'Vote Shaming, 'progressieve Amerikanen' demoniseren kiezers die niet Democratisch of Republikeins stemmen

In de VS hebben figuren als Bill Maher hun progressieve masker afgeworpen en hun pijlen gericht op burgers die weigeren te stemmen op het tweekoppige monster bestaande uit de Republikeinse en Democratische Partij.... Maher c.s hebben het gore lef te stellen dat deze stemmers de meest giftige wereldburgers zijn....... Echter deze stemmers hebben groot gelijk, immers of je nu door de hond of de kat wordt gebeten, het blijft bijten en het gevoerde beleid wijkt in de praktijk amper af.......

De Democraten zetten zich af tegen de ongelijke behandeling van de grote onderlaag in de VS echter de praktijk laat zien dat ook de Democraten zich amper inzetten voor deze grote groep......

Wat betreft de grootschalige VS terreur over de wereld voeren deze 2 partijen hetzelfde agressieve beleid, waar velen denken dat de Democraten meer vredelievend zijn, heeft Obama laten zien dat het geen bliksem uitmaakt: hij was de volledige 2 termijnen in oorlog verwikkeld en dat als de eerste president sinds de VS onafhankelijk is..... (terwijl Obama Nobelprijs voor de Vrede winnaar is.....)

Caitlin Johnstone* heeft een artikel geschreven over deze zaak en ze noemt daarbij 21 punten die aangeven dat de stemmers die op een derde partij stemmen, groot gelijk hebben. Zo voert ze bijvoorbeeld aan dat de Republikeinse partij als het aan de macht is, een zo rechts mogelijk beleid voert, echter als de Democraten daarna aan de macht komen, wordt er niets teruggedraaid, hoe onrechtvaardig bepaalde zaken ook zijn.....

Zoals je begrijpt richt Johnstone vooral haar kritiek op de Democraten, daar deze het van de daken schreeuwen dat zaken niet eerlijk verlopen, maar eenmaal aan de macht hetzelfde doen. Neem de persvrijheid: de Democraten vinden dat de persvrijheid heilig is, echter als het om Julian Assange gaat willen ze deze, zoals Trump dat wenst, uitgeleverd hebben aan de VS, terwijl Assange niets anders heeft gedaan dan z'n werk (en dat uitstekend!!) en gebruik maken van de persvrijheid, terwijl de leugen dat hij mensen in gevaar heeft gebracht al lang en breed is doorgeprikt...... 

 

Voorts beschuldigen de Democraten de alternatieve media van het brengen van fake news (nepnieuws), terwijl de reguliere (massa-) media zich daar keer op keer schuldig aan maken, neem alleen al de aanloop naar- en het verloop van de illegale oorlogen die de VS voerde en voert.....

 

Kortom de Democraten willen in feite dat de echte media (de alternatieve media) aan banden worden gelegd en dat ten gunste van de reguliere media die over het algemeen het beleid steunen (m.n. het bloedige buitenlandbeleid) van: -de zittende administratie, -het militair-industrieel complex, -de financiële sector en -het andere grote bedrijfsleven...... (de eerste twee, of eigenlijk drie overlappen elkaar gedeeltelijk)

Lees het artikel van Johnstone (van 29 september jl.) en denk daaraan als je bijvoorbeeld het volgende debat tussen Trump en Biden kijkt of beluistert (Joe Binden wil dat alleen als Trump virusvrij is..... ha! ha! ha! Kortom hij is bang voor Trump), Trump en Biden, 2 oorlogsmisdadigers en lobbyisten voor de wapenfabrikanten, het verdere grote bedrijfsleven en de financiële sector........

On Vote Shaming: 21 Ways Supporting The US Establishment Is Worse Than Voting Third Party

by Caitlin Johnstone

The vote-shaming engines have predictably kicked into high gear in America as the presidential election approaches, with shitlib pundits like Bill Maher doing their part to paint third-party voters as the most toxic people in the world.

Which is of course ridiculous. I have no strong opinions about how Americans should vote in November, but it's obvious that in terms of toxicity third-party voters are not on the list of people who are worthy of criticism. The dire situation humanity now finds itself in under the leadership of the US hegemon is not the fault of a small fringe faction which doesn't want to support oligarch-coddling ecocidal warmongers, it's the fault of those who help preserve America's oligarchic ecocidal warmongering status quo.

Contrary to the stock template lines that establishment spinmeisters are regurgitating to bully the left into submission, here are 21 things which are in fact a lot more crazy, selfish, stupid and privileged than voting third party:

1. Supporting a two-headed one-party system in the most powerful government on earth which has plagued our planet with endless war and ecocide and marched humanity to the brink of extinction.

2. Continuing to support a political system which is wholly owned and operated by the wealthy, leaving zero effective influence over US policy in the hands of ordinary Americans and immense influence in the hands of the very rich.

3. Continuing to support a system which consistently deceives the American people into consenting to oppressive neoliberal exploitation at home and bloodthirsty neoconservative warmongering abroad, both of which always hurt the most impoverished and disadvantaged groups worst.

4. Continuing to support a two-headed one-party system where one head always pushes as far to the right as possible when in power and the other head never moves things back leftward even one iota when it is.

5. Continuing to support a political establishment which rehabilitates war criminals like George W Bush, Bill Kristol, David Frum and John Bolton while demonizing anyone who refused to vote for a warmonger.

6. Supporting a political party which has been consistently attacking Donald Trump from the right on foreign policy, pushing him to escalate cold war tensions with Russia further and further and shrieking hysterically if he makes the slightest move toward deescalation anywhere.

