Igor Chudov

France24, Quartz, and the Wall Street Journal (paywall-free link) report that the EU abandoned its much-ballyhooed transition to electric cars, which was supposed to culminate with a total ban on gasoline cars in 2035.

The EU’s reversal allows “the sales of new cars with combustion engines that run on synthetic fuels,” which sounds very environmentally friendly. But synthetic fuels are similar to gasoline or diesel, so the decision allows internal combustion cars to continue being produced. While electric cars will still be produced and incentivized, there is no longer a 100% mandate by 2035.

This transition was announced with a lot of pomp:

The transition was supposed to go on for 13 years after its announcement in 2022 but was abandoned only a year after its adoption. What happened?

Prodded by climate activists, the EU was pressured to ban fossil fuel vehicles and replace them with battery-powered vehicles. The problem is that such a transition is impossible:

• Transitioning to electric passenger vehicles will increase electricity demand by 25%.
• Transitioning to electric trucks will further raise electricity demand to a total of 40% increase.
• EU is phasing out fossil fuel generation and replacing it with unreliable solar and wind generation – thus decreasing power availability instead of increasing it to meet greater demand.
• As cars and especially trucks are charged at night, solar and wind power cannot contribute to charging.

Are electric cars more efficient?

Running a gasoline car involves:

• Burning gas in the internal combustion engine and converting thermal energy to mechanical energy. That’s it.

Charging an electric car’s battery from the grid and driving the car involves:

• Burning gas at the power station and converting thermal energy of gas to mechanical energy of the gas turbine. This is only moderately more efficient in a power station than gasoline cars.
• Then, losses begin:
• Converting the mechanical energy of the turbine into electrical energy in the generator involves generator losses
• Converting medium voltage from the generator into high transmission voltage involves transformer losses
• Transmitting the power along the high voltage lines involves transmission losses
• Stepping down the voltage in several substations involves transformer losses again
• In a home charging station, converting 220v power into DC for car charging again involves conversion losses
• A chemical process in the battery being charged heats the battery, involving charging losses
• Running the car’s electrical motors from the battery requires inverter losses to generate electricity for traction motors and motor losses.

Take a look at what happens when a driver needs heat in the cab:

• Heating a gasoline car in winter involves redirecting waste heat (hot antifreeze) from the engine into the cab heater, thus not requiring additional fuel.
• Heating an electric car requires a resistance heater or a heat pump, needing to eventually consume more energy from the grid – with all the above conversion losses included.

Which process (gasoline car vs. electric) is more efficient at converting fuel, burnt directly in the car engine or at distant power stations, into usable energy to propel a car traveling on a highway? The gas engines win outright.

The situation would be different if we had a clean, weather-independent, and inexpensive electrical power source. But, alas, we do not have that yet.

Last December, eugyppius wrote a nice post about Switzerland banning electric cars due to a lack of electricity to charge them (Switzerland, Facing an Unprecedented Power Shortage, Contemplates a Partial Ban on the Use of Electric Vehicles).

The fact that a pompously announced thirteen-year “electric car transition” was canceled only one year after it was adopted strongly suggests that the original idea was untenably stupid.

The Stupidity of the “CO2 Transition”

As I mentioned above, a 13-year policy canceled in its second year surely is stupid, almost by definition. However, the EU is not alone. California and New York, the bastions of virtue-signaling climate activism, are still going full speed ahead, banning gasoline cars while phasing out fossil fuel generation and doing nothing for nuclear power.

This so-called transition will make much money for the movers and shakers but is technologically unfeasible due to the lack of cheap, carbon-neutral baseload energy (baseload means not depending on weather).

The best outcome would be to see such plans canceled under the pretense of “unforeseen circumstances,” like it just happened in the EU.

The worse outcome would be our collective inability to have enough energy to heat our homes and drive cars. That would necessitate living in cramped “15-minute cities” that are being proposed everywhere.

[…]

I want to share a thought that many people may disagree with. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

• Social experiments like banning gasoline cars and simultaneously killing reliable power generation are dangerous; most readers of this substack would agree.
• Geoengineering experiments such as darkening the skies by spewing millions of tons of sulfur dioxide are dangerous. Most readers of this substack would agree with that as well.
• But emitting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly is also a potentially dangerous geoengineering experiment.

The climate change field is full of crooks and is directed by those who recently gave us a non-working and dangerous Covid vaccine.

I do not believe them or their paid scientists any more than I believe the dishonest “Covid science.”

However, even though I do not believe those people, I have a concern and a feeling of responsibility for our planet.

