Kit Klarenberg

All the pact’s signatories will provide “comprehensive” economic, military, and political assistance to one another, should they come under attack from the Zionist entity or its allies.

On October 7, it was announced that Iran’s parliament is drafting a defense and security pact, which will formally bind the Resistance, “and their supporting countries,” together in a common, collaborative military structure to counter external threats, “particularly from the US and Israel.” Unremarked upon in the West, this is a seismic move, representing the most monumental nail hammered into “Israel’s” coffin since Palestinian freedom fighters struck deep inside the Zionist entity’s putrid heart a year prior. The proclamation’s timing was absolutely no coincidence.

All the pact’s signatories – be they governments or Resistance movements – will provide “comprehensive” economic, military, and political assistance to one another, should they come under attack from the Zionist entity or its allies. Significantly, a dedicated joint military headquarters, to “facilitate coordination” between members of the Resistance, will also be established. This will serve as a “central command for managing military operations and crisis response, reinforcing operational capabilities through planned joint military exercises.”

The pact “aims not only to enhance military cooperation,” but also “bolster infrastructure development” for the Resistance – “collaboration in building military bases and training centers is expected to improve readiness against potential threats.” If implemented, Islamic Republic lawmakers believe “this alliance could significantly shift the balance of power in the region, presenting a formidable counterweight to Western influence seeking to wreak havoc in West Asia to Israel’s benefit.”

Of course, recent events have made it clear that West Asia’s “balance of power” has already decisively shifted in favor of the Resistance. The scale and severity of Iran’s unprecedented October 1 strike on the Zionist entity amply indicated Tehran not only didn’t expect retaliation of any serious kind to be forthcoming from “Israel” or its Western puppetmasters but had calculated that in the event Tel Aviv was sufficiently foolhardy to declare all-out war in response, the Resistance would inevitably prevail.

In the wake of that devastating assault, this journalist postulated Tehran had thrown down a gauntlet to its regional and international adversaries, safe in the knowledge any resultant conflict would mean the Zionist entity’s final end and the Empire’s concomitant retreat from West Asia more widely. The rapid emergence of a formal Resistance military alliance tends to confirm this analysis. Now, it is up to “Israel” to make the next move, which could well be its very last.

‘Military Response’

Hours before Iran struck the Zionist entity, Israeli occupation forces criminally launched an expanded aggression on Lebanon. True to form, the IOF have savagely targeted civilian areas and infrastructure ever since, claiming at least 1,400 innocent lives to date and injuring countless more. Initially framed by Israeli leaders and pliant Western journalists as a “limited ground intervention,” based on “precise intelligence” on Hezbollah, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is already openly seeking to escalate it into an all-out war.

Netanyahu is evidently unconcerned that many statements he and his ministers have made since October 7, 2023, rank highly among the voluminous mountain of evidence the Zionist entity is acting with genocidal intent toward the Palestinians and may have contributed significantly to his ICC indictment for “crimes against humanity.” On October 9, the Israeli leader unreservedly threatened Lebanon’s population with “destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza” if they failed to rise and help the IOF “free” their country from Hezbollah.

Such belligerence and depravity play well with Zionist entity audiences. One Israeli newscaster proudly toasted the September 27 assassination of Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah live on air, while Tel Aviv’s education ministry actively encouraged schools to stage celebrations. Netanyahu’s approval ratings have soared since the IOF attempted to invade Lebanon. A sense that the settler colony had finally redeemed itself and regained an upper hand against the Resistance, after being dealt relentless economic and military blows since October 7, widely pervades locally.

Yet, as The Guardian acknowledged on October 6, the IOF’s attempted invasion of Lebanon has already proven deeply ruinous. They have lost scores of soldiers, while Hezbollah “retains a potency fighting on its own terrain… where it has had almost two decades to prepare for this conflict.” Elsewhere, the outlet observed that Iran’s October 1st strike on Tel Aviv was:

“Not…as inconsequential as initially claimed by Israel’s leadership, and instead [shows] that a large-scale strike could not only overwhelm Israel’s anti-missile defences but that Tehran could accurately explode warheads on the targets it was aiming for, in this case several military bases. All of which raises serious questions as Israel prepares for a ‘significant’ military response to Iran.”

The Guardian went on to record that due to Israel’s “fast metastasising multi-front war” against the Resistance, the Zionist entity’s “military and intelligence superiority is faltering on several fronts.” The past year has also “seriously exposed Israel’s newly minted operational doctrine, which planned for fighting short decisive wars against non-state actors…with the aim of avoiding being drawn into extended conflicts of attrition.” Instead, “the opposite has happened.” And the ranks of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Resistance groups have swelled every step of the way.

‘Deterrent Effect’

The secret of the Resistance’s success was spelled out in a little-noticed article published in June by the elite imperial journal Foreign Affairs. Unequivocally titled “Hamas Is Winning,” it sets out in forensic detail “why Israel’s failing strategy makes its enemy stronger,” and how “according to the measures that matter, Hamas is stronger today than it was” on October 7, 2023. The “growing” group has since “evolved into a tenacious and deadly guerrilla force in Gaza”, launching “lethal operations” in areas previously “cleared” by the IOF “easily”.

Foreign Affairs attributes such “overarching failure” to “a gross misunderstanding of the sources of Hamas’ power.” The Zionist entity has, to its “great detriment”, failed to comprehend that “the carnage and devastation it has unleashed in Gaza has only made its enemy stronger.” Hamas’ “key source” of support is its “potential to gain supporters from the local community” and “ability to recruit, especially its ability to attract new generations of the fighters and operatives.”

