Colin Todhunter

The food transition, the energy transition, net-zero ideology, programmable central bank digital currencies, the censorship of free speech and clampdowns on protest. What’s it all about? To understand these processes, we need to first locate what is essentially a social and economic reset within the context of a collapsing financial system.

Writer Ted Reece notes that the general rate of profit has trended downwards from an estimated 43% in the 1870s to 17% in the 2000s. By late 2019, many companies could not generate enough profit. Falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflows and highly leveraged balance sheets were prevalent.

Professor Fabio Vighi of Cardiff University has described how closing down the global economy in early 2020 under the guise of fighting a supposedly new and novel pathogen allowed the US Federal Reserve to flood collapsing financial markets (COVID relief) with freshly printed money without causing hyperinflation. Lockdowns curtailed economic activity, thereby removing demand for the newly printed money (credit) in the physical economy and preventing ‘contagion’.

According to investigative journalist Michael Byrant, €1.5 trillion was needed to deal with the crisis in Europe alone. The financial collapse staring European central bankers in the face came to a head in 2019. The appearance of a ‘novel virus’ provided a convenient cover story.

The European Central Bank agreed to a €1.31 trillion bailout of banks followed by the EU agreeing to a €750 billion recovery fund for European states and corporations. This package of long-term, ultra-cheap credit to hundreds of banks was sold to the public as a necessary programme to cushion the impact of the pandemic on businesses and workers.

In response to a collapsing neoliberalism, we are now seeing the rollout of an authoritarian great reset — an agenda that intends to reshape the economy and change how we live.

Shift to authoritarianism

The new economy is to be dominated by a handful of tech giants, global conglomerates and e-commerce platforms, and new markets will also be created through the financialisation of nature, which is to be colonised, commodified and traded under the notion of protecting the environment.

In recent years, we have witnessed an overaccumulation of capital, and the creation of such markets will provide fresh investment opportunities (including dodgy carbon offsetting Ponzi schemes)  for the super-rich to park their wealth and prosper.

This great reset envisages a transformation of Western societies, resulting in permanent restrictions on fundamental liberties and mass surveillance. Being rolled out under the benign term of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, the World Economic Forum (WEF) says the public will eventually ‘rent’ everything they require (remember the WEF video ‘you will own nothing and be happy’?): stripping the right of ownership under the guise of a ‘green economy’ and underpinned by the rhetoric of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.

Climate alarmism and the mantra of sustainability are about promoting money-making schemes. But they also serve another purpose: social control.

Neoliberalism has run its course, resulting in the impoverishment of large sections of the population. But to dampen dissent and lower expectations, the levels of personal freedom we have been used to will not be tolerated. This means that the wider population will be subjected to the discipline of an emerging surveillance state.

To push back against any dissent, ordinary people are being told that they must sacrifice personal liberty in order to protect public health, societal security (those terrible Russians, Islamic extremists or that Sunak-designated bogeyman George Galloway) or the climate. Unlike in the old normal of neoliberalism, an ideological shift is occurring whereby personal freedoms are increasingly depicted as being dangerous because they run counter to the collective good.

The real reason for this ideological shift is to ensure that the masses get used to lower living standards and accept them. Consider, for instance, the Bank of England’s chief economist Huw Pill saying that people should ‘accept’ being poorer. And then there is Rob Kapito of the world’s biggest asset management firm BlackRock, who says that a “very entitled” generation must deal with scarcity for the first time in their lives.

At the same time, to muddy the waters, the message is that lower living standards are the result of the conflict in Ukraine and supply shocks that both the war and ‘the virus’ have caused.

The net-zero carbon emissions agenda will help legitimise lower living standards (reducing your carbon footprint) while reinforcing the notion that our rights must be sacrificed for the greater good. You will own nothing, not because the rich and their neoliberal agenda made you poor but because you will be instructed to stop being irresponsible and must act to protect the planet.

Net-zero agenda

But what of this shift towards net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and the plan to slash our carbon footprints? Is it even feasible or necessary?

Gordon Hughes, a former World Bank economist and current professor of economics at the University of Edinburgh, says in a new report that current UK and European net-zero policies will likely lead to further economic ruin.

