How Democratic is China?

By Here Comes China

Comment: A must read… with an open mind.

Like America, China is a republic and, like America, says it is democratic, but how democratic is China? A glance at history is always a good starting point

The People are supreme, the state is secondary and the Ruler is the least important: only those who please the people can rule. Mencius[1]

In Roman politics, citizens lost control of politicians after they elected them. It’s one of the system’s greatest weaknesses and it is no wonder that, like our Roman forebears, we regard government as our biggest problem[2]: we cannot compel them to keep their promises.

Imagine that, instead of hiring eloquent amateurs, we hired professionals–sociologists, statisticians, political scientists, economists–and told them to create solutions to our problems identified by publicly conducted surveys. Then they should support state and local governments to implement policy solutions, track public satisfaction with them for a few years and discard failed policies. California would probably try Canadian medicare and if their medical bills fell fifty percent and Californians showed a three year gain in healthy life expectancy, we’d elect a thousand volunteers and send them–all expenses paid–to Washington so they could audit the results and pass legislation.

That’s what China does and it’s why their democracy resembles Proctor & Gamble more than Pericles of Athens.

How Democratic is China–Really?

Read the full article here… You will not be disappointed!

By Putting Big Pharma’s Patents Before Patients, Doctors Will Further Erode Trust in Expert

By Jonathan Cook

“… until a decade or so ago – when phone cameras meant that recorded visual evidence became commonplace and irrefutable – you would rarely have had a way to know about those attacks. Correspondents in Jerusalem had decided on your behalf that you did not need to know….”

Read the full article here

SARS Variants, Spike Proteins and More All Rest on One Big Fat Assumption

By Makia Freeman

Comment: why does the public easily believe those who have lied to us about assaults on nations based on pure lies; conditioned people to be afraid of ‘them’ “over there” – whoever ‘them’ and wherever “over there” is, forever changing like a kaleidoscope, minus the pretty colours? This is progression from being fearful of ‘them’ (who never were to be feared to begin with) to fearing ourselves and the very air we breathe, as we supposedly carry an unknown “deadly” enemy, that this enemy is unseen to the naked eye in the air, on things you touch, so we must ‘stay apart together’. Stay apart together – Say that enough times, eventually you will hear the absolute brainwashing doublespeak. As I looked at a child in a mask the other day and remarked it to be “criminal and cruel”. I was told rather defensively “there’s nothing wrong with protecting a child”. But against what? Against themselves?! We are slowly being made to believe we are our own enemy and some people with good intentions don’t even realize it.

Apparently, there are now South African, UK and Californian variants of which you need to be very afraid. However, whether it’s new variants, spike proteins or other SARS-CoV-2 paraphernalia, all of these stories depend on a basic assumption: that a new virus SARS-CoV-2 exists. You can’t have variants of a virus that doesn’t exist. You can’t have spike proteins on a virus that doesn’t exist. Likewise, you can’t make a true traditional vaccine (not the gene editing devices of Pfizer and Moderna) of a virus that doesn’t exist. So we keep coming back to the same point: SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated or purified, and thus so much of the current reporting about it is disinformation that cannot be true.

One Big, Fat, Unfounded Assumption

As always, Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andrew Kaufman (whom I have quoted extensively in previous articles such as this one and this one) shine light on the true state of affairs. According to them, no true isolation of a virus has EVER happened, either for SARS-CoV-2 or other viruses like HIV. In a recent discussion, they talk about the lack of scientific evidence for the proof of viruses alleged to cause disease in the context of a recently aired debate between Dr. Judy Mikovits and Kaufman. The discussion became a little tense as Kaufman prodded Mikovits to explain how she had ever isolated a virus (as she claims to have repeatedely done), when all she had done was show viruses budding out of the cell (not true isolation). Mikovits replied it had to be that way for retroviruses, because the human body would eat up loose RNA or DNA. Mikovits did however agree and explicitly state that SARS-CoV-2 had never been isolated.

Read the article in full here

Scientists Show COVID Tests Are ‘Useless’, Are Based on ‘Flawed Science’

The ‘worldwide misdiagnosis of infections’ stemming from the tests has resulted in ‘stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods,’ the scientists argue.

By Michael Haynes

Comment: not a single time in medicine has there been a test for some illness, or in this case a virus, that has been put into action where the virus has not been identified, isolated nor purified. Also, only if one of feeling ill does that person go and see a doctor to be tested for an illness (bronchitis, pneumonia, coughs). Why have people abandoned logic? And lastly it begs the question, what are these medical practitioners testing for?

The recently published report examined the original Corman-Drosten paper, in which Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR/PCR) tests were proposed as a validated means to detect COVID-19. The protocol proposed is used in around 70% of tests globally and by over one hundred governments. These tests promptly became the motivating factor behind the international phenomenon of nation-wide lockdowns, as cases of the virus were reported to rise.

But a group of 22 independent scientists, termed the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS), have studied and reviewed the Corman-Drosten (CD) paper, finding “numerous technical and scientific errors,” noting that neither the “test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication.” They dubbed the CD paper as “flawed science” and called its authors “intellectually dishonest.”

The group presents “ten fatal problems” with the Corman-Drosten paper, and concludes that there is no other choice “but to retract the publication.” Each of the problems is described as being sufficient on its own to render the PCR test “useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” The ICSLS report highlights the “worldwide misdiagnosis of infections” stemming from the CD protocols, resulting in “stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods.”

Lead author of the ICSLS report is Dr. Pieter Borger, an expert on the molecular biology of gene expression, and among the co-authors is Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President of vaccine company Pfizer.

Dr. Paul Sacré offers a brief explanation of how the PCR test works, as an aid to understand the ICSLS’s criticisms of the CD paper. The nasal or throat swab is “processed to isolate genetic material,” then primers — “engineered genetic material” — are added and bound to the viral genetic material, which begins “amplification.” During amplification, fluorescent markers “bound to the copies during PCR” are released, and if enough of these are detected, the test is termed positive.

Breakdown of scientific problems

The first “major” issue identified in the ICSLS review is that the CD paper and the trial PCR tests were written and conducted “without having virus material available,” in the words of the CD paper itself. Instead, the PCR test method was based on “silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China.” The CD paper’s aims of development and deployment of a test “are not achievable without having any actual virus material available,” according to the ICSLS.

On the day the CD paper was submitted to medical journal Eurosurveillance, Google data records only 6 deaths from the virus.

This leads the ICSLS to question why the CD report predicted “a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought?”

Many errors are presented by the ICSLS. The concentration of primers used in the development of the PCR tests are “far too high” for “optimal specific amplifications of target genes.” The variations of primer pairs used in the CD paper mean, “The design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related.” Thus, various laboratories could assume they have detected a positive COVID case, using a formula that does not actually detect COVID.

In order for a PCR test to be reliable, “amplification from 3 different genes (primers) of the virus under investigation is required.” Yet the ICSLS found in the CD paper that “in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic.”

Continuing, the ICSLS notes that the proposed PCR test contains “severe design errors,” and since the test is unable to distinguish between “the whole virus and viral fragments” it “cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.” A positive test, as mentioned in the CD paper, cannot determine if one is infected with the virus, but “merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules.”

The review then deals with the amplification cycles of the tests. The CD paper does not even define what a positive or negative test result is, but does suggest that “45 PCR cycles” are to be performed. While a PCR test can have up to 60 cycles of amplification, both Dr. Sacré and the ICSLS point out that PCR test data from a cycle value of 35 or more is “completely unreliable.” “Only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with [cycle] values of 35,” the group adds, as even above 30 cycles there is “a grey area”, where a positive result cannot be trusted.

After the amplification process is complete, “biomolecular validation” is “essential” to determine the presence of COVID-19, since “amplified PCR products can be anything.” But the CD paper’s protocol does not do so, and the ICSLS consequently calls any PCR test developed on such a basis “useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

The proposed PCR tests also ignore the “essential scientific gold standard” which is to have a positive control and a negative control, by which to identify COVID-19 from other coronaviruses. Furthermore, the CD paper itself notes the gene used in the tests is not specific to COVID-19, and thus detects “a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses.”

Based on all these errors, and even drawn from text in the CD paper itself, the ICSLS warns that it is “inevitable” that “the PCR test described in the Corman-Drosten paper generates false positives.” This is echoed by Dr. Sacré, who wrote that the chief limitation of PCR tests is the “extreme sensitivity (false positive) if a suitable threshold of positivity (Ct) is not chosen.”