7. Supporting a political party which is designed to co-opt all leftward populism and railroad it into support for an establishment which promotes war and oligarchy while depriving Americans of the same social safety nets afforded to everyone in every other major country on earth.

8. Supporting a party which claims to support press freedoms while cheerleading Trump's extradition of Julian Assange, a move which if successful will cripple press freedoms around the globe and make it impossible to hold the world's most powerful government to account.

9. Supporting a political party which has spent Trump's term galvanizing its base around the psychopathic CIA and J Edgar Hoover's minority-oppressing, left-punching FBI while doing everything it can to stamp out any leftist zeitgeist within its ranks.

10. Continuing to support a mass media structure which works every day to deceive Americans into supporting their own impoverishment while weapons of war are spread across the planet at massive expense.

11. Supporting a political establishment which promises slow, incremental change and actually delivers no change whatsoever while our species slides off the cliff of extinction, taking out the most impoverished and marginalized first.

12. Pretending foreign policy just doesn't exist, or if it does exist pretending Joe Biden isn't a lifelong warmonger who has spent his entire campaign attacking Trump for being insufficiently hawkish in most spheres of international conflict.

13. Ignoring the fact that both parties are working in support of world-threatening cold war escalations against both Russia and China, a multifront campaign whose complexity increases the probability of something going cataclysmically wrong even more than the last cold war.

14. Pretending a party that's done exactly nothing for America's disempowered communities isn't directly responsible for the poverty, police brutality, mass incarceration, exploitation and oppression those communities face today.

15. Pretending a return to how things were before Trump's presidency wouldn't just be a return to the conditions which created Trump's presidency.

16. Pretending Obama, who destroyed Libya, devastated Syria, facilitated the rape of Yemen, intervened in Ukraine, maintained and expanded all of Bush's most depraved policies and did nothing for the people who elected him, was a good president.

17. Continuing to support a political system where everything keeps getting worse no matter which oligarchic puppet Americans elect.

18. Putting your head in the sand and pretending everything will be fine once a Democrat is in charge, again.

19. Supporting a novelty joke party with fake primaries which are always rigged to ensure victory for the safest oligarchic puppet instead of pushing for something resembling actual democracy.

20. Promoting the lie that if you just keep doing something that has never, ever worked, this time it might produce different results.

21. Lulling people back to sleep when the only thing that can help ordinary people is for them to start waking up and using the power of their numbers to force drastic, revolutionary change.

 

It’s easy to advocate incrementalism when you’re not living hand to mouth. It’s selfish to think that acting on climate change can be rolled out over many decades so as not to upset the corporate donors of your favorite politicians. It’s the height of entitlement to close the door to progressives inside the Democratic Party and then throw a shit fit when they vote for another party. It’s hypocritical to hyperventilate about election-rigging Russians while secretly, and then openly, rigging primaries against progressives.

Supporting the continued existence of a fake two-party system which advances exploitative agendas hurts the most vulnerable populations in America and in the entire world. Acting self-righteous because you actively support that system while spitting on the people who are trying to change it is selfish, is stupid, is hypocritical, and is a mark of extreme privilege.

________________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

============================ 

* Lullig genoeg moet je nu twee keer klikken, de tweede keer op de bovenste link, waarna je op de gewenste site komt.

De 'top priority items' voor Trumps tweede termijn

Hier een Twitterbericht dat ik via Walter van der Cruijsen vond. Hierin geeft Trump antwoord op de vraag van FOX presentator Sean Hannity, wat zijn prioriteiten zullen zijn als hij in november een tweede termijn wint. Dat laatste is welhaast zeker, maar wat wil je met een demente kraai als Joe Biden, de kandidaat van de Democratische Partij, overigens een figuur die qua gepleegde (oorlogs-) misdaden niet onderdoet voor Trump.....

Let wel: pas op dat je niet in een lachstuip blijft als je het antwoord van de psychopathische fascist Trump leest!

Walter van der Cruijsen Retweeted

Scott E. Bartner

@SBartner RT@SBartner: What the “reelected” 45th President has to say. Brace yourself—it’s profound:

8:01 AM · Jun 26, 2020 from Maastricht, The Netherlands·Twitter for iPhone
==================================
Nee inderdaad je hoeft geen mensen te vermoorden, echter Trump is intussen al lang een massamoordenaar en een oorlogsmisdadiger gezien het grote aantal mensen dat bijvoorbeeld in het Midden-Oosten werd vermoord onder zijn presidentschap....... Hij zou dan ook als Bill Clinton, George W. Bush en Barack Obama moeten worden vervolgd door het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC) voor oorlogsmisdaden en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid...... Dat laatste bijvoorbeeld voor de illegale sancties tegen Venezuela, Iran en Syrië , die intussen in totaal al aan meer dan 70.000 mensen het leven moet hebben gekost (door honger en/of gebrek aan medicijnen), alleen in Venezuela zijn door die illegale sancties al meer dan 50.000 mensen om het leven gekomen, ofwel zijn zijn vermoord middels sancties...... Daarnaast doet de VS 'fysiek mee' aan de zeeblokkade voor Jemenitische havens in handen van Houthi rebellen, wat intussen aan zo'n 500.000 mensen het leven moet hebben gekost....... (vorig jaar werd al bekend gemaakt dat minstens 88.000 kinderen daar het leven hebben gelaten door die blokkades, onderdeel van een door de Saoedische terreurcoalitie gevoerde genocide in Jemen.....)

Voor meer berichten over Trump, Biden, Bolton, sancties, oorlogsmisdaden en/of misdaad tegen de menselijkheid, klik op het betreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.