Apparently, the only viable way to raise the cash for sufficient new capital expenditure (on wind and solar infrastructure) would be a two decades-long reduction in private consumption of up to 10 per cent. Such a shock has never occurred in the last century outside war; even then, never for more than a decade.

But this agenda will also cause serious environmental degradation. So says Andrew Nikiforuk in the article The Rising Chorus of Renewable Energy Skeptics, which outlines how the green techno-dream is vastly destructive.

He lists the devastating environmental impacts of an even more mineral-intensive system based on renewables and warns:

“The whole process of replacing a declining system with a more complex mining-based enterprise is now supposed to take place with a fragile banking system, dysfunctional democracies, broken supply chains, critical mineral shortages and hostile geopolitics.”

All of this assumes that global warming is real and anthropogenic. Not everyone agrees. In the article Global warming and the confrontation between the West and the rest of the world, journalist Thierry Meyssan argues that net zero is based on political ideology rather than science. But to state such things has become heresy in the Western countries and shouted down with accusations of ‘climate science denial’.

Regardless of such concerns, the march towards net zero continues, and key to this is the United Nations Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development Goals.

Today, almost every business or corporate report, website or brochure includes a multitude of references to ‘carbon footprints’, ‘sustainability’, ‘net zero’ or ‘climate neutrality’ and how a company or organisation intends to achieve its sustainability targets. Green profiling, green bonds and green investments go hand in hand with displaying ‘green’ credentials and ambitions wherever and whenever possible.

It seems anyone and everyone in business is planting their corporate flag on the summit of sustainability. Take Sainsbury’s, for instance. It is one of the ‘big six’ food retail supermarkets in the UK and has a vision for the future of food that it published in 2019.

[…]

Tracked, traced and chipped — for your own benefit. Corporations accessing all of our personal data, right down to our DNA. The report is littered with references to sustainability and the climate or environment, and it is difficult not to get the impression that it is written so as to leave the reader awestruck by the technological possibilities.

However, the promotion of a brave new world of technological innovation that has nothing to say about power — who determines policies that have led to massive inequalities, poverty, malnutrition, food insecurity and hunger and who is responsible for the degradation of the environment in the first place — is nothing new.

The essence of power is conveniently glossed over, not least because those behind the prevailing food regime are also shaping the techno-utopian fairytale where everyone lives happily ever after eating bugs and synthetic food while living in a digital panopticon.

Fake green

The type of ‘green’ agenda being pushed is a multi-trillion market opportunity for lining the pockets of rich investors and subsidy-sucking green infrastructure firms and also part of a strategy required to secure compliance required for the ‘new normal’.

It is, furthermore, a type of green that plans to cover much of the countryside with wind farms and solar panels with most farmers no longer farming. A recipe for food insecurity.

Those investing in the ‘green’ agenda care first and foremost about profit. The supremely influential BlackRock invests in the current food system that is responsible for polluted waterways, degraded soils, the displacement of smallholder farmers, a spiralling public health crisis, malnutrition and much more.

It also invests in healthcare — an industry that thrives on the illnesses and conditions created by eating the substandard food that the current system produces. Did Larry Fink, the top man at BlackRock, suddenly develop a conscience and become an environmentalist who cares about the planet and ordinary people? Of course not.

[…]

Via https://off-guardian.org/2024/03/12/net-zero-the-digital-panopticon-and-the-future-of-food/

Tess Lawrie

[…]

German Osteopath, Health and Science Lead, and Steering Committee Member of the World Council for Health (WCH), Christof Plothe stated that Human Rights, as defined by the UN, are universal, inalienable, and indivisible, ensuring equality and non-discrimination. They are inherent to every human being and cannot be granted or revoked by any state or government. And yet, Human Rights were ignored and trampled on during the Covid-19 event.