Swiss Policy Research has found that a positive PCR test run at 35 cycles or more, as is common in Europe and the U.S., has a 97% chance of being a false positive.

No peer review, but conflict of interest authorship

The Corman-Drosten paper appears to have received no peer review. It was received to Eurosurveillance on January 21, 2020, accepted for publication the next day, and posted online on January 23. In fact, ICSLS reports that a version of the CD paper was published on the WHO website on January 13, 2020. Evidence thus suggests no peer review has occurred, and the ICSLS writes, “Any molecular biologist familiar with RT-PCR design would have easily observed the grave errors present in the Corman-Drosten paper before the actual review process.”

The group contacted Eurosurveillance for a copy of a peer review, but was eventually told that “disclosure would undermine the purpose of scientific investigations.”

Two authors of the CD paper, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, were found to be part of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, prompting the ICSLS to say that “there is a severe conflict of interest which strengthens suspicions that the paper was not peer-reviewed.” Such an action is seen as “compromising scientific integrity.”

In addition to that, ICSLS found “severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors,” with two of the authors being the CEO and scientific advisor at PCR test producing company TIB-Molbiol.

Author’s comments on the ICSLS report

Speaking to UncoverDC.com  about the Corman-Drosten paper, Dr. Kevin Corbett from the ICSLS report said, “Public Health England is a co-author on it. All the public health authorities across the EU have co-authored this paper. But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality, or the actual person, the patient.”

Responding to the point that advocates of the PCR test claim the virus has, as a matter of fact, been isolated, Corbett said, “Yes, there have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July, I think it was, where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had it to begin with. So it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.”

The ICSLS paper concludes, “In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.”

This article first appeared in LifeSite

Israel Imposes Gag Order on Probe into Oil Spill Dubbed “Most Serious Ecological Disaster” in Years

Comment: it is not bad enough that the apartheid zionist entity is stealing Gaza’s natural gas in their coastal waters under absolute secrecy and deception, but now that a major oil “spill” has occurred under their watch, they want to put a lid on it?! They have been stealing, lying and cheating for over a hundred years, and now they want to cover, lie and cheat nature? May this squatter entity choke on what they have done and continue to do.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection indicated that tar was “washing up and contaminating the beaches” starting last Wednesday. A major clean-up and conservation effort is underway that has included the Israeli Army.

It’s believed the oil spill may have happened a week or more ago, or possibly even weeks prior, but recent stormy weather washed it up to shore.

Currently an estimated 106 miles of coastline have been impacted, stretching from Israel through the Gaza Strip. It’s also been widely reported as impacting southern Lebanon’s coastline.

A statement from the Israel Nature and Parks Authority predicted that clean-up efforts could take years after the dozens of tons of tar washed up in various places. “The disaster we are witnessing in recent days on the beaches of Israel is the most serious ecological disaster in recent years, and its consequences we will see more years ahead,” the Parks Authority wrote Saturday.

Israeli as well as various international bodies are investigating the source of the Mediterranean spillage, which has included reviewing satellite tracking data of tankers that have traversed the area in recent weeks.

Interestingly and suspiciously, the investigations findings are being kept under tight wrap, as Fox News describes:

In an unusual move, an Israeli judge has issued a gag order on the investigations and any detail relating to it, including the suspects’ name or identities, the vessels involved, and destination and port of departure.

Maya Jacobs, CEO of Zalul, an Israel NGO that protects the country’s seas and streams, called to remove the gag order, and conduct a transparent investigation.

“The companies who cause the environmental risks like the petroleum and shipping companies have a great influence on the Israeli government,” she said.

Sea turtles, other marine life, and birds have been found dead in the hundreds as a result of the disaster, which has further included thousands of volunteers rushing to save injured wildlife from the large tar globs.

From Reuters: Israel is trying to find the ship responsible for an oil spill that drenched much of its Mediterranean shoreline with tar, an environmental blow that will take months or years to clean up https://reut.rs/3ka6FX3

1:45 PM · Feb 21, 2021163127

Minister of Environmental Protection Gila Gamliel had this to say of painstakingly slow improvements to the situation: “I know that everyone wants to help, but tar is a dangerous substance! It is imperative to act carefully and responsibly,” she said.

This article appeared on Zero Hedge

History: US Business Operations with Nazi Germany

By Shane Quinn

Comment: we should stop using the “Hitler” references now. Too many examples preceded him and follow him.

The Third Reich’s destruction of the left, along with Hitler’s stated intention to preserve big business, was welcomed by corporate managers. Before Hitler had even come to power, his views had drawn approval abroad from leading industrialists; like the American tycoon Irénée du Pont, a proponent of racial superiority and until 1925 the president of chemical multinational DuPont; and Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company, a fervent anti-Semite who in the early 1920s wrote ‘The International Jew: The World’s Problem’.

A number of business moguls in America were overtly anti-Semitic, and Hitler’s rants against the supposed Jewish problem met with their approval. Ford’s writings in fact seem to have influenced Hitler and other Nazis like Baldur von Schirach, future head of the Hitler Youth. At the Nuremberg trials in May 1946, von Schirach said he had read Ford’s above work “and became anti-Semitic. In those days this book made such a deep impression on my friends and myself, because we saw in Henry Ford the representative of success”.

Ford himself was providing funds to the Nazi Party since the 1920s, when it was a miniscule political organisation (1). Hitler kept a life-size portrait of Ford behind his desk in Munich, and in 1931 the Nazi leader told a Detroit news reporter, “I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration”. Each year Ford also sent money to Hitler personally on his birthday through Swiss or Swedish banks, between around 10,000 to 20,000 Reichsmarks annually. These payments to Hitler continued until 1944, more than two years after the German declaration of war on America. (2)

However, as Hitler became chancellor on 30 January 1933, the Nazi Party’s coffers were virtually empty and large bills remained unpaid. Just a few weeks before, Goebbels complained in his diary that “financial troubles make all organised work impossible” and “the danger now exists of the whole party going to pieces” (3). This indicates that, up until Hitler took control, the Nazis received rather limited funding from big business. Greater contributions would be forthcoming, almost as soon as Hitler gained the chancellorship.

To help solve the Nazi Party’s financial plight and increase his grip on power, Hitler invited over 20 industrialists to attend a conference, on 20 February 1933, held at the official residence in Berlin of Hermann Göring. He was Hitler’s second-in-command, a morphine addict and President of the Reichstag. Among those who turned up at the meeting were well known individuals like Gustav Krupp (owner of the Krupp steel company); Fritz von Opel (Opel AG board member, grandson of founder Adam Opel); Georg von Schnitzler (IG Farben board member); Hjalmar Schacht (reinstated as Reichsbank president by Hitler in March 1933); and Albert Vögler (politician and businessman, centrally involved in arming the Wehrmacht).

Addressing the industrialists at length Hitler informed them, in a nutshell, that the choice now in Germany was between his rule – which respects the rights of private property and business – or that of communism, which he insisted would do the opposite and must be destroyed.

Highly impressed with Hitler’s speech, on behalf of the industrialists Krupp expressed to the Nazi leader their “gratitude for having given us such a clear picture of his ideas”. Göring then informed Krupp and colleagues that the Nazi Party urgently required funds, to enable them to campaign sufficiently for the critical 5 March 1933 elections. The businessmen dispensed immediately with two million Reichsmarks (equivalent to about nine million Euro today). The notorious chemical corporation IG Farben, who we will come to later, provided the largest contribution to the Nazi Party at this meeting, giving 400,000 Reichsmarks. Further cash would be granted to the Nazis in coming days from German industry; while political opposition groups, such as the communists, were terrorised and intimidated by brown-shirted mobs.

The American historian Henry Ashby Turner, who has closely but skeptically analysed the links between German big business and the Nazis, acknowledged of the above funding, “These contributions unquestionably aided Hitler significantly” while Germany’s industrialists had always viewed the Weimar Republic “with misgiving”, primarily due to its accommodation of labour power. (4)

Goebbels wrote late in 1936 how Hitler confided to him that he had “wanted to shoot himself” in 1927, on account of having accumulated large debts. Coming to Hitler’s rescue was Emil Kirdorf, one of Germany’s foremost industrialists over the previous half century, who gave him 100,000 Reichsmarks (5). Kirdorf, who held far-right views, donated to the Nazi Party in the late 1920s; as too did another high level German businessman, the aforementioned Albert Vögler, founder of the United Steelworks (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG).

