Drastic And Irreversible Climate Geoengineering Worries Scientists

  In my previous post I warned about the madness of Climate Change. Well, here's what we are talking about. 

  To fight imaginary cataclysmic events we are about to unleash real ones.

 

Authored by Katie Spence via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Earth is too hot and only getting hotter, according to governments and global bodies such as the United Nations; and the efforts to reduce carbon dioxide aren’t having enough of an effect.

“The world is passing through the 1.5°C ceiling and is headed much higher unless steps are taken to affect Earth’s energy imbalance,” James Hansen, the previous director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warned in January.

Thus, to buy more time, on Feb. 28, scientists from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released a report detailing a solution called “intentional stratospheric dehydration,” or in layman’s terms, flying planeloads of ice to 58,000 feet and spraying ice particles into the upper atmosphere.

“It’s a very small effect,” said lead author Joshua Schwarz, a research physicist at NOAA’s chemical sciences laboratory. “Pure water vapor doesn’t readily form ice crystals. It helps to have a seed, a dust particle, for example, for ice to form around.”

The researchers report that by dispersing small particles, or what it calls ice nuclei, into areas of the atmosphere that are both “very cold and super-saturated with water vapor,” water vapor in the atmosphere will “freeze-dry” and rain out of the atmosphere as ice crystals, cooling the planet.

The proposal is known as geoengineering—and NASA and NOAA’s joint plan is far from the only idea that’s jumped from the pages of science fiction, à la the 2013 Hollywood film “Snowpiercer,” to mainstream science.

István Szapudi, an astronomer at the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, has turned to essentially geoengineering a giant parasol, or what he calls, a “tethered solar shield” to shield the Earth from a portion of the sun’s energy.

“Any sunshield works by blocking a small fraction, circa 1–2 percent, of sunlight reaching Earth,” Mr. Szapudi told The Epoch Times. “This is an almost undetectable amount by looking at the sun, but it would still cool the atmosphere to pre-industrial temperatures according to climate models.

“Specifically, the tethered sun shield is a solution that is lighter, thus cheaper, by many orders than traditional designs.”

Technology entrepreneurs Luke Iseman and Andrew Song of Make Sunsets have already taken action and have been creating reflective, high-altitude clouds by releasing balloons full of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere, what they call stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI).

“With climate change rapidly transforming our world, it’s crucial that we prioritize action over words,” Make Sunsets states on its website.

“We believe that SAI is the immediate, necessary solution to cool the planet and buy us time to transition to a more sustainable future.”

But scientists such as Christopher Essex, emeritus professor of applied mathematics and physics at the University of Western Ontario and the former director of its theoretical physics program, said CO2 isn’t the driver of Earth’s warmer temperature and that such geoengineering measures are “extraordinarily dangerous.”

“I used to run a climate panel for the World Federation of Scientists,” he told The Epoch Times. “And we had one session where we presented on exactly why geoengineering is extraordinarily dangerous. It’s a crazy idea.”

Ian Clark, emeritus professor for the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Ottawa, echoed Mr. Essex.

“Geoengineering the climate is a very scary prospect,” he told The Epoch Times.

“It’s something that should be relegated to the fantasy realm and science fiction.”

The Oxford Geoengineering Programme defines geoengineering as “the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.”

Solar Shield

According to Mr. Szapudi, climate change is a looming threat, and greenhouse gases, such as CO2, are a driving cause of that threat.

He published a report on July 31, 2023, outlining his proposal for a tethered sun shield, what he calls solar radiation management.

“Solar radiation management (SRM) is a geoengineering approach that aims to reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth to mitigate the effects of climate change,” he wrote in his report.

“Two strategies proposed for SRM involve adding dust or chemicals to the Earth’s atmosphere to increase the reflected fraction of sunlight or reduce the incoming radiation from space with solar shades or dust.”

He’s advocating for a sun shield because he believes it is less risky.

When asked to comment on Mr. Essex’s claim that geoengineering is “extraordinarily dangerous,” Mr. Szapudi said: “Space-based geoengineering, especially if it is modular and reversible in design, carries less risk than Earth-based SRM injecting dust or chemicals into the atmosphere, and [it is] vastly less risky than doing nothing.

“Given what we know today and the known risks of climate change, a tethered sun shield near the L1 Lagrange point at 1.5 million kilometers from us would not present an obvious risk to Earth. The benefit is preventing and even reversing negative effects of climate change.”

NASA defines Lagrange points as “positions in space where objects sent there tend to stay put” because of oppositional gravitational forces. The agency has identified five such points.

Mr. Szapudi acknowledged that there could be unknown risks and said that his proposal would need to undergo a more detailed scientific study, followed by a preliminary engineering study.

“Such a study would specify the location, the design, the materials, etc., that are most suitable. At that point, a quantitative and thorough risk assessment can be done, and a decision can be made [on] whether to go ahead with the implementation,” he said.

“In general, any big project would go through many layers of risk, cost, and benefit analyses as the design shapes up, and any showstoppers identified would halt the project. Ultimately, only the most cost-effective and safest design, if any, will be implemented.”

But Mr. Essex, who built his first computer climate model in the 1970s and was chairman of The Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Academic Advisory Council, said part of the problem with a sun shield is that it looks at the climate from an engineering perspective instead of a scientific one.

“You might be able to generate some plausible argument for defining the actual parasol and getting into space,” he said. “But the part you don’t understand is how climate will respond to it.

“Because we’ve been pushing this propaganda as being able to solve a problem, it starts to appear like an engineering problem where you can do trial and error and see if it works or doesn’t work. But the climate problem is not an engineering problem; it’s a fundamental scientific problem. ... It’s much more subtle and complex.”

Mr. Essex explained that solar radiation travels through the atmosphere, and while some believe that radiation causes warming at that point, that’s not what’s happening. Instead, the shortwave radiation hits the Earth, which heats the surface, and then the ground radiates that energy as longwave radiation into the atmosphere, increasing temperature.

“With the parasol, they’re trying to control shortwave radiation,” Mr. Essex said. “And it’s an indirect way of controlling what goes on with the longwave, the infrared.