This support means Hamas can “replenish its ranks, gain resources, avoid detection, and generally have more access to the human and material resources necessary” to wage war against the Zionist entity. Average Palestinians, “often either angry over the loss of family members or friends or more generally enraged at [Israel’s] use of heavy military force,” have joined Hamas in droves or provided assistance of some kind to the group due to its “tremendous support” among the residents of Gaza.

Cited surveys of Palestinian opinion reinforce this conclusion. Five polls conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research over the 12 months from June 2023 “present a striking finding” – “on virtually every measure, Hamas has more support among Palestinians today than before October 7th.” In all, “twice as many” Palestinians favor Hamas over its primary rival Fatah – 40% compared to 20%. And 73% of Palestinians overall believe Hamas “was right to launch” that historic attack.

There has also “especially” been a rise in support for armed resistance against the Zionist entity among Palestinians in the West Bank. There, surveys find backing for the group is now “on par with the consistently high levels of support” for Hamas strikes on “Israel” in Gaza. No wonder – 60% of Palestinians in Gaza report having a family member killed in the current war, while over three-quarters report having a family member killed or injured, both numbers significantly higher than in December 2023.

Accordingly, Foreign Affairs records that Hamas has swelled in size to “roughly ten times the number of fighters” who carried out the October 7 operation. Meanwhile, “more than 80% of the group’s underground tunnel network remains usable for planning, storing weapons, and evading Israeli surveillance, capture, and attacks,” and “most” of its “top leadership in Gaza remains intact.” The IOF’s “punishment” of Palestinians “is not having a significant deterrent effect” on residents of Gaza or the West Bank, or “[reducing] their support for Hamas.”

Foreign Affairs concedes this phenomenon is not restricted to Hamas, but all components of the indefatigable Resistance. Support for Hezbollah “flourished” among Shiites during the Zionist entity’s savage 1982 – 1999 occupation of South Lebanon, the outlet notes. This resulted in the group “evolving from a small clandestine” armed faction “into a mainstream political party” in Beirut, with a dedicated military wing comprising at least 40,000 fighters today. Foreign Affairs closed out its damning appraisal of “Israel’s” war against Hamas with a stark conclusion:

“The war will go on and on, more Palestinians will die, and the threat to Israel will only grow.”

The horrors of the Zionist entity’s invasion of Lebanon will likely endure apace for some time. But so too its total economic, military, and political collapse. Meanwhile, every day the Resistance is galvanized, pullulating in strength, its mere existence winning hearts and minds within and without West Asia in ever-greater numbers. The new, dedicated pact binding anti-Zionist governments and Palestine freedom fighter movements together finally signs “Israel’s” death warrant for it was already written.

[…]

Via https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/opinion/resistance-pact-signs–israel-s–death-warrant

 By Ole Braatelien  October 12, 2024 at 11:45am

FILE PHOTO. ©  Getty Images / abile

Russia has “irrefutable evidence” of the supply of toxic chemicals to Kiev, the country’s mission to the UK has said

The West has been facilitating the supply of banned toxic chemicals to Kiev for use as chemical weaponry on the frontlines, the Russian Embassy in the UK has said.

The mission issued the claim on Tuesday in response to a new round of sanctions imposed by London targeting Russia’s Radiological Chemical and Biological Defense Forces (RChBZ) and its head, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov. London has accused them of “flagrant violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).”

The embassy strongly rejected the accusations, pointing out that Moscow destroyed its chemical arsenal years ago, with the process overseen by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

“Russia strictly adheres to the norms of international law, including the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the Chemical Weapons Convention. There are no chemical weapons in the arsenals of our Armed Forces, which has been confirmed by international inspections,” the mission said.

In reality, London’s accusations were intended to divert attention from the numerous instances of use of chemical weapons by Kiev’s forces during the conflict against Moscow, the embassy suggested.

“By groundlessly accusing Russia, they are keeping silent confirmed facts of the use of prohibited toxic substances and chemical agents by the Kiev regime forces,” it stated, accusing the collective West of facilitating the supply of such toxins to Ukrainian troops.

The new British restrictions and the exchange of accusations come a day after General Kirillov accused Kiev of making extensive preparations for “false flag attacks aimed at accusing Russia of using toxic substances during the special military operation.” The ‘proof’ resulting from the false flag operations would then be provided to OPCW officials.

Kirillov said Moscow had registered some 400 cases in which Ukraine had used riot-control chemical agents. While used in policing, such agents qualify as chemical weapons in warfare and, therefore, are prohibited.

The general also accused Ukraine of deploying chemical weapons disguised as smoke bombs during its ongoing incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region. The munitions were used in the Russian town of Sudzha in August, with more than 20 people exposed to the toxins during the attack.

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/russia/605490-ukraine-west-chemical-weapons/

Episode 18 High Middle Ages in Pacific Polynesia

The Middle Ages Around the World

Dr Joyce E Salisbury

Film Review

Between 400 and 700 AD Polynesia outrigger voyages from Samoa to the eastern Pacific islands far exceeded any European sea voyages at the time. From 400 till 1300 AD, Polynesians settled all the habitable islands in the so-called Polynesian triangle, an area of 800,000 square miles.