Corona-angst: psychologische oorlogsvoering tegen de bevolking

Als 'de oorlog' tegen drugs en terreur, zoals eind 40er en begin 50er jaren van de vorige eeuw de de oorlog van McCarthy tegen het communisme, kan de opgeklopte angst voor het Coronavirus worden gezien als een psychologische oorlogsvoering...... Oorlogsvoering die wordt gebruikt door de zittende president of premier om daar politiek voordeel mee te behalen........

Het volk wordt met een berg leugens voorgehouden dat de zittende regering het beste met hen voorheeft en dat de gezaaide angst voor een bepaalde zaak (veelal zonder meer op basis van leugens) werkelijk een bedreiging vormt voor iedere burger..... Neem de angst voor moslim terreur, de kans dat je daardoor wordt getroffen is vele malen kleiner dan dat je op straat wordt doodgereden...... Door het volk zo te manipuleren dat het grootste deel de leugens gelooft, kan men vervolgens extra bevoegdheden geven aan geheime diensten en kan men de burgerrechten inperken, dit met de simpele dooddoener dat men e.e.a. doet om de burgers juist te beschermen.......

Niet alleen de geheime diensten profiteren van dergelijke opgeklopte hysterie (waarbij ze ook nog eens een groot aantal fouten maken, maar dat terzijde), ook de politie en in geval van moslim radicalisme zelfs het leger, krijgen meer bevoegdheden en geld....... Je snapt wel dat daarbij ook de wapenindustrie garen spint, zoals ook oliemaatschappijen profiteren als de VS weer eens een illegale oorlog start (oorlog 'gelegitimeerd' met leugens)

Ook de Coronacrisis kan gezien worden als een soort oorlog, een oorlog tegen het virus waarbij men alles uit kast trekt om de burgerrechten af te breken..... Er wordt gezegd dat maatregelen e.d. in het belang zijn van de volksgezondheid, echter dat is maar zeer de vraag, neem het lange thuiszitten van velen zoals ouderen, waardoor hun weerstand achteruitkachelt en ze veel meer bevattelijk zijn voor bijvoorbeeld een griepvirus of.... COVID-19!!! Om nog maar te zwijgen over de psychologische gezondheid van deze ouderen...... 

Uiteraard is de grootste winstmaker in deze de steenrijke farmaceutische maffia, die godbetert ook nog eens gigantische kapitalen krijgt toegestopt als men maar probeert een vaccin te produceren, terwijl de grote farmaceuten vanaf dag één al bezig waren met het ontwikkelen van een vaccin, immers de eerste die met een werkend vaccin komt is spekkoper...... Bij de top van die bedrijven moet men zich kapot hebben gelachen bij het ontvangen van miljarden aan overheidsgeld (belastinggeld...) voor de ontwikkeling van een vaccin, waar men allang mee bezig was.......

Intussen is zo ongeveer alles wel uit de kast getrokken om de mensen bang te maken en te houden en goochelt men zelfs met cijfers, die later vaak niet blijken te kloppen..... Neem Nederland, hoeveel doden zijn er de eerste maanden echt overleden aan het Coronavirus, dit daar er destijds amper testen voorhanden waren, maar men in de media en politiek blindelings de cijfers met grote aantallen patiënten overnam, nogmaals: terwijl er amper of geen testmateriaal beschikbaar was...... Het is dan ook vrijwel zeker dat een groot aantal doden als Coronapatiënt werden meegeteld, terwijl ze alleen één of een paar van de symptomen hadden, die ook bij een normale griep voorkomen, zoals koorts, last van luchtwegen, bijholtes en hoofdpijn (waar de laatste 2 bijna onoverkomelijk aan elkaar zijn verbonden)

Kevin Ryan, die het hieronder opgenomen artikel schreef voor The Guardian gaat dieper in op e.e.a. waarbij hij ook wijst op de smerige rol die Bill Gates speelt, ook de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie (WHO) krijgt onder uit de kan en uiteraard blijft de rol van de farmaceuten niet onbesproken. 

Jammer dat Ryan niet wijst op het feit dat men bij de grote farmaceuten het vaccineren tegen Corona niet ziet als iets eenmaligs, maar als een jaarlijks terugkerende operatie die als de griep kan worden bestreden met een injectie (die als met het griepvirus regelmatig niet of slecht zal werken...).... Als dat inderdaad gaat gebeuren zal men een Coronapaspoort nodig hebben om 'mee te mogen doen in de maatschappij....'

Ryan wijst verder op de geheime diensten die een rol spelen in de Coronacrisis en die uiteraard hun bol uitgaan bij de zware inperking van burgerrechten in heel veel landen en waar censuur tegenwordig al een normaal verschijnsel is in westerse 'democratieën', wordt ook daar met de Coronacrisis weer een stap extra gezet........  

Het volgende is een lang artikel (dat ik overnam van Information Clearing House), maar het is meer dan de moeite van het lezen waard en zal bij velen de ogen openen, mensen die zich nog weinig hebben verdiept in de materie, zo wordt nog eens gewezen op het feit dat de geheime diensten van de VS al op de hoogte waren van dit virus, voordat China de wereld waarschuwde in de eerste week van afgelopen januari...... 

Onder het artikel kan je kiezen voor een 'Dutch vertaling' al neemt dat wel enige tijd in beslag.

 Is the Coronavirus Scare a Psychological Operation?

By Kevin Ryan

June 12, 2020 "Information Clearing House" -  Governments have used psychological warfare throughout history to manipulate public opinion, gain political advantage, and generate profits. Western governments have engaged in such tactics in the war on terrorism as well as in its predecessor, the war on communism.