“People like to think the Earth is like a brick, and it’s getting too hot, so we need to cool it down—global boiling, that’s the slogan—well, that’s ridiculous. It’s just about hyping up anxiety and fear so the people will go along with things and not question what’s going on.

“There’s so much going on in the atmosphere. It’s complex, conductive, and turbulent.”

Balloons of Sulfur

Like a sun shield, reflective aerosols fall under the definition of solar radiation management. But unlike a sun shield, reflective aerosols aren’t modular or immediately reversible.

Read more here...

'Very Bizarre': Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data

  Finally some push back concerning the climate!

  No, it is not true that most scientists support the Global Warming theory. Most do not and those who do add huge caveats to their tepid support. We just do not know enough.

  The models are inaccurate and replicate the past while saying almost nothing about the future. The data is just too complex for our understanding. The base in the 19th Century is too low, etc...

  Still, do not expect a return to sanity any time soon. There is too much money and power grab hiding behind the curtain. The madness is not about to stop!

 

Authored by Alex Newman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.

The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.

But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.

Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”

The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.

The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.

Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.

Some experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.

But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.

With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.

“For the last 35 years, the words of the IPCC have been taken to be gospel,” according to astrophysicist and CERES founder Willie Soon. Until recently, he was a researcher working with the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian.

“And indeed, climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,” Mr. Soon told The Epoch Times.

“But good science demands that scientists are encouraged to question the IPCC’s dogma. The supposed purity of the global temperature record is one of the most sacred dogmas of the IPCC.”

The latest U.S. government National Climate Assessment report states: “Human activities are changing the climate.

“The evidence for warming across multiple aspects of the Earth system is incontrovertible, and the science is unequivocal that increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases are driving many observed trends and changes.”

In particular, according to the report, this is because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels for transportation, energy, and agriculture.

Looking at timescales highlights major problems with this narrative, Mr. Soon said.

“When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.

While it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally cold.”

“It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.

Data taken from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings, glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said.

“They show that the current climate outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban areas is improperly affecting the data.

“If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate.”

Homogenization

One issue that scientists say is corrupting the data stems from an obscure process known as “homogenization.”

According to climate scientists working with governments and the U.N., the algorithms used for homogenization are designed to correct, as much as possible, various biases that might exist in the raw temperature data.

These biases include, among others, the relocation of temperature monitoring stations, changes in technology used to gather the data, or changes in the environment surrounding a thermometer that might impact its readings.

For instance, if a temperature station was originally placed in an empty field but that field has since been paved over to become a parking lot, the record would appear to show much hotter temperatures. As such, it would make sense to try to correct the data collected.

Virtually nobody argues against the need for some homogenization to control for various factors that may contaminate temperature data.

But a closer examination of the process as it now occurs reveals major concerns, Ronan Connolly, an independent scientist at CERES, said.

“While the scientific community has become addicted to blindly using these computer programs to fix the data biases, until recently nobody has bothered to look under the hood to see if the programs work when applied to real temperature data,” he told The Epoch Times.

Since the early 2000s, various governmental and intergovernmental organizations creating global temperature records have relied on computer programs to automatically adjust the data.

Mr. Soon, Mr. Connolly, and a team of scientists around the world spent years looking at the programs to determine how they worked and whether they were reliable.

One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.

He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.

“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”

This is “very bizarre,” he said.

“If the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality, then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,” Mr. Connolly said.

These concerns are what first sparked the international investigation into the issue by Mr. Soon and his colleagues.

Because NOAA doesn’t maintain historical information on its weather stations, the CERES scientists reached out to European scientists who had been compiling the data for the stations that they oversee.

They found that just 17 percent of NOAA’s adjustments were consistently applied. And less than 20 percent of NOAA’s adjustments were clearly associated with a documented change to the station observations.

“When we looked under the hood, we found that there was a hamster running in a wheel instead of an engine,” Mr. Connolly said. “It seems that with these homogenization programs, it is a case where the cure is worse than the disease.”

A spokesman for NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information downplayed the significance, but said the agency was working to address the issues raised in the papers.

“NOAA uses the well-documented Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm every day on GHCNm (monthly)—version 4, and the results of specific adjustments to individual station series can differ from run to run,” the spokesman said, adding that the papers in question didn’t support the view that the concerns about the homogenization of the data made it useless or worse.

“NOAA is addressing the issues raised in both these papers in a future release of the GHCNm temperature dataset and its accompanying documentation.”

ALERT!!! EUROPE AT DEFCON 2 (Video - 35mn)

  Canadian Preper is by nature on the dark side of events. But what if he is right?

  "A defeat of Ukraine would be a defeat for Nato!" 

  These are not insignificant words. Clearly, Europe expected Russia to fold instead of becoming stronger. This has not happened and they are now in panic mode.

  The US has its own source of energy and can survive a defeat in Ukraine. Europe is not in such a good position. Already many companies are exiting Germany thanks to high energy prices. How bad could it be? Add to energy absurd "green" policies and a loss of credibility of the Euro and you may indeed have a catastrophic mix. 

  This may be the reason why you get statements from Macro that France may have to send soldiers in Ukraine. The risks are high and rising fast. Remember that nobody wanted war in 1914 and that anyway all would be settled by Christmas!

 

"You Have No Idea How Bad This Is" - Whitney Webb 2024 Prediction (Video - 10mn)

   If you understand what's going on then yes, it's bad. 

  CDDC + AI + control of almost all the governments around the world will give the people behind the Deep State total control over the world and our lives.

  The only ray of hope is that concentration of power always fails in history because such a system has intrinsic weaknesses which are fatal eventually and will doom the project. 

  If you can find it, look for the long monologue of The Architect in the Matrix movie trilogy. It is brilliant and extremely prescient if you consider that it is already 20 years old. 

  The bet of these people is that this time is different. Hopefully it's not. History will repeat itself. But make no mistake, they are ready to place huge bets, including the risk of a nuclear war. 

  The coming months will be historic in the true sense of the word.