Starting from a homeland in Tonga/Samoa settled around 900 BC, they spent the first millennium expanding into the Cook Islands, Hawaii, the Marquesas Islands, Rapanui (Easter Island) and New Zealand. They reached New Zealand last (1200-1320 AD). Evidence from DNA and carbon dating is consistent with their oral tradition.

They traveled in double hulled dug out canoes, the forerunners of the catamaran. They used the area between the two canoes for storage and were powered by 24 rowers and/or triangular sails made of woven mats that could tack into the wind. During storms they overturned their vessels to ensure they stayed on course, breathing the trapped air under the canoe.

Eurasian sailors used the sky, compasses, or astrolabes to navigate along latitude lines (first conceived of by the Greeks). They were unable to measure longitude prior to the modern age.

Polynesians navigated by the rising and setting of 10 stars, prevailing ocean swells, the sun (when it was low on the horizon), cloud patterns, driftwood, fish and to some extent winds (less reliable). They used a 3-dimenional stick chart to teach novice sailors to read the winds and tides.

When they set out to settle a new island, explorers carried breadfruit, tarot, coconut (used for wood and thatch as well as food), banana, mangoes, Malay apples, sugar cane sprouts, pigs, dogs (eaten as delicacy by chiefs) and chickens. Diet also included fish, dolphin and shark.

Practicing a form of animism, they believed supernatural forces (the main one being mana) animated the universe and everything on earth, eg trees. rocks, buildings, people and ancestors. Mana could be canceled by violating tapus (taboos). For example, if a commoner touched a chief’s robe, it diminished the chief’s mana unless the commoner was killed. A common art form, the tattoo, helped preserved the mana of the individual being tattooed and their ancestors.

Typical tapus included a ban on men and women eating together or men eating food prepared by women (men did most of the cooking). Women wove mats and clothing.

Most Polynesian cultures played a nose flute (made from a one foot bamboo stalk), pan pipes and/or and ankle rattles.* Dancing, however, was the most important art form.

• Hawai – hula dance
• Tahiti – dance in which legs and arms are stationary and hips move to rapid drum beats
• New Zealand – haka war dance

The inhabitants of Rapanui built extremely tall stone statues known a mohai. Believed to represent semi-divine ancestors they face the interior guarding the inland. Although 880 have been discovered, most remain in the quarry. Of the 113 erected, 25 of them extremely large (average 13 feet tall, 28,000 pounds). They were transported from the quarry by 60-500 people pulling a long wooden sled and using a sloping ramp to tip them upward.

Rat DNA suggest a continued state of trade between Samoa/Tonga and the other Polynesian islands (except for Rapanui) until 1400 AD when climate change curtailed ocean travel.

Human DNA studies reveals that Rapanui voyagers traveled 4,000 miles to the coast of Colombia before 1150. Sweet potato cultivated throughout the Pacific Islands originated in South America.

The Polynesians inventing surfing (first depicted in 12th century art work).

*The Ukelele was introduced to Hawaii after European arrived.

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

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/13172786/13172825

Winberg harvested so much crucial intelligence in this role, her resultant insights represented a “core contribution” to British, European and US understanding and assessment of armed groups in Syria. Intriguingly, she was transferred to Istanbul directly from the British consulate in Jerusalem, a vital regional base of operations for MI6. While there, she reported on “violent extremist organisations” active in Gaza, “including during Operation Cloud Pillar” in November 2012, for which she was “commended internally.”

Cloud Pillar saw Israeli Occupation Forces massacre almost 200 Palestinian civilians after assassinating high-ranking Hamas commander Ahmed Jabari. This was in keeping with MI6’s strategy to “degrade the capabilities” of “rejectionists” of the pro-Zionist Palestine Authority. Winberg’s close-range view of these events made her a compelling candidate for overseeing London’s contribution to the proxy war from the perspective of her employers in British intelligence. Moreover, she was not alone among InCoStrat operatives in secretly surveilling Palestinian resistance firsthand.

One company staffer managed a $25 million “small grants programme to directly support community stabilisation, engage youth, and moderate actors in the Palestinian Territories” for US intelligence cutout USAID, 2005 – 2007. This placed them on the frontline of the Zionist entity’s embarrassing drubbing by Lebanon’s Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, and concurrent “military incursion” in Gaza.

Along the way, they “reported on the political, economic, and security situation” locally, “including extensive reporting during internal instability in Gaza.” Meanwhile, another InCoStrat operative’s CV boasts that they “travelled and studied in Israel and Palestine, focusing on religious political movements,” then “studied Palestinian refugees in Syria before the uprising.” After that, they “worked with and trained Syrian activists in several different organisations.”

It is a supremely striking feature that multiple InCoStrat operatives went straight from intently “studying” Palestinian refugees and armed groups, to cloak-and-dagger management of the “moderate” Syrian opposition. In this context, what are we to make of British intelligence cutouts having been heavily active in Lebanon’s numerous Palestinian refugee camps, for many years? Around 300,000 Palestinian refugees inhabit the country, roughly half of them in installations administered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Living conditions are appalling, with overcrowding, poverty, and unemployment rampant. Discrimination towards Palestinian refugees at both a public and state level in Lebanon is commonplace. This has intensified significantly due to untold numbers of displaced people – among them many Palestinians – pouring into Beirut from neighbouring Syria, as a result of the grinding, 11-year-long Western proxy war against Damascus. Such a milieu inevitably produces a wide array of grievances among refugees – which, of course, can be malignly exploited by British intelligence.