In both cases, state-sponsored terrorism and propaganda were used to distort the public’s perception of the threats, leading to increased governmental control of society and huge financial benefits for corporations.

It appears that the same kinds of effects are being seen as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many of the features and outcomes seen in the war on terrorism and the war on communism are evident in this new “war on death.”

Therefore, it’s reasonable to wonder if the extreme response to COVID-19, and its associated virus SARS-COV-2, could be another psychological operation against the public.

Considering facts about the disease and the disproportionate response emphasizes the possibility.

If COVID-19 has been co-opted for manipulation of the public, through hyping the threat and pushing exploitive solutions, who is behind it and who benefits?

Let’s first review what features and outcomes the “coronavirus scare’ shares in common with the “red scare” that drove the perceived threat of communism and the “Muslim scare” behind the perceived threat of terrorism. Here are a dozen characteristics that these perceived threats share.

1. Fear-based and globally directed
2. Media saturation with bias toward fear
3. Data manipulation and propaganda
4. Censorship of opposing views
5. Intelligence agency control of information
6. Preceded by exercises mimicking the threat
7. Series of claims made that are later proven false
8. Response threatens democracy
9. Large increase in wealth and power for a few; increase in social inequality
10. Increased government control of the public and reduced individual freedoms
11. Response kills far more than the original threat
12. Evidence for manufactured events (see below)
    

There are also differences between the COVID-19 pandemic response and the “wars” on communism and terrorism. One difference is that, for the virus, agencies dedicated to public health have taken the lead. Although the central characters that hyped the communism threat and the terrorism threat were sometimes the same people, they tended to represent military, diplomatic, or intelligence agencies.

The primary actors driving the coronavirus lockdowns and associated control mechanisms are political leaders. However, the directives being acted upon come from the World Health Organization (WHO), an agency of the United Nations ostensibly responsible for international public health.

Others controlling the coronavirus scare are national health agencies, most notably the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS).

Are these agencies acting solely in the interest of public health?

The WHO

The common impression is that the entire matter began in reaction to events in China but even that is not clear. For example, the virus is said to have originated in the city of Wuhan and the first, limited, lockdown occurred in that area from January to March.

China has since said that it warned the WHO about the virus during the first week of January. However, it is known that U.S. intelligence agencies were aware of the potential outbreak even before that, in November 2019. A Chinese spokesman later suggested that the U.S. military might have brought the virus to Wuhan during the military games held there in October.

The first instance of an entire country being locked down for the coronavirus was in Italy.

This occurred on March 9^th based on advice from the Italian government’s coronavirus adviser Walter Ricciardi, who said, “The situation risks going out of control and these measures are necessary to keep the spread at bay.”

Ricciardi, a WHO committee member, later admitted that Italy had inflated the death counts from the virus, stating:

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.”

Many have noted the inordinate influence of billionaire Bill Gates on the activities and direction of the WHO. As of 2017, this influence was seen as troubling, with health advocates fearing that:

because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”

Gates has been called a ruthless schemer by his Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and Allen is not alone in that assessment.

Despite engaging in a costly “public charm offensive,” Gates is seen by many as a predatory and monopolistic opportunist hiding behind a false front of philanthropy. With regard to the coronavirus scare and Gates’ stated goal of vaccinating the entire world population, however, people should be most concerned that he has worked diligently on mechanisms of population control.

Of course, no one person controls the world yet so who is supposed to be running WHO, apart from Bill Gates? The face of the WHO is Dr. Tedros Adhanom*, the director-general of the organization. Tedros has a poor history of ethics in leadership, with many accusations having been made against him including that he covered-up epidemics in the past.

Alarms about Tedros began to go off immediately after his appointment in 2017, when he named Robert Mugabe, the former dictator of Zimbabwe, as a goodwill ambassador to the WHO. Mugabe’s rule over Zimbabwe was dominated by “murder, bloodshed, torture, persecution of political opponents, intimidation and vote-rigging on a grand scale.” This appointment indicated that Tedros’ judgment of goodwill was dubious at best.

A letter from a group of American doctors that same year described why Tedros has become known as “Dr. Cover Up.”
They wrote:

“Your silence about what is clearly a massive cholera epidemic in Sudan daily becomes more reprehensible. The inevitable history that will be written of this cholera epidemic will surely cast you in an unforgiving light.”

They added that Tedros was “fully complicit in the terrible suffering and dying that continues to spread in East Africa.”

Problems at WHO didn’t start with Tedros, however.

After the H1N1 pandemic of 2009, evidence came to light that the WHO had exaggerated the danger and had spread fear and confusion rather than helpful information. It was later learned that “Italy, Germany, France and the U.K. made secret agreements with pharmaceutical companies” that “obliged the countries to buy vaccinations only if the WHO raised the pandemic to a level 6.”

The WHO then proceeded to change its guidelines for defining a pandemic in order to accommodate those contracts, thereby increasing the public’s fear despite the fact that the pandemic never became a serious threat.

Although WHO has been praised for its work to reduce some illnesses like polio, it has also been found that drugs and vaccines recommended by WHO have been “found to be harmful and without significant clinical effect.”

A comprehensive view suggests that the WHO is more of a corporate interest agency than an organization committed to preserving public health. That’s not surprising due to the fact that 80% of WHO’s funding comes from “voluntary contributions” provided by private donors including pharmaceutical companies and industry groups like Bill Gates’ Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI).