 

Study Finds Majority Of Patients With Long COVID Were Vaccinated

  Well, what a surprise! Or maybe not. 

  What is certain and can be said without risk nowadays is that the mRNA vaccines introduce mRNA within your body, that much was as expected. But instead of staying locally in a muscle, often the complex molecules will travel in the bloodstream and settle somewhere in a completely unrelated organ where the RNA will enter cells which will replicate the spikes, at which point your health problems begin. Then what happens can vary enormously. But is bad enough to show up statistically on vast populations as excess mortality and long Covid. 

 To say that this is not worth investigating is nothing short of criminal.

Authored by Megan Redshaw via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A recent study found that the majority of patients who suffered from long COVID during a time when vaccines and antiviral treatments were widely available were vaccinated.

(SARMDY/Shutterstock)

The observational study published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, researchers interviewed 390 people in Thailand who contracted COVID-19 during the “fifth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic” when the omicron variant was dominant. Patients were followed by phone from three months after their diagnosis for a year to monitor their physical condition, mental health, sleep disturbances, and quality of life.

Out of 390 people with COVID-19, 377 (97 percent) were vaccinated, 383 (98 percent) underwent antiviral treatment, and 330 (78 percent) developed long COVID syndrome. The most frequently reported symptoms were fatigue and cough. Other reported symptoms included depression, anxiety, and poor sleep quality. The study found that patients under age 60 with a cough as an initial symptom were more likely to develop the condition. In a subset of patients with long COVID, researchers found a notable correlation in females with headaches, dizziness, and brain fog.

“Despite the extensive distribution of vaccines and antiviral therapies, the prevalence of long COVID remains high,” the authors of the paper wrote.

Although definitions of long COVID differ, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) broadly defines long COVID as “signs, symptoms, and conditions that continue to develop after acute COVID-19 infection” that can last for “weeks, months, or years.” The term “long COVID” also includes post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, long-haul COVID, and post-acute COVID-19.

According to the World Health Organization, while most people with COVID-19 recover and return to normal health, some patients, including those with mild illness, have symptoms that persist for weeks or months after recovering from acute illness.

Nearly 7 percent of U.S. adults surveyed by the CDC in 2022 said they’ve experienced long COVID. Although U.S. regulatory agencies claim vaccinating against COVID-19 can reduce the risk of developing long COVID, the current paper did not find a significant link between the presence of comorbidities or infection severity and the emergence of long COVID symptoms.

Studies Link Long COVID to Vaccination

A February report published by the CDC found that more than 8 percent of participants in seven U.S. states reported having experienced long COVID symptoms. In West Virginia, almost 11 percent of survey participants reported long COVID symptoms. However, the agency did not disclose whether survey respondents were vaccinated.

Some research suggests long COVID may be caused by an immune overreaction to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that COVID-19 vaccines use to induce antibodies and that vaccination causes some people to generate a second round of antibodies that target the first.

In a February 2023 study published in the Journal of Medical Virology, researchers analyzed the levels of spike protein and viral RNA in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with and without long COVID. They found that spike protein and viral RNA were more likely to be present in patients with long COVID.

In an August 2023 study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, researchers found the risk of long COVID was lower in those who had previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the risk of getting long COVID did not differ by vaccination status. Researchers found that unvaccinated people infected with omicron had the lowest risk of long COVID.

In a 2023 study in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, researchers studied the serum of 81 individuals with long COVID. They found viral spike protein in one patient after the infection had cleared despite having a negative COVID-19 test, and vaccine spike protein in two patients two months after vaccination.

In a December 2022 study published in PLoS One, researchers found patients were more likely to experience long COVID if they had preexisting medical conditions, a higher number of symptoms during the acute phase of COVID-19 illness, if their infection was more severe or resulted in hospitalization, or if they had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The Epoch Times contacted the CDC for comment.

Sen. Johnson's Senate Panel On The Vaccines Is The Red Pill We've All Been Waiting For

  This most certainly is a long post. Sorry for those who prefer elevator pitch. But what happened during Covid is complex and needs to be understood thoroughly if we want to avoid another such episode. 

  One thing is certain, the WHO should NOT be given a mandate in May to dictate worldwide medical policies. This will necessarily be abused and used by the Globalists to impose their diverse policies, most of them completely irrelevant to health. But hey, isn't your poor health mostly due to Global Warming rather than poor life choice and terrible processed food? 

Authored by 'A Midwestern Doctor' via 'The Forgotten Side Of Medicine' substack,

This excellent presentation meticulously breaks down exactly what went awry throughout COVID-19. What everyone needs to know is summarized below...

Ron Johnson has gradually become one of my favorite senators in American history. In 2020, he repeatedly advocated for early COVID-19 treatments to be made available to Americans (which had they been made available would have ended the pandemic).

Throughout 2021, he spoke out against the vaccine mandates and in November hosted a panel at the Senate which scrutinized the federal vaccine mandates and exposed how poorly those who experienced severe COVID-19 vaccine injuries were being treated. In January 2022, he hosted a panel which scrutinized the entire COVID-19 response, and in December of 2022, he hosted a panel focusing on everything we now know about the vaccines.

Being one of the most outspoken critics of the vaccination program in American history got him a lot of pushback, and in 2022, he decided to postpone his retirement to go through a grueling re-election campaign so there would be someone in the government who could advocate for everyone whose lives had been ruined by the COVID vaccines.

Despite being public enemy number one of the pharmaceutical industry, Johnson narrowly won, becoming the first politician in America’s history to run on the vaccine safety issue and win. Since then Johnson has kept his promise and fought for the vaccine injured (along with taking a variety of other difficult but important positions such as giving one of the most poignant speeches I’ve heard on the Ukraine War when he tried to block the Senate from continuing to fund it).

A lot of work has gone into producing each of the vaccine panels he’s hosted. On Monday, he hosted “Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: What Are They Hiding?” When it was all said and done, I believe this panel was the most effective presentation I have seen for explaining what happened throughout COVID-19 and waking people up to how much they have been lied to. Because of this I strongly encourage you to watch or share his presentation with people who you think might be open to understanding exactly what was done to all of us. This article will begin with his entire panel:

Note: I have been struggling to find the best term for these criminals. The four I’ve used are listed below; I would appreciate knowing what you think is the best one.