Christof Plothe raised 36 critical questions that must be urgently addressed to ensure that the abuse of human rights that took place in response to Covid-19 never happens again:

1. Why were we not told that the Covid 19 virus was patented by Moderna in 2018?
2. Why did Moderna produce 100,000 Covid-19 vaccine doses in 2019 before the pandemic started?
3. Why, against all scientific evidence, were lockdowns and masks used?
4. Why were we not told that the ‘vaccine’ does not remain in the arm, but accumulates all over the body?
5. Why was PCR testing recommended when it is not designed for diagnostic purposes?
6. Why were the definitions of ‘vaccine’, and ‘herd immunity’ changed prior to the Covid-19 outbreak?
7. Why was a pandemic declared when the case fatality rate was akin to ’flu?
8. Why were tests on genotoxicity, teratogenicity, and carcinogenicity not carried out, and yet we were told the ‘vaccine’ was safe?
9. Why was there no proper follow-up of all people injected when using a new gene therapy product?
10. Why were doctors and the public not reminded regularly about the need to report adverse reactions to these new and experimental genetic ‘vaccines’?
11. Why was a ‘vaccine’ recommended during an ongoing pandemic, which is contraindicated in vaccinology?
12. Why was a ‘vaccine’ recommended for those who had superior natural immunity?
13. Why was a novel gene therapy launched after three months, instead of the required ten years?
14. Why were we not told that, in the Pfizer trial, more people died in the vaccinated group than in the control group?
15. Why were we told that Covid injections were ‘safe and effective’ when the evidence did not substantiate this?
16. Why were – and are – opposing voices from science and practicing medicine discredited, punished, and jailed?
17. Why were doctors, for the first time in history, discouraged from treating a disease, and told to wait for a vaccine?
18. Why was early treatment discouraged, whilst we know it is the most important tool to address any infectious disease?
19. Why were effective and very safe medicines like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin discredited and even prohibited?
20. Why did the producers of the novel gene therapies not want their data to be published for 75 years?
21. Why were Covid injections, masks and lockdowns recommended for children when it was known that they were not severely affected and did not spread Covid?
22. Why were the Covid injections recommended in pregnancy, when over 80% of babies were lost in trials when women were vaccinated in the first trimester?
23. Why was emergency approval guaranteed when over 2,000 people died within the first three months after vaccination roll-out?
24. Why is there no scientific outcry after over 3,500 papers have been published demonstrating side effects of the Covid-19 injections?
25. Why are conflicts of interest tolerated among medical authorities, with the FDA, EMA, and WHO being 80-90% funded by industry?
26. Why was there no adequate education of doctors, patients, and the public, and thus no possibility of informed consent?
27. Why and how were the media captured so that they pushed only one agenda worldwide?
28. Why were and are effective treatment protocols, which have existed since 2020, banned and declared illegal?
29. Why are we not told about the unnecessary deaths that were attributed to Covid but actually caused by iatrogenic measures (e.g. Midazolam, ventilation) carried out in early 2020?
30. Why was the fundamental role of Vitamin D status, diet, and the microbiome not communicated, when these measures could have prevented almost 100% of Covid deaths?
31. Why was and is a certain medical procedure forced upon people against their will, whilst the Nuremberg Declaration clearly opposes this?
32. Why is gain of function research, like that relating to Covid-19, not banned worldwide?
33. Why is an mRNA product still being used, when we know that mRNA is being incorporated into the human genome, and resulting in the production of other, unknown, proteins?
34. Why has the failed mRNA concept not been stopped, when we know it increases the likelihood of the recipient getting Covid-19, thus demonstrating negative efficacy?
35. Why do these products continue to be recommended, when at least 17 million people are believed to have died due to the injections?
36. Why is there no investigation into excess deaths, and increases in rates of cancer and heart problems, etc., which started in 2021, not in 2020?

It is absolutely clear that the WHO must not be allowed to continue with its plans to amend the International Health Regulations or finalise their ‘Pandemic Treaty’ without  responding to these questions.

[…]

Via https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/geneva-switzerland-22-march-2024

Episode 46 Napoleon’s Fall and the 100 Days

Living the French Revolution and Age of Napoleon

Dr Suzanne M Desan

Film Review

Following Napoleon’s defeat, Alexander was celebrated in Prussia as the savior of Europe. With 170,000 troops, Napoleon marched into Saxony twice in the spring of 1813 and was defeated both times. Austria, which was still neutral, offered the services of foreign minister Metternnich to negotiate peace between France and the coalition (UK, Prussia and Sweden).