Since the worldwide response to COVID-19 has been directed and coordinated by an organization that works on behalf of multi-national corporations that stand to benefit, the idea that the coronavirus scare could be a psychological operation seems plausible.

The CDC

In the US, the CDC is also heavily influenced by corporate and political interests. This became clear when, in 2016, a group of senior scientists within the CDC filed an ethics complaint against the agency making that exact claim. They wrote:

It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests.”

The scientists noted that, in order to pursue political objectives, “definitions were changed and data cooked” at CDC, even to the point of misrepresenting data to Congress.

Like the WHO, the CDC has a history of pushing harmful vaccines. An example was covered in a 60 Minutes episode exposing the harm done by the Swine Flu vaccine in 1976 and CDC’s urging that all Americans be injected with that harmful vaccine. The report revealed that the illness was hyped based on very questionable data and the vaccine caused neurological damage.

The current Director of CDC is retired US Army doctor Robert Redfield, who is known for having led the Pentagon’s disastrous response to HIV-AIDS in the 1980s.

A devout catholic, Redfield saw AIDS as the product of an immoral society. For many years, he championed a much-hyped remedy that was discredited in tests. That debacle led to his removal from the job in 1994.”

Public health reporter Laurie Garrett remarked:

“Redfield is about the worst person you could think of to be heading the CDC at this time. He lets his prejudices interfere with the science, which you cannot afford during a pandemic.”

The CDC is an agency within the department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Alex Azar, a lawyer and former pharmaceutical company executive, was appointed as Secretary of DHHS in 2017. Azar has deep connections to the pharmaceutical industry and is known for having engaged in price gouging with his former employer.

Azar is also known for leading the DHHS response to the anthrax scare of 2001, the first known bioterrorism attack on the United States. The anthrax attacks were targeted against members of Congress and the media that were dissenting voices in the national discussion about the Patriot Act, the oppressive legislation introduced immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

Although Muslims were first blamed through highly questionable evidence, it was ultimately found that the weaponized anthrax came from U.S. military laboratories.

Azar was instrumental in defining the National Biodefense Strategy in 2018, working closely with John Bolton, Trump’s National Security Advisor. Bolton, a neocon and member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), has a long history of pushing authoritarian policies and war.

In the US the person most visibly in charge of the COVID-19 response is Anthony Fauci, who is the long-time director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Like Redfield, Dr. Fauci is a Catholic and has said that values he learned in his Jesuit education continue to guide him.

After weeks of Fauci having led the coronavirus response in the US, it was learned that his NIAID had funded “gain of function” research at the Wuhan laboratory where the SARS-COV-2 virus is suspected of having originated.

Fauci’s response to questions about that inexplicable coincidence was simply to denounce “conspiracy theories” rather than addressing the questions directly, much as others did when questioned about 9/11 foreknowledge.

Whether SARS-COV-2 was genetically engineered in a laboratory, like the NIAID-funded Wuhan lab, is a subject that has become of interest to many scientists. 

The Wuhan laboratory is not the only place the US supports work like this, however, as the Pentagon funds such labs in 25 countries across the world. Located in places such as Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South East Asia, and Africa, these labs isolate and manipulate viruses like the bat coronaviruses from which SARS-COV-2 originated. This bat-research program is further coordinated by a group called EcoHealth Alliance (EHA).

The manipulation of viruses for gain of function at US funded labs is, like the origin of the weaponized anthrax at US labs, evidence that bioterrorism and pandemics can be manufactured events. This is another way in which the coronavirus scare could reflect the war on terrorism and war on communism, both of which were driven by manufactured terrorist events.

It is remarkable that Fauci funded work to manipulate coronaviruses then became the voice of the coronavirus pandemic response while also working closely with Bill Gates’ GAVI initiative. Fauci has boasted that NIAID and GAVI work together to push vaccines with “outright collaboration between us in setting the standard of what is needed.”

This makes it easier to see that a new pattern of hyped pandemics resulting in increased population control and global vaccinations is not only possible but would be a very lucrative business model.

The NHS and Corporate Nations

By now it’s well known that the initial projections for deaths due to COVID-19 were massively overestimated and one academic paper was responsible for the panic. The lead author of that paper, Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, has since resigned in disgrace from his government advisory position. Much like the US government’s explanation for destruction of the World Trade Center buildings, his estimates were based on computer models that cannot be shared with the public.

As in the US, UK intelligence agencies have taken a leading role in managing the coronavirus scare. The terrorism expert who is expected to be the next chief of MI6 was selected to lead a new “biosecurity centre” to evaluate the coronavirus threat and “enable rapid intervention.”

Additionally, the UK intelligence agency known as Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) was granted powers over the NHS’s computer systems. GCHQ is known for engaging in illegal activities related to population control mechanisms such as mass surveillance.

Totalitarian outcomes are further enabled with billionaire Peter Thiel’s CIA-initiated company Palantir managing the databases used by both the CDC and UK’s NHS that drive COVID-19 decision making.

For perspective, in 2009, Thiel said, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” providing another clue that public health and awareness are not the main priorities behind the coronavirus scare.

The data behind the COVID-19 pandemic was never reliable, with test kits being inaccurate, government policies inflating the death counts, and the media focusing solely on fear-based predictions that are repeatedly proven false.

Recently, scientists and government leaders from other countries, including Russia, Germany and Denmark, have begun speaking out about how the coronavirus threat has been exaggerated.

The outcomes of the coronavirus scare have included huge windfalls for billionaires, financial institutions, and corporations. Legislation being passed in response to COVID-19 is largely beneficial to corporate interests. The outcomes for everyone else have been fear, unemployment, poverty, loss of freedoms, grave risks to democracy, and death.