Since 2009, Foreign Office contractor ARK – founded and run by MI6 operative Alistair Harris – has operated across all Lebanon’s 12 Palestinian refugee camps. In leaked files, the company boasts of its “granular understanding” of the camps’ internal political, economic, ideological, religious and everyday dynamics. ARK’s voluminous “local contacts” have “access throughout all camps and gatherings.” This means that community-level discussions and activities of all residents can be influenced and spied upon, as required.

Such everyday, real-life insight is augmented by “daily monitoring of neighbourhood-level WhatsApp groups.” Meanwhile, local engagement with a social media platform created by ARK, Nastopia, is heavily monitored. The page, run by a 24-strong team of ARK-trained “youth reporters,” is intended to increase demand for “community engagement and improved conditions” among camp residents. It promotes covertly Foreign Office-financed projects in the camps as “success stories” while serving “as a forum for online and offline discussion about social injustices [and] virtual space to talk about topics considered taboo in the camps.”

ARK has spearheaded various community initiatives elsewhere in the “offline” realm. These include repairing and restoring streets and cemeteries, recycling, promoting small businesses, providing welfare to disadvantaged and disabled residents, managing nurseries and daycare centres, and even launching a local coffee shop. The leaked files describe this as “a popular place for youth to gather and promote civic engagement in their community and a shared Palestinian identity that bridges factional differences.”

Insidious surveillance and manipulation components of these projects aside, one might reasonably argue that given the harsh internal environments of Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, any effort to regenerate and improve conditions for residents of all ages and create a sense of community is a net positive. Yet, the ultimate purpose of these projects is to create a secret army of anti-government activists, which can be activated to stir up trouble if and when British intelligence wishes.

Of course, the leaked documents do not frame that objective in such terms. One file refers to the value of highlighting “success stories” in the camps as “enhancing the audience’s confidence in their own ability to contribute to social change.” In other words, encouraging Palestinian refugees to take matters into their own hands. This intention is articulated far more emphatically in a leaked March 2019 target audience analysis conducted by ARK.

The document identified a segment of Beirut’s diverse population that could be united in opposition to Lebanon’s government, and therefore mobilised to “affect positive social change.” The ideal target group comprised individuals who disavowed violence but not “other forms of contentious politics,” and could be “influenced” to engage in certain “behaviours”, such as protests, leafleting campaigns, and other community initiatives. The analysis explicitly cited Palestinian refugees as an “important part” of such an effort.

Therefore, ARK pledged to both covertly and overtly promote the message that “change is possible and ordinary citizens have a role to play in achieving change” through propaganda campaigns and civil society initiatives. These would “highlight where change has been achieved or where threats to Lebanon’s stability have been countered.” In turn, Lebanon’s wider population would be well-educated on how “barriers” to reform can be overcome via direct popular action.

Seven months after ARK produced this study, large-scale protests engulfed the streets of Beirut. Western media immediately spoke of “revolution” in the country. Few outlets acknowledged the unrest had originally begun in July of that year, when thousands of refugees inhabiting several camps commenced mass demonstrations, demanding reforms to local employment laws that barred them from numerous professions.

Coincidentally, in one leaked document, ARK boasts of how the company “takes pride” in ensuring refugees recruited to its illicit schemes receive “annual leave, sick leave, and health insurance,” despite this not being “legally necessary” due to local legislation “discriminating against Palestinians.”

Lebanon was a critical organising nucleus for the Syrian opposition, which ARK directed and embedded with before the “revolution” started. A document circulated among anti-Assad elements in Beirut in May 2011, secretly intercepted by Syrian security services, set out a blueprint for events in the uprising to date and precisely what would subsequently transpire in Damascus.

The opposition proposed convening mass demonstrations in every major Syrian city so security forces “will lose control of all regions,” be “taken unaware,” and become “exhausted and distracted.” This, along with “honest officers and soldiers” joining “the ranks of the revolution,” would make “toppling down the regime” straightforward. Any crackdown on these protests was forecast to precipitate a Western “military strike,” a la Libya. The opposition foresaw major news outlets playing a significant role:

The Assad government did not choose to publicise this bombshell file, for reasons unclear. It only became publicly available – and translated into English – via the work of the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA). The organisation was spun out of ARK in May 2011 to prosecute Syrian officials for war crimes. Its first act was to covertly train opposition activists “in basic international criminal and humanitarian law”, in service of a “domestic justice process in a future transitional Syria.”

As the foreign-fomented crisis escalated into an all-out proxy war, CIJA began employing extremist groups to smuggle sensitive documentation out of abandoned government buildings in opposition-occupied areas of Syria, paying these factions – including al-Nusra Front and ISIS – vast sums for their services. While generating enormous amounts of fawning media coverage, the Commission convicted just two Syrian officials of war crimes, and only after the pair voluntarily defected and made numerous incriminating statements to their Western handlers.

This failure is attributable to the collapse of Anglo-American regime change project in Syria. The success of CIJA’s business model was wholly contingent on the violent overthrow of Assad and his government. That the Commission was founded before the Syrian Arab Army was even formally deployed to Damascus amply demonstrates CIJA and ARK had substantial grounds to believe decisive Western intervention would be forthcoming, at the earliest stages of the ‘peaceful revolution.’

Per the intercepted document, so too did opposition activists in Lebanon in May 2011 – the same month CIJA was founded – which of course referenced then-ongoing NATO airstrikes on Libya. While such intervention didn’t arrive as expected in Damascus, arms and fighters promptly began flowing from Tripoli to Syria, in direct coordination with MI6. Many insurgents were former members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), freed from prison four years earlier by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, after an intervention from one of the group’s founders, Noman Benotman.