After Austria joined the coalition that summer, three-day Battle of Nations was the bloodiest European battle to date. Napoleon’s 180,000 troops were crushed by a 300,000-strong coalition force. Seventy-three thousands French troops died, compared to 27,000 in the coalition.

Napoleon rejected the treaty conditions they offered: retreating to France’s 1797 borders (allowing France to keep Belgium and the Rhineland). In 1814, the French legislature demanded he initiate peace talks immediately. When he refused, the Anglo-Portuguese army swarmed over the Pyrenees into France while coalition forces crossed the Rhine and invaded northeastern France. Simultaneously the Dutch launched an insurrection against French rule and the Swiss declared independence. After the French legislature demanded Napoleon agree to a ceasefire, his sister and brother-in-law (General Murat), who ruled the kingdom of Naples, switched sides to support the coalition.

Napoleon fought brilliantly but lacked the numbers to prevail. On March 9, 1814 Marie-Louise fled Paris with their three-year-old son. Most of the court and legislature fled, as did peasants in the path of coalition forces. On March 31, 145,000 coalition forces invaded Paris, and Alexander I and King Frederick William of Prussia marched up the Champs Elysee and invited the brother of Louis XVI (Louis XVIII) to assume the French throne.

On April 2, 1814, the royalist French diplomat Charles-Maurice de Tallyrand pressured the senate to dethrone Napoleon and appoint Louis XVIII. Having lost the support of his generals,on April 11, 1814 Napoleon signed an abdication from the thrones of Italy and France. He also swallowed poison he carried around his neck with no effect.

Exile to Elba

As per the conditions of his abdication, he then set off for the island of Elba (presently an Italian island in the Mediterranean) under the guardianship of British naval officer Neil Campbell. The coalition had promised him sovereignty of Elba, allowing him to bring 600 troops and paying him a stipend of $2 million francs a year. Marie-Louise, who was given the title of Duchess of Palma, was forbidden to accompany him to Elba.

The island was 26 square miles and Napoleon had 13,700 subjects. He built new roads, sewers, irrigation systems, fortifications and a hospital, as well as importing mulberry trees and starting a silk work industry. His Polish mistress visited him with their their son.

Only taking the throne 310 pound Louis XVII ripped up the constitution the coalition handed him and created his own constitution charter, which granted the French people equality and numerous civil rights, including religious freedom. It also created a two-chamber legislature, with the king resuming the lawmaking power Louis XVI enjoyed. The king declared Catholicism France’s official religion and filled his government with returned emigres.

Napoleon Resumes Power for 100 Days

In mid-February 1815, Napoleon left Elba with 100 men, landing on the southern French coast on March 1st. As they marched north, they were joined by 1000s of former troop sent to stop him. On March 19, Louis XVIII fled Paris, as Napoleon led his men unopposed to the Tuilleries palace. They had seized control of central France without firing a shot.

The former emperor now reinvented himself as a revolutionary intent on expelling a new king, and the working class immediately flocked to join him.

One of his former critics Benjamin Costent wrote him a new constitution turning France into a constitutional monarchy with a bicameral legislature and guaranteeing, freedom of the press and religion.

Film can be viewed free on Kanopy with a library card.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/149323/149413

By Diego Ramos / Original to ScheerPost
The British High Court has accepted three elements of Julian Assange’s appeal against his extradition to the U.S., delaying the process for some time. Unless the U.S. provides “assurances” for Assange’s appeals, including protection against the death penalty, the WikiLeaks founder will be granted a new appeal.

Despite U.S. officials promising Assange would not be subject to capital punishment, the court ruled “nothing in the existing assurance explicitly prevents the imposition of the death penalty.”

The U.S. government has until April 16 to file these assurances and if done so, Assange will have until April 30 to respond and the U.S. is to answer back by May 14, with a hearing considering the leave to appeal on May 20. If the U.S. fails to file assurances in three weeks, Assange will be granted permission to appeal.

Judges Victoria Sharp and Jeremy Johnson of the British High Court agreed with the following points in Assange’s appeal:

• a) if extradited, the applicant might be prejudiced at his trial by reason of his nationality (contrary to section 81(b) of the 2003 Act), and
• b) as a consequence of a), but only as a consequence of a), extradition is incompatible with article 10 of the Convention. [In the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), article 10 protects the right to freedom of expression.]
• The applicant has established an arguable case that the Secretary of State’s decision was wrong because extradition is barred by inadequate specialty/death penalty protection.