What's the best term for the COVID criminals?

• The COVID Cartel

• The Pandemic Profiteers

• The Pandemic Industrial Complex

• The Biosecurity Agenda

Lastly, for those who prefer to read, a transcript of Johnson’s symposium can be found here.

Note: for each of the videos embedded within this article, I (or the Vigilant Fox) edited them down to their most important parts. A lot of time was put into this article because of the importance of what was presented.

Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: What Are They Hiding?

Since the entire panel was 4 hours long, I recognize that many of you will not be able to watch all of it. For that reason, I tried to highlight what I felt were it’s most important parts.

First, in Johnson’s opening statement, he discusses just how hard it has been over the last three years to get any of the information his office is legally entitled to from the government. For example with (Fauci’s) NIH:

We are down to the last 50 pages [of the 4000 he originally requested]. They will not release these. It's been now going close to 2 years. This is what has been provided to us. Do you think there might be some incriminating information in this?

Likewise, these agencies have completely brushed off all evidence something is wrong. For example, with the NIH:

Just like former NIH director Francis Collins Collins told me when I asked about all the deaths being reported on VAERS, [he said], “Senator, people die.” The fact that both of these statements are as true as they are callous highlights the challenge we face in exposing the truth.

While with the FDA:

I've written 4 [letters on hot-lots] starting in December of 2021. The first letter compared 25,000 lots of COVID vaccine to 22,000 lots of flu vaccine. One COVID lot had 5,297 adverse reactions associated with it. The worst flu lot had a 137. So 5,300 versus 137.

365 COVID lots had more than 100 adverse events. Only 10 flu lots had more than 100. And 80% of the serious adverse events, those with emergency room visits, hospitalization, or death were associated with only 5% of the lots. So, again, to me, I'm from manufacturing. That shows to me a manufacturing process out of control.

[It] took us a year to get some kind of response and, basically, response from the agencies was, “we don't see any variation in lots.”

Johnson then illustrates how the current political climate has undermined everything science once stood for:

“Vaccine injuries are rare.” “The benefits outweigh the risk and that the science is clear and overwhelming.” “And anyone challenging this narrative is an is an anti science conspiracy theorist.” In other words, second opinions are not allowed. To me, this attitude is the antithesis of science.

I am amazed at the knowledge mankind has obtained over the millennia. But I would argue that what we don't know vastly exceeds what we do know. So as we pursue truth, we must pursue it with the humility that that reality demands.

Johnson’s opening statement was then followed by Robert Malone:

I'll be succinct. The SARS CoV 2 modified mRNA based vaccine products were deployed via emergency use authorization without adequate nonclinical and clinical testing and without full disclosure of known patient risk and efficacy data. This violated well established legislatively mandated patient informed consent requirements. The FDA and HHS justified these actions as necessary due to reliance on deeply flawed modeling data indicating that SARS CoV 2 was associated with an infection fatality rate of 3.4%.

Note: the IFR was subsequently shown to average between 0.018%-0.03% for everyone under 60 and was approximately 0.506% for those between 60-69 years of age.

Subsequent clinical research experience has revealed a number of problems with the genetic vaccine technology based SARS COV 2 products, which have been marketed as vaccines. In most cases, there has been an effort to obscure or deny facts in public communication by government and pharmaceutical industry representatives.

Malone then listed the key issues with the vaccines, to which Johnson replied:

Doctor Malone, I think one of the things that always bothers me is [that] so much of what we're learning in terms of harms of these vaccine was clearly known before they were rolled out.

Jessica Rose spoke next. After concisely summarizing all of the issues that had been found within VAERS, she concluded with:

Standard operating procedures for analysis of safety signals emergent from VAERS when utilized reveal causal links between the COVID 19 injectable products and the adverse events investigated. Standard operating procedures are not being followed by the owners of the data, namely CDC, HHS, and FDA, and this equates to hiding the millions of people reporting not only adverse events but injuries in the context of the COVID 19 injectable products.

Note: Rose also reviews the science behind why vaccinated individuals keep on catching COVID-19.

Edward Dowd then concisely presented the years of work his team has done to quantify just how devastating the vaccines have been for the world.

To quote part of Dowd’s testimony:

When analyzing the excess death human cost…in 2020, there were approximately 458,000 excess deaths, of which 73% were aged 65 and older and 15 to 64 comprising just 27%. However, in 2021, with the rollout of the “safe and effective vaccine,” there were approximately another 500,000 excess deaths, but a mix shift had occurred from older to younger. In 2021, the 65 plus age category was [only] 57…while the 15 to 64 cohort increased to 43%.

The absolute excess death increase from 2020 to 2021 for the productive working age 15 to 64 was 73% [124,000 to 215,000].

The total excess death since the rollout of the vaccine in the US, including 21, 22, and 23 is approximately 1,100,000. We estimate the economic cost, productive working age people dying at $15,600,000,000 When analyzing disabilities, it's interesting to note that there were no excess disabilities in 2020.

Using the civilian labor force, we have calculated an increase of 2,300,000 individuals with disabilities costing the economy an estimated $77,000,000,000. When analyzing lost work time, which we call injuries, we estimate 28,400,000 individuals are chronically absent resulting in an estimated economic cost of a $135,000,000,000 since 2021…Obviously, the policy cure was undeniably worse than the illness.

Kevin McKernan then discussed his groundbreaking discovery that there was widespread DNA plasmid contamination of the COVID vaccines and how horrendously the drug regulators have responded to that discovery.

This work has been replicated by many labs around the world, and now the FDA, the EMA, and even Health Canada, have admitted to this. The regulatory agents have admitted that Pfizer also omitted the SV40 sequences that are in their vaccine. They've deemed this contamination to be of little consequence, claiming the DNA is of too little concentration to matter or to be containing DNA of no functional consequence. These statements are false and are not supported by any independent testing by these regulators.