Benotman claimed to have rejected political violence, embraced pacifism and democracy, and pledged to deradicalise the jailed LIFG fighters in return for their release. In 2010, he became President of the UK government-funded Quilliam Foundation, the world’s first “counter-extremism” think tank. In this position, he was instrumental in securing high-level defections from Gaddafi’s government during the civil war. The organisation’s avowed contribution to NATO’s Libyan intervention intensified existing suspicions about the spectral interests it might be serving.

After Quilliam shut down in April 2021, veteran journalist Ian Cobain made a startling disclosure. The Foundation had been secretly established by the Office for Security and Counterterrorism (OSCT), a shadowy British intelligence agency. London’s spies had initially planned to fund the venture covertly, “with money appearing to come in from a Middle Eastern benefactor, but channelled by MI6.” Instead, overt government financing was granted, a move “eventually judged within Whitehall to have been a mistake.”

[…]

Palestinian-focused civil society organisations and initiatives are frequently constructed by British intelligence without participants or broader local populations learning the true sponsors and purposes they serve.

[…]

Via https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/leaked-how-mi6-exploits-palestinian

By Paul Serran

Many feared (or hoped) that when the late Queen Elisabeth passed away, the British Monarchy of the Windsor dynasty would have its days numbered.

And in many ways, these ‘worst-case scenario’ fears (other people’s hopes) seem to have become an actual possible outcome, as the relentless infighting in the Royal family and the apparent lack of relevance of their work to the present-day reality of Britain are a constant object of debate.

Now, reports arise that ailing King Charles has stated that ‘he will not stand in the way’ if Australia wishes to replace him as the country’s head of state.

Ahead of his visit down under later this month, the Monarch is said to be adopting a soft, ‘anti-confrontational approach’ to the Australian republican campaigners.

“In response to the Australian Republican Movement’s (ARM) request for a meeting with the monarch, the king’s assistant private secretary is understood to have emphasized his ‘deep love and affection’ for Australia.

Nathan Ross reportedly told the anti-monarchists: ‘His majesty, as a constitutional monarch, acts on the advice of his ministers and whether Australia becomes a republic is, therefore, a matter for the Australian public to decide’.

The ARM says it is ‘the peak body advocating on behalf of the Australian people for an Australian republic with an Australian as our head of state’. Australia held a referendum in 1999 on the issue of becoming a republic, in which 54.9% voted against.”

[…]

Via https://hellboundanddown.com/2024/10/13/the-last-king-britains-charles-iii-will-not-oppose-australia-becoming-a-republic-as-the-future-of-the-windsor-monarchy-appears-uncertain/

Al Mayadeen

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz cites sources as saying that the Israeli military is now operating under “tight weapons management.”

The Israeli military has adopted a policy of “strict weapons economy” regarding the use of shells and other arms in response to the depletion of ammunition stocks and the global embargo on arms exports to “Israel”, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.

According to Haaretz sources, the Israeli military is now operating under “tight weapons management,” with the authorization for using certain weapons being elevated in some cases to brigade commanders who hold the rank of colonel.

This policy is designed to ensure that senior commanders prioritize weapon usage based on their operational objectives, a responsibility previously handled by lower-ranking officers.

The Israeli military also mentioned that its “ammunition economy” for Iron Dome interceptions began in the second week of the war. However, the current state of ammunition stocks has necessitated further restrictions.

This comes as “Israel” is facing relentless military operations involving rocket, missile, and drone launches by the factions of the Axis of Resistance, namely Hezbollah, the Palestinian Resistance, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, and the Yemeni Armed Forces, since the onset of the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023.

[…]

Via https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/stock-depletion–declining-supply-prompt–israel–to-restric

As a requirement for discussing and appreciating the imperative of health freedom in the USA, we must first define what is meant by health freedom. A simple definition is: the right of every American to decide what medical interventions to put into or onto one’s body, the right to access and use the medical and healing modalities of one’s choice, the right to maintain one’s health according to one’s conscience, and the right to live free of involuntary medication be it via the food supply, the water supply, or something airborne.

In a free and moral society, health freedom is not simply a convenience, it’s an imperative. In this vein, in the event of injury or illness, all Americans must possess the absolute right to choose what medical interventions and treatments to accept and what medical or healing modalities to utilize in order to address illness or injury; Americans must be free to choose how to maintain their health whether that be through nutrition, supplements, herbs, drugs, or a myriad of healing modalities; Americans must have access to truthful information regarding how the seeds for plants and animal feed and the food in our food supply has been grown or developed, medicated, processed, and packaged; and Americans have the right to exist in a society free of water and airborne medications, insect vectors, and chemicals.

Health freedom can only exist in a free and moral society which values each and every member of that society. This prerequisite thus excludes medical mandates of any kind. It is immoral to force another individual to risk their life for the theoretical benefit of another. Moreover, government does not have the moral authority or power to dictate what medical products any American puts into or on his or her body. If anyone in government does possess that power, then no American is truly free, nor does he or she possess any meaningful right whatsoever – Americans are merely chattel.

In order to create a society based on true health freedom, the following policy shifts should be implemented, as a first step. There are many more changes which should be implemented as well, but these proposals would address some of the most glaring, pernicious anti-liberty and anti-health aspects of our system as it exists today:

1. Ban all Medical Mandates:

The Declaration of Independence states, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”  Medical mandates are prime facie violations of our founding documents.