The judges dismissed appeal of Assange’s other points including:

• The UK-US Extradition treaty (the Treaty) prohibits extradition for a political [offense] (and the [offenses] with which the applicant is charged fall within that category).
• The extradition request was made for the purpose of prosecuting the applicant on account of his political opinions (contrary to section 81(a) of the 2003 Act).
• Extradition is incompatible with article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) (which provides there should be no punishment without law).
• Extradition is incompatible with article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial).
• Extradition is incompatible with articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (right to life, and prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).

The judges acknowledged that extradition for “political opinions” has been barred in English law, citing the Extradition Act 1870 and 1989. However, in examining the Extradition Act 2003, the judges separate “political [offense]” from “political opinions,” stating “[The Extradition Act 2003] says nothing, however, about preventing extradition for a political [offense]. Although there may be a degree of overlap, the two are separate concepts.”

Stella Assange, Julian Assange’s wife, spoke outside the court stating, “The Biden administration should not issue assurances. They should drop this shameful case, which should never have been brought.”

Significantly, the court also rejected “fresh evidence” from the Assange team with regards to the Yahoo News article written by Zach Dorfman, Sean D Naylor and Michael Isikoff that exposed a plot by former CIA Director Mike Pompeo and others to kidnap or assassinate Assange during his time at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Despite the evidence exposed by the article, the judges ruled, “Extradition would result in him being lawfully in the custody of the United States authorities, and the reasons (if they can be called that) for rendition or kidnap or assassination then fall away.”

Assange enters his fifth year of imprisonment inside Belmarsh Prison, where his physical and mental health has significantly deteriorated.

[…]

Via https://scheerpost.com/2024/03/26/assange-extradition-delayed-unless-us-provides-assurances/

Ekaterina Bellova

Over the past two years, Moscow has collected evidence of Western involvement in training and arming jihadi terrorists to weaponize them on the Ukrainian battlefield and Russia’s rear.

The Crocus City Hall terror attack has raised questions about the West’s repeated use of jihadist elements, starting from arming Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Cold War era to most recent reports of Islamists fighting on the side of the Kiev regime.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) stated on February 13, 2023, that it obtained intelligence indicating that the US military was actively recruiting militants from jihadist groups affiliated with ISIS and al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks in Russia and the CIS countries. According to the SVR, particular attention is paid to attracting people from the Russian North Caucasus and Central Asia to cooperate.

The Russian intelligence service revealed that in January 2023, 60 terrorists with experience of participating in hostilities in the Middle East were recruited by the West, adding that they were undergoing training at the American base in Al-Tanf, Syria, to conduct terrorist and subversive attacks.

The SVR noted at the time that the militants would be dispatched in small groups to the territory of Russia and the CIS countries in cooperation with underground cells of international terrorist groups, including Hizb ut-Tahrir, Jamaat Ansarullah and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

“We see the final loss of any moral principles in the US security forces,” the SVR summarized in its official statement, lambasting Washington’s obsession with inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia by any means possible. “Such actions put Washington on a par with the largest international terrorist groups.”

Intel data confirming the plans described by the SVR started to emerge later in the year. Russian Security Service (FSB) Director Alexander Bortnikov stated at the October 2023 meeting of heads of Russian security agencies and special services that ISIS and other terrorist groups were fighting against Russia as part of the Ichkerian and Crimean Tatar mercenary units in Ukraine. ISIS is also part of sabotage and reconnaissance groups sent to Russian territory to carry out attacks and terrorist attacks, Bortnikov emphasized.

The FSB director pointed out that Western governments were “actively facilitating the movement of militants into the Ukrainian conflict zone.” As of October 2023, the FSB had registered the participation of employees of 13 Western private military companies (PMCs) and members of nine foreign paramilitary proxy forces in the Ukraine conflict on the side of the Kiev regime.

According to Bortnikov, the US and its NATO allies have turned Ukraine into nothing short of a terrorist hotbed.