By 1933 the Nazis were receiving funds not merely through German business, but also from investments arriving across the Atlantic. The New York Herald Tribune reported on 31 July 1941 that the Wall Street firm, Union Banking Corporation, which the American banker Prescott Bush was managing, had in 1933 sent $3 million to the Nazi Party. This is indeed the same Prescott Bush who was the father of George H. W. Bush, and grandfather to George W. Bush, both of whom would later become presidents.

Prescott Bush was a founder of the Union Banking Corporation in 1924, along with others like W. Averell Harriman, a wealthy businessman and future US Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Up until 1933, the Union Banking Corporation transferred an estimated total of $32 million to “Nazi bigwigs” in Germany, as noted by Moniz Bandeira, a prominent Brazilian historian. (6)

The Union Banking Corporation was closely connected to conglomerates owned by Fritz Thyssen, a German steel magnate and Nazi Party member since 1931, whose factories were an essential component of Hitler’s war industry. Thyssen supplied funds to the Nazis, both prior to and after their taking power. This money helped corrupt politicians like Göring to pursue luxurious lifestyles. Some of Thyssen’s cash funnelled to the Nazi Party went through “an account with a Dutch bank, which was interlocked with a Wall Street outfit called the Union Banking Corporation”. (7) (Preparata, Conjuring Hitler, p. 198)

Prescott Bush, a director and shareholder in the Union Banking Corporation and other Nazi-linked businesses, such as the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), had “played a central role in Hitler’s financing and armament”, according to two American historians who co-wrote a biography on George H. W. Bush, Webster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin.

This is pertaining mostly to Prescott Bush’s connections to Thyssen, who had amassed great wealth through Hitler’s rearmament policies. Even after Hitler declared war on America in late 1941, and information began to leak out regarding Nazi crimes, Prescott Bush continued to work for firms like the Union Banking Corporation. A Guardian newspaper account outlined that he “profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power” (8). Union Banking Corporation’s assets were seized by the US government on 20 October 1942, under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.

For his share in the Union Banking Corporation, Prescott Bush received $1.5 million, equivalent to over $20 million today (9). Likewise having shares in this bank was E. Ronald Harriman, a US financier and younger brother of W. Averell Harriman, along with a couple of Nazi Party members (10). Moniz Bandeira wrote that the money earned by Prescott Bush here “allowed his son, George H. W. Bush, to set up the firms Bush-Obervey Oil Development Co., and Zapata Petroleum, later called Harbinger Group Inc., bringing together several companies to explore oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Cuba”.

Prescott Bush was also a director at the previously mentioned CSSC, a company which exploited resource rich Silesia in the Third Reich for the benefit of Hitler’s war machine. The CSSC used slave labour in the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. Another firm that Prescott Bush worked for, the New York-based Brown Brothers Harriman, served as a US business platform for the ubiquitous Thyssen. The founding partners of Brown Brothers Harriman included the two Harriman brothers and Prescott Bush. Both firms, the Union Banking Corporation and Brown Brothers Harriman, had during the 1930s according to the Guardian “bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler’s build-up to war”.

Some of America’s largest corporations had investments in Germany by the early 1930s, such as DuPont, General Electric, Gilette, Coca-Cola and Eastman Kodak.

In the years ahead, many of these companies’ profits would grow substantially. For example a Kodak branch in neutral Switzerland was, through 1942 and 1943, buying photographic equipment from Nazi Germany, Nazi-occupied France and also Hungary, allied to the Third Reich. America’s embassy in London described these dealings by Kodak as “fairly substantial purchases from enemy territory”. A separate Kodak branch in fascist Spain was purchasing goods from the Reich, such as in early 1942. The latter deal was defended by William Beaulac, the US chargé d’affaires in Madrid. (11)

Wall Street, the financial heartbeat of America, had looked on with some concern at the rise of communism. Its bankers instead viewed fascism overall rather favourably as avant-garde (12). When it became clear that Hitler was favourable to the status quo, while he wiped out labour influence, some Catholic, evangelical and even Jewish bankers connected to Wall Street engaged in business with the Nazis. They granted the Hitler regime about $7 billion in credit during the 1930s, as revealed in 1943 by George Seldes, a US investigative journalist. (13)

The historian Gaetano Salvemini, compelled to leave Mussolini’s Italy because of death threats, later said “almost 100% of American big business” was sympathetic towards Mussolini and Hitler’s dictatorships; because of their lucrative armament programs and destruction of labour. One of the hallmarks of state capitalism is generating money through the business of war, as seen through the decades, with Western governments providing billions worth of weaponry to autocracies in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and elsewhere.

The Nazis’ repressive policies enabled many companies linked to the Reich, such as Ford, to reduce their labour costs, from 15% of business volume in 1933 to just 11% in 1938. While Ford more than doubled their profits in Germany by 1939, they were also benefiting through a subsidiary in Nazi-occupied France, by posting earnings there of 58 million francs in 1941 alone. For this it received warm praise from Edsel Ford, president of the Ford Motor Company and son of founder Henry Ford.

By 1942 of the Wehrmacht’s 350,000 trucks in the field, around 120,000 of them were built by Ford factories in Germany (14). The General Motors-owned Opel plant in Rüsselsheim, western Germany, produced all-wheel-drive trucks for the Wehrmacht, which were most useful on the mud-soaked Eastern front and in the North African deserts.

On 13 December 1941, six days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, president Roosevelt issued a secret decree. He thereby granted special authorisation, so that certain US corporations could continue their business ventures with enemy nations, and with neutral countries on good terms with hostile states (15). This was a violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act; but Roosevelt, reliant on many of the same corporations in the prosecuting of war against Japan and Germany, was careful to appease big business. The American public had little idea of course that famous American companies, like Standard Oil, Ford, General Motors, and others were doing deals with the enemy.

The US manufacturing firm ITT – already involved through a German subsidiary (C. Lorenz AG) in producing Luftwaffe military aircraft with Focke-Wulf – was furthermore supplying high quality communications equipment to the Nazis, in conjunction with IBM, a US technology corporation. This had assisted in the synchronised Blitzkrieg warfare decisive to the Germans quickly defeating Poland, France, the Low Countries, and capturing parts of the western USSR. (16)

In late June 1940, Germany’s easy victory over France was celebrated by some US business leaders at dinners and parties held in New York, such as at the Waldorf Astoria hotel. Among those attending were the ITT founder and CEO, Sosthenes Behn, who had met Hitler in August 1933, James D. Mooney, a senior General Motors executive who saw Hitler on separate occasions, and Edsel Ford.

For their services to the Reich, Hitler lavished awards on Americans like Mooney and Henry Ford. At the beginning of Hitler’s rule US bankers flew to Nazi Germany, such as Winthrop Aldrich, chairman of Wall Street’s Chase National Bank. Aldrich met Hitler in the autumn of 1933, as too did Henry Mann of the National City Bank. Aldrich and Mann subsequently told William Dodd, the US Ambassador to Nazi Germany, that they were willing to “work with him [Hitler]”.

In August 1934 the US media tycoon William Randolph Hearst, who owned dozens of newspapers and magazines, visited Berlin to see Hitler. On returning home, Hearst described the dictator as “certainly an extraordinary man” and he wrote about Nazi Germany’s “great policy” and “great achievement” of saving Germany from communism.

During the late 1930s, the Ford Motor Company was shipping mineral resources to Nazi Germany, sometimes through its subsidiaries in third countries. At the start of 1937 for instance, Ford sent almost two million pounds of rubber and 130,000 pounds of copper to the Nazi regime (17). Ford retained a more than 50% share in their subsidiary in Cologne, Ford-Werke, following the December 1941 German announcement of hostilities against America.

Douglas Miller, America’s acting commercial attaché in Berlin, had predicted in 1935 that by 1937 the Nazis would be producing enough oil and gas out of soft coal “for a long war”. Miller revealed that the Standard Oil Company of New York was collaborating in these ventures by “furnishing millions of dollars to help”.

Standard Oil, owned by the Rockefeller family, had sent $2 million to the Nazis as early as December 1933 – of which Ambassador Dodd in Berlin informed president Roosevelt during October 1936. Dodd also wrote to Roosevelt that Standard Oil “has made $500,000 a year in helping the Germans make ersatz gas for war purposes”. Standard Oil, along with other major US firms like DuPont, was working with IG Farben, the German chemical corporation. IG Farben was firmly incriminated in slave labour and the Holocaust, having provided the Nazis with the infamous poison gas Zyklon B, used to kill more than one million people at Auschwitz.

No less than 53 American companies had connections to IG Farben alone (19). At the Nuremberg trials, US judge Paul M. Hebert called IG Farben “one of Hitler’s greatest assets”.