Health freedom demands prior voluntary informed consent before a medical treatment or intervention is administered. Medical mandates are thus, by definition, antithetical to voluntary consent and therefore must be prohibited in a free and moral society. No single individual in government knows the medical history of any American, knows what is best for Americans, or has to live with the repercussions of any choices made by Americans, thus, medical mandates are never justified in any circumstance.

2. Repeal the Bayh-Dole Act:

“The Bayh-Dole Act, formerly known as the Patent and Trademark Act Amendments, is a federal law enacted in 1980 that enables universities, nonprofit research institutions and small businesses to own, patent and commercialize inventions developed under federally funded research programs within their organizations.”

Under this program, government scientists may receive up to $150,000 per year on their patents.

In theory, Bayh-Dole incentivizes bright scientists to seek employment at federal health agencies rather than entering more lucrative private industry by allowing these taxpayer-funded scientists and other individuals and entities to retain the patent rights to intellectual property developed during their taxpayer-funded research and development activities.

In practice, this Act forever realigned the interests of taxpayer-funded scientists away from the American people and toward their own interests and profits and the profits of the private industries with which they collaborate. Dr. Anthony Fauci and his team at NIAID infamously owned half the Moderna Covid vaccine patent which incentivized the misguided covid era policies leading to a colossal violation of the rights of Americans demonstrating the perverse incentives created by Bayh-Dole and the necessity of repealing the act.

3. Repeal the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992:

“The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was created by Congress in 1992 and authorizes FDA to collect user fees from persons that submit certain human drug applications for review or that are named in approved applications as the sponsor of certain prescription drug products. Since the passage of PDUFA, user fees have played an important role in expediting the drug review and approval process.”

In 2022 alone, the pharmaceutical industry paid $2.9 billion in user fees amounting to 46% of FDA’s entire budget including $1.4 billion or 66% for FDA’s drug approvers’ salaries and $197 million or 43% of the biologics (vaccines) program budget. As a direct consequence of PDUFA, the FDA has a vested interest aligned with the profits and success of the pharmaceutical industry rather than the health and wellbeing of the American people.

4. Repeal the Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP Act) which authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a PREP Act declaration.

“The declaration provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims:

• of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions
• determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency
• to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures

A PREP Act declaration is specifically for the purpose of providing immunity from liability, and is different from, and not dependent on, other emergency declarations.”

The PREP Act desecrates the ethical principle of informed consent by protecting individuals from liability even when they expressly act contrary to patients’ wishes and instructions and must be repealed.

5. Repeal the Affordable Care Act:

The Affordable Care Act anchors Americans to the pharmaceutical and drug-based medical paradigm even though a majority of Americans used at least one form of “alternative” medicine in 2021 and spent $30.6 billion in out of pocket expenses for those holistic medicine services in 2023 according to Statista. Instead, implement a health savings program which permits Americans to access the health and medical modalities of their choice which in turn would foster more competition and reduce the exorbitant health care costs in the US by breaking the extant monopolies held by the medical and insurance industries.

6. Repeal the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA):

NCVIA shields vaccine makers and those who administer vaccines from liability (except for willful misconduct), creating a perverse incentive to industry to develop a never-ending stream of vaccines which are then mandated by the states and a perverse incentive to medical professionals to charge for and inject patients irrespective of the harm they may cause. Further, the NCVIA protects industry, medical professionals, and vaccine programs by creating a separate administrative federal court structure lacking due process and discovery, managed by “Special Masters” instead of judges, all in violation of the constitutionally protected right to due process. While NCVIA contains other provisions designed to protect American families and ensure the safety of the national vaccine supply, Congress is not conducting proper oversight and the promises made in 1986 at the time of the Act’s passage have not been upheld. As such, Americans who have been injured or killed by vaccines are left with astronomical medical bills and to fend for themselves.

7. Prohibit Private Donations to Government Entities:

Prohibit private individuals, foundations, corporations, contractors, any other person or entity from donating or otherwise giving money to any agency or entity of the federal government. FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) accept money from private actors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Pfizer thus skewing the interests of the agency in favor of these private actors and away from the American public. Gates has collaborated with FDA and the CDC Foundation takes money from the pharmaceutical industry whose products CDC is responsible for monitoring for safety.

8. Cooling-off Period for Senior Federal Employees:

Enact a 5-year cooling-off period before which agency leadership, deputies, and other key officials may depart federal agencies in order to enter the companies they regulate in the private sector.

9. Prevent Conflicts of Interest:

Eliminate conflict of interest waivers so that no person serving on a health agency committee, board, or other regulatory entity may have a conflict of interest. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is insufficient to ensure the agencies pursue the interests of the American people. Individuals with financial or ideological conflicts of interest should not serve as decision makers in any capacity.

10. Prohibit Government Grants to Nonprofits:

Prohibit government from allocating taxpayer dollars to nonprofit. Nonprofits exists to serve the public interests and should be funded directly by American citizens. If a nonprofit has a worthwhile mission, the public will gladly support it. Government exists to protect our rights and should not be in the business of picking winners and losers nor should it be using third parties to pursue policies outside the reach and review of the public.

