, I’d like to take a brief detour from my discussion of U.S. and other national policies to discuss just how fraudulent the science behind this entire “health” scare has been.
First, from an excellent investigate report on Off-Guardian:
“Scientists are very annoyed because they keep saying the virus has been isolated but no one believes them. This is because, as yet, no one has provided a single purified sample of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. What we have instead is a completed genome and, as we are about to discover, it isn’t particularly convincing.
Investigative journalists Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter asked some of the scientists who said they had images of SARS-C0V-2 virions to confirm these were images of an isolated, purified, virus. None of them could.
“We have short (RNA) sequences from the diagnostic test that can be used in the diagnostic tests”
This explains why the Australian government state:
The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base…There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.”
In The UK, in July, a group of concerned academics wrote a letter to the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in which they asked him to:
Produce independently peer reviewed scientific evidence proving that the Covid-19 virus has been isolated.”
To date they have not received a reply.
Similarly, UK researcher Andrew Johnson made a Freedom of Information Request to Public Health England (PHE). He asked them to provide him with their records describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus. To which they responded:
PHE can confirm it does not hold information in the way suggested by your request.”
Canadian researcher Christine Massey made a similar freedom of information request, asking the Canadian government the same. To which the Canadian government replied:
Having completed a thorough search, we regret to inform you that we were unable to locate any records responsive to your request.”
In the U.S. the Centre For Disease Control (CDC) RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel state:
…No quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available……..Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”
Last updated on 13th July 2020, the CDC are yet to obtain any pure viral sample from any patient said to have the disease of COVID-19. They openly admit their tests don’t necessarily show if SARS-CoV-2 is either present or causes COVID 19.
We are told that none of this matters. That we are ignorant and just don’t understand virology. Therefore, we must accept pictures of things we know could be something else and genetic sequences (which could be anything else) as conclusive proof that this virus, and the disease it is supposed to cause, are real.”
On March 4, 2020, the CDC issued new national guidance for doctors on how to fill out death certificates:
“It is important to emphasize that Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”
From a report conducted by the Foundation for Economic Education:
“When Drs. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi of Accelerated Urgent Care held a press conference last week, their goal was to galvanize policymakers to reopen the economy.
The California-based hospital owners may have uncorked a bigger story.
During their long discussion with reporters, Dr. Erickson noted he has spoken to numerous physicians who say they are being pressured to add COVID-19 to death certificates and diagnostic lists—even when the novel coronavirus appears to have no relation to the victim’s cause of death.
“They say, ‘You know, it’s interesting. When I’m writing up my death report I’m being pressured to add Covid,’” Erickson said. “Why is that? Why are we being pressured to add Covid? To maybe increase the numbers, and make it look a little bit worse than it is?”
The longtime ER doctors, who had their video removed from YouTube after the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly condemned their briefing, aren’t the only ones to say COVID-19 is being classified uniquely. (There’s reason to question some of the snap conclusions the physicians reached in their briefing, but YouTube’s decision to ban them is absurd, if predictable.)
Earlier this month, Illinois’s top health official explained that any victim diagnosed with the novel coronavirus would be classified as a COVID-19 death—regardless of whether it contributed to the patient’s death.
“If you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had Covid at the same time, it’s still listed as a Covid death,” Dr. Ngozi Ezike, the director of Illinois's Department of Public Health, explained to reporters.”
Ventilators actually killed people:
“Writing in The Spectator, Dr Matt Strauss underlined that ventilators were not a “treatment” per se, and were not intended for patients with respiratory diseases:
Ventilators do not cure any disease. They can fill your lungs with air when you find yourself unable to do so yourself. They are associated with lung diseases in the public’s consciousness, but this is not in fact their most common or most appropriate application.
And goes on to explain that patients may see absolutely no benefit from being on a ventilator:
There has never been a placebo randomised control trial of putting people on ventilators versus letting them struggle on. We therefore do not, strictly-speaking, know whether those who survive their time on ventilator may have survived anyway, or whether some would-be survivors died because they were committed to a ventilator.
