The so-called “rules-based international order” aims to facilitate a hegemonic world, which entails displacing international law. While international law is based on equal sovereignty for all states, the rules-based international order upholds hegemony on the principle of sovereign inequality.
The rules-based international order is commonly presented as international law plus international human rights law, which appears benign and progressive. However, this entails introducing contradictory principles and rules. The consequence is a system devoid of uniform rules, in which “might makes right”. International human rights law introduces a set of rules to elevate the rights of the individual, yet human-centric security often contradicts state-centric security as the foundation of international law.
The US as the hegemonic state can then choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while adversaries must abide strictly by state-centric security due to their alleged lack of liberal democratic credentials. For example, state-centric security as the foundation of international law insists on the territorial integrity of states, while human-centric security allows for secession under the principle of self-determination. The US will thus insist on territorial integrity in allied countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Spain, while supporting self-determination within adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia and Syria. The US can interfere in the domestic affairs of adversaries to promote liberal democratic values, yet the US adversaries do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US. To facilitate a hegemonic international order, there cannot be equal sovereignty for all states.
Constructing the hegemonic rules-based international order
The process of constructing alternative sources of legitimacy to facilitate sovereign inequality began with NATO’s illegal invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999 without a UN mandate. The violation of international law was justified by liberal values. Even the legitimacy of the UN Security Council was contested by arguing it should be circumvented as Russia and China veto of humanitarian interventionism was allegedly caused by their lack of liberal democratic values.
The efforts to establish alternative sources of authority continued in 2003 to gain legitimacy for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Former US Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, called for establishing an “Alliance of Democracies” as a key element of US foreign policy.[1] A similar proposal suggested establishing a “Concert of Democracies”, in which liberal democracies could act in the spirit of the UN without being constrained by the veto power of authoritarian states.[2] During the 2008 presidential election, Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain argued in favour of establishing a “League of Democracies”. In December 2021, the US organised the first “Summit for Democracy” to divide the world into liberal democracies versus authoritarian states. The White House framed sovereign inequality in the language of democracy: Washington’s interference in the domestic affairs of other states was “support for democracy”, while upholding the West’s sovereignty entailed defending democracy.[3] The aforementioned initiatives became the “rules-based international order”. With an imperialist mindset, there would be one set of rules for the “garden” and another set for the “jungle”.
The rules-based international order created a two-tiered system of legitimate versus illegitimate states. The paradox of liberal internationalism is that liberal democracies often demand that they dominate international institutions to defend democratic values from the control of the majority. Yet, a durable and resilient international system capable of developing common rules is imperative for international governance and to resolve disputes among states.
International law in accordance with the UN Charter is based on the Westphalian principle of sovereign equality as “all states are equal”. In contrast, the rules-based international order is a hegemonic system based on sovereign inequality. Such a system of sovereign inequality follows the principle from George Orwell’s Animal Farm that stipulates “all animals [states] are equal but some animals [states] are more equal than others”. In Kosovo, the West promoted self-determination as a normative right of secession that had to be prioritised above territorial integrity. In South Ossetia and Crimea, the West insisted that the sanctity of territorial integrity, as stipulated in the UN Charter, must be prioritised over self-determination.
Uniform rules replaced with a tribunal of public opinion
Instead of resolving conflicts through diplomacy and uniform rules, there is an incentive to manipulate, moralise and propagandise as international disputes are decided by a tribunal of public opinion when there are competing principles. Deceit and extreme language have thus become commonplace. In 1999, the US and UK especially presented false accusations about war crimes to make interventionism legitimate. British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the world that Yugoslav authorities were “set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during the Second World War. It is no exaggeration to say that what is happening is racial genocide”.[4]
The rules-based international order fails to establish common unifying rules of how to govern international relations, which is the fundamental function of world order. Both China and Russia have denounced the rules-based international order as a dual system to facilitate double standards. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Xie Feng, asserted that the rules-based international order introduces the “law of the jungle” insofar as universally recognised international law is replaced by unilateralism.[5] Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov similarly criticised the rules-based international order for creating a parallel legal framework to legitimise unilateralism:
“The West has been coming up with multiple formats such as the French-German Alliance for Multilateralism, the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, the Global Partnership to Protect Media Freedom, the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, the Call for Action to Strengthen Respect for International Humanitarian Law—all these initiatives deal with subjects that are already on the agenda of the UN and its specialised agencies. These partnerships exist outside of the universally recognised structures so as to agree on what the West wants in a restricted circle without any opponents. After that they take their decisions to the UN and present them in a way that de facto amounts to an ultimatum. If the UN does not agree, since imposing anything on countries that do not share the same ‘values’ is never easy, they take unilateral action”.[6]
The rules-based international order does not consist of any specific rules, is not accepted internationally, and does not deliver order. The rules-based international order should be considered a failed experiment from the unipolar world order, which must be dismantled to restore international law as a requirement for stability and peace.
Article based on excerpts from my book: “The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order”
[1] I. Daalder and J. Lindsay, ‘An Alliance of Democracies’, The Washington Post, 23 May 2004.
[2] G.J. Ikenberry and A.M. Slaughter, ‘Forging a World of Liberty Under Law: U.S. National Security in the 21st Century’, Princeton, The Princeton Project on National Security, 2006.
[3] White House, ‘Summit for Democracy Summary of Proceedings’, The White House, 23 December 2021.
[4] N. Clark, ‘Fools no more’, The Guardian, 19 April 2008.
[5]Global Times, ‘US ‘rules-based intl order’ is ‘law of the jungle’ to contain others: Chinese vice FM tells US envoy’, Global Times, 26 July 2021.
[6] S. Lavrov, ‘Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 29th Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy (CFDP)’, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 2 October 2021.
Israel Shahak (1933 – 2001) was a Polish Jew who survived both the Holocaust and the Warsaw ghetto, and lived his adult life in Israel. His surname, Hebrew in the middle of Poland, can be explained by a relevant fact: his parents were Zionists, and they changed their Yiddish last name Himmelstaub to the Hebrew Shahak. This is common among Zionists: the Netayahu family was Mileikowsky; Ben-Gurion was born Grün; Golda Meir was Golda Mabovitch.
And Israel Shahak, in turn, was anti-Zionist in a much more radical way than the current Left. In his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Shahak argues that Judaism, as it exists today and since the adoption of the Talmud, is a problem in itself, as it is totalitarian and supremacist.
The book is originally a series of newspaper articles from the 1990s prompted by the following event: in Israel, in the 1960s, a gentile collapsed during the Sabbath and an Orthodox Jew did not authorize the use of the telephone to call an ambulance. The Jews did not call because it is not lawful to violate the Sabbath to save the life of a gentile – to save the life of a Jew, it is lawful. Shahak witnessed the event and caused a series of controversies in Haaretz.
This event is very important in order to understand the way Israel thinks about its politics. Shahak convinces us that both so-called secular Zionism and religious Zionism are guided by the Talmud. Shahak’s booklet includes a brief history of Judaism. It is worth highlighting that since the Babylonian Talmud, the words of the Old Testament (or Torah) have lost its relevance because what matters is the interpretation established by the rabbis in the Talmud. This interpretation causes the ethics of the Old Testament to change completely. The “neighbor”, for example, should be interpreted as “the Jew”; it is considered that the gentile is never a Jew’s neighbor. Thus, all the universalist ethical imperatives of the Old Testament are first converted into a norm of intra-Jewish conduct; and, as a logical consequence, there is a vague field of ethics (the ethics of relations between gentiles and Jews), to be filled by the interpretation of the rabbis.
The commandment “thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife”, for example, comes to mean that a Jew must not covet the wife of another Jew. Nothing is said about a Jew coveting the wife of a gentile. Thus, the rabbis were able to prohibit the sexual relationship (any sexual relationship) between a Jew and a gentile in other ways: by comparing it to bestiality and punishing it as a deviation. This means not only that a Jew should not covet a gentile’s wife, but also that a Jew cannot marry a gentile, just as a man cannot marry a goat. But while it is hard to find a legal body willing to punish a goat, the same is not true of women: “If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day – because he had wilful coitus with her, she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble.” This is Maimonides.
Such interpretation of the word “neighbor” also applies to “man,” which is also considered synonymous with Jew. The Gentile, in fact, is something analogous to an animal. Every time a Zionist propagates a phrase that sounds humanist, it is good to remember this peculiar glossary of rabbinical origin. Picking up a Talmud to read is pointless unless one knows Hebrew, because, according to Shahak, translations of the Talmud contain distortions designed to avoid upsetting the Gentiles. These distortions are especially important in hiding what the rabbis think of Jesus Christ and Christians, who are considered inferior to Muslims.
In doctrinal matters, Shahak quotes extensively from the Talmud and Maimonides. The most basic ethical issue is the way the rabbis view gentile life: according to the sources gathered by Shahak, it is the duty of the Jew not to help a gentile if his life is in danger, unless the fact that the Jews let the gentile die causes hatred that puts the lives of the Jews at risk. It is forbidden to push a gentile into a well, but it is also forbidden to lift him out, saving his life. However, if the Gentiles realize that the Jews are letting them die, this will generate hatred and put Jewish lives at risk. This happens wherever Jews are not the majority. Thus, there is a kind of façade Judaism, for public relations, and an explicit Judaism that prevails only in Israel.
This precept has generated much debate in Jewish medicine – which is not at all Hippocratic. One topic that is much discussed is that of the Gentile pregnant on the Sabbath. A Jewish midwife and a Jewish doctor can use the Sabbath as a pretext to deceive the Gentiles and not come to her aid, even if the aid would not violate any Sabbath rules. If there is any doubt about the genocidal nature of these guidelines, Maimonides accepts that a Jew may help a pregnant gentile as long as he pays for it, and that there is another doctor capable of saving her life. After all, it would be a shame if a gentile, rather than a Jew, were to fail to earn money. Thus, the death of the pregnant woman comes first, and then the money of the Jew.
Well, given that this supremacist thought guides Judaism, and Judaism guides the State of Israel, it is clear (as Shahak argues) that the talk of two states is nonsense, because, as far as Israel is concerned, the Palestinians will not have a state. Shahak also shows how the most ardent anti-Zionists do not fail to have a rosy view of the State of Israel: it does not allow Bantustans, nor is it imperialist.
Let’s see: a typical imperialist power co-opts local elites and uses them to govern according to its own designs. Israel’s own neighbors are a testament to this, since the British Empire ruled over the Arabs rather than attempting to commit ethnic cleansing. Israel does not rule over the Arabs; instead, it tries to eliminate them, either by killing or expelling them.
As for the Bantustans, i.e., the pseudo-countries of blacks under the tutelage of South Africa, the fact is that the very intention of creating fake countries led to the creation of artificial flags and nationalism. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have no right to any manifestation of nationality. Religious Zionism is influential in Israel to the point that, under a secular administration, it could cause a diplomatic incident with its eternal ally Jordan. According to Shahak, in 1974, Israel intended to block the recognition of the PLO as the Palestinian representation. A meeting was arranged with the king of Jordan in the West Bank, where he would be received by a local Arab ruler. The reception would have a lot of Jordanian and Israeli flags. The religious wing complained that no foreign flag should be flown in Eretz Israel. The king felt the insult and recognized the PLO.
Shahak’s book is a succinct booklet with a lot of relevant information. I showed just a bit, and reading the work is highly recommended.
The following is taken from Vernon Coleman’s long-term no 1 bestselling book `Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying: Here’s the Proof.’ Dr Coleman has for decades been the world’s leading medically qualified critic of vaccination programmes.
1) The principle behind vaccination is superficially convincing. The theory is that when an individual is given a vaccine – which consists of a weakened or dead version of the disease against which protection is required – his or her body will be tricked into developing antibodies to the disease in exactly the same way that a body develops antibodies when it is exposed to the disease itself.
But in reality things aren’t quite so simple. How long do the antibodies last? Do they always work? What about those individuals who don’t produce antibodies at all? Vaccination, like so much of medicine, is a far more inexact science than doctors (and drug companies) would like us to think.