11. Ban Water Fluoridation:

While water fluoridation programs are broad spread, they are not only dangerous from a health standpoint, they are forced medication in violation of the ethical principle of informed consent. Research comparing the health outcomes and IQs of communities that do and do not fluoridate their water supply reveal that children in the fluoridated water communities have reduced IQs and therefore inferior prospects in life. Other research has documented the health hazards of fluoride, an industrial waste product.

In addition, as fluoride is added to municipal water supplies, residents of those communities have no way to opt out and therefore are subjected to involuntary forced medication. No one should be forced to consume drugged water in order to maintain a biological necessity.

12. Ban Release of Genetically Modified Insects

Two tenets of good health are abundant exposure to sunshine and fresh air, however in some states, the state governments have collaborated with private business to release genetically modified mosquitoes into communities. While these mosquitoes are often designed to breed with one another and eliminate the “dangerous” species going forward, the health impacts of humans being bitten by these insects is not well understood. Nor should a person have to be risk being bitten by one of these creatures in order to venture outside. This amounts to a form of forced medication absent any form of consent and must be ended.

[…]

Via https://healthfreedomdefense.org/policy-imperatives-for-health-freedom/

A military whistleblower release documents recording 601 deaths of military service members and a high rate of serious adverse events in clinical trials involving remdesivir, an antiviral commonly administered to COVID-19 patients during the pandemic.

According to “The Remdesivir Papers,” some clinical trials were improperly run. In the case of at least one study, results were never made public. The whistleblower also alleged a widespread lack of informed consent for trial participants.

“Data derived from the Department of Defense [DOD] Joint Trauma System … by a military whistleblower offers a stark contrast to results of multiple clinical trials involving the liberal usage of remdesivir in military treatment facilities and other civilian facilities, as well as its potential contribution to, at minimum, hundreds of untimely deaths,” the documents state.

Yet according to the documents, the military began “liberally” administering remdesivir to service members who were suspected of having COVID-19 — months before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug.

The whistleblower, known by the pseudonym Daniel LeMay, shared the documents with investigative journalist J.M. Phelps, who published them last week in The Gateway Pundit.

In interviews with The Defender, LeMay and Phelps discussed the documents and their significance.

LeMay said the DOD’s Joint Trauma System is responsible for tracking “all sorts of patient data.” He told The Defender that the “initial trial depicted data manipulation in favor of remdesivir.”

He also said that based on his analysis of the data, several clinical trials did not have a true placebo group for which results could be compared with the remdesivir-receiving group. “The primary issue is with patient data. If we can’t verify the placebo group … then we can’t determine the actual efficacy of remdesivir.”

Reacting to the revelations, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender:

“All of the information here needs to be made public and the public officials, including Tony Fauci, need to be held to account for the criminal acts associated with the fraudulent ‘trials’ of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that were tainted in order to preclude their use, and making remdesivir the standard of care despite the obvious data showing that it kills people.”

Former victims of the COVID-19 hospital protocols, which included administration of remdesivir, and advocates for those victims welcomed the documents’ release.

Gail Seiler, Texas chairperson of the FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation, escaped from a Texas hospital in 2021, where she was given remdesivir and listed as “Do Not Resuscitate” against her and her family’s stated wishes. She said “The Remdesivir Papers” only “scratch the surface as to the homicide toll in military hospitals.”

The documents “tell us that our government orchestrated the needless deaths of COVID patients who did not need to die,” Seiler said.

Charlene Delfico, New Jersey state chair of FormerFedsGroup, previously told The Defender that COVID-19 protocols, including remdesivir, implemented at a New Jersey hospital “ran roughshod” over her parents. She said the new documents “validate our grievances regarding remdesivir and the ‘out the window’ standard of care protocol put in place by our government.”

“The whistleblower highlights what we’ve been saying all along,” Delfico said. “This drug is dangerous, and in most cases, fatal. There’s been no transparency or oversight. This should enrage people and make them push for an immediate investigation by Congress.”

“While people were dying, their deaths were being unlawfully labeled COVID deaths — when the deaths should have been attributed to the treatment protocol,” LeMay told The Gateway Pundit.

Military administered remdesivir despite known risks, leading to 601 deaths

According to the whistleblower’s data, 941 military service members died between March 2020 and March 2024. Of those, 63.9%, or 601 service members, were treated with remdesivir. Deaths peaked between November 2020 and July 2021.

“While the military is only a subset of the larger population, it’s clear that service members and veterans who contracted severe COVID and were subsequently treated with remdesivir had a much higher chance of dying,” the documents state.

According to the documents, the DOD administered remdesivir to service members — despite the drug’s known risks and dangers.

“Gilead had already created a monopoly on the drug” with a U.S. patent it secured in 2017 “valid for up to 20 years,” the documents noted.

The drug, developed to treat Ebola, “was subsequently proven to be lethal in human patients.” According to a 2019 New England Journal of Medicine article, remdesivir resulted in the highest mortality rate among four investigational therapies for Ebola administered in the Democratic Republic of Congo — with 53.1% of patients dying.

In 2017, the documents noted, two University of North Carolina researchers, including Ralph Baric, Ph.D., received a $6 million grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), then headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, to “accelerate the development of a promising new drug (remdesivir) in the fight against deadly coronaviruses.”

Despite its deadly history, in February 2020, Gilead Sciences received FDA approval to initiate two Phase 3 clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of remdesivir in treating COVID-19.

In March 2020, the DOD announced “a cooperative research and development agreement with an industry partner” — Gilead — “to gain access to an antiviral drug for treatment use in our medical centers.”