We only have one planet. So we better be careful with it.

Somehow or other, honest humans need to band together and reach a better understanding of climate and the Earth.

At the same time, if a fraction of the billions of dollars wasted on electric cars and climate grandstanding were spent on nuclear fusion, we’d possibly have a clean, safe, and limitless energy source much sooner.

[…]

Via https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/europe-abandons-all-electric-car

By Caitlin Johnstone

The Twitter account of America’s 44th president just casually shared some links to organizations providing relief to the victims of the terrible flooding in Libya, which as of this writing has already killed thousands of people.

And that would of course be a fine and normal thing for America’s 44th president to do — had America’s 44th president not personally played a massive role in paving the way to the devastation we’re seeing in Libya today.

“If you’re looking to help people impacted by the floods in Libya, check out these organizations providing relief,” Obama tweeted.

Uhh, excuse me? Sir? You know you’re literally Barack Obama, right?

In 2010 the oil-rich Libya ranked higher on the UN Human Development Index than any other nation in Africa, with much better national infrastructure to protect itself from floods and other natural disasters. Today Libya is a chaotic humanitarian disaster where UN-backed investigators now say literal crimes against humanity have been taking place, including women being forced into sexual slavery.

What changed? If you’re reading this, you probably already know what changed.

In 2011, US, French and British forces helped rebels with extensive links to Al Qaeda kill Libya’s longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi, which immediately plunged the nation into violence, chaos, extremism and instability which persists to this day. It was later revealed that NATO powers knew they were backing murderous Al Qaeda-linked jihadists at the time.

Falsely branded a “humanitarian intervention” designed to prevent alleged plans for genocide and Viagra-fueled mass rapes against peaceful protesters by Gaddafi’s troops, the NATO attack on Libya quickly morphed into a regime change operation which saw Gaddafi brutally lynched in the streets and dying after being stabbed in the anus with a bayonet. Years later in 2016 a UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee found that the narratives used to justify the intervention in Libya were “not supported by the available evidence.”

“We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya,” the report reads. “UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”

This confirmed concerns voiced by Amnesty International and a UN human rights investigator months before Gaddafi’s death that the evidence for the alleged atrocities the intervention was meant to prevent simply wasn’t there to be found. Because no policy changes were made after the Iraq invasion and nobody was ever punished for inflicting that horror upon our world, no lessons were learned, and it happened again. The west was deceived into yet another disastrous military intervention, which continues to have severe consequences for people in the region to this day.

n an article published earlier this month in Responsible Statecraft about the crisis in Niger, Branko Marcetic made the interesting observation that the Nigerien junta which ousted the previous government has explicitly stated that the coup was necessary because of the “continuous deterioration of the security situation” which Niger and other countries in the Sahel have been suffering from for over a decade due to “the negative socioeconomic, security, political and humanitarian consequences of NATO’s hazardous adventure in Libya.”

Marcetic also notes that the regime change intervention in Libya was meant to segue into a regime change intervention in Syria by the same means:

“Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and John Kerry (D-Mass.) all called for a no-fly zone. ‘I love the military … but they always seem to find reasons why you can’t do something rather than why you can,’ complained McCain. The American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka said it would be ‘an important humanitarian step.’ The now-defunct Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) think tank gathered a who’s who of neoconservatives to repeatedlyurge the same. In a letter to then-President Barack Obama, they quoted back Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech in which he argued that ‘inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later.’

“Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reportedly instrumental in persuading Obama to act, was herself swayed by similar arguments. Friend and unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal assured her that, once Gaddafi fell, ‘limited but targeted military support from the West combined with an identifiable rebellion’ could become a new model for toppling Middle Eastern dictators. Pointing to the similar, deteriorating situation in Syria, Blumenthal claimed that ‘the most important event that could alter the Syrian equation would be the fall of Gaddafi, providing an example of a successful rebellion.’ ”

And that’s exactly what the Obama administration set out to do: pouring weapons into Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, once again on the side of Al Qaeda-linked fighters. Had Russia not intervened in 2015 to prevent Damascus from being toppled, Syria would likely have suffered the same fate as Libya.

So that’s two countries Obama and his cohorts tossed in the incinerator back-to-back, in much the same way the previous administration torched Afghanistan and Iraq. It was done a bit more slyly and subtly than the overt Hulk Smash ground invasions of the Bush era, but the death, suffering and destabilization caused by Obama’s depravity have been just as real.