The truth is that it is a ruthless and self-serving lie to claim that vaccines have wiped out many diseases and have contributed hugely to the increase in life expectation we now enjoy. The evidence shows that the diseases which are supposed to have been wiped out by vaccines were disappearing long before vaccines were introduced. And the argument that we are living longer is a statistical myth which rests upon the fact that in the past the infant mortality rate was much higher than it is now (because of contaminated drinking water and other public health problems). When the infant mortality rate is high the average life expectation is low. When the infant mortality rate falls then the average life expectation rises. (If one person dies at the age of 1 and another dies at the age of 99 they have an average life span of 50 years. If the person who died prematurely lives longer then the average life span will be much longer).
2) All doctors have to do is to make a note of how many children who receive a vaccine develop a disease and then compare those results with the number of children who get the disease but haven’t had the vaccine. This will provide information showing that the vaccine is (or is not) effective.
And they could make a note of the number of vaccinated children who develop serious health problems after vaccination and then compare that number with the incidence of serious health problems among unvaccinated children. What could be easier than that?
These would be easy and cheap trials to perform. They would simply require the collection of some basic information. And it would be vital to follow the children for at least 20 years to obtain useful information. A trial involving 100,000 children would be enough.
But I do not know of anyone who has done, or is doing, this simple research. Could it possibly be that no one does such basic research because the results might be embarrassing for those who want to sell vaccines?
3) As with whooping cough, tetanus and other diseases the incidence, and number of deaths from diphtheria, had been in decline long before the vaccine was introduced.
4) When the swine flu vaccine was first introduced it was said that it would prevent the disease. Then it was announced that it would shorten the duration of the disease. It was said that 159 deaths had occurred in Mexico as a result of the flu but this was later corrected to just seven deaths. Independent doctors warned that for children the side effects of the drug far outweighed the benefits and that one in twenty children was suffering from nausea or vomiting (severe enough to bring on dehydration) and also nightmares. The disease was being diagnosed on the NHS telephone line (provided as an alternative to a disappearing GP service) by telephone operators who were, presumably, satisfied that their diagnostic skills enabled them to differentiate between flu and early signs of other, more deadly disorders such as meningitis. (Making diagnoses on the telephone is a dangerous business even for a doctor.)
Senior politicians in Europe subsequently called H1N1 a faked pandemic and accused pharmaceutical companies (and their lackeys) of encouraging a false scare. Limited health resources had been wasted buying millions of doses of vaccine. And millions of healthy people had been needlessly exposed to the unknown side effects of vaccines that in my view had been insufficiently tested.
As always, vaccinations were given with greatest enthusiasm to children and the elderly – the most immunologically vulnerable and the easiest to damage with vaccines.
5) The first breakthrough in the development of a poliomyelitis vaccine was made in 1949 with the aid of a human tissue culture but when the first practical vaccine was prepared in the 1950’s monkey kidney tissue was used because that was standard laboratory practice. Researchers didn’t realise that one of the viruses commonly found in monkey kidney cells can cause cancer in humans.
If human cells had been used to prepare the vaccine (as they could and should have been and as they are now) the original poliomyelitis vaccine would have been much safer.
(As a side issue this is yet another example of the stupidity of using animal tissue in the treatment of human patients. The popularity of using transplants derived from animals suggests that doctors and scientists have learned nothing from this error. I sometimes despair of those who claim to be in the healing profession. Most members of the medical establishment don’t have the brains required for a career in street cleaning.)
Bone, brain, liver and lung cancers have all been linked to the monkey kidney virus SV40 and something like 17 million people who were given the polio vaccine in the 1950s and 1960s are probably now at risk (me included). Moreover, there now seems to be evidence that the virus may be passed on to the children of those who were given the contaminated vaccine. The SV40 virus from the polio vaccine has already been found in cancers which have developed both in individuals who were given the vaccine as protection against polio and in the children of individuals who were given the vaccine. It seems inconceivable that the virus could have got into the tumours other than through the polio vaccine.
The American Government was warned of this danger back in 1956 but the doctor who made the discovery was ignored and her laboratory was closed down. Surprise, surprise. It was five years after this discovery before drug companies started screening out the virus. And even then Britain had millions of doses of the infected polio vaccine in stock. There is no evidence that the Government withdrew the vaccine and so it was almost certainly just used until it had all gone. No one can be sure about this because in Britain the official records which would have identified those who had received the contaminated vaccine were all destroyed by the Department of Health in 1987. Oddly enough the destruction of those documents means that no one who develops cancer as a result of a vaccine they were given (and which was recommended to their parents by the Government) can take legal action against the Government. Gosh. The world is so full of surprises. My only remaining question is a simple one: How do these bastards sleep at night?
6) One of the medical professions greatest boasts is that it eradicated smallpox through the use of a vaccine. I myself believed this claim for many years. But it isn’t true.
One of the worst smallpox epidemics of all time took place in England between 1870 and 1872 – nearly two decades after compulsory vaccination was introduced. After this evidence that smallpox vaccination didn’t work the people of Leicester in the English Midlands refused to have the vaccine any more. When the next smallpox epidemic struck in the early 1890s the people of Leicester relied upon good sanitation and a system of quarantine. There was only one death from smallpox in Leicester during that epidemic. In contrast the citizens of other towns (who had been vaccinated) died in vast numbers.
Obligatory vaccination against smallpox was introduced in Germany as a result of state by-laws, but these vaccination programmes had no influence on the incidence of the disease. On the contrary, the smallpox epidemic continued to grow and in 1870 Germany had the gravest smallpox epidemic in its history. At that point the new German Reich introduced a new national law making vaccination against smallpox an even stricter legal requirement. The police were given the power to enforce the new law.
German doctors (and medical students) are taught that it was the Reich Vaccination Law which led to a dramatic reduction in the incidence of smallpox in Germany. But a close look at the figures shows that the incidence of smallpox had already started to fall before the law came into action. And the legally enforced national smallpox vaccination programme did not eradicate the disease.
Doctors and drug companies may not like it but the truth is that surveillance, quarantine and better living conditions got rid of smallpox – not the smallpox vaccine.
When the international campaign to rid the world of smallpox was at its height the number of cases of smallpox went up each time there was a large scale (and expensive) mass vaccination of populations in susceptible countries. As a result of this the strategy was changed. Mass vaccination programmes were abandoned and replaced with surveillance, isolation and quarantine.
The myth that smallpox was eradicated through a mass vaccination programme is just that – a myth. Smallpox was eradicated through identifying and isolating patients with the disease.
7) It was noticed decades ago that in the lung sanatoriums that specialised in the treatment of TB patients there was no difference in the survival rates of patients who had been `protected’ against TB with BCG vaccination when compared to the survival rates of patients who had received no such `protection’.
8) Although official spokesmen claim otherwise, I don’t believe the whooping cough vaccine has ever had a significant influence on the number of children dying from whooping cough. The dramatic fall in the number of deaths caused by the disease came well before the vaccine was widely available and was, historians agree, the result of improved public health measures and the use of antibiotics.
It was in 1957 that the whooping cough vaccine was first introduced nationally in Britain – although the vaccine was tried out in the late 1940s and the early 1950s. But the incidence of whooping cough, and the number of children dying from the disease, had both fallen very considerably well before 1957. So, for example, while doctors reported 170,000 cases of whooping cough in 1950 they reported only about 80,000 cases in 1955. The introduction of the vaccine really didn’t make very much, if any, difference to the fall in the incidence of the disease. Thirty years after the introduction of the vaccine, whooping cough cases were still running at about 1,000 a week in Britain.
Similarly, the figures show that the introduction of the vaccine had no effect on the number of children dying from whooping cough. The mortality rate associated with the disease had been falling appreciably since the early part of the 20th century and rapidly since the 1930s and 1940s – showing a particularly steep decline after the introduction of the sulphonamide drugs. Whooping cough is undoubtedly an extremely unpleasant disease but it has not been a major killer for many years. Successive governments have frequently forecast fresh whooping cough epidemics but none of the forecast epidemics has produced the devastation predicted.
My second point is that the whooping cough vaccine is neither very efficient nor is it safe. The efficiency of the vaccine is of subsidiary interest – although thousands of children who have been vaccinated do still get the disease – for the greatest controversy surrounds the safety of the vaccine. The DHSS has always claimed that serious adverse reactions to the whooping cough vaccine are extremely rare and the official suggestion has been that the risk of a child being brain damaged by the vaccine is no higher than one in 100,000. Leaving aside the fact that I find a risk of one in 100,000 unacceptable, it is interesting to examine this figure a little more closely, for after a little research work it becomes clear that the figure of one in 100,000 is a guess.
Numerous researchers have studied the risks of brain damage following whooping cough vaccination and their results make fascinating reading. Between 1960 and 1981, for example, nine reports were published showing that the risk of brain damage varied between one in 6,000 and one in 100,000. The average was a risk of one in 50,000. It is clear from these figures that the Government simply chose the figure which showed the whooping cough vaccine to be least risky. Moreover, the one in 100,000 figure was itself an estimate – a guess.
Although the British Government consistently claims that whooping cough is a dangerous disease, the figures show that it is not the indiscriminate killer it is made out to be. Whooping cough causes very few deaths a year in Britain. Many more deaths are caused by tuberculosis and meningitis.
The truth about the whooping cough vaccine is that it has, in the past, been a disaster. The vaccine has been withdrawn in some countries because of the amount of brain damage associated with its use. In Japan, Sweden and West Germany the vaccine has, in the past, been omitted from regular vaccination schedules. In America, some years ago, two out of three whooping cough vaccine manufacturers stopped making the vaccine because of the cost of lawsuits. On 6th December 1985 the Journal of the American Medical Association published a major report showing that the whooping cough vaccine was, without doubt, linked to the development of serious brain damage.
The final nail in the coffin lid is the fact that the British Government quietly paid out compensation to the parents of hundreds of children who had been brain damaged by the whooping cough vaccine. Some parents who accepted damages in the early years were given as little as £10,000.
My startling conclusion is that for many years now the whooping cough vaccine has been killing or severely injuring more children than the disease itself. In the decade after 1979, around 800 children (or their parents) received money from the Government as compensation for vaccine produced brain damage. In the same period less than 100 children were killed by whooping cough. I think that made the vaccine more dangerous than the disease. And that, surely is quite unacceptable. So, why did the British Government continue to encourage doctors to use the vaccine?
9) It is well known that people who are healthy are more resistant to disease. For example, infectious diseases are least likely to affect (and to kill) those who have healthy immune systems. Sadly, and annoyingly, we still don’t know precisely how immunity works and if we still don’t know precisely how immunity works, it is difficult to see how can we possibly know exactly how vaccines might work – and what damage they might do. However, this is a potentially embarrassing and inconvenient problem and so it is an issue that is not discussed within the medical establishment.
What we do know is that since vaccines are usually given by injection they by-pass the body’s normal defence systems. Inevitably, therefore, vaccination is an extremely unnatural process. (The words `extremely unnatural process’ should worry anyone concerned about long term consequences.)
The good news is that we can improve our immunity to disease by eating wisely, by not becoming overweight, by taking regular gentle exercise and by avoiding regular contact with toxins and carcinogens (such as tobacco smoke and the carcinogens in meat). If doctors gave advice on these issues, and explained what is known about the immune system, they could without doubt save many lives. But where’s the profit in giving such simple advice? Drug companies can’t make any money out of it. And neither can doctors.
That isn’t cynicism or scepticism, by the way. It’s straightforward, plain, unvarnished, ungarnished truth.
I no longer believe that vaccines have any role to play in the protection of the community or the individual. Vaccines may be profitable but, in my view, they are neither safe nor effective. I prefer to put my trust in building up my immune system.
Taken from `Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying’ by Vernon Coleman – which is available via the bookshop on http://www.vernoncoleman.com
“Germany has only one place, and that’s on Israel’s side,” said German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the Bundestag, justifying the delivery of arms to Tel Aviv.
One wonders if this partial stance is what is expected of a country that claims to be the leader of the European project, with geopolitical ambitions in an increasingly multipolar world. For the global majority, the answer is no, but in Germany, the subject is thorny and shrouded in taboos. To top it off, the Federal Republic has just passed a law to prevent it from being debated.