The FSB chief likewise drew special attention to the US and British intelligence services’ efforts to create a “belt of instability” in Afghanistan near the southern borders of the CIS, where al-Qaeda and the ISIS groups are becoming stronger. To that end, the Western intelligence services were recruiting militants from international terrorist organizations operating in Iraq, Syria, and a number of other Asian and African countries, and transferring them to northern Afghanistan.

“We note the increased role of al-Qaeda, which, in alliance with the IS branch Vilayat Khorasan, takes an active part in the preparation, indoctrination and logistical support of controlled groups,” Bortnikov stressed last October.

Islamic Terror Groups Flocking to Ukraine

From the very beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, reports started to emerge in international media outlets and blogs, shedding light on jihadists of all stripes flocking to the combat zone in Ukraine.

In early March 2022, the BBC quoted Syria-based terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) explicitly expressing solidarity with the Kiev regime. High-profile HTS member al-Shamali al-Hurr took to Telegram to cheer Ukrainian victories by sharing footage and graphic images of damaged Russian military hardware and dead soldiers.

In April 2022, reports emerged claiming that the White Helmets, a Western-backed so-called “humanitarian” Syrian group, had arrived in Ukraine. Prior to this, the group, officially known as the Syrian Civil Defense, pledged to provide “tutorials” to the Ukrainian forces. The group was accused by Syrians of being connected to al-Qaeda offshoots operating in the Middle Eastern country and staging chemical attacks.

What’s more, initial training and financial support to the White Helmets was provided by the Mayday Rescue Foundation, a non-governmental organization established by ex-British Army officer James Le Mesurier. Le Mesurier’s group was instrumental in the West’s long-standing effort to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, according to Grayzone investigative journalists’ account of events in 2016.

The SVR announced in May 2022, citing obtained evidence, that about 60 ISIS terrorists were released from prisons controlled by the US-backed Syrian Kurds a month earlier with the aim of dispatching them to Ukraine as sabotage units. The SVR highlighted that the US Al-Tanf base in Syria’s Homs province was turned into a terrorist hub where militants were trained to be deployed to Ukraine.

“Priority is given to natives of the states of Transcaucasia and Central Asia. The training ‘course’ in Al-Tanf includes training in the use of available types of anti-tank missile systems, reconnaissance and strike drones MQ-1C, advanced communications and surveillance equipment,” the SVR stated.

On October 22, 2022, Al-Monitor reported that it had learned that members of Ajnad al-Kavkaz, a Chechen-led Islamist group, left the Syrian province of Idlib and headed to Ukraine to fight against the Russian military.

Who Masterminded the Crocus City Hall Attack?

The Crocus City Hall terror attack was carried out by the hands of radical Islamists, but it is necessary to find the masterminds and those who benefitted from the hideous crime, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated on Monday.

“The horrific crime committed on March 22 in the capital of Russia is an act of intimidation … and the question immediately arises: who benefits?” Putin said. “This atrocity can only be an element in a whole series of attempts by those who have been fighting our country since 2014 with the hands of the neo-Nazi Kiev regime.”

In the wake of the attack four alleged perpetrators – Dalerdzhon Mirzoyev, Shamsidina Fariduni, Saidakrami Rachabalizoda and Muhammadsobir Fayzov – were caught in the Russian Bryansk region on the way to the Ukrainian border. According to the FSB, the jihadists had connections in Ukraine and sought to hide in the Eastern European country after committing the crime. The fifth suspect, Dilovar Islomov, was detained on March 25.

“We also need to answer the question of why the terrorists tried to leave for Ukraine after committing the crime and who was waiting for them there,” Putin underlined during the conversation with Russian authorities on security measures taken after the terrorist attack.

The Russian president specifically referred to the Biden administration’s effort to divert public attention from Ukraine’s possible involvement immediately after the tragedy.

“We see how the US is taking to various channels to convince its satellites and other countries that according to the data from its intelligence, there is allegedly no Ukrainian trace in the Moscow terrorist attack (…) We already know by whose hands this atrocity against Russia and its people had been carried out. Now we want to know who the mastermind is,” the Russian president emphasized.

[…]

Via https://sputnikglobe.com/20240326/russian-intelligence-services-kept-eye-on-wests-effort-to-weaponize-isis–1117565239.html

RT

The US continues to operate 30 biolabs on the territory of Ukraine as part of an illegal military-biological program, Russia’s envoy to the Netherlands has claimed.