Many other articles have covered similar ground, including “With ventilators running out, doctors say the machines are overused for Covid-19” in Stat News and “Puzzling death rate among respiratory patients” in Die Welt.
Dr Eddy Fan told the Associated Press:
One of the most important findings in the last few decades is that medical ventilation can worsen lung injury — so we have to be careful how we use it.”
Dr Joseph Habboushe added:
If we’re able to make them better without intubating them, they are more likely to have a better outcome”
While New York-based critical care specialist Dr. Paul Mayo is quoted as saying:
Putting a person on a ventilator creates a disease known as being on a ventilator.’
German Pulmonologust Dr Thomas Voshaar, chairman of Association of Pneumological Clinics, was equally candid about the risks of “too much” and “too early” ventilation. Telling FAZ.net [our emphasis]:
Invasive ventilation is fundamentally bad for patients. Even if the ventilator is optimally adjusted and the care is perfect, the treatment brings with it many complications. The lungs are sensitive to two things: excess pressure and excessive oxygen concentration in the air supplied.
You also have to sedate the patient during ventilation – you take him out of the world. He can no longer eat, drink and breathe on his own. So I take total control over the organism. I can only get air into my lungs with excess pressure. The opposite happens during spontaneous breathing, the air gets into the lungs through negative pressure. The terminal failure of the lungs is often caused by too high pressure and too much oxygen.
[Only] 20-50% of the ventilated Covid-19 patients have so far survived. If this is the case, we have to ask: Is this due to the severity and course of the disease itself or maybe the preferred method of treatment?
When we read the first studies and reports from China and Italy, we immediately asked ourselves why intubation was so common there. This contradicted our clinical experience with viral pneumonia.
The truth is, rather than treating respiratory infections, ventilators actually cause them.
The suppression of the cough reflex, needed to insert the ventilator tube into the trachea, means sedated patients cannot clear their airway. This leads to fluid build-up which, along with the bacteria forming around the foreign body, eventually causes serious bacterial infection.”
The results of Polymerase Chain Reaction tests are meaningless:
“Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”
But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.
UNFOUNDED “TEST, TEST, TEST,…” MANTRA
At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:
We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”
Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:
Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”
This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.
But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.
Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.
How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
LACK OF A VALID GOLD STANDARD
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.
This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.
As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:
If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us.
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.
In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.
That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”
It has been clear to this author, and probably a not insignificant portion of the global population, from the very start of this fiasco, that whatever pretext governments used to claim massive new powers for themselves over domestic populations, the latter would be the primary driver of death, destruction and misery, rather than the former.
The Lesser of Two Evils?
I’ll now bring things back around to my analysis of the United States political sphere, beginning with discussion of the would-have-been winner of the 2016 election.
In this author’s estimation, Bill and Hillary Clinton, together with the Bush crime syndicate, are more responsible than perhaps any other political figures for the destruction of the American system.
From an excellent article on The Political Bullion:
“When he came into power in 1993, Bill Clinton aimed to change the Democratic Party. He promised to bring it back from 3 consecutive terms on the executive sideline following Reagan and GHW Bush presidencies, and to reconcile the left and right wing elements of the Party to create a new ‘electable’ standard. By adopting centrist, fiscal conservatism, Bill Clinton succeeded everywhere Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush had failed: he cut social security, weakened unions and signed NAFTA. This precedent created a new mold of Democrats in Congress that seldom resembled FDR’s New Deal vision of an interventionist government that worked for the average American worker. It is in this coalition of economic fiscal, social liberal Democrats that Bill Clinton cut the Democratic ties to its traditional base; the middle class, blue collar worker who benefited from FDR’s New Deal was now slowly being cut away from the vision of the Democratic Party. The Trump Presidency is the consequence of abandoning this traditional base.