Berlin’s inability to call Tel Aviv to account on its international obligations only confirms Germany’s increasingly secondary role in the international arena. If the “engine of Europe” is constrained in its military role, it could at least be a diplomatic power, making use of its economic status. But its role is diminishing. Why is that?
In his latest book, “Krieg ohne Ende?” (War without end?), international political scientist Michael Lüders masterfully summarises the hypocrisy surrounding Germany’s involvement in the Zionist project from the beginning to the present day. The author suggests, in the form of a subtitle, “why we need to change our attitude towards Israel if we are to have peace in the Middle East.”
Germany is losing the credibility it has built up over decades in the eyes of the global majority. Today, the country is no longer seen with the same seriousness that we have become accustomed to in recent decades, but rather as a mere instrumental piece of the US in international relations. This is also the visible result of the “feminist foreign policy” that Annalena Baerbock has pursued as foreign minister over the last three years.
Defence of Israel is ‘Staatsräson’ of the Federal Republic
Germany has adopted the defence of Israel’s existence as ‘Staatsräson’ (raison d’État). It was during a visit by Chancellor Merkel to the Israeli Knesset in 2008 that this concept was first mentioned.
In the above-mentioned bestseller, it becomes clear that this principle is no accident, as it corresponds to the fact that Israel’s ‘raison d’État’ is the Holocaust, for which Germany is to blame. According to Mr. Lüders, the Jewish state used the Eichmann case to launch its ‘raison d’État’, while many other Nazi officials responsible for the persecution of the Jews had passed into the new Bonn nomenclature without being called to account. The most notorious case was that of Hans Globke, the eminence grise of the new regime, a key player in the USA’s fight against the USSR. He had previously drafted the Nuremberg race laws and was now Adenauer’s number two, protected by the new BND intelligence services and the CIA.
The SS officer Adolf Eichmann, kidnapped in Argentina by the Israelis, symbolically bore all the blame for Germany’s 1933-45 National Socialist’s period. After his hanging in 1962 for crimes against the Jewish people during the Holocaust, in the only judicial execution carried out in Israel to date, the FRG finally officially recognised Israel in 1965, after years of collaboration (since 1952). This marked the beginning of a complex relationship that remains opaque to this day.
An important part of this relationship has been the multi-billion dollar military industry within the Atlanticist framework. The most significant case, again unclear, was the corruption scandal over the sale of three nuclear-capable submarines and four corvettes sold during the Merkel governments to the Netanyahu government in 2016 for almost 4 billion euros, which ended up being paid for in part by German taxpayers.
In a current example, political scientist Kristin Helberg, who specialises in the Middle East, expressed her surprise on the public channel in October that Berlin was not helping Israel with defensive weapons against a hypothetical Iranian attack – which in her view would be legitimate – but by delivering ammunition to be used on civilian populations, contrary to the Geneva Convention.
Germany involved in a genocide
With its arms support for Israeli attacks on civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, Germany is not only committing an international offence that is costing it the current cases opened at the ICC and ICJ, but is also seeing its reputation stained in the biggest international forums by the global majority, on which its industrial export model depends.
On 14 October, German Foreign Ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer said at a press conference in Berlin that the German government “sees no signs that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza” and that “Israel undoubtedly has the right to self-defence against Hamas”, and two days later Chancellor Scholz said loudly in the Bundestag that “there will be more arms deliveries – Israel can always count on that.”
Criticising Israel will be banned
In its increasingly radical philo-Zionist course, the German political class passed a new resolution “to protect, preserve and strengthen Jewish life in Germany”, to which only the parties of the governing coalition and the CDU/CSU were called, without consulting the AfD and BSW. The controversial and non-transparent resolution promises to pursue “increasingly open and violent anti-Semitism in right-wing and Islamist extremist circles, as well as a relativising approach and the rise of Israel-related and left-wing anti-imperialist anti-Semitism.”
The document mentions that “cases of anti-Semitism have increased” since the Hamas attack on Israel a year ago, but fails to mention that German law has since come to consider anti-Semitic the manifestation of various expressions in favour of the Palestinian cause such as the slogan “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free” among other slogans, chants, insignia or even posts published on the internet, which are now considered and counted as punishable anti-Semitic crimes.
“The German Bundestag reaffirms its decision to ensure that no organisation or project that spreads antisemitism, questions Israel’s right to exist, calls for a boycott of Israel or actively supports the BDS movement receives financial support,” the document goes on to say.
Recently, the rector of the Berlin Institute for Advanced Study, Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, complained that the freedom of study of the scientific community is under massive threat. “What distinguishes antisemitism from legitimate criticism of the Israeli government?” she asked. “And above all, who defines what antisemitism is? This is not at all clear. The definition is vague and leaves enormous room for legal uncertainty,” she asserted.
The divorce between the political class and public perception
It’s clear that the text of the new law aims to exclude the AfD from public debate, using the magic buzzword of the “far right”, but it also weighs heavily on the BSW, where the Palestinian cause and the multipolarist vision are obvious. A recent study by the Forsa research institute for Stern/RTL corroborates the clear rift between real and institutional Germany. Whilst the former doesn’t want the country to be involved in the Middle East war, the political class has guaranteed its indispensable support for Israel as a ‘national interest’. Voters from all German parties are therefore unequivocally opposed to further arms deliveries to Tel Aviv. The BSW electorate (85 per cent) is in the lead, followed by the AfD (75 per cent), but also 60 per cent of SPD voters, 56 per cent of CDU/CSU voters and 52 per cent of FDP voters. Interestingly, the Greens’ electorate showed a 50-50 tie. In the national total, this corresponds to 60 per cent of the citizenry, with the difference in the east being more significant (75 per cent against).
The case of the AfD is more curious because as a party that was born out of contestation with the system on the issues not only of immigration, but also of foreign policy and others, and its electoral base is clearly critical of Berlin’s pro-Western policy, its leadership also has a disproportionate presence of the philo-Zionist element, which is no different from the rest of the political class.
According to another poll also from October, by Infratest Dimap for public television ARD and WELT daily, only 19 per cent of AfD supporters consider Israel to be a reliable partner, a noticeably lower percentage than in the CDU/CSU (34 per cent) the SPD (36 per cent) and the Greens (38 per cent).
AfD distances itself from the Zionist consensus
Probably because he knew how to interpret this discrepancy between leadership and base, AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla called for an end to aid to Tel Aviv and Germany’s ‘one-sided’ relationship with the Jewish state. “By supplying arms to Israel, you are accepting the dehumanisation of all civilian victims on both sides. They are not contributing to détente, but rather throwing fuel on the fire”, he said. It is “time to take a critical and objective look at the Israeli government”.
These statements come at a time of a clear move towards multipolarity within the party. Moreover, the principle of neutrality is the AfD’s official line. Its 2024 European electoral programme states that “the supply of arms to war zones does not serve peace in Europe”. At the risk of becoming just another political party, the AfD seems to want to meet the feelings of the majority of Germans and its social support base on foreign policy issues, which are now much debated by the general public.
It seems clear that after decades in the room, the elephant can no longer be hidden in the German political debate.
The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic sent a letter Wednesday to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland accusing the former governor of providing false statements to the panel when he testified on June 11.
In the Republican-led committee’s referral, it says Cuomo “knowingly and willfully made materially false statements” to the panel during its investigation into the New York’s Covid-19 response. The statements in question stem from exchanges about a New York state Department of Health report on nursing home infections and deaths that was released on July 6, 2020.
The report caught my eye because I have long followed the New York nursing home scandal, which I thoroughly investigated for our book The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex.
This particular chapter about the mindbogglingly stupid and criminal pandemic response is so noteworthy that I believe it is worth republishing.
CHAPTER 11: “Cuomosexuals”
On the same day (March 23) that Dr. Bright initiated his scheme to restrict hydroxychloroquine to hospitalized patients, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued the following executive order:
No pharmacist shall dispense hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine except when written as prescribed as an FDA-approved indication; or as part of a state approved clinical trial related to COVID-19 for a patient who has tested positive for COVID-19 with such test result documented as part of the prescription. No other experimental or prophylactic use shall be permitted …
This order prohibited New York pharmacies from filling off-label prescriptions for Covid patients. The exceptionally determined Dr. Zelenko found a way to get around it, but it made his practice much more difficult.
Two days later, on March 25, the New York Department of Health issued the following directive to nursing home administrators:
No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the NH solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. NHs are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.
As anyone who has ever worked in a nursing home knows, respiratory viruses can rip through the facility and cause severe illness. Virulent common cold rhinovirus outbreaks have resulted in multiple deaths in this setting. By March 25, it was crystal clear that the risk of severe disease and death from COVID-19 is by far the highest for patients over the age of seventy-five. Thus, ordering “confirmed or suspected” Covid patients to be readmitted to nursing homes was the equivalent of forcing foxes into henhouses. What was the New York State Health Department thinking?
On March 27, the United States set the world record of COVID-19 cases, and New York City was the nation’s epicenter—a five-alarm fire of serious infections. On April 10, New York State recorded more Covid cases than any country on earth except the United States in total and its nursing homes were devastated by the contagion. The legacy media was slow to notice this, perhaps because it was blinded by Governor Cuomo’s stardom. He gave daily press conferences in which he spoke about the measures he and his team were taking to keep New Yorkers safe. Millions across the country watched these performances for which he later received an Emmy.
As the spring wore on, reports of mass casualty events in nursing homes emerged, and these drew scrutiny to the Health Department’s March 25 directive. On May 21, the Associated Press reported that over 4,500 Covid patients had been sent back into New York nursing homes. This number would later be revised upward to over 9,000. The AP report coincided with growing suspicion the Health Department wasn’t being transparent about mortality data in these facilities. Suspicion was confirmed on January 28, 2021, when New York Attorney General Latitia James reported that the Department of Health had undercounted nursing home deaths by 50%.
On February 11, 2021, the New York Post published a leaked audio recording of Governor Cuomo’s secretary, Melissa DeRosa, speaking confidentially with the New York State Democratic Committee. On this tape she can be heard apologizing for concealing nursing home data. Though mealy-mouthed, her apology revealed that Cuomo’s team had acted out of fear of getting into trouble with the DOJ.
Basically, we froze because then we were in a position where we weren’t sure if what we were going to give to the Department of Justice or what we give to you guys and what we start saying was going to be used against us, and we weren’t sure if there was going to be an investigation.
After making this confession, she changed the subject to “the context” of their decision—namely, they were concerned that President Trump would try to politicize the incident in the upcoming election.
“Right around the same time, he [Trump] turns this into a giant political football,” she told the Committee.
For many who followed the New York nursing home story, it seemed emblematic of many pathologies afflicting the U.S. political and media class. First was the nepotism of the Cuomo family, with CNN Anchor Chris and Governor Andrew regularly putting on shows for their fawning, sentimental fans, many of whom called themselves “Cuomosexuals.” T-shirts, hats, coffee mugs, and even a popular music video appeared bearing the term’s definition: In love with competent, reassuring governance by a leader who uses complete sentences and displays common sense during a pandemic.
The Governor’s cult of personality yielded a $5.2 million book deal with Penguin Random House, initiated by an acquiring editor on March 19, 2020, three days before the state went into lockdown. The deal for American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic stipulated the book be ready for publication before the November elections. Governor Cuomo purportedly wrote a 70,000-word typescript in three months while at the same time executing his duties as full-time “Leader” in handling New York’s Covid crisis. The state ethics board approved the deal on the condition that no state resources were used in the book’s production, but that didn’t stop Cuomo from using his staff and a ghostwriter.
Complementing the governor’s book deal was his Emmy Award. As Bruce Paisner, CEO of the International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, explained in his announcement of November 20, 2020:
The Governor’s 111 daily briefings worked so well because he effectively created television shows, with characters, plot lines, and stories of success and failure. People around the world tuned in to find out what was going on, and New York tough became a symbol of the determination to fight back.