How this is possible is related to the fact that governments, and the nations they represent, are no longer what they were. In many ways, corporations have replaced governments as the drivers of public policy and, as with Peter Thiel’s Palantir, the public’s interest is not their concern. Meanwhile, over two dozen companies have become larger and more powerful than many national governments.

As a result, governments are now false fronts for corporations and the decisions they make, for example to lockdown citizens and remake their economies, are driven by profit-based strategies indifferent to public interests.

In summary, the features and outcomes of the coronavirus scare reflect those of previous psychological operations including the war on terrorism and its predecessor, the war on communism.

The people and agencies driving the coronavirus scare have a history of unethical behaviors, including hyping pandemics to push vaccines, and appear to seek long-term profits through implementation of a highly controlled society. Therefore, the response to COVID-19, if not the virus itself, can be seen as a psychological operation used to drive those outcomes.

- "Source" -

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.
===================================
* De volledige naam van deze man: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Zie ook:
'Remdesivir, het middel tegen Ebola en ook tegen COVID-19 opgekocht door de Trump administratie: een zware misdaad' 

'Ausweis bitte! COVI-PASS 'noodzakelijk' bij aantonen 'immuniteit' voor Coronavirus'

'Spanje, Italië en anderen: EU 'solidariteit' i.v.m. de Coronacrisis alleen als het land zich tot de nek in de schulden wil steken: 'DASLIEF' of.....'

'Kabinet en regeringspartijen hebben geen behoefte om zorgverleners vanwege hun inzet op de Coronacrisis structureel meer te waarderen' 

'KLM krijgt 3,4 milard euro voor vliegtuigoverlast, terwijl zorgmedewerkers kunnen barsten, een applausje vindt men in Rutte 3 voldoende' (en zie de links in dat bericht over de politieke leugens aangaande Schiphol, KLM en Lelystad Airport)

'Pandemieën zijn het resultaat van natuurvernietiging, een waarschuwing van de VN, de WHO en het WWF'

'Corona-angst: psychologische oorlogsvoering tegen de bevolking'

''Mondkapjes per 1 juni verplicht in openbaar vervoer, 'daar het Coronavirus zich op die datum zal richten op dat vervoer'' 

'Nederland chanteert alweer Antilliaanse eilanden: nu voor hulp bij Coronacrisis' 

'Coronasterfte verreweg het grootst onder ouderen met chronische kwalen: tijd voor een echte intelligente lockdown' 

'Rinke van den Brink (NOS redacteur gezondheidszorg) over EU reactie op Coronavirus en loflied op Rutte en RIVM....' Een volkomen ten onrecht loflied (zie ook de links in dat bericht) 

'Zeg nee tegen de Corona spoedwet!' (een bericht met daaraan verbonden een petitie tegen die 'nood-spoedwet', lees en teken deze petitie ajb!)

'Rutte 3 wil ongrondwettelijke noodmaatregelen legitimeren met spoedwet' 

'Duitse Verfassungsschutz vor Verschwörungstheorien waarschuwt geheel hypocriet voor Corona samenzweringstheorieën'  

'Anti-racisme demonstratie in Amsterdam reden voor hysterische ophef' (en de schreeuw om maatregelen die het recht op demonstreren moet uitrangeren....) 

The Science of Fear: How The Elitists Use it to Control Us & How to Break Free

'Transport nucleair afval via Amsterdam naar uitermate gevaarlijke opslag' (met aandacht voor de aantasting van burgerrechten tijdens de Coronacrisis, zo mochten in Duitsland maar 35 mensen protesteren tegen dit transport....)

'Coronavirus: we worden behandeld als een kind met een tere ziel dat niet te veel mag weten'

'Coronavirus: vluchtelingen zonder verblijfsvergunning blijven opgesloten ondanks grote kans op besmetting'  

'Privacy en vrijheid van meningsuiting slachtoffer van het Coronavirus: neem de verplichte volg-app'

'Trump vraagt om absolute macht tijdens de Coronacrisis' 
 
'Coronacrisis: de grootste internationale oefening ooit van politie, geheime diensten en de landstrijdkrachten' 

'Wereldbevolking moet afhankelijk worden gemaakt van vaccins in combinatie met een 'vaccinatiepaspoort'' (zie ook de video's in dat bericht, waarvan de hieronder getoonde er één is)

Forced vaccinations for all. And that means you. A triumph for authoritarians (een video uit 2018, zeker zien mensen!):

'Politie schiet 13 jarige jongen dood bij handhaven avondklok i.v.m. Coronavirus'

'Viktor Orbán misbruikt Coronacrisis om het Hongaarse parlement en daarmee de democratie buitenspel te zetten'

'Ton Wilthagen (universiteit Tilburg) wil dat de verkiezingen voor de Tweede Kamer worden uitgesteld'

En terzijde: 'Senator Rick Scott (vriend van Trump) wil sancties voor landen die i.v.m. het Coronavirus medische hulp krijgen van Cuba'

Voor nog veel meer berichten over het Coronavirus, klik op het betreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.

Max Boot, promotor van de illegale oorlog tegen Irak is pissig dat Bernie Sanders kritiek levert op die oorlog

Als het om de VS gaat is niets te gek om je voorstellingsvermogen op de proef te stellen. Caitlin Johnstone bericht over Max Boot, een jammer genoeg invloedrijke 'neocon', die stelt dat hij heeft geleerd van de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak, een oorlog die hij ook als journalist fiks heeft gepromoot en waarvan hij nu toegeeft fout te hebben gezeten.