This is as clear as day, and yet we still get imperial propaganda outlets like The Washington Post telling us that “everyone” is to blame for Libya’s current troubles. WaPo has a new article out titled “Libya’s catastrophe is everyone’s fault,” which is a bit like Charles Manson saying the Manson Family killings were everyone’s fault. The article’s author Ishaan Tharoor lays the blame for Libya’s inability to adequately protect its people from the flood on “Libya’s feuding factions and fractured polity” as well as other nations in the region before conceding that NATO’s toppling of Gaddafi would have also played some role.

[…]

Via https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2023/09/16/barack-obama-belongs-in-a-fucking-cage/

Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) constitute a buoyant $5.3 Billion dollar business (2022) which is slated to increase to $12.9 Billon dollars by 2027. This profit-driven military-industrial market is dominated by six “Defense Contractors” including Raytheon, Northrup Grunman, BAE Systems (plc), Boeing, Lockheed Martin and L3Harris Technologies.

Raytheon and BAE Systems are also involved in ENMOD technologies on behalf of the U.S. Air Force. (Michel Chossudovsky, December 7, 2007 August 2023)

I  initiated my research on Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) in 2001 focussing on the HAARP System of Antennas, in Gokona, Alaska.

The HAARP facility was fully operational starting in the mid-1990s with advanced capabilities.

While HAARP was closed down in 2014, ENMOD techniques have in the course of the last ten years become increasingly sophisticated as well as precise. Much of the documentation has become classified.

In the United States, Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) are the object of research by several agencies linked to the Pentagon, including DARPA, the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Office of Naval Research among others.

Of relevance to the assessment of recent climatic disasters, this article first published by The Ecologist, (December 7, 2007) provides an overview as well as a history. It also confirms the role of private military contractors in the development of HAARP including BAE Systems Inc and Raytheon.

-Michel Chossudovsky, September 13, 2023

Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use.

Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. [HAARP facility was closed down in 2014. Since then more advanced facilities have been developed]. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.

Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report ‘offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary’, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:

‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.’ *(Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025)

In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned ‘military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’ It defined ‘environmental modification techniques’ as ‘any technique for changing –through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.’

While the substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, debate on weather modification for military use has become a scientific taboo.

Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter and environmentalists are focused on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Neither is the possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, part of the broader debate on climate change under UN auspices.

The HAARP Programme

Established in 1992, HAARP, based in Gokona, Alaska, is an array of high-powered antennas that transmit, through high-frequency radio waves, massive amounts of energy into the ionosphere (the upper layer of the atmosphere). Their construction was funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Operated jointly by the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Office of Naval Research, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating ‘controlled local modifications of the ionosphere’. According to its official website, www.haarp.alaska.edu , HAARP will be used ‘to induce a small, localized change in ionospheric temperature so physical reactions can be studied by other instruments located either at or close to the HAARP site’.

But Rosalie Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, says HAARP operates as:

“a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet”.

Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the largest ionospheric heater ever built’.

HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a research programme, but military documents confirm its main objective is to ‘induce ionospheric modifications’ with a view to altering weather patterns and disrupting communications and radar.

According to a report by the Russian State Duma:

‘The US plans to carry out large-scale experiments under the HAARP programme [and] create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines, and have a negative impact on the mental health of entire regions.’

An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable:

“The covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications and electric power systems as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions.”

Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’ without their knowledge, used to destabilise economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can also trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets. The disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries.

HAARP was developed as part of an Anglo-American partnership between Raytheon Corporation, which owns the HAARP patents, the US Air Force and British Aerospace Systems (BAES).

The HAARP project is one among several collaborative ventures in advanced weapons systems between the two defence giants. The HAARP project was initiated in 1992 by Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Corporation (ARCO). APTI (including the HAARP patents) was sold by ARCO to E-Systems Inc, in 1994. E-Systems, on contract to the CIA and US Department of Defense, outfitted the ‘Doomsday Plan’, which ‘allows the President to manage a nuclear war’. Subsequently acquired by Raytheon Corporation, it is among the largest intelligence contractors in the World. BAES was involved in the development of the advanced stage of the HAARP antenna array under a 2004 contract with the Office of Naval Research.

The installation of 132 high frequency transmitters was entrusted by BAES to its US subsidiary, BAE Systems Inc. The project, according to a July report [2007] in Defense News, was undertaken by BAES’s Electronic Warfare division. In September [2007] it received DARPA’s top award for technical achievement for the design, construction and activation of the HAARP array of antennas.