All these awards and extravagant expressions of adulation for the Governor’s leadership overlooked his executive order impeding access to hydroxychloroquine and his Health Department’s catastrophic directive to nursing homes. Protecting nursing homes was the only contagion control policy for which there was a crystal clear rationale. While general lockdowns did little to stop the spread, extraordinary measures to secure nursing homes probably would have given some protection to society’s most vulnerable. Instead, the New York Health Department sent thousands of Covid patients back into these facilities and then concealed the ensuing death toll. On June 2, 2020, USA Today reported that “Over the last three months, more than 40,600 long-term care residents and workers have died of COVID-19—about 40% of the nation’s death toll attributed to the coronavirus …”
After flying high in 2020, the Cuomo brothers fell back to earth in 2021, when multiple women accused the Governor of sexual harassment. He was then further accused of using his executive power to suppress these allegations. Chris Cuomo was likewise accused of using his powerful media connections to aid and abet his brother in the concealment.
A cynic might be tempted to wonder about the timing of the sexual misconduct allegations—right as reports emerged that New York Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. Attorney Seth Ducharme of the Eastern District of New York, and the FBI were opening investigations into allegations of malfeasance resulting in nursing home deaths. Especially disturbing was the allegation that Governor Cuomo provided legal immunity to nursing home executives from whom he received campaign contributions, possibly giving them carte blanche to cut costs at the expense of the care and safety of their residents. As the Attorney General stated in her preliminary findings:
On March 23, Governor Cuomo created limited immunity provisions for health care providers relating to COVID-19. The Emergency Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) provides immunity to health care professionals from potential liability arising from certain decisions, actions and/or omissions related to the care of individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. While it is reasonable to provide some protections for health care workers making impossible health care decisions in good faith during an unprecedented public health crisis, it would not be appropriate or just for nursing homes owners to interpret this action as providing blanket immunity for causing harm to residents.
With multiple allegations of sexual misconduct made in March 2021, the subject in mainstream media reporting was largely changed from New York State’s possible liability for the preventable deaths of thousands to Governor Cuomo’s inappropriate behavior with women.
On August 7, 2021, the New Yorker published a coda to Governor Cuomo’s rise to superstardom and his crashing fall from grace. In an essay titled, Diving Into the Subconscious of the “Cuomosexual,” reporter Lizzie Widdicombe posed the question:
How could we have witnessed the Governor’s narcissism, bullying, and hackneyed paternalism and found these qualities attractive?
To answer it, she interviewed psychoanalyst Virginia Goldner, who explained that Governor Cuomo “was radiating an eroticized masculinity that has within it hostility and a little tenderness. That combination of soft and hard—mostly hard, but also soft—is what so many women crave in some way.”
Dr. Goldner’s remarks pointed to a key feature of how the public responded to official Covid policy. Approval of policies had little to do with their substance. Mostly it derived from impressions of the personal qualities, political affiliation, and perceived authority of the officials who presented the policies. Governor Cuomo exuded masculine confidence and gave the impression of taking bold action against a foreign invader. His performances were fascinating to watch, but they had little to do with reality.
By late March of 2020, the virus had spread far beyond the possibility of being contained. The Swedish state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, pointed this out in a March 28, 2020 New York Times interview, but no major public health official in the United States acknowledged this reality. Because the virus was far beyond containment, it was unlikely that any of Governor Cuomo’s contagion control orders such as his statewide lockdown or shutdown of “nonessential businesses” made any positive difference. He was awarded an Emmy for embodying “the determination to fight back” against the virus. In fact, he disarmed New Yorkers by impeding their access to the only weapon (hydroxychloroquine) known at the time for fighting it. Covid patients, including thousands of sitting ducks in nursing homes, were consequently left defenseless.
The excessive medical response to the Covid pandemic made one thing abundantly clear: Medical consumers really ought to do their own research into the health issues that impact them. Furthermore, it is no longer enough simply to seek out a “second opinion” or even a “third opinion” from doctors. They may well all be misinformed or biased. Furthermore, this problem appears to predate the Covid phenomenon.
A striking example of that can be found in the recent history of prostate cancer testing and treatment, which, for personal reasons, has become a subject of interest to me. In many ways, it strongly resembles the Covid calamity, where misuse of the PCR test resulted in harming the supposedly Covid-infected with destructive treatments.
Two excellent books on the subject illuminate the issues involved in prostate cancer. One is Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers by Dr. Mark Scholz and Ralph Blum. Dr. Scholtz is executive director of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute in California. The other is The Great Prostate Hoax by Richard Ablin and Ronald Piana. Richard Ablin is a pathologist who invented the PSA test but has become a vociferous critic of its widespread use as a diagnostic tool for prostate cancer.
Mandatory yearly PSA testing at many institutions opened up a gold mine for urologists, who were able to perform lucrative biopsies and prostatectomies on patients who had PSA test numbers above a certain level. However, Ablin has insisted that “routine PSA screening does far more harm to men than good.” Moreover, he maintains that the medical people involved in prostate screening and treatment represent “a self-perpetuating industry that has maimed millions of American men.”
Even during approval hearings for the PSA test, the FDA was well aware of the problems and dangers. For one thing, the test has a 78% false positive rate. An elevated PSA level can be caused by various factors besides cancer, so it is not really a test for prostate cancer. Moreover, a PSA test score can spur frightened men into getting unnecessary biopsies and harmful surgical procedures.
One person who understood the potential dangers of the test well was the chairman of the FDA’s committee, Dr. Harold Markovitz, who decided whether to approve it. He declared, “I’m afraid of this test. If it is approved, it comes out with the imprimatur of the committee… as pointed out, you can’t wash your hands of guilt … all this does is threaten a whole lot of men with prostate biopsy… it’s dangerous.”
In the end, the committee did not give unqualified approval to the PSA test but only approved it “with conditions.” However, subsequently, the conditions were ignored.
Nevertheless, the PSA test became celebrated as the route to salvation from prostate cancer. The Postal Service even circulated a stamp promoting yearly PSA tests in 1999. Quite a few people became wealthy and well-known at the Hybritech company, thanks to the Tandem-R PSA test, their most lucrative product.
In those days, the corrupting influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the medical device and drug approval process was already apparent. In an editorial for the Journal of the American Medical Association (quoted in Albin and Piana’s book), Dr. Marcia Angell wrote, “The pharmaceutical industry has gained unprecedented control over the evaluation of its products… there’s mounting evidence that they skew the research they sponsor to make their drugs look better and safer.” She also authored the bookThe Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.
A cancer diagnosis often causes great anxiety, but in actuality, prostate cancer develops very slowly compared to other cancers and does not often pose an imminent threat to life. A chart featured in Scholz and Blum’s book compares the average length of life of people whose cancer returns after surgery. In the case of colon cancer, they live on average two more years, but prostate cancer patients live another 18.5 years.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, prostate cancer patients do not die from it but rather from something else, whether they are treated for it or not. In a 2023 article about this issue titled “To Treat or Not to Treat,” the author reports the results of a 15-year study of prostate cancer patients in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only 3% of the men in the study died of prostate cancer, and getting radiation or surgery for it did not seem to offer much statistical benefit over “active surveillance.”
Dr. Scholz confirms this, writing that “studies indicate that these treatments [radiation and surgery] reduce mortality in men with Low and Intermediate-Risk disease by only 1% to 2% and by less than 10% in men with High-Risk disease.”
Nowadays prostate surgery is a dangerous treatment choice, but it is still widely recommended by doctors, especially in Japan. Sadly, it also seems to be unnecessary. One study cited in Ablin and Piana’s book concluded that “PSA mass screening resulted in a huge increase in the number of radical prostatectomies. There is little evidence for improved survival outcomes in the recent years…”
However, a number of urologists urge their patients not to wait to get prostate surgery, threatening them with imminent death if they do not. Ralph Blum, a prostate cancer patient, was told by one urologist, “Without surgery you’ll be dead in two years.” Many will recall that similar death threats were also a common feature of Covid mRNA-injection promotion.
Weighing against prostate surgery are various risks, including death and long-term impairment, since it is a very difficult procedure, even with newer robotic technology. According to Dr. Scholz, about 1 in 600 prostate surgeries result in the death of the patient. Much higher percentages suffer from incontinence (15% to 20%) and impotence after surgery. The psychological impact of these side effects is not a minor problem for many men.
In light of the significant risks and little proven benefit of treatment, Dr. Scholz censures “the urology world’s persistent overtreatment mindset.” Clearly, excessive PSA screening led to inflicting unnecessary suffering on many men. More recently, the Covid phenomenon has been an even more dramatic case of medical overkill.
Ablin and Piana’s book makes an observation that also sheds a harsh light on the Covid medical response: “Isn’t cutting edge innovation that brings new medical technology to the market a good thing for health-care consumers? The answer is yes, but only if new technologies entering the market have proven benefit over the ones they replace.”
That last point especially applies to Japan right now, where people are being urged to receive the next-generation mRNA innovation–the self-amplifying mRNA Covid vaccine. Thankfully, a number seem to be resisting this time.
Bruce Davidson is professor of humanities at Hokusei Gakuen University in Sapporo, Japan.
The UK government and police – the British state – made clear today they are waging a war of intimidation against the country’s independent journalists in a desperate attempt to silence them.
Ten Metropolitan police officers made a dawn raid on the home of investigative journalist Asa Winstanley and seized his electronic devices under the UK’s draconian Terrorism Act. A letter from the Met indicates that the associate editor of the Electronic Intifada is being investigated by the force for “encouraging terrorism”.
The raid isn’t about terrorism – except the UK government’s. It’s about scaring us into staying silent on Britain’s collusion in Israel’s genocide.
Winstanley is the latest – and most high profile – independent journalist to be targeted by counter-terrorism police in recent weeks. Earlier, Richard Medhurst was arrested at Heathrow airport on returning to the UK from a trip abroad. Then Sarah Wilkinson was arrested and her home ransacked.
Winstanley has repeatedly embarrassed the British establishment by exposing its covert and deep ties to Israel and its collusion with the Israeli lobby.
In his book Weaponising Anti-Semitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn, Winstanley exposed in shocking detail how antisemitism was weaponised against the former Labour leader.
The book would have made uncomfortable reading for his successor, Sir Keir Starmer, now Britain’s prime minister, because it documents his role in the smear campaign.
While in opposition, Starmer’s Labour party threatened to expel Winstanley as a member – he resigned in protest instead – and have made legal threats against him.
As the Electronic Intifada website notes: “Now that Labour is the UK’s ruling party, it has the potential to use the apparatus of the state against those it views as its own – or Israel’s – political enemies.”
There is precisely no reason for police to raid Winstanley’s home or seize his electronic devices. The preposterous accusation of “encouraging terrorism” clearly relates to his online work, which is fully in the public domain.
The British state wants to insinuate through the dawn raid and confiscation of his devices that he is somehow harbouring secret or classified information, or in illicit contact with terror groups, and that incriminating evidence will be forthcoming from searches of those devices.
It won’t. If there were any real suspicion that Winstanley had such information, the police would have arrested him rather than making a public show of a 6am raid and search they knew beforehand would turn up nothing.
This isn’t about terrorism at all. It is about frightening those opposing Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and the West’s collusion in it, into silence. If the British state is going after someone like Winstanley, you are supposed to conclude, they will surely soon come for me too.
Even the name of the “counter-terrorism” raid is performative: “Operation Incessantness”. The message the state wants to send is that it will not rest till it has us all behind bars.
Don’t believe this nonsense. The police have nothing on Winstanley. Exposing information about Israel and its genocide, and the British government’s culpability, is not a crime. At least not yet.
They want you to think it is, of course. They want you scared and mute. Because every time you go out and protest, you remind the world that the British government, and their bully-boys in blue, are the real criminals – for enabling genocide.
Gary Vogler, who spent eight years working with the Pentagon’s Iraq oil team and even briefly served as the country’s oil minister, joins host and former CIA analyst Larry Johnson to discuss the following issues:
HART recently posted an article titled “The Witch Hunt continues”, which discussed self-censorship of doctors, General Medical Council (GMC) overreach, and how medical professionals are being erased from the medical register, despite no wrongdoing. Yet this is not a new phenomenon. If we delve into the history of how our existing ‘medical monopoly’ was established, with its roots firmly in America, it is an all too familiar disturbing playbook of censorship, corruption and subversion of ethics that spans over 130 years in the making. The existing medical monopoly was contrived by the Rockefeller family and their many contacts, which has been so successful in its takeover of medicine in America. Herein, I discuss an excellent book by Eustace Mullins titled “Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America”. Despite the book’s off putting title, Eustace’s careful research spanning over 30 years provides a detailed and shocking account of how billionaire tycoons have waged tyranny, economic depressions, wars and revolutions as part of a wider plan to usher in a medical care system to enslave the public through an entirely controlled medical monopoly. The whole book is free to download here.