From the mid-1930s, the Nazis had been hoarding imported oil in preparation for war – and considerable amounts of this vital resource was supplied to Hitler by American corporations, such as Standard Oil of New Jersey and Texaco, the latter company headquartered in Beaumont, Texas. Under Texaco’s pro-Nazi chairman Torkild Rieber, a Norwegian-American who was friends with Göring, the company made significant profits in granting oil to the Nazis.

After the start of European hostilities in September 1939, both Standard Oil and Texaco were supplying Nazi Germany with diesel fuel, lubricating oil and other petroleum substances (20). The Standard Oil and Texaco shipments to Germany came via ports in General Franco’s Spain. Through 1940 and 1941, American oil deliveries to Germany increased further, large amounts of which were sent into the Reich through US subsidiaries in neutral European countries. The Texaco chairman Rieber had illegally dispatched shipments of oil to Spain’s fascist forces during the Spanish Civil War, a factor in Franco’s eventual victory.

Ford and General Motors’ German subsidiaries, which together controlled 70% of the car market in Nazi Germany by 1939, were shifted increasingly towards producing military hardware. After all, even greater profits can be accrued from building the endless weapons of war. Ford and GM subsidiaries in the Reich built almost 90% of the Wehrmacht’s armoured “mule” three ton half-tracks, along with over 70% of Hitler’s medium and heavy-duty trucks. US intelligence reports highlighted this and stated that these vehicles served as “the backbone of the German Army transportation system”. (21)

The Belgian-born historian Jacques R. Pauwels wrote, “Many of Hitler’s wheels and wings were produced in the German subsidiaries of GM and Ford” and that “At one point, GM and Ford together reportedly accounted for no less than half of Germany’s entire production of tanks”. The German Navy was supplied with some shipments of fuel by William Rhodes Davis, a Texan oil financier. In collaboration with US entrepreneur Fred Koch, father of future billionaires Charles and David Koch, Davis helped to build an oil refinery in Hamburg during the early stages of Hitler’s rule. This oil refinery became the third largest in the Reich, which refined high-octane oil for Luftwaffe warplanes. (22)

The American diplomat Dodd, who stepped down from his ambassadorship to Nazi Germany in December 1937, told the media the following month that US industrialists are “working closely with the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity, in my post in Berlin, to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime”. (23)

In 1942 Standard Oil, through an independent headquarters in Switzerland, asked for authorisation to continue selling oil to Germany; on this occasion, from fields that Standard was exploiting in Romania, a country closely allied to Hitler under its dictator Ion Antonescu. Again in 1942 a Standard Oil subsidiary, the West India Oil Company – which was established to exploit raw materials in Cuba and elsewhere in the Caribbean – sent oil to the Reich through a firm located in Buenos Aires, called the Cia Argentina Comercial de Pesquería (24). A number of banking houses in Wall Street profited from doing business with the Nazis, such as the Bank of America (Forbes), Morgan Bank, Read & Co., and Chase Manhattan Bank.

Also pursuing business deals with the Reich were General Electric and the Dow Chemical Company. Dow Chemical, with its main headquarters in Michigan, conducted business with IG Farben, which was strongly supporting German rearmament. In 1934 and 1935, Dow Chemical delivered to IG Farben almost nine million pounds of magnesium, a substance used in airplane manufacturing, incendiary bombs and ammunition. IG Farben was granted this magnesium at a 30% lower cost, in comparison to Dow Chemical prices generally sold to American customers. (25)

During the war years, other US corporations were conducting covert business operations with the Nazis: such as Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Trucks and Firestone Tires, which had subsidiaries in neutral nations like Sweden and Switzerland. Many of their products, once completed in those countries, was sent to the Reich (26). After the Nazis became an official enemy of America from December 1941, General Motors and Ford among others continued dealing with Hitler. This was mainly through their German subsidiaries in Rüsselsheim or Brandenburg. General Motors’ Opel subsidiary in Brandenburg produced Junkers Ju-88 fighter aircraft, land mines, trucks and torpedo detonators for the German armed forces. By 1944 General Motors was still importing goods into Nazi Germany from another subsidiary based in Sweden. (27)

The US companies Chase National Bank, and National City Bank, developed ties with the Nazi-linked Bank for International Settlements (Bank für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich). The latter bank, located in Basel, Switzerland, was involved in the transfer of gold that the Nazis had stolen from Jewish populations in Europe. The gold was melted down and marked with a date preceding World War II, in order to obscure its origins and be used freely by senior Nazis.

Between 1940 and 1946, the Bank für Internationalen president was Thomas H. McKittrick, a Harvard-educated American banker. In this position McKittrick became a Nazi stooge, as the Bank für Internationalen mediated business with the Axis countries; while it was effectively controlled by Nazi officials like Emil Puhl, vice-president of Germany’s Reichsbank and Walther Funk, the German Minister for Economic Affairs. Funk was later sentenced to life imprisonment at Nuremberg.

McKittrick was a friend of Allen Dulles, a US intelligence officer and future CIA director, whom he met in Switzerland where Dulles was stationed during the war. Dulles, also a corporate lawyer, previously met Hitler and Mussolini when acting as a legal adviser at the League of Nations. After a business trip to Germany in 1935, Dulles was reportedly disturbed at the treatment of Jews (28). Allen, with his brother John Foster Dulles, were partners of Sullivan & Cromwell, a New York law firm which established a separate office in Berlin by 1928, but which closed in 1935. The Dulles brothers established contacts with various elites in Germany, including some Nazis (29). From 1933 onwards, Standard Oil and IG Farben were producing significant quantities of oil, gasoline and synthetic rubber for the Nazis from bituminous coal, through a hydrogenation process.

The furnishing of these important natural resources to the Nazi war machine, performed a role in enabling Hitler to swiftly defeat Poland; by his sending 5,000 gas and oil-guzzling panzers and Luftwaffe bombers across Polish territory. At the Nuremberg trials, Judge Hebert said that the German ability to continually produce synthetic rubber, of which Standard Oil and IG Farben were involved in, “made it possible for the Reich to carry on the war independently of foreign supplies”. (30)

Another crucial synthetic material, tetraethyl lead, assisted greatly in the high speed performance of Luftwaffe fighter aircraft. Tetraethyl lead was provided to the Germans in 1935 by a US fuel additive company, Ethyl Gmbh, a daughter firm of Standard Oil and General Motors and connected also to IG Farben. Tetraethyl lead was a key component concerning the whole concept of Blitzkrieg warfare. More than 30 years after the war Albert Speer, Hitler’s armaments minister from February 1942, said that without different types of synthetic fuel supplied by American companies Hitler “would never have considered invading Poland”. (31)

In early 1938, Standard Oil presented IG Farben with the complete technical details for the creation of butyl rubber – a superior type of synthetic rubber, made from petroleum, and that was used in tyre construction for Wehrmacht vehicles like trucks. Germany is a resource poor country, so the collaboration with US business was clearly important to the Nazi regime. By 1940 the Germans possessed 40,000 tons of synthetic rubber, increasing to 70,000 tons by 1941 as they attacked the Soviet Union.

General Motors’ fully-owned German subsidiary, Opel AG, controlled 50% of the automobile market in the Reich by 1935, making it the largest car manufacturer there. Along with Ford, Opel became one of Nazi Germany’s largest panzer producers (32). General Motors chairman Alfred P. Sloan, an American industralist, acknowledged by 1942 – with the US and Nazi Germany now at war – that GM’s entire investment with Opel “amounted to about $35 million” (today equivalent to over $550 million). In December 1941, at the time of the Pearl Harbour attack, Standard Oil had invested $120 million in the Reich (over $2 billion today).

American companies like Pratt & Whitney and Bendix Aviation, the latter of which General Motors had a controlling stock interest in, were selling military patents to German corporations embedded in war production, such as BMW and Siemens. This came to light through a 1940 US Senate investigation. That same year, in return for royalties, Bendix Aviation provided full data regarding aircraft and diesel engine starters to Bosch, a German technology company centrally involved in Nazi armaments production. Bendix had to bypass the British blockade of Germany to push through with the deal. (33)

Japanese professor of business history, Yuji Nishimuta, who has analysed US industrial ties to the Nazis, wrote that, “The German subsidiaries of American corporations formed an important, even essential element, in the so-called ‘miracle of the German economy’” from the period 1933 to 1939. During the months after Hitler’s invasion of Poland in September 1939, US dealings in Nazi Germany “did not change”, according to Nishimuta, as “big American business conducted, as it were, ‘joint business operations’ with the Nazi government through their German subsidiaries” (34). Problems in the relationship only surfaced following Hitler’s declaration of war on 11 December 1941, but even then, as discussed, various US business operations continued.