The HAARP system is fully operational and in many regards dwarfs existing conventional and strategic weapons systems. While there is no firm evidence of its use for military purposes, Air Force documents suggest HAARP is an integral part of the militarisation of space. One would expect the antennas already to have been subjected to routine testing.

Under the UNFCCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a mandate ‘to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of climate change’. This mandate includes environmental warfare. ‘Geo-engineering’ is acknowledged, but the underlying military applications are neither the object of policy analysis or scientific research in the thousands of pages of IPCC reports and supporting documents, based on the expertise and input of some 2,500 scientists, policymakers and environmentalists. ‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the future of humanity, but has casually been excluded from the reports for which the IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Click here to view CBC 1996 News documentary: HAARP – US military weather weapon.

[…]

Via

Jew wearing special hat as prescribed by Fourth Lateran Council

Episode 7 The Canon of Persecution

1215: Years That Changed History

Dr Dorsey Armstrong (2019)

Film Review

Armstrong devotes this lecture to the prohibitory canons issued by the Fourth Lateran Council 1215,

These included bans on

• new religious orders (other than the Benedictines, Cistercians, Franciscans and Augustinians).
• use (by priests) of unclean vestments, altar and communion cloths.
• use of churches for storing parishoners’ furniture, except in emergencies.
• sale of relics or display of relics outside reliquaries
• bishops receiving bribes for appointing priests to churches
• priests receiving bribes to perform sacraments like marriage, last rites or burial.
• Christians charging interest for loans (usury)

Canon 68 – required Jews and Muslims to dress in ways distinguishing them from Christians, lest Christians accidentally have sex with them.

Canon 69 – forbade Jews to hold public office or work as civili servants. Combined with recent laws seizing their landholdings, this left few occupations open them other than banking and money lending (Jews were allowed to engage in usury and Christians to pay them interest on loans)/

Canon 70 – allows Jews to convert to Christianity to secure a livelihood so long as they refrain from practicing Judaism privately.

Canon 71 (the longest) calls for a 5th Crusade to start in 1217 and for Christians who do business with Saracens (Arabs or Turks who practice Islam)  or travel through their lands to be excommunicated. It also asserts that crusaders are under no obligation to pay interest or repay loans to Jews. It also promises for full forgiveness of sins for all Christians who participate in crusades or help pay for them.

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

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/12392969/12392984

Marty Makary and Tracy Beth Hoep

New York Post

What if I told you one in 50 people who took a new medication had a “medically attended adverse event” and the manufacturer refused to disclose what exactly the complication was — would you take it?

And what if the theoretical benefit was only transient, lasting about three months, after which your susceptibility goes back to baseline?

And what if we told you the Food and Drug Administration cleared it without any human-outcomes data and European regulators are not universally recommending it as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is?

That’s what we know about the new COVID vaccine the Biden administration is firmly recommending for every American 6 months old and up.

The push is so hard that former White House COVID coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha and CDC head Mandy Cohen are making unsupported claims the new vaccine reduces hospitalizations. long COVID and the likelihood you will spread COVID.

None of those claims has a shred of scientific support.

In fact, if the manufacturers said that, they could be fined for making false marketing claims beyond an FDA-approved indication.

The questions surrounding Moderna’s new COVID vaccine approved this week are still looming.

Pfizer’s version, approved this week as well, also has zero efficacy data and has not been tested on humans at all. We only have data about antibody production from 10 mice.

The FDA, or Moderna (frankly, it’s hard to tell the difference sometimes), should disclose what happened to the patient who took the new vaccine and had a complication that required medical attention.

The public has a right to know.

The last time the Biden administration approved and recommended a novel COVID bivalent booster, last fall, with no human-outcomes data, it was an epic fail.

Only 17% of Americans took it (and some of those were forced to do so by their employer or school).

Not foreseeing such weak public support for the booster last year, the Biden administration had prepaid pharma $4.9 billion for 171 million doses — many of which were tossed in the wastebasket.

Now it is making the same mistake.

Two weeks ago, the Biden administration upped its orders for the pediatric version of the new COVID vaccines from 14.5 million doses at $1.3 billion to 20 million doses for $1.7 billion, which is more than four times as many pediatric doses as were used last year.

There clearly seems to be a special push this time to give it to children — the same group European regulators are not supporting.

In fact, the original Moderna vaccine was banned in parts of Europe for people under age 30.

European doctors are not alone.

Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine-mandate supporter and FDA adviser from the University of Pennsylvania, told The Atlantic this week that he’s not going to take the new COVID vaccine.