After the regulators have admitted to being deceived, they asked the opinion of the party that deceived them how bad was the deception. They shockingly believe the answer they were given, which is that these sequences have no relevance to plasmid manufacturing. As someone who has worked on the Human Genome Project manufacturing millions of plasmids, I can assure you that this is an overt lie. DNA contamination can lead to insertional mutagenesis. This is actually declared in Moderna's own patent regarding the mRNA vaccines.

This is also supported by Lim et al, which speaks to the rate of spontaneous integration in the genome during transfection. We are using transfection after all with LMPs. The SV40 DNA is in fact functional. It is published as a potent gene therapy tool in a nuclear targeting sequence as described by David Dean et al.

The SV40 promoter DNA is also known to bind to the tumor suppressor gene known as p53.

Note: p53 defects are commonly linked to cancers.

We've applied these vaccine system cancer cell lines and have evidence that it enters the cell and can survive several cell divisions. We have preliminary evidence, although this requires replication in other labs, that this DNA can integrate into the genome. We found 2 spike sequence integration events in ovarian cancer cell lines of CAR 3 into chromosome 12 and 19 very recently. Since these vaccines were expected to only contain mRNA, they were never assessed for genotoxicity studies. These studies were therefore being conducted as guinea pig US citizens as we witnessed an unprecedented rise in cancer drug sales since the vaccines rolled out.

It is time for our representatives to repeal or review the PDUFA Act of 1992.  This act allows regulators to defray the cost of regulation by accepting payments directly from the companies they regulate. Over half of the FDA's budget is sourced through this act.

Note: I discussed the significance of the vaccine plasmid contamination in more detail here.

Dr. David Gortler (who previously served as a senior advisor at the FDA) then explains why the contamination and widespread variability we are seeing in the vaccines (e.g., the hot lots) being completely ignored is so unprecedented:

Federal rules requiring ingredient transparency date all the way back, believe it or not, to 1862 [and] it's the whole reason the FDA was started in 1906. Prior to COVIDsRNA injections, the FDA had approved 4 different RNA based products. Onpattro, shown here, was the 1st RNA product approved back in 2018…as you can see by looking at this label, Onpattro prominently details the exact structure, milligram strength, and molecular weight. Highlighted in green at the very top, you'll see it specifies [what its] lipid nanoparticles are engineered for.

In contrast to the previous labels I've shown, here is the official FDA label for COVID RNA injections. As you can see just looking at it, it details a lot less information. We don't [even] have the structure.

Of note, in pharmacology, even very minor deviations in any molecular structure can mean the difference between a drug and a poison…The lack of transparency means that scientists can't use modeling to test lipid nanoparticles for safety receptor specificity or analyze inequality [in batches of those products].

Unfortunately, around 70% of the 127 page document that explains the methodology to perform quality control on RNA injections are redacted much like the document I've shown here.

Next Dr. Harvey Risch discusses the “crushingly obsessive push to COVID vaccinate every living person on the planet” and provides a concise overview of the horrific bioweapons industry which gave birth to COVID-19 and then tried to pivot to vaccinating everyone rather than accept responsibility for what it had done.

Note: This catastrophic industry is discussed in more detail here (e.g., I highlighted how numerous modern diseases are the results of lab leaks).

Next, Barbara Loe Fisher, an activist who has spent decades fighting for vaccine safety shared the broader context of what we are now dealing with.

I worked with parents in congress to secure safety and informed consent provisions in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. It was an historic law, the first official acknowledgment by government that federally licensed and state mandated vaccines can and do injure and kill some children. In January, my eyewitness perspective of how and why child vaccine victims and their parents were betrayed after that law was passed 38 years ago, was featured in a 2 hour conversation I had on the Highwire.

I encourage everyone to watch it and learn how parents trusted that the 5 years of work we put into that 1986 act to successfully secure life saving, informing, recording, reporting, and research provisions in it, and to protect the legal right of vaccine victims to sue vaccine manufacturers for product design defects, and to sue negligent doctors for medical malpractice, and to create an expedited, more just, less traumatic federal vaccine injury compensation system alternative to a lawsuit were all destroyed by congressional amendments, by federal health agencies, and the US Supreme Court after that law was passed. Following that betrayal of trust, Congress directed federal agencies to create lucrative public private business partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry, a business deal that has broken America's public health system.

Note: I previously wrote about how the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act forced the government to create VAERS (as parents had no way to report vaccine injuries) and ever since that time, the government has done everything it could to undermine VAERS.

Johnson then shares a poignant observation with Fisher that illustrates how effectively the pharmaceutical industry has bought out our media:

By the way,I became aware of you from that excellent documentary which I would also recommend. What struck me about [it] is back then in 1982 through 1986, you could talk about these things. You could advocate for your child who's vaccine injured.  You weren't ostracized. You were actually welcomed here in the senate by people like Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy and you got this [law] signed by Ronald Reagan.

To which Fisher replies:

I never imagined when I began this work in 1982 that the day would come when I would not be able to exercise freedom of thought and conscience in the country I love. And I thank you for allowing me to exercise that right today.

Next, Bryan Hooker, the parent of a severely vaccine injured adult son shares his 23 years of work (e.g., 15 peer-reviewed papers) to get the data on vaccine injury the CDC has been hiding for decades.

In 1962, children received 5 vaccine doses, and in 1986, the schedule expanded to 25 doses of 5 different vaccine formulations. Shortly after the passage of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the law was amended to essentially erect a liability shield protecting vaccine manufacturers, and the schedule expanded dramatically. By 2023, 73 doses of 16 different vaccine formulations were given to children up to age 18. [As we discovered through lawsuits] the FDA approved these formulations individually only with minimal and inadequate safety testing, and the CDC has never tested the cumulative effect of the vaccine schedule on childhood health outcomes.

Since [proper trials] are really the only way to establish that a pharmaceutical product is safe, it is misinformation to state that the vaccines are safe.

However, independent researchers have assessed the outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.

This [study] demonstrates that vaccinated children were at least twice as likely to be diagnosed with developmental delays, ear infections, and gastrointestinal disorders.