Notes

1 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st ed. 2019 edition, 4 Feb. 2019) p. 19

2 Ibid.

3 Trials of War Criminals Before The Nuremberg Military Tribunals, Under Control Council Law No. 10, Volume VII, October 1946-April 1949, p. 16

4 Henry Ashby Turner Jr., Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Jstor, Oct. 1969, page 13 & 14 of 15

5 Peter Ross Range, The Unfathomable Ascent: How Hitler Came to Power (Little, Brown and Company, 11 Aug. 2020) Chapter 16, Impending Catastrophe

6 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 15

7 Guido Giacomo Preparata, Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich (Pluto Press; Illustrated edition, 20 May 2005) p. 198

8 Ben Aris, Duncan Campbell, “How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power”, The Guardian, 25 September 2004

9 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 16

10 John Simkin, “Prescott Bush”, Spartacus International, September 1997 (Updated January 2020)

11 John S. Friedman, “Kodak’s Nazi Connections”, The Nation, 8 March 2001

12 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 16

13 Ibid.

14 Yuji Nishimuta, Nazi Economy and U.S. Big Businesses – The Case of Ford Motor Co., Jstor, October 1995, p. 8 of 14

15 Jacques R. Pauwels, “Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler”, Global Research, 7 June 2019

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 18

19 Gabriel Kolko, American Business and Germany, 1930-1941, Jstor, Dec. 1962, page 7 of 16

20 Pauwels, Global Research, 7 June 2019

21 The Industrialization Reorganization Act: Hearings Before The Subcommittee On Antitrust And Monopoly, Of The Committee On The Judiciary United States Senate, 93rd Congress, Second Session, p. 22

22 National Public Radio, “Hidden History of Koch Brothers Traces Their Childhood And Political Rise”, 19 January 2016

23 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 19

24 Ibid, p. 18

25 Harry Aubrey Toulmin, Diary of Democracy: The Senate War Investigating Committee (Richard R. Smith; 1st edition, 1 Jan. 1947) p. 94

26 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 20

27 Ibid.

28 John Simkin, “Allen Dulles”, Spartacus International, September 1997 (Updated January 2020)

29 Pauwels, Global Research, 7 June 2019

30 Kolko, American Business and Germany, 1930-1941, p. 10

31 Pauwels, Global Research, 7 June 2019

32 Kolko, American Business and Germany, 1930-1941, p. 13

33 Ibid., p. 14

34 Yuji Nishimuta, Nazi Economy and U.S. Big Businesses, The Case of General Motors Corporation, Jstor, April/October 1996, p. 17 of 17

South Africa: New lockdown bans political gatherings

By Dale T McKinley

Comment: The government/regime imposed imprisonment upon the healthy, able-bodied populations have absolutely nothing to do with this Scamdemic, but have everything to do with controlling the people. The 6 ft apart ‘together’ doubles peak is not to keep anyone ‘safe’ (another control word), but to keep the policies being rammed down the populace’s throat ‘safe’ and motoring along. The no travelling to other nations, no religious congregations, weddings, funerals, children’s birthday parties, sports activities, anything social, is to keep people from talking to one another about what is happening. And so the ban on political gatherings is the next step. No debate of the policies being pushed through; just authoritarianism and totalitarianism. This indeed should ‘make us sit up and take notice with serious concern’ indeed.

In the general fog that has enveloped our pandemically framed world, it is understandable that we might not notice some things that otherwise would have previously caught our immediate attention. That’s exactly what almost happened with the latest of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s addresses on the state of the pandemic and associated lockdown measures last week.

Like most people tuning in to the address, the media included, what I heard very clearly was that there would now be a slightly adjusted curfew period, land borders would be largely closed, and the alcohol ban would be reinstated; while noting that the latter two were and continue to be vigorously opposed by many.

When the president reiterated that “adjusted” Level 3 restrictions would remain in place, including that most “gatherings” remain prohibited — with circumscribed exceptions for workplaces, cinemas, theatres, casinos, museums, galleries and libraries — my main response was to shrug and wonder out loud when we might see the light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel.

However, after taking a closer look at the regulations I noticed an entirely new subsection stating that, “All political gatherings … are prohibited” (in addition to social and faith-based gatherings as well as traditional council meetings). I had to do a double take to confirm the consequent and indeed shocking reality.

As far as I can tell, for the first time in South Africa’s history it is now (at least until February 15, when the present lockdown level is scheduled to expire) a criminal offence for anyone in the country to hold any kind of political gathering. This should make us all sit up and take notice with serious concern.

The journey of how we got here is as circuitous and contradictory as the African National Congress’s handling of its corrupt members.

First stop is the definitional contradiction (of what constitutes a “gathering”) that exists between the foundational legislation (the Regulation of Gatherings Act of 1993) and the initial lockdown (State of Disaster) regulations issued on March 18 last year.

In the former, a gathering is “any assembly, concourse or procession of more than 15 persons in or on any public road as defined in the Road Traffic Act, 1989, or any other public place or premises wholly or partly open to the air”.

In the latter, gatherings are defined as, “any assembly, concourse or procession of more than 100 persons, wholly or partially in open air or in a building or premises”.

This legal, definitional contradiction has remained throughout, regardless of the varying lockdown levels and specific rules and exceptions adopted for particular gatherings (for example, funerals, workplaces, entertainment and conference venues).

To make matters even more confusing, it was only when the country went to Level 1 in late September last year that the accompanying regulations introduced specific reference to “gatherings at political events and traditional council meetings”, in which both were “limited to 100 persons or less in case of an indoor gathering and 250 persons or less in case of an outdoor gathering…”

Not surprisingly, what this then translated into was a contradictory enforcement of the regulations as they related to “political gatherings”. As the Right2Protest project has pointed out, during 2020 we witnessed grossly inconsistent enforcement; for example, based on where protest gatherings took place, who was involved and for what purpose.

As such, state law enforcement officials were largely able to unilaterally decide which “political gatherings” to prohibit and which to allow. This was further fuelled by the lack of any parallel practical and legal definition of what actually constitutes such a “political gathering”.

And what was the solution to this regulatory dog’s breakfast? A move back to an “adjusted” Level 3 lockdown, the reintroduction of the specific, but undefined, category of “political gatherings”, and their wholesale banning.

The new outright ban recreates the dangerous situation where police may decide to prohibit any gathering which they judge as “political” and for reasons related to their own bias and not on any justifiable safety and/or public health grounds.

In turn, this only amplifies the risk of repeating the fatal consequences of poor training and lack of accountability when it comes to the use/misuse of force.

The legal and health-related basis for this complete banning of “political gatherings” is, to say the least, dubious. Here, we are not simply dealing with a limitation of a fundamental constitutional right, but rather its total obliteration.

As this pandemic has so clearly revealed across the globe, what started out as potentially justifiable, health-centred limitations on people’s right to “politically” gather have, in most cases, quickly turned into politically saturated denials of this basic right.

In turn, this has catalysed an increasing state/bureaucratic authoritarianism, an elitist centralisation of power and a general crackdown on “political” criticism and dissent under the cover of dealing with the pandemic.

Further, for the majority of humanity (workers and the poor) the right in question is not simply one related to legality as well as personal and public health, but one of absolute necessity in the fight against the pandemic and for life itself.

While there is most certainly a strong argument that some of those who engage in “political gatherings” are at risk of contracting and spreading the coronavirus, an equally strong argument can be made that the right to politically gather, whether in a meeting or protest, is absolutely essential to the basic survival of that majority.

This applies to a large portion of the population. Here, there are particularly deep socioeconomic inequalities, rising poverty, massive loss of jobs, crumbling basic infrastructure and an often-inept government that neither listens to nor seriously engages with the majority.

More specifically, government corruption around personal protective equipment, heavy-handed enforcement and mismanagement of socioeconomic support during the lockdown has only served to further catalyse responsive political activities.

Added to the mix is a corporate private sector that never ceases to find new and inventive ways to further exploit workers and increase profits regardless of the social, environmental and human costs.

Further, given that these elites sit atop the global rankings of white-collar crime and a mountain of capital they mostly hoard or use for speculative purposes, the necessities of political “gathering” become even clearer.

The consequent and combined reality is that there are few other options than to engage in “political gatherings” (particularly community meetings and protests) in order to try to ensure the basics of life such as water, electricity, housing, education, healthcare and food as well as the basics of democratic accountability and responsibility.