He didn’t take the bivalent booster last fall either, despite being 72 years old.

While he disagreed with Jha on the booster, he recently confessed, “Yes, he was wrong, but you know you can’t say that exactly.”

Yes, you can.

America is tired of political apologists as medical experts. They want the truth.

Offit is at least more honest than most experts who put their heads in the sand and parroted whatever public health officials said.

Pfizer made $100 billion during the pandemic. It can afford to fund a randomized trial to demonstrate to the American people the new booster is effective.

That’s the scientific process.

Unlike influenza, COVID-19 is constantly circulating, so there is ample opportunity to run a trial; indeed, Moderna already ran a randomized trial.

Its trial of just 50 people began four months ago and oddly only reported 14-day side effects.

Why didn’t it enroll more people in its trial? Why didn’t it report three-month effectiveness and do a proper trial?

Conducting a placebo-controlled trial in people during this time would not only yield useful information; it would enable further study of those subjects three and six months from now, when a winter surge may occur.

Let’s be honest: Follow-up studies of COVID vaccines in general have revealed a disappointing truth — mild efficacy against infection is transient, lasting just a few months.

Perhaps Pfizer and Moderna knew the FDA regulatory process was greased for them and they didn’t have to.

It’s time for the FDA to resume its role as a regulator and not the marketing department for Pfizer and Moderna.

It is possible a new booster may help downgrade the severity of COVID infection for select high-risk populations, but that’s all the more reason a proper clinical trial is needed.

It’s also worth noting the CDC’s new recommendation ignores natural immunity, which means many schools will do the same.

A February Lancet review of 65 studies concluded natural immunity is at least as good as vaccinated immunity and probably better.

So if a college student had COVID a few months ago, the CDC wants him or her to get the new shot anyway, but the correct scientific answer is the risks are expected to outweigh the benefit.

Supporters of pushing the novel COVID boosters point to the annual flu-shot approval process, which does not require a randomized trial.

But COVID vaccines are very different from flu vaccines.

COVID vaccines have higher complication rates, including severe and life-threatening cardiac reactions. Flu shots have a 50-plus-year safety record whereas COVID vaccines have been associated with a serious adverse event rate of one in 5,000 doses, according to a German study by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut.

Another study, published last year in the medical journal Vaccine, estimated the rate of serious adverse events to be as high as one in 556 COVID vaccine recipients.

And for young people, the incidence of myocarditis is six to 28 times higher after the vaccine than after infection, even for females, according to a 2022 JAMA Cardiology study.

That’s one of the reasons a study that we and several national colleagues published last year found that college booster mandates appear to have resulted in a net public health harm.

Finally, at a molecular level, some scientists are concerned about what is called immune imprinting and additional ways multiple booster doses can weaken the immune system.

A study published last year in the journal Science described a reduced immune response among people infected who then received three COVID vaccine doses.

If public health officials get their way, a healthy 5-year-old boy will get 72 COVID vaccine shots over the course of his lifetime, if he has an average lifespan, with a risk of myocarditis after each one.

Inexplicably and defying science, the CDC is saying even if a child had COVID three weeks ago, he or she should still get the new COVID shot.

Two of the FDA’s best vaccine experts are gone. Dr. Marion Gruber, who was director of the FDA’s vaccine office, and her deputy director, Dr. Philip Krause, both quit the agency in 2021 in protest over political pressure to authorize vaccine boosters for young people.

Ever since the loss of these two vaccine experts, the agency’s vaccine authorizations have been consistent with an overly cozy relationship between pharma and the White House.

In fact, why have an FDA if White House doctors can simply declare a drug to be safe after discussing secret data in private meetings with pharma?

[…]

Via https://nypost.com/2023/09/14/the-real-data-behind-the-new-covid-vaccines-the-white-house-is-pushing/

On Sept 11, 2023, The New York Times came out with this broadside against Musk. It’s clear the establishment is enraged by Musk’s defiance, and is closing ranks to bring him to his knees. Smears is one of their favorite tools.