The number of American laboratories on Ukrainian territory has been “well-known for a long time,” Vladimir Tarabrin, who is also Russia’s Permanent Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper on Sunday.

The diplomat recalled that the head of Russia’s Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Protection Forces, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, had claimed in March 2022 that 30 such biolabs existed.

“Our armed forces discovered documents confirming the extensive military biological program deployed by the US and NATO countries on the territory of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics,” he said.

The Kiev government allegedly began destroying dangerous pathogens in the laboratories and suspending research on February 24, 2022, the day Russia launched its military operation against Ukraine, but “in 2023 the implementation of those programs resumed, only their name was changed,” Tarabrin claimed.

Asked if the number of the US biolabs in Ukraine still stands at 30, the ambassador said: “According to our data, yes.”

“It’s not surprising, therefore, that over the past 20 years, Washington has been blocking all Russian initiatives aimed at strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) regime and creating an effective mechanism for verifying compliance with its provisions by all participating countries,” Tarabrin said.

Over the past two years Moscow has repeatedly raised concerns over an alleged network of secretive US-funded laboratories in Ukraine, publishing troves of documents captured from Kiev authorities, which it claims are linked to the operations of those facilities.

Last April, Kirillov said Russia had “no doubt that the US, under the guise of ensuring global biosecurity, conducted dual-use research, including the creation of biological weapons components, in close proximity to Russian borders.”
READ MORE: Washington moving ‘illegal’ bioresearch to Africa – Moscow

The US government has confirmed the existence of the biolabs in Ukraine, but insisted that they are entirely legal and not intended for military purposes, despite mostly being funded via the Pentagon. Washington has denied Moscow’s claims of the labs being used to work on bio-weapons as a “Russian disinformation campaign.”

Kirillov also said a year ago that the US biolab program in Ukraine, which was previously known as ‘Joint biological research’, was rebranded as ‘Biological control research’ so that it could continue its operations

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/news/594882-biological-laboratories-us-ukraine/

Jacob G Hornberger

More than 30 years ago, Congress enacted the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. Enacted in the wake of Oliver Stone’s movie JFK, which posited that the Kennedy assassination was a regime-change operation on the part of the U.S. national-security establishment, the law mandated that all the assassination-related records of the Pentagon, the CIA, the Secret Service, the FBI, and other federal agencies be released to the public. Having succeeded in keeping their assassination-related records secret for almost 30 years, they didn’t like that at all.

Today — more than 60 years after the assassination — the CIA continues to keep thousands of its assassination-related records secret. Its justification? You guessed it: “national security,” the two most powerful and meaningless words in the American political lexicon. CIA officials maintain, with straight faces, that if those still-secret assassination-related records were released, the United States would fall into the ocean, be taken over by communists, or have its “national security” endangered in some other silly way.

How in the world can “national security” be threatened by the release of records that are more than 60 years old, regardless of what definition is placed on that nebulous term? Indeed, how can any American really believe this nonsense? They obviously take Americans for dupes.

[…]

Via https://www.fff.org/2024/03/21/cia-secrecy-on-jfk-points-to-criminal-culpability/

Ben Kew

Toddlers and young children are at a “significantly elevated” risk of seizure after taking the COVID-19 vaccine, according to the latest research by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Researchers found that children experienced a 2.5-fold increase in febrile seizures within 24 hours of receiving a Moderna shot compared to the same children between eight to 63 days post-vaccination. There were 88 febrile seizures after the Pfizer vaccination among the study group.

The report states:

In this self-controlled case series that included participants aged 2-5 years from three commercial insurance databases, the incidence rate ratio of febrile seizures was significantly elevated in the 0-1 days following mRNA-1273 administration. Absolute risk was small.

The incidence of febrile seizures was elevated immediately following vaccination with the monovalent mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 2-5 years. Based on the current body of evidence, the safety profile of monovalent mRNA vaccines remains favorable for use in young children.

The findings raise further concerns about the various vaccines, which have led to a variety of serious side effects despite being touted by the medical establishment.

[…]

Via https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/fda-admits-covid-vaccine-leads-significiantly-elevated-risk/