These basics are and will be fundamental to controlling and eradicating this and other, sure-to-come, pandemics.

While the current banning of the right to engage in “political gatherings” will eventually be lifted, the longer-term and more systemic problem (for those in South Africa and in most countries across the globe) is that the mould has been prepared. Our individual and collective challenge going forward is to make damn sure that the mould does not become set.

Epidemiological Evidence: The “Pandemic” is Over. No “Second Wave” will Follow

Letter by Dr. Stephen Malthouse, MD to Dr. Bonnie Henry, B.C. Provincial Health Officer

By Dr. Stephen Malthouse

Comment: Brilliant! Absolutely Brilliant!

October 2020  

Dr. Bonnie Henry,
British Columbia Provincial Health Officer,
Ministry of Health,
Victoria, BC V8W 3C9

Dear Dr. Henry,  

I am a physician who has been in family medical practice in BC for more than 40 years and a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC since 1978.   

I am writing this letter with the hope that you will be able to clarify the basis of your decision-making that has led our provincial government, health ministry, regional health officers, hospitals, medical staff, WorkSafe BC, businesses, and everyday citizens to follow pandemic policies that do not appear based on high-quality scientific research and, in fact, appear to be doing everyone a great deal of harm.1

The early intent of mitigation measures to “flatten the curve”, when we knew very little about SARS-CoV-2, its mode of transmission, and the severity of COVID-19, was reasonable. I believe that most physicians in Canada, myself included, whether active or retired, prepared themselves to take part on the front lines for the expected COVID-19 tsunami. Very soon it was apparent that the expected overwhelming of the hospital system was not going to occur, and now BC physicians have questions about the appropriateness of your public health policies.

The epidemiological evidence clearly shows that the “pandemic” is over and no second wave will follow. The evidence has been available for at least 4-5 months and is irrefutable.24 Yet, in spite of this substantial body of research, your office is perpetuating the narrative that a pandemic still exists and a second wave is expected. This false story is being used to justify public health policies that appear to have no health benefits, have already caused considerable harm, and threaten to create more harm in the future.

As you are aware, Sweden took an entirely different approach and, as of mid-September, their infection rate reached an all-time low and Covid-19 related deaths were at zero; 22 of 31 European countries, most of which enacted strict lockdowns, had higher infection rates. Sweden has also largely escaped the financial ruin and catastrophic mental health problems experienced in other countries, including Canada and the U.S.A.

Dr. Lawrence Rosenberg, Montréal’s medical officer, has stated “this COVID virus is much like the seasonal flu”. A group of over 400 Belgian doctors have stated “COVID is not a killer virus, but a treatable condition”. Eighteen Canadian doctors wrote the Ontario Premier, Doug Ford, stating “your policies risk significantly harming our children with lifelong consequences”. The Ontario policies are very similar to those of British Columbia.

In 2011, a review of the literature by the British Columbia Centres for Disease Control that sought to evaluate the effectiveness of social distancing measures such as school closures, travel restrictions, and limitations on mass gatherings as a means to address an influenza pandemic concluded that “such drastic restrictions are not economically feasible and are predicted to delay viral spread, but not impact overall mortality”. [Italics added]

Specifically, there appears to be no scientific or medical evidence for56

  1. Self-isolation of asymptomatic people
  2. social distancing
  3. facemasks
  4. arbitrary closure of businesses
  5. closure of schools, daycares, park amenities, and playgrounds
  6. the discontinuance of access to education, medical, dental, chiropractic, naturopathic, hearing, dietary, therapeutic, and other support for the physically and mentally disabled, particularly special needs children with neurological disorders
  7. the closing down of or restrictions on religious places of worship.

According to the CDC Pandemic Severity Index, none of these measures have been warranted. The Great Barrington Declaration, signed by more than 30,000 health scientists and medical doctors from around the world, adds support for this statement.

Surprisingly, the recommendation for reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality by supplementing with vitamin D, a measure that is supported by high-quality research, has been absent from your frequent public broadcasts and professional bulletins.7  Optimizing nutrition is a convenient, inexpensive, and safe method of improving immune resistance and has been confirmed through numerous studies for both prevention and treatment of COVID19. As far as I am aware, you have never mentioned something as simple as vitamin D supplements for our most vulnerable citizens. Yet, it was the promise to protect these same citizens that was used to justify the lockdown of a healthy population and the closure of businesses.

Why are you still using PCR testing?

The Deputy Chief Medical Officer for Health in Ontario has publicly stated that the PCR test yields over 50% false positives. A New York Times investigative report found that PCR testing yields up to 90% false positives due to excessive amplification beyond the recommendations of the manufacturer. The PCR test was never designed, intended or validated to be used as a diagnostic tool. Even the Alberta Health Services COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group has stated “clinical sensitivity and specificity values have not been determined for lab developed RT-PCR testing in Canada”.8  Despite expert consensus, you continue to use this inappropriate and inaccurate test to report so-called “cases” and justify your decisions.9-18

The public health definition of a “case” is very broad. As all experienced doctors know, a “case” is a patient with significant symptoms who is often hospitalized. A “case” is not a person who simply has a questionably positive PCR test and presents with no symptoms or an unrelated diagnosis. Pictures of healthy young adults standing in line to get PCR tests, with a cell phone in one hand and a Starbucks coffee in the other, are everywhere in the media. These are not sick people and do not need testing.

Nevertheless, your public announcements repeatedly emphasize that the “case” counts are rising and we are in big trouble. Recently, “out-of-control” case counts were used to justify a second lockdown in Ontario and Quebec.


Curfews have been put into place. People are being asked to risk their livelihoods to make sacrifices for the general good, based on Public Health’s misrepresentation of “cases” as sick people.

Meanwhile, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths from COVID-19 have dropped to pre-pandemic levels. Where are all the patients?

Why not simply tell the public that

  • the PCR testing is not reliable and is meaningless for diagnosing COVID-19
  • positive PCR test results do not represent sick patients,
  • rarely are people now becoming ill from SARS-CoV-2,
  • provincial hospitals are essentially empty of COVID-19 patients,
  • decisions should not be based on “cases” in the news,
  • the morbidity/mortality of COVID-19 has not exceeded seasonal influenza,
  • the median age of death from COVID-19 in Canada was 85 years,
  • the pandemic is over, and
  • no second wave is coming?

It is your duty as the provincial health officer to provide facts, not propaganda, and make every effort to stop the public panic. The only reason for emphasizing “cases” is to induce more fear and thereby compliance in the name of promised safety.

Why are children being pursued with a new rinse-and-spit saliva test that is also based on a worthless PCR test? Children have been terrorized and are being given the message that they can never be trusted not to infect their family and friends — essentially, that they are naturally bad. The insistence on covering their faces with masks, a proven useless and even harmful measure, only worsens this sense of shame. The psychological fallout from such messaging is going to be horrific. One only needs to walk down Main Street to already see the catastrophic effects of these messages on the mental and emotional health of families.

The excess death toll from partial lockdowns, social distancing and other public health measures is staggering. The Canadian media reports that provincial measures have been shown to create 12:1 more deaths than the virus; there has been a 40% increase in heart attack deaths in Canada from fear, anxiety and cancelled hospital procedures; suicide and drug overdose deaths have increased and outnumber COVID-19 deaths by a ratio of 3:1; suicides have doubled in BC since April; and anxiety and depression, food insecurity, domestic violence, and child abuse have skyrocketed. With unnecessary school closures, the ability of teachers to identify children subject to abuse and malnourishment has been curtailed. Many of our friends, family and patients died alone, terrified, and isolated against their will in facilities and nursing homes. That cruel policy was unjustified and inhuman.

How is it possible that a doctor with your previous training and experience did not anticipate the collateral damage of your public health policies – the economic disruption, the psychological and physical health consequences, and the deaths from despair?

The mainstream media has created a religion out of public health, one based on superstition, not science, with the power to rule over an obedient public. The news channels have raised you to almost saint-like status. Tea towels, shoes and murals have been designed to celebrate your accomplishments. Yet, your public directives do not make sense, contradict the research, and are causing people a great deal of harm. As a fellow doctor, I appeal to you to re-examine your policies and change direction before Public Health causes irreparable damage to our province’s health and economic well-being. That about-face will require you to meet the obligations of your office.