[In this study] a control group of over 1800 unvaccinated children recruited from 46 different states in the US were compared to the national average rates of the listed disorders…For each of the autoimmune, neurodevelopmental, and other disorders considered, the unvaccinated group fares much better with incidence rates between 4-20 times lower than their vaccinated counterparts.

The CDC has a database called the vaccine safety data link. It's over 10,000,000 individuals with 2,000,000 children from 10 participating HMOs.  I would say that within that database, there were at least 10,000 unvaccinated children that can be studied.

Neither do they they publish the results [discovered from that data], nor do they let any independent scientist in to look at that information. [That’s] because [they know] the bloated vaccination schedule is responsible is in part responsible for the epidemic of chronic disorders that we see in children in the United States.

Note: Hooker also discusses the evidence the COVID-19 vaccine harms children (e.g., that it appears to kill 30 children for each child it saves from COVID and has given many of our children myocarditis).

Next, Del Bigtree discusses the decade of work he and the non-profit ICAN have conducted to get that data from the government:

In his talk, he puts the results of a recent study which monitored 99 million people for 45 days post vaccination into context. It found that their risk for a variety of severe conditions increased by 2-7 times, something which quickly adds up as you when consider how many of those “rare” conditions exist (that often take more than 45 days to appear) and how many vaccines they’ve received. These results is turn sheds a light on exactly what’s been happening to our children.

Every one of the childhood vaccines has a similar [lengthy] list of [severe] side effects. Though they are considered rare, how rare is it when you multiply roughly 50 potential side effects 72 times, which is the total number of doses given to a child by the time they're 18. The revelations from the recent study of the COVID vaccine explains what we have been saying for years. Vaccines are not completely safe, and [though] those side effects are rare. What happens when you add them altogether?

Bigtree then shows this slide (which references this study and this study):

Next, Dr. Sabine Hazan shared how her [self-funded] research to evaluate the use of existing therapies to treat COVID-19 was blocked by the FDA, her discovery that the severity of COVID-19 was directly linked to a loss of bifidobacteria in the gut and that the vaccine also caused a loss of bifidobacteria in the gut.  She then contrasted this to how previous research she did (which supported the pharmaceutical industry) never ran into similar road blocks.
Note: I synopsized that research here.

Pierre Kory then discussed the lengthy number of mechanisms which are in place to ensure that repurposed (off-patent) drugs can never have enough evidence to be acknowledged as treatments for a disease someone is profiting off of.

Note: this talk has already been seen by over 1.6 million people on Twitter.

Next, Christian Perron MD PhD (former chairman of the WHO’s committee on vaccines and communicable diseases) recounted how early in the pandemic, he completed a study which showed hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin dramatically lowered the death rate from COVID-19. A political backlash forced the withdraw of his study and he was fired from his 26 year professorship.

Before long France then banned the use of hydroxychloroquine and began enacting harsher and harsher sanctions against French dissidents like Perron who tried to tell the truth—eventually forcing Perron to publish in a French newspaper which had originally been created to defy the Nazis (as every other publication censored him).

Perron was followed by Raphael Lataster PhD, who is one of the leading researchers working with the BMJ (one of the top 5 medical journals) to expose the fraud within the COVID vaccine trials:

These [abhorrent] policies [e.g., the vaccine mandates] were justified via claims about the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety. Now recent research published in major medical journals reveals that these claims were highly exaggerated…we have found in the studies varying definitions of fully vaccinated and unvaccinated. And, generally, what we find with the term fully vaccinated is that they are ignoring COVID cases, COVID infections, in the partially vaccinated…that effect was found to be up to 48% using data from Pfizer's trial as an example.

We can't be sure what the actual exaggeration is because we aren't supplied with all the data. So it's impossible to actually know. But it looks like there are huge exaggerations of effectiveness because of what you could call manipulation of the data. So if these [omitted COVID cases] were included, or if even just some of these were included, we could have an effectiveness of the vaccines of around 10%...[which]is well below the 50% required for approval. Furthermore, looking to safety in the clinical trials, adverse effect counting windows are again incredibly short.

Note: Lataster also discusses many of the safety issues with the vaccines that were demonstrated within the trial data but hidden from the public (e.g., that the vaccines have a significant risk of myocarditis) and states “now Pfizer also admits that they're still trying, this is a quote ‘to determine if Cominati is safe and effective and if there is a myocarditispericarditis association that should be noted’. That's on clinicaltrials.gov still right now. They're trying to find out if it's safe and effective right now.”

Award winning investigative journalist Lara Logan then provides a poignant summary of how her profession has been hijacked by the government and how a variety of shadowy organizations now enforce this vast propaganda apparatus.  This was the most compelling part of her talk:

Note: Her testimony was followed by one from Jason Christoff, a propaganda expert, who explained why flooding the population with a single narrative and way of thinking has caused many people to adopt completely dysfunctional beliefs at odds with everything they’d held dear

They were then followed by Rodney Palmer, who was a Canadian journalist for 20 years, sharing his perspectives on the current state of the media.

If the news reporters did their jobs instead of reporting propaganda, this fraud would have been exposed from the outset.

Censorship is what actually caused these deaths. It was the lie that assured us it was safe when it wasn't, and it still isn't

In America, it's much worse. The vaccine companies are allowed to sponsor the news directly…To a visiting Canadian, the news here looks like one big ad for pharmaceutical products. It's a bit of a culture shock when you turn on the TV. There wouldn't even be a US newscast without Pharma ads. So the reporters on your newscasts are all conflicted.

They can't bite the hand that feeds them. They can't possibly investigate the most important stories of our time.

It appears that the reporters are actually colluding with their sponsors to break FDA advertising laws.  FDA law requires them to conspicuously describe the known risks of any pharmaceutical product [which news anchors promoting vaccines never do.

The good news is no one believes the TV news anymore. Only 15% of Canadians, 15%, are getting the boosters.