Until the late 19th century, doctors were freelance practitioners who assumed all the risks associated with their medical decision-making. In 1832, the British Medical Association was chartered and provided the impetus for a similar organisation to be established in the United States (US), namely the American Medical Association (AMA), which was founded in 1847 with its headquarters in Chicago. From its inception, the AMA had one objective: to create a total medical monopoly of the practice of medicine, and ensure allopathy was the basis of its practice. Allopathic medicine required practitioners to receive training in a recognised academic school of medicine, which relied heavily on surgical procedures as well as medicines. Allopathy was to rival homoeopathy, which promoted non-toxic doses of natural remedies; in the mid-1800s, homoeopaths outnumbered allopaths two to one in the US – a statistic that had to be overturned when the AMA was created.
The reason this book is so pertinent in our troublesome times is that it catalogues the long, but very calculated and carefully planned demise of healthcare in America. It chronicles how the introduction of a monopoly through any means possible – including, racketeering, abuse, censorship and murder – enabled the takeover of health by federal agencies and governments, which were inextricably linked to industry and big pharma. How was such a monopoly to be achieved? It had to be orchestrated by the richest man in the world at that time, the monopolist John D. Rockefeller, who had triumphed in organising his oil monopoly. Backed by Rothschild and Wall Street colleagues, it was hoped the medical monopoly would provide even greater profits than oil, which has more than proved to be the case. Rockefeller appointed Frederick T. Gates (related to Mr Microsoft Bill Gates) as his ‘philanthropic’ agent, whose task was to dominate the entire medical education system.
In 1907, the AMA requested the Carnegie Foundation to conduct a survey of all medical schools in the US; the Foundation appointed Abraham Flexner to lead the study of medical schools. Coincidentally, Abraham Flexner’s brother, Simon, was head of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research, so this was an intentional cosy and conflicted setup from the outset. Flexner, a graduate of Johns Hopkins University, which was founded by Daniel Colt Gilman, completed his report in 1910. The report and AMA decided there were too many doctors and the solution was to create a medical educational system so elitist that most students would be prohibited from considering such a career. The undergraduate training was constructed so that allopathic medicine was central to its teaching, and by 1920 the number of medical schools had declined from 650 to 50 in number.
The book goes on to describe how ‘quackery’ was established, with three key players, Morris Fishbein, George Simmons and Albert Lasker, who all began their careers as journalists. Not one of them had any credentials of practising medicine, but their collective journalist and organisational talents propelled them to the heights of power, as full-time ‘quacks’. They utilised their connections with the corrupt AMA to stifle dissent and opposition. For instance, the AMA would grant pharmaceutical companies a ‘Seal of Approval’ for their products but only if they advertised in AMA-affiliated journals. Those that opposed this, such as Wallace Abbott, founder of Abbott Laboratories, soon found out the hard way that no products would be approved, and his reputation would suffer unless he ‘cooperated’. Simmons’ practices were particularly egregious, with one critic positing: “almost every branch of the Federal Government active in the field of medicine was completely dominated by the AMA”.
Ultimately, the monopolists forced government agencies to act against anyone who posed a threat to their monopoly, including arrests and prison sentences. Simmons and Fishbein collectively controlled the AMA for over half a century, through raising money and using political clout. Fishbein had total control over all publications of the AMA and selection of personnel in various committees. Moreover the AMA was instrumental in concealing beneficial (but non-lucrative) therapies, with products of high value being rejected or their acceptance enduring unwarranted delays. The extent of the corruption detailed in this history of American medicine is remarkable. Federal agents were solicited by charitable foundations to instigate police actions to hundreds of unsuspecting health practitioners throughout the US, in a ruthless operation to arrest and imprison people distributing leaflets about natural or herbal formulas, despite no evidence anyone had been injured or killed by these remedies. Terror raids against competitors were carried out, with heavily armed federal agents breaking doors and seizing any herbal stocks from people’s homes. The book describes terrorisation of anyone active in the alternative healthcare field. Thus, the AMA became an autocracy. Physicians were trained under the Rockefeller-based medical system, which had full control over the medical examination boards. So successful was this endeavour that Americans are now treated with expensive, overpriced, ineffective and potentially dangerous drugs, a corruption that has been routinely covered up by federal agencies.
In 1940, a bill for health insurance was introduced; although it initially suffered setbacks, the seed was sown to create an industry whereby the AMA would fight ‘socialised medicine’, which was the forerunner for Medicare and Medicaid. In the 1960s, the next target for annihilation was the chiropractic sector. No level of intimidation of censorship was spared and many high-profile speakers were forced to cancel lectures and lobby groups were set up to sanction and apply pressure on the Council on Chiropractic Education to the extent that the AMA Joint Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals barred chiropractors and refused accreditation of hospitals that had such practitioners. The AMA also forced the Veterans Administration to refuse payments to veterans for chiropractic services.
With their eyes set on further control, the medical monopolists realised that cancer was a lucrative endeavour and so established the next phase of the monopoly. In 1913, the same year President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, a group of doctors met at the Harvard Club in New York to establish a national cancer organisation, the American Society for the Control of Cancer (later renamed the American Cancer Society, ACS). The Rockefellers (with Rothschild and J. P. Morgan backing) funded the ACS. Similarly, funding for the Memorial Hospital (later to become the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) was also linked with the National Radium Institute, which stipulated that further funds be permitted, only assuming all cancers were treated with radium. By 1922, more than 100 radiologists had died from X-ray induced cancer. Alfred Sloan, the President of General Motors and Charles Kettering, an inventive genius of electrical systems and auto ignition were deployed. Mullins chronicles in detail how huge industry directors and partners were all interlinked with each other, such as Squibb, Bristol Myers, Johnson & Johnson, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Lehman Brothers, Chase Manhattan Bank and National Geographic. Collaborations with ‘elected’ presidents, industry players, defence industries, CIA, chemical and drug firms go hand-in-hand.
Two key names in patent medicine and journalism were Albert Lasker and Elmer Bobst. One of Lasker’s greatest achievements was his national campaign to persuade women to smoke in public. Lasker became ill with cancer and died in 1952, but before his death, he set up the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, which made Mary (Albert’s daughter) the most powerful woman in American Medicine. It is also no coincidence that 18 members of the ACS Board of Directors were executive officers of banks. Pat McGrady, who served as editor of the ACS for 25 years stated “Medicine has become venal, second only to the law”. Since “the fight against cancer” is totally controlled by the Rockefeller medical monopoly, much of cancer research is bogus and filled with falsified results, albeit by well intentioned and unsuspecting researchers. Since Elmer Bobst played a crucial role in making it possible for Nixon to become President, it was not difficult to persuade him to authorise a new and expensive “war on cancer” in 1971.
The book explains how the ACS, AMA and FDA collaboratively staged a war of censorship and intimidation, preventing discussion of effective compounds, such as laetrile, for treating cancer. The ACS, for example, opposed the regulation of potential carcinogens, such as TRIS (trisaminomethane) and DES (diethylstilbestrol). Chemotherapy was promoted as a cancer treatment in the 1960s, despite evidence that it had many serious side effects and was shown to be highly toxic and carcinogenic in animal models, as well as immunosuppressive. Cancer is as much a disease of poor nutrition and one in which the multiplication of ‘simpler’ cells are unable to differentiate because the energy balance of the body is disrupted causing the disease. One of the Director’s of the National Cancer Institute is Mary Lasker, who has close ties with the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, which is not a coincidence.
Mullins goes on to describe several instances of researchers who had discovered cancer cures either by detoxification or a diet low in salt, protein and fats, but the work was buried or destroyed to ensure the chemotherapy, radiation and surgical approaches to cancer were unchallenged. The Laskers built much of their fortune on the promotion of cigarette smoking. Although cigarette smoking is harmful and causes cancer, studies (cited in the book) have shown that there was no link between traditional air-dried tobacco and lung cancer. The tobacco industries, dominated by the Rothschilds, add chemicals and sugar to tobacco, which creates a carcinogenic substance in the nicotine tar. Air-dried tobacco lacks this carcinogen, as noted by the many primitive tribes who have smoked tobacco for thousands of years without any ill effects. Mullins explains that the ACS has vested interests in established forms of cancer treatment, for example owning 50% of the patent rights for the chemotherapy drug 5-fluorouracil. Dr Hardin James addressed the ACS in 1969, noting that “for a typical type of cancer, people who refuse treatment live an average of 12.5 years. Those who accepted surgery and other kinds of treatment, lived an average of 3 years. I attribute this to the traumatic effect of surgery on the body’s natural defence mechanisms.”
In the ‘holy church’ of allopathic medicine, there are what might be termed the four ‘holy waters’, which include immunisation, fluorination of water, use of fertilisers and contamination of the food chain. The practice of immunisation is the most pernicious in terms of its long-term effects. This practice goes directly against the discovery of modern holistic medical experts that the body has a natural immune defence against illness. The greatest heresy any clinician can commit is to publicly voice any doubt about any one of the four ‘holy waters’. The most deeply entrenched in the fabric of modern medical practice, as is glaringly apparent, is the vaccination programmes, as well as being one of the most profitable aspects of the medical monopoly. One physician, Dr Henry R. Bybee of Norfolk, Virginia, stated “My honest opinion is that vaccines are the cause of more disease and suffering than anything I could name.” Additionally, Dr Herbert Snow, a senior surgeon at a cancer hospital in London voiced similar concerns “In recent years, many men and women in the prime of life have dropped dead suddenly. I am convinced that some 80% of these deaths are caused by the inoculation or vaccination they have undergone.” The chilling accounts continue with another practitioner Dr W. B. Clarke of Indiana remarking “cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination when the cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least 200 cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person”. Is this not at least an observation worth exploring? It is unlikely modern medicine advocates will examine this alarming connection. Eventually, the outraged public will bring pressure to abandon the modern ritual of vaccinating children.
Another well-known practitioner from San Francisco, Dr J. M. Pebbles, revealed “The vaccination practice…has not only become the chief menace and the greatest danger to the health of the rising generation, but an outrage upon the personal liberties of the American citizen.” The book tells of how Wyeth laboratories was charged with $15 million in damages to an 8-year-old girl who suffered permanent brain damage after receiving a diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine. In the US, vaccines are actively and incessantly promoted as the solution for all infectious diseases. It is not a coincidence that agencies, such as the AMA, WHO, FDA, are in favour of the vaccine programmes given the revolving door that exists between Big Pharma and these agencies. It is well known that Edward Jenner ‘discovered’ the cowpox vaccine to purportedly prevent smallpox. However, smallpox was already declining before the introduction of the vaccine and many believe it would have disappeared by the end of the 19th century. After the cowpox vaccine became widespread in England, a smallpox epidemic ensued killing over 22,000 people. By 1872, 44,480 were killed, and the vaccine was finally banned in 1948. This trend is mirrored elsewhere: Japan introduced compulsory vaccination in 1872 and by 1892 there were 165,774 cases of smallpox resulting in nearly 30,000 deaths. Other European countries that submitted to compulsory vaccination saw similar high numbers of cases and deaths, whereas countries (such as Norway) who did not vaccinate had a fraction of the cases. Historians are reluctantly concluding that the 1918 ‘great flu epidemic’ was attributable to the widespread use of vaccines, as survivors were those who had refused the vaccines.
The book chronicles how dissenters and researchers who spoke out lost their jobs, had their laboratory notes seized and burned, and laboratory animals destroyed. In the 1970s, the swine flu vaccination campaign was ushered in, but insurance companies refused to cover against lawsuits as there were inadequate studies. This prompted a propaganda campaign by the monopolists to trick Americans into saving themselves by taking the vaccines, which resulted in billions in damage claims. The next iteration by Dr Jonas Salk in the 1950s was the polio vaccine, which Simon Flexner helped to recommend. It is disturbing that a national conference in Washington in 1988 declared that “all the cases of polio in America come from the vaccine. The naturally occurring (or wild type) polio virus has not been shown to cause a single case of polio in the US since 1979”. Even back in 1955, the Surgeon General of the US highlighted in the AMA conference that “no batch of vaccine can be proven safe before it is given to children”. Moreover, James R. Shannon of the NIH declared “the only safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never used.”