Following Hilary Clinton’s announcement of her candidacy, it quickly became apparent that she perfectly fit this ‘third way Democrat’ mold. Her aggressive pro-trade stance, muscular foreign policy and fiscal conservatism made her the darling of the Democratic establishment and a formidable opponent in the DNC primary. Having already been rejected by the Democratic voter base in favour of a more progressive Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton created a beefy base of key figures in the Democratic Party apparatus that would aid her in quickly becoming the nominee and vaulting her to the top of the presidency. The grave mistake the DNC made however, was in ignoring the advice of the electorate. By favouring Barack Obama over Hilary Clinton in 2008, the democratic base demonstrated that they wanted a more progressive candidate, one that is sensitive to their views on free trade and could hear their grievances regarding Wall Street regulation and campaign finance reform. Unfettered, Clinton pushed on, advocating for aggressive foreign policy as Secretary of State and becoming a favourite of Wall Street and a major sponsor of TPP during negotiations while she was in office. This further alienated the traditional voter base and whoever was left over from the beginning of the Clinton years melted away. This point is further elucidated when you consider Clinton neglected to campaign in both Wisconsin and Michigan prior to the election. This is a perfect reflection of the attitude the Democratic Party had to their traditional base of blue collar manufacturing workers, which they took for granted and ignored throughout the electoral process.
The final and most prominent signal to the Democratic Party involved the rejection of Bernie Sanders as the outside challenger to Hilary Clinton for the nomination. Having created this enormous party apparatus to support her, Clinton assumed that she would easily coast to the nomination. The fact that Sanders, an Independent in the Senate who echoed New Deal ideals, was capable of busting through the hard media shell Clinton had created for herself to become a viable candidate indicates that there was a disjunction between the will of the traditional electoral base of the Democrats and their favoured candidate. When Clinton finally resorted to underhanded tactics to defeat Sanders, the leaking of debate questions, dismissal in the media and thumbing of the scale by DNC leadership, this circle closed. The new Democratic leadership proved to be out of touch with the average American worker that had made up its base for so long and furthermore ignored its pleas for representation. Sander’s strong showing in the rust belt during the primary and Clinton’s failure to capture it during the general election shows how the dismantling of traditional Democrat values had come home to roost for the party establishment.
Donald Trump’s election is more of an indictment of the Democratic Party than it is of the politics of the Republican Party. Having run the Southern Strategy and dog whistle politics to consolidate its Southern base for over 50 years, the Republicans cozying up to white supremacist sympathies and evangelical social conservatives is nothing new. What changed this election was the rejection of Hilary Clinton and the ‘third way’ democratic base her legacy had created. You don’t get to offer a false choice to Democratic voters and then blame the American people for not electing you by default. The results of the presidential election fall squarely on the Democratic leadership and their reluctance to consider the plight of their traditional blue collar base. By being more concerned with becoming a fundraising machine and by becoming less of a voice for their constituents, the DNC alienated the voters that made them perennial champions in Congress for over 30 years. In essence, ‘third way’ Democrats destroyed the party, turning it from a legislative and executive powerhouse to minority status in the 90s and onwards. If the Party cannot find its way and form a new coalition of voters, many of which echoed their enthusiasm during Sanders primary run, then perhaps it will be up to a third party to replace it entirely before the next election.”
Having myself been a participant in the 2016 Democratic party, and having the campaign of Bernie Sanders to thank for waking me up to the unfathomable corruption in the Democratic party (and establishment politics in general), I can say with confidence that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would have implemented one of the most draconian national lockdowns on the planet.
Hillary was funded by just about every major establishment interest; she is one of the most bloodthirsty warmongers to have ever inhabited the White House, and was involved in several regime change wars with terrible loss of life, both in her time in the United States Senate and as Secretary of State under the first term of President Barack Obama; and, she could barely conceal her open disdain for the electorate, going so far as to label 50% of Trump supporters as “irredeemable deplorables” for being sexist, racist, and homophobic, when in fact Hillary was directly involved in silencing many women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment and assault; used racist dogwhistles like “superpredator” to justify a massive expansion of the drug war, which specifically targeted African American communities, in the 1990’s; and, regarding gay marriage, stated as follows in 2004:
“...the fundamental bedrock principle that [marriage] exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”
For the corporate-digital-industrial complex that runs the Democratic party to claim that the election of Donald Trump would mean an end to “democracy as we know it", while at the same time pretending that Hillary Clinton is the world’s ‘greatest champion’ for all causes of human freedom, is a central reason why Donald Trump won the 2016 election, and why so many Americans have tuned out and turned off the establishment corporate press.