[The media has] now canceled lunchtime news hours. It's canceled weekend newscasts. After these reporters are laid off, we'll only be left with the trusted favor of the trusted faces of our favorite news anchors, delivering the propaganda of the day, instead of the news of the day. But when those trusted faces are telling us lies, they're like a super weapon aimed directly at us. The news anchors are now the finger on the trigger in that game of Russian roulette.

When the news is poisoned, so is Democracy…most every other country is letting this happen, but where goes America, so goes the world. You have a unique role in setting the moral tone for Western democracies.

So I respectfully recommend that the senate investigate the role of American television news networks, including with pharmaceutical advertisers to skirt the FDA laws that require them to declare the known risks of a pharmaceutical product. This investigation should extend to any reporters, news anchors, editors, and executives who lied to their audience about the safety of the COVID vaccines.

Note: Palmer also describes how he gradually saw the corrupting influence of the pharmaceutical industry enter Canada’s media over the last decade. One of the most compelling observations he shared was that during the pandemic, the doctors who spoke on television didn’t talk like doctors but instead appeared to have corporate media training, which he took as an early sign a lengthy PR campaign was being enacted to sell as many vaccines as possible.

Next, Matthias Desmet provided a concise summary of the crowd psychology which explained how it was possible for so many people to refuse to see what was being hidden from them, even thing after thing happened which made it clear we were all being lied to:

Note: I recently completed an article relating Desmet’s work on crowd psychology to how individuals commonly become trapped in cults and dangerous spiritual practices.

Brett Weinstein then describes the institutional breakdown gripping our society and the malicious forces which are taking away each thing we had previously depended upon for truth and justice (e.g., our premier scientific apparatus).  I wanted to quote one exchange he had with Johnson:

[Johnson] Now I kind of want to ask you, I describe my eyes being opened up, certainly during COVID to a number of things…Can you just describe your [red pill] journey here?

[Weinstein] Well, I think we are all on a similar journey. I did not think that I was naive 7 years ago, and then I learned that I had been very naive and I keep learning that lesson. Each new discovery reveals that I was missing something that was right in front of me, and I think that's actually the hallmark of the exact pattern I'm describing.

Canadian Randy Hillier served in Ontario’s parliament for 15 years and was the first member to publicly oppose his government's response to COVID. Like Canada’s citizens, Hillier was targeted by the government for doing so, and argues we are at the tip of a slippery slope with this.  In this part of his testimony, he shares how Ontario’s leadership told him they made the decision to continually coverup the damage of the COVID policies because they felt the political consequences would be too severe if they admitted their mistakes:

Next, Dr. Sorin Titus Muncaciu shared his experience as a Romanian member of parliament who watched the central authorities use every tool at their disposal to forcefully vaccinate Romania.

We are a party having probably 10% of the votes we got in the parliament in 2020, and we, from the very beginning of this pandemic, we decided that the rights of the people to decide if they accept, or [do not accept receiving] an experimental drug should be respected.

When the European Union started behaving like the USSR with those commissars coming to us and mister Barnier came to Romania. This gentleman was the commissioner for internal affairs of the European Union and pushed us, pushed the Romanian parliament to vote [for COVID vaccine mandates].

But in Romania the problem they face is that we are 40 years after a communist dictatorship, 30, 34 years after a communist dictatorship. And it's in our genes to distrust the government because we knew every time a communist government is saying anything or is directing anything, we knew that's a lie, that's something that we should not trust or we should not follow.

We did everything in the book that we could to stop that and we stopped it. And, as a consequence to that, the Romanian rate of vaccination was probably less than half of what the other European countries experienced or United States, Canada and Australia [experienced]. And, therefore we can compare now the low rate and the excess mortality. And that's the best proof I can bring to the table is the fact that having a relationship between a low rate of vaccination and low excess mortality, which is right there you see it on the, Romania is the last country on the right which means we have negative excess mortality while all the other countries in Europe have positive excess mortality.

Rob Roos (a European member of Parliament) and Phillip Kruse (a lawyer) then discussed who actually funds the WHO and the disastrous treaty it is trying to sneak through which will force everyone to comply with the pandemic cartel and silence anyone who challenges their next pandemic response.

Note: I discussed this treaty and the grass roots effort to stop it in more detail here. I consider that article to be one of the most important articles I’ve published on Substack.

Finally, Ryan Cole concluded the talk by discussing how he was punished for speaking out, how everything which happened throughout the pandemic has violated our fundamental constitutional rights and how critical it is for us to reclaim what our Founding Fathers fought for.

Note: for anyone considering being a whistleblower, Johnson requested for you to contact his office here.

Conclusion

Since Johnson packed this presentation with so many impactful points, it was quite hard to decide which was the best one to conclude it with. Eventually however, I settled on this one, which while brief, I believe is the critically important message all Americans can agree with:

It is remarkable how much each successive panel Johnson has hosted has improved upon the one which preceded it. I consider this to be both a product of how dedicated each participant has been to fixing this mess and how much the alternative media has facilitated the production of high quality information that has rapidly unravelled the immensely complex web we were trapped within.

Without each of your supporting the wonderful community of dissident authors on Substack, much of this would likely have never happened, and I thank each of you from the bottom of my heart for giving me the opportunity to be part of it.

Lastly, if you have anyone close to you who is on the fence about the vaccines, please consider sharing this article or a video of Johnson’s panel with them; it’s something than can persuade people who are at last beginning to become open to hearing the truth and we have reached the moment where it is critical for the truth to reach as many people as possible.

Douglas Macgregor assessment of the war in Ukraine (Video)

  An amazing analysis of the war in Ukraine.

 

Pentagon Chief: If Ukraine Is Defeated, NATO Will Be At War With Russia

  As most analysts describe him, Lloyd Austin is seldom the brightest bulb in the room. This definition also applies quite accurately to olaf scholz or Emmanuel Macron. Still, there is little doubt that behind closed doors, the West is panicking. Nobody knows exactly when the Ukrainian army will collapse but the question now only focuses on when, not if. The hundreds of billions of dollars and Euros are lost. The expected return on investment with the dismantlement of Russia is certain not to happen. Credibility is gone. What do you do next? Negotiate or double down?