Sincerely,

Stephen Malthouse, MD

Member, College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia,

Denman Island, British Columbia

This article first appeared in October 2020 on Globalresearch.ca

Evil happens when good men do nothing

By Dr Gideon Polya

Comment: it’s about time the deeply, very ugly truth be spoken and written. These words should go out to ALL mainstream media outlets. The MSM should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. Theirs is not a “free” press.

Letter to the Australian Taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS Media re Anti-Arab & Anti-Jewish Anti-Semitism and False Reportage about Occupied Palestine.


Dear ABC & SBS management and staff,

I am an anti-racist Jewish-Celtic scientist, humanitarian, artist and writer from one of Hungary’s most famous Jewish families (ask any mathematician or surgeon). Only about a dozen of my wider family survived the Jewish Holocaust in Hungary in 1944-1945. For all decent people and in particular anti-racist Jewish humanitarians the core messages from the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million Jews killed through violence or imposed deprivation) – and from the more general Nazi Germany-imposed WW2 European Holocaust (30 million Slavs, Jews and Gypsies killed), the WW2 Bengali Holocaust (6-7 million Indians starved to death for strategic reasons by the British with Australian complicity), and the 1937-1945 Japan-imposed WW2 Chinese Holocaust (35-40 million killed) – are “zero tolerance for racism”, “never again to anyone”, “bear witness”, “zero tolerance for lying”, and “silence is complicity”.

I listen much of the day to ABC Classic FM but there is no escaping the sea of Zionist hasbara (propaganda) in Zionist-subverted and perverted Mainstream Australia and in the ABC and SBS in particular – thus a favourite presenter (I am sure only out of Zionist-imposed ignorance in Australia) recently described a piece as by “a German Jewish composer who very wisely moved to what was then called Palestine in the 1930s.”

Fact: it has been called “Palestine” or variants thereof since the time of Greek historian Herodotus (484 – c. 425 BCE) after the Philistines who settled coastal areas in about 1200 BC. It is still called Palestine (or variants thereof e.g. Filastin to Indigenous Palestinians and other Arab peoples) by the UN (which has recognized the State of Palestine, unlike Zionist-subverted Australia), nearly all UN members, and over 14 million Palestinians of whom about 7 million represent 50% of the Subjects of Apartheid Israel (Jewish Israelis representing 47%). Palestinians have continuously inhabited Palestine since the dawn of the Agrarian Revolution. Indeed famed anti-racist Jewish American scholar Professor Jared Diamond has noted the present-day presence in the Jordan Valley of Palestine of wild relatives of plants domesticated in the Agrarian Revolution of the Fertile Crescent. What would Indigenous Australians have to say about this erasing of millennia of Indigenous history?

72% of the Indigenous Palestinian subjects of Apartheid Israel (the 5.2 million Occupied Palestinians highly abusively confined to the Gaza Concentration Camp or to West Bank ghettoes) have zero human rights (as set out in the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and like the Burmese cannot vote for the government ruling them. The “lucky” 2 million Palestinian Israelis can vote but exist as Third Class citizens in their own land under over 60 Nazi-style, race-based laws and under explicitly stated threats to suffer Rohingya-style mass expulsion as happened in 1948 (800,000 Palestinians expelled) and 1967 (400,000 Arabs expelled from the West Bank and Israeli-occupied Syria).

Recently the ABC and the SBS have reported without retraction false Israeli claims that (a) the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over Israel because the Palestinians “do not have statehood” (false: the UN has overwhelmingly recognized the State of Palestine with Zionist-subverted US lackey Australia abstaining), and (b) that Israel leads the world in Covid-19 vaccination in “Israel” but does not have to provide Covid-19 vaccine to its 5.2 million Occupied Palestinians Subjects because they are somehow “independent” and “not occupied” (false: numerous UN Resolutions, notably UNSC Resolution 2334, state the awful reality that Israel is an Occupying Power, Occupies the Occupied Palestinians, and must abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention that states unequivocally in Articles 55 and 56 that the Occupier is inescapably obliged to provide life-sustaining food and medical services to its Conquered Subjects “to the fullest extent of the means available to it”).

This physical and conceptual “wiping out“ of the Palestinian people was first enunciated by genocidal, neo-Nazi psychopath Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism (“We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly”); was reiterated by genocidal psychopath and Israeli PM Golda Meir (“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist”); and reiterated by a succession of genocidally racist Zionist psychopaths up to the present Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu (“Israel should have exploited the repression of the [1989 Tiananmen Square] demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories”).

Such genocidally racist statements about Indigenous People (common in public in Australia up to 1967) would see the perpetrators regarded as utterly unfit for public life today in politically correct racist (PC racist) Australia. Zionism is genocidal racism in awful theory and horrendous ethnic cleansing practice, and its supporters should be regarded as utterly unfit for public life, as have been like racists such as the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, neo-Nazis and supporters of Apartheid. Indeed heroes in the fight against Apartheid, such a Nelson Mandela and anti-racist Jewish South African Ronnie Kasrils, have condemned Israel as an Apartheid state. Indeed Dr Verwoerd, the architect of South African Apartheid, stated: “Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.”

Unfortunately the decent Greens and a small body of decent Labor MPs aside, Coalition and Labor MPs are overwhelmingly fervent supporters of nuclear terrorist, genocidally racist and international law violating Apartheid Israel. Politicians who fervently support Apartheid Israel and hence the crime of Apartheid are utterly unfit for public life in a one person-one-vote democracy. Decent anti-racist Jewish and non-Jewish Australians will utterly reject the racist, pro-Apartheid Coalition, vote 1 Green and put the Coalition last. Indeed the eminent human rights lawyer, Professor Gillian Triggs, has described the Coalition as “ideologically opposed to human rights.”

Witting or unwitting repetition of Mainstream media-popularized Zionist falsehoods is wrong because (a) the assertions are false, (b) when made to children it amounts to egregious intellectual child abuse (noting that an expert Israeli psychiatric survey has found that 50% of Israeli children suffer from physical, psychological or sexual abuse, with 17% suffering sexual abuse as compared to 25% in Australia), and (c) it severely impacts decent, truthful and humane anti-racist Jewish citizens who as decent human beings are utterly opposed to the horrendous crimes of nuclear terrorist, racist Zionist-run, genocidally racist, serial mass murdering, serial war criminal, serial invader, serial occupier, grossly human rights-abusing, woman-abusing, mother-abusing, child-abusing, democracy by genocide, utterly mendacious, and Nazi-style Apartheid Israel.

Yes, there evidently are some decent, anti-racist journalists and commentators within the ABC and the SBS. And indeed truth-seekers turn to the ABC and SBS as alternatives to the dominant and dangerously mendacious Murdoch media. However I can immediately list a handful of truly outstanding, anti-racist truth-tellers associated with the ABC (past and/or present) – and some of them anti-racist Jewish Australians with a sole allegiance to Australia – who have been falsely smeared as anti-Jewish anti-Semites by simply being named and included (without explicit condemnation) in regular Zionist anti-Semitism reports or in reports on anti-Zionism, pro-BDS or pro-Palestinian humane rights positions that the Zionists and their supporters falsely declare to be “anti-Semitic” e.g. G1, G2, J1, J2, K, M1 and M2.

The racist Zionists are presently seeking to get Australia and Facebook to implement the utterly false Zionist IHRA definition of “anti-Semitism” as including criticism of Apartheid Israel, a malicious falsehood that was opposed by anti-racist Jewish British Labour MPs and by anti-racist Jewish organizations around the world, but which eventually destroyed eminently anti-racist UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Getting Zionists and pro-Zionists to report/comment on Palestinian matters is like getting Nazis to comment on the Jewish Holocaust. Zionism is genocidal racism and Nazism without gas chambers. Pro-Zionist, US lackey Australia needs de-Nazification as in post-WW2 Germany.

Anti-racist Jewish American scholar Professor Bertell Ollman: “Yet, the facts on the ground, when not obscured by one or another Zionist rationalization, show that the Zionists are the worst anti-Semites in the world today, oppressing a Semitic people as no nation has done since the Nazis”. In similar vein, outstanding anti-racist Jewish Canadian writer Naomi Klein: “There is a debate among Jews — I’m a Jew by the way. The debate boils down to the question: “Never again to everyone, or never again to us?… [Some Jews] even think we get one get-away-with-genocide-free card…There is another strain in the Jewish tradition that say[s], ‘Never again to anyone”. Anti-racist Jewish scholar Moshe Menuhin (father of famous violinist, anti-Zionist and universalist, Yehudi Menuhin) on the Zionist oppression of the Palestinians: “Jews should be Jews – not Nazis” (see “Jews Against Racist Zionism”).