According to the documents, aside from this expedited approval on the part of the DOD, “remdesivir moved quickly through government scrutiny,” with the FDA issuing emergency use authorization in August 2020 and full approval in October 2020.

“I think the DOD has a track record of making the FDA’s life easy,” LeMay said. “If investment and preparations precede approval, who will say no to the DOD, especially if the president is in agreement on a course of action?”

Phelps noted that Public Law 115-92 allows the FDA “to authorize the emergency use of an otherwise unapproved medical product if the Department of Defense … determines that there is a military emergency involving an agent that may cause imminently life-threatening and specific risk to U.S. forces.”

“The expedited timeline for the FDA’s emergency use authorization is beyond concerning, given remdesivir’s troubling history,” Delfico said. “It was very disturbing to read that the DOD and Gilead directly contracted to do this experiment on our military.”

Clinical studies lacked placebo groups

The documents compared several civilian and military clinical studies involving remdesivir, finding a high rate of deaths and injuries among participants who were administered remdesivir. The documents also showed that studies of remdesivir revealed the drug’s dangers.

According to the documents, a May 2020 study published in The Lancet “brought concerns about the efficacy of remdesivir,” noting that administration of remdesivir was stopped early in China “because of adverse events in 18 (12%)” of patients “versus four (5%) who stopped placebo early.”

And a 2021 study published in JAMA Network Open of over 2,300 veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 found that “remdesivir treatment was not associated with survival,” with more deaths and longer hospital stays among those patients who received remdesivir compared to those who did not receive the drug.

According to the documents, “service members and veterans participated in at least four Phase 3 Adaptive COVID19 Treatment Trials” in 2020 and 2021, all of which were sponsored by NIAID. Another study was sponsored by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command (USAMRDC).

The documents revealed questions about studies and how they were conducted.

In one study, NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], “A true placebo, like saline, wasn’t used other than … where there were limitations on matching placebo supplies” and no distinction was made “as to who received which placebo.” Its findings “ignored those who didn’t finish the trial for various reasons, including adverse events.”

As a result, “this study is problematic due to multiple confounding variables that appear to exist intentionally to present a positive outcome for the remdesivir group,” the documents note. Yet, this study “ended up being the only comparison between remdesivir and a type of placebo.”

According to the documents, three other studies, NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3] and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4], had “no true placebo group.” Instead, the two groups in each trial received remdesivir alongside another drug.

In these three trials, all-cause mortality ranged from 3.5% to 7.1%, while the rate of serious adverse events ranged between 14.2% and 24.6%. In NCT04401579, “59 participants didn’t finish the trial due to death, which isn’t characterized as being caused by the investigative treatments.”

Another study, NCT04302766, sponsored by USMARDC, was conducted at 22 military facilities, “involving an undisclosed number of participants.”

But according to the documents, “While the trial examined the effects of remdesivir on the treatment of COVID-19, there are no details available at ClinicalTrials.gov to determine the amount of remdesivir administered to participants. There are no results posted to determine all-cause mortality or serious adverse events.”

“In four of five trials, the use of remdesivir resulted in a minimal positive effect on instances of all-cause mortality and serious adverse side events when compared to the administration of a placebo,” the documents stated.

“In some cases, these patients also had comorbidities (e.g., renal and liver disease) that could have been exacerbated by remdesivir and resulted in some of the reported complications such as acute renal injury and failure, as well as liver dysfunction and hepatic failure,” the documents noted.

“With many clinical trials involving service members and veterans taking place before Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s now-rescinded 2021 shot mandate, I question whether the deaths in these trials should have been attributed to remdesivir, or the overall treatment protocol, rather than COVID,” Phelps asked.

“If this was the case, what better coercion technique is there than to improperly say, “Look at all the people dying from COVID,” when you’re trying to convince someone to take a so-called vaccine that can also wreck people’s lives or send them to their graves?” Phelps added.

Remdesivir risks withheld from service members

The documents also noted that key details about the risks of remdesivir were concealed from service members, depriving them of being able to provide informed consent.

For instance, participants in NCT04302766 were told “there have not been kidney problems seen in humans who have been given remdesivir,” while there was “no mention that the use of remdesivir resulted in the highest mortality rate among participants” in the African Ebola trial.

Gilead’s lobbying may have played a role in the lack of military or regulatory oversight the drug enjoyed. Between 2018 and 2021, Gilead increased its spending on lobbying from $3 million to $8.1 million. By spring 2020, taxpayers had already funded Gilead to the tune of at least $70.5 million for the development of remdesivir.

Delfico connected Gilead’s lobbying to remdesivir’s inclusion in the National Institutes of Health’s COVID-19 hospital protocols. She said:

“Under the CARES Act [Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act] hospitals received significant payments for administering specific treatments, including remdesivir, which created a financial incentive for hospitals to use the drug despite its mortality rates.

“The lobbying, financial incentives and treatment protocols raise questions about the motivations behind remdesivir’s widespread use and the potential impact on patient care.”

Questions about the remdesivir clinical trials, missing clinical trial results and the potential lack of informed consent were addressed in a Sept. 27 letter by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) to Austin and the heads of other federal and military agencies, including the FDA.

Separately, on Sept. 24, Phelps submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the USAMRDC, for the results of the NCT04302766 trial. According to LeMay, “They’ve been unresponsive and will likely continue in that fashion unless there’s an official inquiry by Congress which is specific to this matter.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/remdesivir-papers-drug-military-members-601-deaths/