Importantly, the death by injection playbook is not new; rather, a well-orchestrated agenda has been implemented with calculated precision in multiple cycles to gradually harm and decimate populations across the globe. This book further discusses how fluorination of water has been another Rockefeller-deployed monopoly to poison millions of Americans by adding the poisonous chemical sodium fluoride to drinking water. Large quantities of fluorides are waste contaminants and byproducts from large agricultural firms, pesticides and chemical firms, such as Hooker Chemical. Predictably, Hooker Chemical became part of the Rockefeller unit when one of the Hooker family married into the Rockefeller family. Fluorides can cause serious chromosomal damage and animal model studies have shown it promotes cancer development, even at the one part per million threshold in drinking water that has detrimental consequences especially when consumed cumulatively over time. Soviet studies have further shown that fluorides were useful in inducing docile obedience in the general population. Combined with aluminium that was included in many foods, cooking pots and packaging, this has aided in slowly poisoning the mass population and of course produced Alzhiemer’s disease, in what constitutes a build up of toxic levels of aluminium, leading to cognitive and nervous system decline.
Not content with disrupting the medical and water supplies, the Rockefeller-based medical monopoly had its eye on the ‘green revolution’ and agricultural control through the contamination of crops using a ‘co-opted’ carefully constructed money laundering system. This time they developed ‘super crops’ or grains that would serve as an excellent cash cow for the US to sell to ‘developing’ nations. To achieve this goal required the soil to be pumped with huge quantities of fertiliser (the product of nitrates and petroleum), commodities controlled by the Rockefellers that helped to build an entire chemical empire. At the end of the second World War, a concerted effort was made by the monopolists to dump surplus nitrates into the American food chain. Farmers were instructed to increase their use of fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides and create a capital intensive payback scheme for the monopolists. The final sections of the book discuss how fertilisers have been used to reduce nutrients in the soil and how the food chain has been slowly contaminated. Chapter 9 lists and discusses the 18 largest drug firms and their close associations with major banking cartels and federal agencies, such as the CIA.
Collectively, these insidious links with Big Pharma and the medical monopoly, are not only a massive cash cow, but have maimed and decimated the population and continue to do so. Since the rest of the world is intimately tethered to the well-oiled Rockefeller US medical monopoly machine, it is not hard to see how the censorship, corruption and silencing of dissenters has become all too commonplace today.
Medical and pharmaceutical history is replete with examples of dangerous interventions that have poisoned, injured, or killed. However, events since 2020 have attracted attention as never before to medicine’s potential to be both lethal and malevolent. In The Medical-Pharmaceutical Killing Machine, Children’s Health Defense situates current perils in their broader context with the aim of helping readers understand how to protect themselves and their loved ones.
In the Greek Trojan War saga, the god Apollo ensured that Cassandra’s prophecies would never be believed, with disastrous consequences. As recounted in the book, modern medicine, too, has produced its fair share of “medical Cassandras”—doctors and writers who have tried to warn the public about medicine’s life-threatening underbelly, generally to little avail. A chapter dedicated to nine of these medical skeptics, beginning with Ivan Illich and his coining of the term “iatrogenesis” to describe adverse outcomes caused by doctors, weaves a powerful portrait of harms regularly denied and ignored, with those making the claims typically marginalized and “canceled.”
The book shows that there is no shortage of tools in the killing machine arsenal. One chapter highlights the mRNA vaccine technology inaugurated with COVID, illustrating how this new mechanism for iatrogenesis is inflicting novel forms of toxicity, not all of which are yet understood. Another chapter about assisted suicide and euthanasia describes the chilling global proliferation of policies and propaganda promoting those practices for vulnerable populations that include babies, children, people diagnosed with autism, and the mentally ill. The book also describes factors that make it possible for the killing machine to continue operating with impunity, including the ascendance of an “evidence-based medicine” juggernaut, medical gaslighting, and a ballooning global enforcement infrastructure. Nor does it shy away from confronting what some now characterize as “iatrogenocide”; a chapter asking “Why Do They Do It?” considers money, prestige, and control as three possible answers.
Ultimately, it is only by acknowledging the long-standing reality of an all-too-effective medical-pharmaceutical killing machine that people can learn to dodge the threats and work toward building a different model that prioritizes life and genuine health.
Today marks the one year anniversary of the remarkably successful Hamas raid on Israel, in which some 1,500 lightly-armed Islamic militants from Gaza so greatly humiliated the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his country’s entire national security establishment. The consequences of these last twelve months have been enormous, not merely for the Jewish State and the rest of the Middle East, but also for America and the entire world.
For many fatal diseases the cause of death is less the result of the infection itself than that of the defensive immune system, whose massive over-reaction destroys vital tissue, killing the entire organism. And I think that the Hamas raid of October 7, 2023 and the Israeli response may eventually be seen in this light.
Some 1,200 Israelis died that day, probably many or most of them killed by their own country’s panic-stricken and trigger-happy IDF forces, whose Apache helicopters were ordered to blast anything that moved. Although such losses were hardly insignificant in a Jewish population of some 7.2 million and the national humiliation was enormous, if the Israeli government had merely been content to launch a few weeks of punitive bombing attacks against Gaza and then grudgingly accept an exchange of prisoners with its Hamas adversaries, I doubt the results would have been too serious.
Israel had held many thousands of Palestinians without charges or trial and often under brutal conditions, so releasing these in exchange for the 200-odd Israelis Hamas had carried back to Gaza would have meant a huge loss of face for the Jewish State, but hardly a threat to the country’s survival. The Israelis could have merely fired a few of their complacent and incompetent local military commanders and strengthened their Gaza defenses, and matters would have probably gone on much like before.
Israel had been riding high at that point, on the very verge of accomplishing its decades-long project of fully normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia, the most powerful Arab state. Israel’s close friends totally dominated the Biden Administration and Donald Trump promised to do even more for that country if he somehow managed to regain the White House. The country had just celebrated the 75th anniversary of its founding, and its international strategic position seemed better than it had been in many years, so it could have easily taken its Hamas debacle in stride.
But after the events of the last twelve months, I tend to doubt that the country will survive much longer in anything like its existing form, and its collapse may also take down with it the entire political structure of organized Jewry worldwide, which today so heavily dominates both America and much of the rest of the world. While Israel may face very serious risks from the major regional war its government seeks to ignite, I think the greatest threat to its existence comes from the massive distribution of devastating information that has taken place during this last year.
If the Israeli government had cut its losses and exchanged prisoners with Hamas, the country might have been humiliated but Netanyahu would have been utterly destroyed. So partly because of his own desperate political situation, he reacted in very different fashion, unleashing massive, relentless attacks against Gaza’s helpless couple of million civilians, clearly hoping to save his own political skin by using the Hamas raid as an excuse to kill or expel all the Palestinians in that enclave and afterwards in the West Bank. This would have allowed him to establish his name in history as Israel’s second founding father, finally creating the Greater Israel that all of his predecessors had failed to achieve. This bold project was certainly spurred on by the small extremist political parties upon whom the political survival of his government depended, whose ideological leadership regarded those territories as their God-given heritage under the fierce version of the religious Judaism that they followed.
Unfortunately for Netanyahu’s plans, despite all his massive bombing attacks, Gaza’s Palestinians refused to leave, perhaps remembering how their parents or grand-parents had previously been expelled by Zionist militants in 1948 from their homes in Haifa and other cities of what became Israel, as I had discussed in a long December article:
Moreover, despite massive financial lures, over-populated Egypt was adamant that it would not accept a couple of million displaced Gazans, who would likely become a source of social instability and future border clashes with Israel. So with the Gazans refusing to leave and the Egyptians refusing to take them, this left little choice but for the Israelis to keep bombing them in hopes they might change their minds, perhaps further assisted by the pressure of famine as the entrance of food supplies to the besieged enclave was blocked by mobs of angry Israelis.
Hamas and its determined fighters were hidden in their heavily-fortified network of tunnels and during the year that followed IDF troops had little success in rooting them out, suffering continuing casualties along the way and freeing only a tiny number of the Israelis held prisoner.
Angry, frustrated armies naturally tend to take revenge against the entire civilian population of their enemies, and in an August article I’d summarized the unspeakable war crimes that IDF troops were regularly committing against helpless Palestinian civilians, with some of these incidents finally starting to receive coverage in mainstream American media outlets.
According to American physicians interviewed by Politico Magazine and CBS News Sunday Morning, Israeli military snipers have regularly been executing Palestinian toddlers with precisely aimed shots to the head and the heart; indeed, for many years Israelis have proudly marketed tee-shirts boasting of their success in killing pregnant women and children. An article in the New York Times also reported that IDF forces have seized and tortured to death leading Palestinian surgeons and other medical doctors, with some of the survivors describing the horrific torments they endured at the hands of their brutal Israeli captors.
All of these barbaric atrocities have been justified and encouraged by the sweeping public statements of top Israeli leaders. For example, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly identified the Palestinians with the tribe of Amalek, whom the Hebrew god commanded must be exterminated down to the last newborn baby. Just a few days ago, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared that it would be “just and moral” for Israel to totally exterminate all two million Palestinians in Gaza, but he emphasized that world public opinion was currently preventing his government from taking that important step.
Although this officially-stated Israeli goal of eradicating all Palestinian men, women, and children has not yet been achieved, more than ten months of bombs, bullets, and famine have made significant progress in that direction. The Lancet is one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journals and a few weeks ago it published a short piece conservatively estimating that relentless Israeli attacks and the complete destruction of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure may be responsible for nearly 200,000 civilian deaths, a figure many times larger than any previous total mentioned in the media.
The massive, ongoing slaughter of Palestinian civilians together with these widespread, explicit public statements by top Israeli leaders led the esteemed jurists of the International Court of Justice to issue a series of near-unanimous rulings that Israel appeared to be undertaking a campaign of genocide against Gaza’s Palestinians. By late July even the notoriously pro-Israel editors of the English-language Wikipedia had finally endorsed the same conclusion.
In addition to these ongoing massacres, many thousands of Palestinian civilian captives have been seized, none of whom have ever been tried or convicted of anything. But with Israeli prison space overflowing, National Security Minister Itomar Ben-Gvir proposed summarily executing all of them by shooting each one in the head, thereby freeing up their prison space for new waves of captives.
Although the militaries of many countries have occasionally committed massacres or atrocities during wartime, sometimes even with the silent approval of their political leadership, it seems quite unusual to have the latter publicly endorse and advocate such policies, and no similar examples from recent centuries come to mind. I don’t doubt that if television journalists had interviewed Genghis Khan while he was ravaging all of Eurasia with his Mongol hordes, he might have casually made such statements, but I’d always assumed that standards of acceptable international behavior had considerably changed over the last thousand years.
When top leaders regularly issue such wholesale sanguinary declarations, some of their more enthusiastic subordinates may naturally decide to partly implement those same goals on a retail basis. These horrible recent Israeli atrocities merely continued the pattern from earlier this year, which had often been documented on social media by Israelis themselves, eager to emphasize the terrible punishment they were successfully inflicting upon their hated Palestinian foes. As I wrote a few months ago:
Indeed, the Israelis continued to generate an avalanche of gripping content for those videos. Mobs of Israeli activists regularly blocked the passage of food-trucks, and within a few weeks, senior UN officials declared that more than a million Gazans were on the verge of a deadly famine. When the desperate, starving Gazans swarmed one of those few food delivery convoys allowed through, the Israeli military shot and killed more than 100 of them in the “Flour Massacre” and this was later repeated. All these horrific scenes of death and deliberate starvation were broadcast worldwide on social media, with some of the worst examples coming from the accounts of gleeful Israeli soldiers, such as their video of the corpse of a Palestinian child being eaten by a starving dog. Another image showed the remains of a bound Palestinian prisoner who had been crushed flat while still alive by an Israeli tank. According to a European human rights organization, the Israelis had regularly used bulldozers to bury alive large numbers of Palestinians. UN officials reported finding mass graves near several hospitals, with the victims found bound and stripped, shot execution-style. As Internet provocateur Andrew Anglin has pointed out, the behavior of the Israeli Jews does not seem merely evil but “cartoonishly evil,” with all their blatant crimes seeming to be based upon the script of some over-the-top propaganda-film but instead actually taking place in real life.