Anti-Semitism comes in 2 equally repugnant forms, anti-Arab anti-Semitism (including Islamophobia) against 300 million ethnically and culturally Semitic Arabs (e.g. Palestinians) and 1,600 million largely culturally Semitic Muslims, and anti-Jewish anti-Semitism against 18 million largely culturally Semitic Jews (e.g. DNA analysis reveals that I am mostly Ashkenazi Jewish but have zero Middle Eastern contribution; i.e., I have no genetic connection to the Roman era Jewish Palestinians whose descendants today in Palestine are overwhelmingly the sorely oppressed Indigenous Palestinians).

The Zionists are the worst anti-Arab anti-Semites in the world in terms of obscene racist words, vile Apartheid Israeli laws and impositions, and the horrendous genocidal violence of the Palestinian Genocide (2.2 million Palestinians killed through violence, 0.1 million, or imposed deprivation, 2.1 million, since 1916), and the Zionist-promoted Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide (32 million Muslins killed from violence, 5 million, or from imposed deprivation, 27 million, in 20 countries invaded by the US Alliance since 9/11) (see my huge book: US-imposed post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide, Chapter 16 of which compares the ongoing Palestinian Genocide and the ongoing Australian Aboriginal Genocide).

However the Zionists are manifestly the worst anti-Jewish anti-Semites in the world today through (a) falsely conflating the crimes of the falsely asserted “Jewish state”, Apartheid Israel, with all Jews (i.e. including a huge body – and hopefully a majority – of decent, anti-racist Jews), (b) the exciting of reactive anti-Jewish anti-Semitism and hostility around the world through the horrendous crimes of Apartheid Israel (a major concern of anti-racist Jews, notably UK Minister Sir Edwin Montagu and Australian Governor General Sir Isaac Isaacs), and (c) the appalling intimidation, censorship, sidelining and obnoxious, false defamation of decent, anti-racist Jews as “racist”, “anti-Semitic”, “self-hating Jews” and “self-loathing Jews”. A half-century career scientist and writer, the author of over 100 scientific papers, 7 huge books and of hundreds of carefully researched and referenced humanitarian articles, I am regularly horribly defamed by Zionists, and in the last decade have been rendered “invisible” in the country of my birth and sole allegiance, Australia (those involved in this silencing have evidently been Zionists, but are also likely to include Zionist — and US-subverted Australian Intelligence and Zionist — and US-subverted Mainstream media gatekeepers).

As a typically patriotic Australian child I was indignant when a great mentor, a Jewish refugee from Nazism, would say that it could happen in Australia. It has. A dominant body of Zionist-subverted, Zionist-perverted and cravenly US lackey Australian Mainstream journalists, editors, politicians, academics, commentators and public intellectuals take on the utterly mendacious and criminal Zionist version of reality. The science-informed, international law-cognizant and humane positions of anti-racist Jewish and non-Jewish humanitarians, and indeed of the actually Semitic Arab victims of genocidal Zionist and American violence, are largely ignored by US lackey Mainstream presstitutes who dance to the tune of genocidally racist Apartheid Israel and Apartheid America. Anti-racist Jews and Muslims are routinely sidelined, censored, vilified, bullied and falsely defamed in Zionist-subverted Australia. No better example can be given than the vilification, censoring, sacking and driving out of Australia of engineer and journalist Yassmin Abdel Magied for merely posting on her Facebook page: “Lest we forget (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine).”

Commenting on the current Sinophobia and China-bashing in US lackey Australia, a Palestinian figure opined that any Chinese activities had not got to first base as compared to the massive American and Apartheid Israeli subversion of Australia. Indeed, as reported by Mainstream media and Alternative socialist media, Australian institutions have been massively subverted by the US and Apartheid Israel. Individual Australians have variously been intimidated, censored, bullied, vilified, sidelined, defamed, shot, tasered, kidnapped, robbed, falsely imprisoned, mangled, tortured, killed, subject to mass intelligence gathering, deceived and their passports repeatedly used for terrorist purposes by Apartheid Israel and its agents. Indeed Apartheid Israel has been malignantly involved in Australia’s neighbourhood in support of the Myanmar military and its Rohingya Genocide, the Sri Lankan Tamil Genocide and the overthrow of democracy in Fiji. Labor leaders Bob Carr and Kevin Rudd are rare examples of Australian leaders speaking out. However shortly after Kevin Rudd had diplomatically objected to the Israeli mass forging of Australian passports for terrorism purposes, and the Israeli kidnapping of Australians in international waters, he was removed in a pro-Zionist-led Coup that has kept Labor out of power for a decade.

Entrenched, Zionist-purveyed anti-Arab anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish Anti-Semitism have to be recognized and countered. Entrenched national, Government and Opposition support for Apartheid Israel is support for Apartheid that is condemned in International Law as a crime against Humanity by the UN International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. It gets worse. The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) came into effect from 22 January 2021 and prohibits State Parties (a) from possessing nuclear weapons or (b) supporting such possession “in any way”. Pro-Apartheid Israel, US lackey Australia rejects the TPNW, and is in gross violation of the TPNW by intimate involvement in US nuclear terrorism and in numerous military involvements with nuclear terrorist Apartheid Israel. Australia is second only to the US as a supporter of nuclear terrorist Apartheid Israel.

Scientists recognize that the world is existentially threatened by (a) nuclear weapons and (b) by man-made climate change. Indeed one of Humanity’s greatest minds, Professor Stephen Hawking, has stated: “We see great peril if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change”. However, in addition to entrenched anti-Semitism against Arabs, Muslims and anti-racist Jews, Zionist- and US-subverted Australia threatens Humanity and the Biosphere by (a) rejecting its International Law obligations under the nuclear ban treaty, and (b) being the worst country in the Developed world for climate action policy with the US coming in at second worst. Indeed Australia is among world leaders in 16 areas of climate criminality (see my latest huge book Climate Crisis, Climate Genocide & Solutions necessarily published in Europe) .

Evil happens when good men do nothing. I require a retraction and apology from the ABC and the SBS for purveying the falsehoods outlined above. Decent anti-racist Jewish and non-Jewish Australians will not tolerate taxpayer funding of anti-Arab anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish anti-Semitic media. Please disseminate this letter to everyone you can.

Yours sincerely, Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne

Gideon Polya is an Australian scientist who has published extensively on avoidable mortality (especially in relation to poverty, deprivation, hegemony, war and genocide) and the worsening climate emergency and climate genocide. He taught science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades.

This article first appeared in Information Clearing House

Jewish Settlers Desecrate Muslim Cemetery below Old City Wall in Jerusalem

Comment: as numerous articles have said, the zionist occupiers of Palestine – which encompasses all settler/colonisers living (squatting?) on ruins of Palestinians’ homes and land – believe they have a right to confiscate, desecrate, torch, torture, kill and everything else left unsaid or unnamed because they suffered the Holocaust. They have suffered nothing if they believe they are above scrutiny or criticism. If this were Arabs or Egyptians, or Palestinians descecrating, debasing, etc the squatters, all hell would break loose, and the hounds would have their field day. But not for Palestinians who are on the receiving end…. Not right now anyway. Samud oh oppressed. Your day will come.

LONG LIVE RESISTANCE. LONG LIVE PALESTINE.

A group of Jewish settlers today trespassed and desecrated a Muslim cemetery located just below Jerusalem’s old city wall, according to the Palestinian news agency WAFA.

Munther Siam, A member of the committee in charge of Muslim cemeteries in Jerusalem, told WAFA that the Israelis first walked through the Muslim cemetery known as Bab al-Rahma cemetery, under police protection, before reaching Lions’ Gate, one of the gates to the old city located near the cemetery, where they performed Jewish rituals.

Ahmad Sumrein, a spokesman for the committee, told WAFA that residents of Silwan, a neighborhood of East Jerusalem where the cemetery is located and where the neighborhood’s dead are buried, confronted the Jewish fanatics and forced them to leave the cemetery.

This is not the first time Jewish settlers trespass on the cemetery and they previously held a party there, he said.

The cemetery is located below the close Bab al-Rahma gate that leads to the walled-in Al-Haram Al-Sharif compound, the third holiest site in Islam that houses Al-Aqsa Mosque and the golden Dome of the Rock, as well as other Muslim mosques and antiquities buildings.

Jewish settlers often gather near the gate, but from inside the wall, where they sometimes hold rituals in violation of standing rules that prevent non-Muslims from holding any religious rituals inside or near the Muslim holy place.

This article was first published in the Palestine Chronicle