Dit halfslachtige excuus gebruikt hij nu om Bernie Sanders aan te vallen, Sanders één van de Democratische kandidaten die opgaat voor het VS presidentschap.... Sanders gebruikt de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak als voorbeeld om het volk duidelijk te maken dat de VS moet stoppen met haar terroristische interventies*, die keer op keer dood en verderf zaaien... Zo heeft de VS, met hulp van andere NAVO-lidstaten, alleen deze eeuw al meer dan 2,5 miljoen mensen vermoord, dan wel is verantwoordelijk voor de moord op die mensen......

Kortom Sanders heeft duidelijk een goed punt als hij de agressie van de VS aan de kaak stelt, agressie, of beter gezegd terreur die bovendien kapitalen kost. Echter niet in de ogen van Boot, die wil dat Sanders zijn mond moet houden over de Irak oorlog en moet toegeven dat hij wel eens fout zat, daar hijzelf ook al eens fout zat en dat heeft toegegeven.... ha! ha! ha! ha! Boot zat niet één keer fout, maar meerdere keren nam hij het op voor de VS terreur, die keer op keer was gebaseerd op leugens, verdraaiingen, false flag operaties en andersoortige desinformatie...... Hoe kan je stellen dat iemand wel fout moet zijn daar hij nooit heeft moeten toegeven fout te zijn geweest??? Krankzinnig!

Het is wel duidelijk dat ook de media in de VS al bezig zijn om de presidentsverkiezingen in november dit jaar te manipuleren en naar de hand van de machtigen te zetten..... Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard en Elizabeth Warren, zijn liberale (in de echte zin van het woord) presidentskandidaten van de Democraten, waar je bij Sanders zelfs kan spreken over een min of meer socialistische inslag. Voor deze drie kandidaten geldt dat de reguliere (massa-) media hen 'niet lusten', immers zij vormen een bedreiging voor het grootkapitaal en de neoliberale status quo die men zo angstvallig verdedigt in die media.... Uiteraard is e.e.a. ook gebaseerd op de anti-oorlogsstemming van deze 3 democratische kandidaten, immers oorlogsvoering is goed voor de aandelenportefeuilles van de eigenaren van die media: plutocraten en investeringsmaatschappijen.....    

Daarbovenop komen nog de enorme giften van de hier voor aangehaalde plutocraten en investeerders, figuren die niet alleen die reguliere media bezitten, maar ook grootaandeelhouders zijn van de wapenindustrie, de oliemaatschappijen, de financiële sector, dan wel farmaceutische industrie...... De giften van deze opperschoften bepalen uiteraard ook de politiek die de gewenste en betaalde kandidaat zal volgen (al geven ze zowel aan de Republikeinen als de Democraten), met andere woorden: de VS verkiezingen worden al vele decennia gemanipuleerd, niet vanuit Rusland, Iran, China of Noord-Korea, maar vanuit de VS zelf!!

Lees het artikel van Johnstone waarin ze gehakt maakt van de miezerige oorlogshitser Max Boot, die al eens durfde te stellen dat de VS moet bezuinigen op sociale zekerheid en medicare en de belastingen moet verhogen om het VS leger in staat te stellen andere landen binnen te kunnen vallen**:

Iraq-Raping Neocon Upset That People Keep Bringing Up The Iraq Thing

by Caitlin Johnstone

There's so much going on in US politics right now that it's hard to know what to write about. With all the shouting about the election, impeachment, Trump's bogus Palestine "deal" and so many other important political issues competing for airtime with Kobe Bryant's death and coronavirus fear porn, it feels like we're already at white noise information saturation, and it's not even February yet. Things are going to get a whole lot noisier next month when the Democratic presidential primaries (and all the establishment manipulations that will necessarily accompany them) get underway, and Julian Assange's extradition trial begins.

One of the many interesting developments that I can pluck out of this cacophony to earn my keep here has been the hysterical response to Bernie Sanders' polling bump from the Bush-era neoconservatives who've been rehabilitated by a weird new alliance with the Democratic Party in the age of Trump. In just the last few days we've seen a deluge of smear pieces against Sanders published in mainstream news outlets by virulent "never-Trump" neocons Bret "Bedbug" Stephens, David "Axis of Evil" Frum, Jennifer "John McCain is too dovish" Rubin, and Max "The Case for American Empire" Boot.

Which has turned out to be a good thing so far, for two reasons. Firstly it has ripped off the mask of woke progressivism that these neoconservative war whores slapped on their faces three years ago to promote mass murder within the Democratic establishment's astroturf "Resistance" to Trump. Secondly it has educated an entire new generation of young voters about the evils of the Iraq invasion, and who helped facilitate it.

Max Boot ✔ @MaxBoot

“You can trust me now,” I said, “precisely because I have changed my mind. Don’t trust anyone who hasn’t.”
⁰Which brings me to Bernie Sanders, who never seems to have changed his views about anything.

.@PostOpinions: https://wapo.st/2O9ujUG

Opinion | Bernie Sanders is ‘insanely consistent.’ That’s nothing to brag about.

The candidate's rigidly held views are an ominous sign.

washingtonpost.com

705  11:03 PM - Jan 29, 2020  Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,692 people are talking about this

It is always a good sign when a bunch of pundits who push for increased military aggression at every opportunity are upset about the same thing, but I'm going to single out Max Boot here because his Bernie tantrum has been especially hilarious to watch.

In an article for The Washington Post titled "Bernie Sanders is ‘insanely consistent.’ That’s nothing to brag about.", Boot bizarrely decided to attack Sanders on the fact that he hasn't often had to admit that he's been wrong about things.