I also suggested that the near-stranglehold that pro-Israel Jews had gradually gained across American society, especially including politics, academia, and media, was having very fateful consequences. For example, Netanyahu’s deliberate slaughter of tens or even hundreds of thousands of Gazan civilians actually prompted his recent invitation to address a joint session of Congress for an unprecedented fourth time, with his bombastic speech interrupted by 58 standing ovations, coming at a rate of more than once each minute.
Meanwhile, American students had been heavily indoctrinated for generations with an absolute horror of genocide, war crimes, Apartheid, and racial oppression. But when they reacted against full American government support for the worst example of these seen anywhere in the world in many decades, their peaceful protests at elite colleges were brutally suppressed by harsh police crackdowns. This problem arose because their moral instructors had failed to properly emphasize that all those sweeping prohibitions actually included the key exclusionary phrase “except when committed by Jews”…
In one of the highest-profile and most grotesque recent incidents, Israeli doctors reported that a Palestinian captive had been severely injured after being brutally gang-raped and sodomized by nine IDF soldiers. Israeli military leaders have been facing the threat of arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court, so they decided to demonstrate their adherence to international law by having the soldiers arrested and tried, but a huge, violent mob of Jewish activists invaded the army base to free them, and the government later ordered them released. Israeli TV has widely broadcast footage of Palestinian prisoners being raped and sodomized by IDF soldiers, with claims that these brutal scenes were sometimes even live-streamed for the edification of gleeful Israeli political leaders…
Mike Whitney had summarized much of the shocking early evidence in late July when the story first broke in the Israeli media and a more recent article by journalist Jonathan Cook collected together a great deal of the background information. Cook noted that according to human and legal rights groups, Israeli soldiers and police have a very long history of raping and sexually assaulting Palestinians, including children, and such behavior has been endorsed by the country’s highest religious authorities:
In 2016, for example, the Israeli military appointed Colonel Eyal Karim as its chief rabbi, even after he had declared Palestinians to be “animals” and had approved the rape of Palestinian women in the interest of boosting soldiers’ morale.
I’ve always been interested in the Middle East conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and I’m sure that I’ve followed it much more closely than the vast majority of people. But over the last twelve months I’ve probably devoted more attention to the topic than I had during the previous fifty years combined, and I’d expect that the same may be true for all but those who have long specialized in the subject. Billions around the world who had previously remained totally unaware or had only known of the Palestinians in the vaguest terms have now watched scenes of enormous suffering displayed on their smartphones.
In past decades all of these horrific Israeli crimes might have remained hidden away, kept from the sight of the American public and the rest of the world by the staunchly pro-Israel gatekeepers of the Western mainstream media. But the existence of the Internet drastically changed the informational landscape, especially the relatively uncensored social media platforms of TikTok and Elon Musk’s Twitter, which allowed the rapid dissemination of shocking images. Meanwhile, YouTube channels such as those of Judge Andrew Napolitano gradually brought together a critical mass of highly-credentialed academics, national security experts, and journalists who could share their analysis of events with large audiences around the world.
Two of Napolitano’s regular guests are Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate, earnest young Jewish progressives who run the Grayzone, a webzine and YouTube channel of their own. I noted their lengthy discussion of how the pro-Israel donor class had recently crushed any political dissent within the Democratic Party, despite the overwhelming views of its voter base.
In that same livestream, Blumenthal and Maté also focused on the methods used to keep American elected officials in line on this issue, noting that a few days ago Zionist billionaires spent an almost unprecedented $8 million to defeat Rep. Cori Bush in her own Democratic primary, angry that the black progressive member of “the squad” had called for a ceasefire in Gaza. Just a few weeks earlier, roughly twice as much money had been spent by similar individuals for very similar reasons to successfully eliminate her close political ally Rep. Jamaal Bowman.
Those two primary races were by far the most expensive in American history, and in their aftermath most members of Congress must surely realize that they only remain in office at the sufferance of AIPAC and its ideological allies. Although leading progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denounced the role of big money in those primary races, she was obviously too fearful of pro-Israel donors to even mention whose big money had been involved. The Grayzone editors were far more candid and accurately characterized the dollars as being deployed by “the foreign agents of an Apartheid state.”
Both Blumenthal and Mate had long focused on the plight of the Palestinians, and a couple of years ago I’d read Goliath, the former’s fine 2013 book reporting his personal experiences during his visit to the region.
But despite their previous coverage of the conflict, I do not think that either of them had ever imagined the horrors currently being inflicted upon the suffering Palestinians, nor the total slavish support for Israel expressed by the entire Biden Administration. These developments had ideological consequences and in May I’d described some ironic statements they had made in an earlier podcast:
This massive suppression of all political opposition to Zionism through a mixture of legal, quasi-legal, and illegal means has hardly escaped the notice of various outraged critics. Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate are young Jewish progressives very sharply critical of Israel and its current attack on Gaza, and in their most recent livestream video a day or two before that Congressional vote, they agreed that Zionists were the greatest threat to American freedom and that our country was “under political occupation” by the Israel Lobby.”
They may or may not have been aware that their angry denunciation closely paralleled one of the most notorious Far Right phrases of the last half-century, which condemned America’s existing political system as nothing more than ZOG, a “Zionist Occupation Government.” Over time, obvious factual reality gradually becomes apparent regardless of ideological predispositions.
By August, I noticed that incendiary term had actually been explicitly used in their most recent podcast:
That particular article of mine proved quite popular so it’s possible that my remarks may have directly or indirectly found their way to those individuals. Whether or not that was the case, in their current podcast they mentioned that although they’d always dismissed “ZOG” as some ridiculously antisemitic expression, recent events had demonstrated its reality, and Americans were obviously now living in “one nation under ZOG.” I think this marked an important step forward in their understanding of our world.
Soon afterward, their Grayzone channel was temporarily banned from YouTube, and when it returned a week later, the two hosts nervously joked about the acronym they must carefully avoid uttering, using several rhyming words to enlighten their audience. I suspect that just like them, many other thoughtful Americans have recently begun entertaining ideas that they would have never previously considered possible.
Nearly all of us, members of the media included, live our lives in the media-bubbles that constitute our understanding of the world. When real-life events puncture such a bubble, we are forced to take stock and reassess our view of reality.
Those two young journalists were deeply concerned about America’s current situation, in which so much of the basic democratic system they always assumed seemed to be lost, with political control of our country now being exercised by obvious agents of a ruthless and bloodthirsty foreign power.
Yet oddly enough, although America’s current political predicament might have alarmed some knowledgeable individuals from the first half of the last century, it might not have greatly surprised them. Five or six years ago I read a fascinating book by Prof. Joseph Bendersky, an academic historian specializing in Holocaust Studies and the history of Nazi Germany. As I wrote at the time:
Bendersky devoted ten full years of research to his book, exhaustively mining the archives of American Military Intelligence as well as the personal papers and correspondence of more than 100 senior military figures and intelligence officers. The “Jewish Threat” runs over 500 pages, including some 1350 footnotes, with the listed archival sources alone occupying seven full pages. His subtitle is “Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army” and he makes an extremely compelling case that during the first half of the twentieth century and even afterward, the top ranks of the U.S. military and especially Military Intelligence heavily subscribed to notions that today would be universally dismissed as “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.”
Put simply, U.S. military leaders in those decades widely believed that the world faced a direct threat from organized Jewry, which had seized control of Russia and similarly sought to subvert and gain mastery over America and the rest of Western civilization.
In these military circles, there was an overwhelming belief that powerful Jewish elements had financed and led Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution, and were organizing similar Communist movements elsewhere aimed at destroying all existing Gentile elites and imposing Jewish supremacy throughout America and the rest of the Western world. While some of these Communist leaders were “idealists,” many of the Jewish participants were cynical opportunists, seeking to use their gullible followers to destroy their ethnic rivals and thereby gain wealth and supreme power. Although Intelligence officers gradually came to doubt that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was an authentic document, most believed that the notorious work provided a reasonably accurate description of the strategic plans of the Jewish leadership for subverting America and the rest of the world and establishing Jewish rule.
Although Bendersky’s claims are certainly extraordinary ones, he provides an enormous wealth of compelling evidence to support them, quoting or summarizing thousands of declassified Intelligence files, and further supporting his case by drawing from the personal correspondence of many of the officers involved. He conclusively demonstrates that during the very same years that Henry Ford was publishing his controversial series The International Jew, similar ideas, but with a much sharper edge, were ubiquitous within our own Intelligence community. Indeed, whereas Ford mostly focused upon Jewish dishonesty, malfeasance, and corruption, our Military Intelligence professionals viewed organized Jewry as a deadly threat to American society and Western civilization in general. Hence the title of Bendersky’s book.
Let us take a step back and place Bendersky’s findings in their proper context. We must recognize that during much of the era covered by his research, U.S. Military Intelligence constituted nearly the entirety of America’s national security apparatus—being the equivalent of a combined CIA, NSA, and FBI—and was responsible for both international and domestic security, although the latter portfolio had gradually been assumed by J. Edgar Hoover’s own expanding organization by the end of the 1920s.
Bendersky’s years of diligent research demonstrate that for decades these experienced professionals—and many of their top commanding generals—were firmly convinced that major elements of the organized Jewish community were ruthlessly plotting to seize power in America, destroy all our traditional Constitutional liberties, and ultimately gain mastery over the entire world.
I have never believed in the existence of UFOs as alien spacecraft, always dismissing such notions as ridiculous nonsense. But suppose declassified government documents revealed that for decades nearly all of our top Air Force officers had been absolutely convinced of the reality of UFOs. Could I continue my insouciant refusal to even consider such possibilities? At the very least, those revelations would force me to sharply reassess the likely credibility of other individuals who had made similar claims during that same period.
Israel’s leaders may be confident that they can successfully estimate the risks of a military conflict with Hezbollah or Iran, and their calculations might be correct. But I think that the greater danger they face comes in the widening ripples of knowledge that their brutal actions have now spread across much of the American population and the rest of the world.
During the last few months the Israelis have unleashed an unprecedented wave of assassinations against the leaders of their regional adversaries, making absolutely no pretense of respecting national sovereignty, diplomatic immunity, or the basic laws of warfare. In one of the earliest examples, they used a missile-strike to kill the chief Hamas peace negotiator in his Beirut office and later employed similar means to assassinate the Hamas political chief who had replaced him at the negotiating table. That latter assassination took place in Tehran while he was attending the inauguration of the new Iranian president, whose own predecessor had died together with Iran’s finance minister in a highly-suspicious helicopter crash. A few months earlier another Israeli missile-strike had destroyed part of Iran’s embassy compound in Syria, killing several important Iranian generals. An apparent Israeli false-flag attack had killed a dozen Druze children playing soccer in the occupied Golan Heights, and Netanyahu’s government then used that atrocity as an excuse to assassinate a top Hezbollah military official in Beirut.
In September, this campaign of Israeli assassinations massively escalated, as many thousands of booby-trapped electronic pagers and other devices were used to kill or severely maim enormous numbers of Lebanese civilians who were associated with Hezbollah. This was soon followed by the use of some eighty-odd huge bunker-buster bombs to level an entire city block of southern Beirut, successfully assassinating the longtime leader of that organization, whose successor was similarly killed a few days ago under a wave of equally large bombs in that same city. Israeli leaders have regularly declared that they feel free to kill anyone, anywhere in the world whom they consider hostile to their national interests.
The obvious immediate intent of this wave of Israeli assassinations was to provoke Iran into the sort of military retaliation that could bring in a compliant America to destroy that powerful regional rival. Iran’s large retaliatory missile-strike of a few days ago may lead to this result. But whether or not it does, the Israeli assassinations may have other consequences, perhaps far more damaging to the future of the Jewish State.