Mike Whitney Interview with Ron Unz

Question 1: The Nature of the ADL

Let’s talk about the ADL. Some of your readers may not know that you have written extensively on the ADL and that your analysis prompted Paul Craig Roberts to call you “the bravest man I know.” What Roberts was referring to, I think, is your riveting 2018 account of the ADL’s shadowy history as well as its controversial activities and methods. Here’s a short excerpt from a piece you wrote in 2018 that helps to illustrate what I’m talking about:

In January 1993, the San Francisco Police Department reported that it had recently raided the Northern California headquarters of the ADL based upon information provided by the FBI.* The SFPD discovered that the organization had been keeping intelligence files on more than 600 civic organizations and 10,000 individuals, overwhelmingly of a liberal orientation, with the SFPD inspector estimating that 75% of the material had been illegally obtained, much of it by secret payments to police officials. This was merely the tip of the iceberg in what clearly amounted to the largest domestic spying operation by any private organization in American history, and according to some sources, ADL agents across the country had targeted over 1,000 political, religious, labor, and civil rights organizations, with the New York headquarters of the ADL maintaining active dossiers on more than a million Americans.”

This is shocking information that perhaps only a handful of Americans know anything about. The recent dust-up with Elon Musk has put the ADL’s methods under a microscope particularly their alleged role in censoring people on the Internet. So, my question to you is this: What is the ADL? Is it really a civil rights organization that “combats extremism and antisemitism” or is it something else altogether?

Ron Unz—Founded in 1913, the ADL—the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith—is a very formidable Jewish activist organization that has great influence over the media and other important elements of American society, and therefore is widely feared in elite circles. As I explained in my 2018 article:

In our modern era, there are surely few organizations that so terrify powerful Americans as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a central organ of the organized Jewish community.

Mel Gibson had long been one of the most popular stars in Hollywood and his 2004 film The Passion of the Christ became among the most profitable in world history, yet the ADL and its allies destroyed his career/

[…]

Because of its media influence, the ADL’s coverage has almost always been extremely favorable, portraying it as one of America’s leading watchdogs against dangerous extremism, especially anti-Semitism or racism. Given this powerful, positive image, the ADL successfully gained the role of content gatekeeper at some of America’s largest Internet companies, helping to determine what may or may not be said on such important platforms as Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter. Indeed, a few years ago Silicon Valley’s San Jose Mercury News profiled the ADL Director who was responsible for policing “hate speech” across the American-dominated global Internet.

Meanwhile, that same media influence has ensured that only very few people have ever become aware of the organization’s long history of illegal spying upon enormous numbers of Americans, including such notable figures as Martin Luther King. Jr. I discussed this in my 2018 article:

The choice of the ADL as the primary ideological overseer of America’s Internet may seem natural and appropriate to politically-ignorant Americans, a category that unfortunately includes the technology executives leading the companies involved. But this reflects the remarkable cowardice and dishonesty of the American media from which all these individuals derive their knowledge of our world. The true recent history of the ADL is actually a sordid and disreputable tale.

[…]

Not long [after the 1993 SFPD raid], an ACLU official who had previously held a high-ranking position with the ADL revealed in an interview that his organization had been the actual source of the highly controversial 1960s surveillance on Martin Luther King, Jr., which it had then provided to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. For many years Hoover had been furiously denounced in the national media headlines for his use of tapes and other secret information on King’s activities, but when a local San Francisco newspaper revealed that an ADL spying operation had actually been the source of all that sordid material, the bombshell revelation was totally ignored in the national media and only reported by fringe organizations, so that today almost no Americans are aware of that fact.

I know of no other private organization in American history that has been involved in even a sliver of such illegal domestic espionage activity, which appears to have been directed against almost all groups and prominent individuals—left, right, and center—suspected of being insufficiently aligned with Jewish and Israeli interests. Some of the illegal material found in the ADL’s possession even raised dark suspicions that it had played a role in domestic terrorist attacks and political assassinations directed against foreign leaders. I am no legal expert, but given the massive scale of such illegal ADL activities, I wonder whether a plausible case might have been made to prosecute the entire organization under RICO statutes and sentence all of its leaders to long prison terms.

Instead, the resulting government charges were quickly settled with merely a trivial fine and a legal slap on the wrist, demonstrating the near-total impunity provided by massive Jewish political power in modern American society.

In effect, the ADL seems to have long operated as a privatized version of our country’s secret political police, monitoring and enforcing its ideological doctrines on behalf of Jewish groups much as the Stasi did for the Communist rulers of East Germany. Given such a long history of criminal activity, allowing the ADL to extend its oversight to our largest Social Media platforms amounts to appointing the Mafia to supervise the FBI and the NSA, or taking a very large step towards implementing George Orwell’s ” Ministry of Truth” on behalf of Jewish interests.

*[DrB] It was from information gathered in this raid I learned that my group Citizens in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador had been spied on by the ADL since 1981.

Via https://www.greanvillepost.com/2023/09/13/elon-musk-and-the-true-history-of-the-adl/