"But it is true that I’ve rethought my views on some important matters, such as the Iraq War, and started speaking out on issues such global warming, gun control and white privilege where reality conflicts with conservative dogma," Boot writes, adding that he can be trusted now “precisely because I have changed my mind. Don’t trust anyone who hasn’t.”

It is fascinating that Boot should choose consistency as a line of attack against Sanders, because he himself has been remarkably consistent throughout his entire career. He's just been consistent in the other direction.

Promoting fiendishly aggressive interventionist agendas everywhere from Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya to Syria to Iran to Russia, the former PNAC member Boot has been a leading narrative manager for some of the most catastrophically disastrous military interventions in living memory. He has not just promoted imperialist agendas which destroyed the lives of untold millions of human beings, but has also consistently promoted the pernicious underpinning philosophy of that imperialism as in his 2001 masterpiece "The Case for American Empire".

And that is the one and only reason Boot remains gainfully employed as a famous and widely circulated mainstream foreign policy analyst. He has no redeeming characteristics.

He is not smart. He is not charming. He is never, ever right about anything. He simply advocates for the deployment of expensive military equipment consistently and reliably.

The oligarchic media love that in a guy.

Me: I was wrong and I admit it, but I learned from it. Bernie should too. He’s been wrong about some stuff.

Bernie Bro: You were wrong. Why should we listen to you?

Me: https://t.co/xZOvTozxNs

— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) January 29, 2020

Boot, who has been giddy with excitement that his fellow traveller John Bolton has entered his side of the impeachment debate, wrapped up his unintentional self-parody by cheerleading Trump's regime change interventionism in Venezuela and the right-wing military coup in Bolivia. After its publication he quickly found himself under fire on Twitter by the Sanders campaign's David Sirota, who rightly criticized his forceful promotion of the Iraq invasion. Boot responded by whining that the "Bernie Bro" should accept his admission that Iraq was a mistake and forget about the whole thing.

"Me: I was wrong and I admit it, but I learned from it. Bernie should too. He’s been wrong about some stuff. Bernie Bro: You were wrong. Why should we listen to you?", Boot tweeted.

"LOL. Exactly," Jennifer Rubin responded.

And that just says so much about the coddled, insulated, completely unchallenged life that these mass media pundits are accustomed to, right there. To believe that you can help pave the way for a war that kills a million people based on lies and then years later say

"Oh yeah I made an oopsie with that one, I need a do-over" requires an unbelievable amount of entitlement and privilege, let alone to be able to self-righteously hold that admission up as some kind of superior virtue that is worthy of praise and deference.

You don't get to help murder a million people and then act indignant when people bring it up. That is not a thing. Your admission of wrongdoing does not undo the wrong that you did, and only someone who has been raised in a consequence-free environment their entire life could possibly believe that it would.

Max Boot ✔ @MaxBoot

About to go on @CNNTonight to discuss impeachment. http://wapo.st/313fSai 

Striking that Trump lawyers pretend Bolton smoking-gun evidence doesn't exist. And that so many GOP senators still argue that there's no reason to hear from Bolton. The lack of GOP outrage is outrageous.

Opinion | Republicans’ lack of outrage — even after Bolton’s smoking-gun evidence — is outrageous

The president’s abuse of power is a far bigger deal than Adam Schiff’s remark.

washingtonpost.com

467  3:59 AM - Jan 28, 2020  Twitter Ads info and privacy

153 people are talking about this

Hey Max? If you ever get tired of being completely wrong about everything, here’s a hot tip for you: maybe start with crossing off the idea that murdering a bunch of people is an ideal solution to every problem. Normal people don’t think that way. That’s why you’re wrong more often than any normal person. It really is that simple.

Nobody who promoted the unforgivable Iraq invasion should ever be listened to about anything for as long as they live. They certainly should not be elevated in prominent slots on mainstream news outlets. They should not even be able to find employment anywhere more glamorous than a McDonald's.

It is good that these people are exposing themselves, and it is good that more people are learning about the Iraq invasion. Nothing has ever been done to make right the unfathomable evils which were inflicted upon our species by that one horrific act, let alone the many other disastrous interventions which have been endorsed by Max Boot.

Let's all hope for a sane world where mass military slaughter is seen for what it is, and where war whores like Max Boot are seen for what they are, and where both of these things fade into obsolescence forever.

_____________________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Caitlin Johnstone | January 30, 2020 at 3:50 am | Tags: Bernie Sanders, David Sirota, iraq, max boot, neocon, Politics | Categories: Article, News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-20A

============================
* Je begrijpt dat Sanders de illegale interventies van de VS nooit zal aanduiden als 'terreur', immers dat zou onmiddellijk een eind maken aan zijn politieke carriere...... In de VS mag je gerust kritiek uitoefenen op het buitenlandbeleid van de VS en op de acties die het leger uitvoert, echter als politicus het woord terreur gebruiken voor de acties van dat leger, gaat 10 stations te ver en zal onmiddellijk een hysterische haat- en lastercampagne uitlokken bij de reguliere media......

** Zie: 'Het 'arme', 'weerloze' militair-industriële complex in de VS 'heeft miljarden aan extra orders nodig......'

Zie ook:
'Joe Biden met dubbel verlies: hij dreigde met een rechtszaak om zo de resultaten van de voorverkiezingen in Iowa tegen te houden van publicatie' (zie ook de links in dat bericht naar meer info over de VS [voor-]verkiezingen van 2020)
 
Voor meer berichten over de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, Max Boot en/of Sanders, klik op het bewuste label, direct onder dit bericht.