Although the successful killing of those enemy leaders may have enhanced Israel’s reputation for the ruthless effectiveness of its intelligence services and achieved the tactical result of at least temporarily weakening their opposing organizations, I think there are great strategic risks in undertaking so many high-profile assassinations in such a short period of time. More and more outside observers have probably now become aware of crucial historical matters, long concealed or de-emphasized by our overwhelmingly pro-Israel mainstream media. The reality is that the State of Israel and its Zionist predecessor organizations have a record of bold assassinations almost totally unrivaled in world history. As I originally wrote in 2018:
Indeed, the inclination of the more right-wing Zionist factions toward assassination, terrorism, and other forms of essentially criminal behavior was really quite remarkable. For example, in 1943 Shamir had arranged the assassination of his factional rival, a year after the two men had escaped together from imprisonment for a bank robbery in which bystanders had been killed, and he claimed he had acted to avert the planned assassination of David Ben-Gurion, the top Zionist leader and Israel’s future founding-premier. Shamir and his faction certainly continued this sort of behavior into the 1940s, successfully assassinating Lord Moyne, the British Minister for the Middle East, and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator, though they failed in their other attempts to kill American President Harry Truman and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin, and their plans to assassinate Winston Churchill apparently never moved past the discussion stage. His group also pioneered the use of terrorist car-bombs and other explosive attacks against innocent civilian targets, all long before any Arabs or Muslims had ever thought of using similar tactics; and Begin’s larger and more “moderate” Zionist faction did much the same.
A very useful source for much of this material, though hardly a complete one, is Rise and Kill First, Ronen Bergman’s fully authorized 2018 history of Mossad assassinations, which runs 750 pages and served as the starting point for my own very lengthy January 2020 analysis of the same subject.
As I described its contents:
The sheer quantity of such foreign assassinations was really quite remarkable, with the knowledgeable reviewer in the New York Times suggesting that the Israeli total over the last half-century or so seemed far greater than that of any other nation. I might even go farther: if we excluded domestic killings, I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel’s body-count greatly exceeded the combined total for that of all other major countries in the world. I think all the lurid revelations of lethal CIA or KGB Cold War assassination plots that I have seen discussed in newspaper articles might fit comfortably into just a chapter or two of Bergman’s extremely long book.
As a very useful supplement to Bergman’s magisterial work, I’d strongly recommend State of Terror, published in 2016 by Thomas Suarez, which I only finally read a couple of weeks ago. Most of the author’s material was based upon declassified British government documents as well as the major newspaper archives of the period he covers, and he provides an enormous wealth of information not available elsewhere.
Although his primary focus was Zionist terrorism, political assassinations are a closely related topic, and he discussed many of these as well. As an example, he explained how the Zionists pioneered the technology of deadly letter-bombs, ruthlessly lacing these with cyanide to increase their effectiveness, and employing them to target a very long list of their perceived enemies, notably including all of Britain’s senior political leaders and America’s president, though those latter efforts proved unsuccessful. Suarez demonstrated that all of Israel’s early leaders were supporters of these policies, and they continued running that country for decades, even into the 1990s.
Suarez’s book is long out of print and used copies on Amazon are exorbitantly priced, but fortunately it is also available on Archive.org, including in PDF and ePub⬇ formats, and I would highly recommend it to those who seek to deepen their understanding of Israel’s creation.
Our word “assassin” comes from the Ismaili sect founded almost a thousand years ago that for nearly two centuries terrorized the entire Middle East with its successful killings of important Muslim and Christian leaders. But with the possible exception of that one non-state organization, I am not aware of any other political entity during the last two thousand years whose record of major political assassinations remotely approaches that of the Israeli state and its Zionist predecessor groups.
For obvious reasons, Bergman’s book had avoided discussing many of the high-profile killings of American or pro-Western leaders that can probably be attributed to Zionist or Israeli forces, notably that of James Forrestal, America’s first secretary of defense and the leading public opponent of Israel’s creation.
American presidents have hardly been immune to such attacks, with repeated Zionist attempts made on the life of President Truman and Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky revealing the plot to assassinate President George H.W. Bush.
Max Blumenthal grew up in elite Democratic circles in DC, with his father Sydney being a prominent former journalist and influential political operative very close to Hillary Clinton. Presumably based upon the personal knowledge he had picked up in such circles, in a podcast earlier this year he flatly declared that President Barack Obama was extremely fearful that the Israelis might try to assassinate him for his Middle East peacemaking efforts, something I’d occasionally suspected but had never previously heard stated by any knowledgeable insider.
But the highest-profile example of all would certainly be the case of the Kennedy brothers. Our president and his younger brother had made vigorous efforts to block Israel’s nuclear weapons development program and break the power of the growing Israel Lobby by forcing its main organization to register as a foreign agent, and there exists very strong perhaps even overwhelming evidence that the Israeli Mossad played a central role in eliminating them. I’ve discussed that issue at considerable length and would also strongly recommend the 2018 article by French researcher Laurent Guyénot or his more recent short book, which very helpfully summarizes the evidence and can be easily read within just a day or two.
Many patriotic Americans may take in stride the Israeli killing of foreign leaders whom our dishonest pro-Israel media has often falsely portrayed as enemies of the United States. But if those same individuals come to believe that the Israelis have also had a very long record of killing our own American leaders in order to subvert our political system and gain control of our country, the reaction might be far more serious. For decades, such ideas and the supporting evidence have been entirely confined to only the most marginal and isolated of conspiratorial circles, but there now seem quite a few indications that recent events may have propelled them into much more mainstream venues.
Consider Anya Parampil, another young journalist who has spent many years focused on Palestinian issues. Married to Max Blumenthal, she works with him at the Grayzone, and in her many video appearances there and on Napolitano’s channel, I’ve never seen any sign of her support for implausible conspiratorial beliefs. Instead, she has always struck me as someone of very mainstream if strongly progressive views on public policy matters.
Yet in a remarkable half-hour interview last week, she explicitly described Israel as America’s “greatest enemy,” expressing outrage that her country seemed to have lost its political sovereignty to the agents of that murderous foreign state. She went on to suggest that the crucial turning point in our national subjugation had probably come with the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, whose vigorous efforts to prevent Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons had been suddenly ended by his violent death. She also noted that his brother Robert had led the efforts to severely curtail the power of the Israel Lobby, and he too had soon died by an assassin’s hand. I think that her very self-confident public statements on such extremely controversial matters may represent a bellwether, indicating that many of those same ideas are now rapidly but quietly circulating within important mainstream segments of the American population.
The JFK Assassination might easily rank as the single most famous incident of the twentieth century and it has been the subject of countless books, articles, and documentaries.
Those Americans who conclude that the Israeli Mossad played a central role in that killing, successfully subverting our entire political system, will naturally consider the implications of that revelation. If a matter of such gigantic magnitude could remain almost totally concealed for more than six decades, they may begin to grow very suspicious about the true nature of other major events as well.
The most obvious and important of these would be the 9/11 Attacks, which killed thousands of Americans. Pro-Israel elements within our national government immediately used these as an excuse to launch a series of wars that destroyed most of Israel’s leading regional rivals, wars that cost our country thousands of additional lives and many trillions of dollars, while killing or displacing millions of Muslim civilians.
As I’ve discussed at considerable length, Israel’s record of international terrorism, quite often of the false-flag variety, is just as unmatched as its record of assassinations, with an Israeli Prime Minister even publicly boasting that he had been the founding father of terrorism across the world.
One of history’s largest terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 was the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by Zionist militants dressed as Arabs, which killed 91 people and largely destroyed the structure. In the famous Lavon Affair of 1954, Israeli agents launched a wave of terrorist attacks against Western targets in Egypt, intending to have those blamed on anti-Western Arab groups. There are strong claims that in 1950 Israeli Mossad agents began a series of false-flag terrorist bombings against Jewish targets in Baghdad, successfully using those violent methods to help persuade Iraq’s thousand-year-old Jewish community to emigrate to the Jewish state. In 1967, Israel launched a deliberate air and sea attack against the U.S.S. Liberty, intending to leave no survivors, killing or wounding over 200 American servicemen before word of the attack reached our Sixth Fleet and the Israelis withdrew.
The enormous extent of pro-Israel influence in world political and media circles meant that none of these brutal attacks ever drew serious retaliation, and in nearly all cases, they were quickly thrown down the memory hole, so that today probably no more than one in a hundred Americans is even aware of them. Furthermore, most of these incidents came to light due to chance circumstances, so we may easily suspect that many other attacks of a similar nature have never become part of the historical record.
Once the circumstances of those 2001 terrorist attacks are carefully considered, the evidence that the Israeli Mossad once again played the central role seems extremely strong, even stronger than the case for Mossad’s role in the killing of the Kennedys several decades earlier. No other organization around the world possessed anything like the same set of skills and experience in carrying out such a massive operation, and the FBI quickly rounded up some 200 Mossad agents, many of whom had been located in the immediate vicinity of the destruction and were behaving in very suspicious ways, including five who were caught red-handed, gleefully celebrating the successful attack on the WTC towers.
Although it has been almost totally ignored for more than two decades by our fervently pro-Israel mainstream media, 9/11 researchers have amassed an enormous quantity of compelling evidence implicating Israel and its domestic American collaborators. Much of that evidence has been summarized in a number of our major articles:
Israel Did 9/11
Wyatt Peterson • The Unz Review • September 12, 2024 • 13,300 Words
9/11 Was an Israeli Job How America was neoconned into World War IV
Laurent Guyénot • The Unz Review • September 10, 2018 • 8,500 Words
The greatest terrorist attack in the history of the world took place on 9/11 and it was the worst hostile blow our nation has ever endured. As the true facts of what actually happened on that fateful day quietly circulate in the wake of Israel’s very high-profile assaults on other Middle Eastern countries, I think that the existential risks that country faces may become far greater than anything associated with retaliatory strikes from Iranian ballistic or hypersonic missiles.
This evening I received an e-mail from Dr. Marik, who explained that Amazon’s ban of his book “Cancer Care” has been retracted. The e-book is again available for purchase. This great news comes almost exactly a week after I wrote about the ban in my post Amazon Excommunicates Dr. Paul Marik. I’d like to think that my protest, which was very widely shared, may have contributed to the retail Leviathan’s decision to retract the ban.
I hope that our oligarchic overlords will come to understand that—as much power and money as they possess—they won’t get away with banning books by great scholars while also pretending to be benevolent. Everyone who still has his brain will see this for what it is—namely, a brutal act of tyranny that ONLY the bad guys in history have done.
Congratulations, Dr. Marik, for your victory for free speech and for providing helpful and possibly life saving information to cancer patients. Put one in the win column for the good guys!
The so-called “rules-based international order” aims to facilitate a hegemonic world, which entails displacing international law. While international law is based on equal sovereignty for all states, the rules-based international order upholds hegemony on the principle of sovereign inequality.
The rules-based international order is commonly presented as international law plus international human rights law, which appears benign and progressive. However, this entails introducing contradictory principles and rules. The consequence is a system devoid of uniform rules, in which “might makes right”. International human rights law introduces a set of rules to elevate the rights of the individual, yet human-centric security often contradicts state-centric security as the foundation of international law.
The US as the hegemonic state can then choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while adversaries must abide strictly by state-centric security due to their alleged lack of liberal democratic credentials. For example, state-centric security as the foundation of international law insists on the territorial integrity of states, while human-centric security allows for secession under the principle of self-determination. The US will thus insist on territorial integrity in allied countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Spain, while supporting self-determination within adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia and Syria. The US can interfere in the domestic affairs of adversaries to promote liberal democratic values, yet the US adversaries do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US. To facilitate a hegemonic international order, there cannot be equal sovereignty for all states. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting [email protected].
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Medical and pharmaceutical history is replete with examples of dangerous interventions that have poisoned, injured, or killed. However, events since 2020 have attracted attention as never before to medicine’s potential to be both lethal and malevolent. In The Medical-Pharmaceutical Killing Machine, Children’s Health Defense situates current perils in their broader context with the aim of helping readers understand how to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Aletho News
Aletho News 