As the United States finally sees major cracks showing in the attempted techno-fascist coup of the Republic, it’s important to assess what’s happened this past year, and to learn from this recent period of unfathomable devastation that has been unleashed by governments across the world on domestic populations.
I personally have learned the lesson that it is absolutely fundamental for us all to be directly involved in civic activity. If the United States government, and state governments, actually operated according to their own Constitutions, I imagine that this country would look like a much different place. Grotesque contradictions and paradoxes inherent in its creation aside, the slide further and further away from the founding principles of the federal Constitution have led us to a point where freedom is made a mockery, violent riots are celebrated as “mostly peaceful”, elections are blatantly stolen, and the population is dared to object. Indeed, in the past year, we have found ourselves teetering dangerously on the edge of a reality which bears a stark resemblance to a combination of George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where a government superstate polices the very thoughts of its citizens, and the citizens in turn look to “soma” in the form of painkilling drugs, mind-stupefying television, and every other numbing agent they can get their hands on, in an attempt to escape from the hellish reality of their existence.
I leave you with words of hope. I do not believe this global coup will be successful. Indeed, life is already on its way to returning to pre-plandemic normal in most parts of the United States. A significant majority of the country knows and acknowledges that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, and they aren’t going to go quietly. Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci, two central players in this attempted coup, are finally beginning to receive scrutiny from the mainstream press.
I’ll also note that Ghislaine Maxwell, the partner of disgraced billionaire and serial predator Jeffrey Epstein, who had connections to the Clintons and other members of the Washington establishment and Hollywood elite, remains in custody, with a trial ongoing.
I believe what humanity needs most right now is a massive ‘disclosure’ event - for all of the corruption, lies, deceit and abuse to be fully laid bare for all to see. We may well be on the precipice of such an event, in which the world will be made aware of just how deep “the swamp” goes.
Once the complete and full truth is made known to the global population, we can remake this country, and this world, in a new image - one without all the paradoxes and foibles of the nascent United States.
Joseph M. Anderson is a blogger and activist from Akron, Ohio. He cares deeply for the plight of human freedom, and wishes for little else than to see true, natural law restored to this planet.
“Statement on Virus Isolation”. https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/
“Social Relationships and Health: A Flashpoint for Health Policy”. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150158/
“Journalism’s Gates Keepers”. https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php
“WHO warns against COVID-19 lockdowns due to economic damage”. https://nypost.com/2020/10/11/who-warns-against-covid-19-lockdowns-due-to-economic-damage/
“Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests “Unreliable” and Quarantines “Unlawful”. https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/
“Trump Supporters” (Allegedly) Storm the Capitol”. https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/ErE_QFAWMAA3TIF.jpg?x51581
“Trump’s show trial is just the next step in a very American coup”. https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/10/trumps-show-trial-is-just-the-next-step-in-a-very-american-coup/
“We Are All Very Anxious: Six Theses on Anxiety and Why It is Effectively Preventing Militancy, and One Possible Strategy for Overcoming It”. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/institute-for-precarious-consciousness-we-are-all-very-anxious
“Mass Mind Control Through Network Television: Are Your Thoughts Your Own?”. https://rense.com/general69/mass.htm
“Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation”. https://www.amazon.com/Caliban-Witch-Women-Primitive-Accumulation/dp/1570270597
“QAnon & Censorship: Facebook Lying About OffG…again”. https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/23/qanon-censorship-facebook-lying-about-offg-again/
“Facebook labels 2+2=4 “misinformation”. https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/20/facebook-labels-224-misinformation/