Pentagon Chief: If Ukraine Is Defeated, NATO Will Be At War With Russia

This is the single most important, dangerous and highly revealing statement from a top defense official in the West in a long time... It also demonstrates the precarious urgency of the moment and the huge stakes going into the November US election. The world truly stands on the precipice of a nuclear nightmare with the following fresh assertion of Biden's Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who said before Congress on Thursday: 

"If Ukraine falls, I really believe that NATO will be in a fight with Russia," Austin stated.

What's more is that this came the very day that Russian President Vladimir Putin warned things could easily spiral toward nuclear war in the scenario that NATO sends troops to Ukraine. Watch:

According to the fuller context of the Pentagon chief's statements, he emphasized that more Washington funding is crucial for Ukraine in order to prevent a situation where "one country can redraw its neighbors’ boundaries and illegitimately take over its sovereign territory."

"We know that if Putin is successful here, he will not stop. He will continue to take more aggressive actions in the region. And other leaders around the world, other autocrats around the world will look at this and will be encouraged by the fact that this happened and we failed to support a democracy," he added.

"If you are a Baltic state, you are really worried about whether you are next. They know Putin. They know what he is capable of. And, frankly, if Ukraine falls, I really believe that NATO will be in a fight with Russia," Austin said.

What is even more alarming about this statement is that everyone now knows that Ukraine forces are in retreat at this very moment, especially after the Russian capture of the city of Avdiivka, and surrounding villages.

Bloomberg on Thursday issued a report predicting total collapse of the Ukrainian front lines by summer, as the headline suggests (Ukraine Sees Risk of Russia Breaking Through Defenses by Summer): "Ukrainian officials are concerned that Russian advances could gain significant momentum by the summer unless their allies can increase the supply of ammunition, according to a person familiar with their analysis," the report says. According to more from Bloomberg:

Internal assessments of the situation on the battlefield from Kyiv are growing increasingly bleak as Ukrainian forces struggle to hold off Russian attacks while rationing the number of shells they can fire.

Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi said Thursday that mistakes by frontline commanders had compounded the problems facing Ukraine’s defenses around Avdiivka, which was captured by Russian forces this month. Syrskyi said he’d sent in more troops and ammunition to bolster Ukrainian positions.

US DoD/Flickr

So the consensus narrative and belated mainstream media admission is that Ukraine's military is a mere months away from clear defeat, and the top US defense chief just said NATO will go to war with Russia "if Ukraine falls".

The conflict has reached a dire and perilously unpredictable moment indeed, and clearly the already slim chances of jump-starting serious peace negotiations to end the war are slipping away fast.

A Global, Digital Coup d'État

  Great article which resume very well what happened during the last 4 years with the Global Pandemic, lockdowns and vaccination campaigns.

  Personally, I believe the real coup d'etat took place in 2001 with the 9/11 crisis. Covid was just a further step to increase the control which is now almost total. 

  We'll see in November if resistance is futile.

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

There was a time.

What seemed to be unfolding was a huge intellectual error for the history books.

A new virus had come along and everyone was freaking out and smashing all normal social functioning.

The excuse turns out just to be the cover story. Still, it bears examination.

Even though plenty of outside commentators said the pathogen should be handled in the normal way—with known treatment and calm while those most susceptible stayed cautious until endemicity—some people on the inside fell prey to a great fallacy. They had come to believe computer models over known realities. They thought that you could separate everyone, drive down infections, and then the virus would die out.

This was never a plausible scenario, as anyone who knew something about the history of pandemics would report. All known experience stood against this cockamamie scheme. The science was very clear and widely available: lockdowns do not work. Physical interventions in general achieve nothing.

But, hey, they said it was an experiment born of new thinking. They would give it a whirl.

When it became clear that the lockdowners had gained sway over policy, many of us thought, truly, how long can this really last? A week, maybe two. Then we would be done. But then something strange happened. The money began to flow. And flow. The states thought that was awesome so they kept it up. The money printers got to work. And general chaos broke out: social, cultural, educational, economic, and political.

It all happened so fast. The months rolled on with no break in the narrative. It became crazy after a time. There were so few critics. We didn’t know it but they were being silenced by a new machinery that had already been constructed for this purpose.

Among that which was censored was criticism of the inoculation potion that was being rolled out and which would eventually be forced on populations all over the world. They said it was 95 percent effective, but it wasn’t clear what that could mean. No coronavirus had ever been controlled by any vaccination. How could this be true? It wasn’t true. Nor did the shot stop the spread.

Many people said this at the time. But we couldn’t hear them. Their voices were muffled or silenced. The social media companies had already been taken over by government-connected interests working on behalf of intelligence agencies. We had believed that these tools were designed to increase our connections with others and enable free speech. Now they were being used to broadcast a preset regime narrative.

Strange industrial shifts took place. Gas cars were deprecated in favor of a new experiment in electric vehicles, thanks to intense consumer demand caused by shortages owing to supply chain breakages. Digital learning platforms got a huge boost because physical classrooms were closed. Online ordering and doorstep delivery became the rage because people were told not to leave their homes and small businesses were forcibly closed.

The pharma companies were riding high of course, gradually acculturating the population to a subscription model. There were attempts to convert whole countries to a health passport system. New York City tried this, along with actual physical segregation of the entire city, with the vaccinated considered clean while the unvaccinated were not allowed into restaurants, libraries, or theaters. The digital app didn’t work however, so that plan fell apart quickly.

All of this happened in less than one year. What began as an intellectual error in public health ended up looking like a digital coup d’état.

Coups of the past featured rebel armies from the hills storming the cities and joined by the military as they invaded the palace and the leader and his family fled in a carriage or helicopter depending on the epoch.

This was different. It was organized and planned by intelligence agencies within the structure of the global state, a great reset to reject the forms of the past and replace them all with a new dystopia.

Initially, the people who said this was a great reset were derided as crazed conspiracy theorists. But then it turned out that the head of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Klaus Schwab, had written a book by the very title that you could buy from Amazon. It turns out to be H.G. Wells’s “The Open Conspiracy” updated for the 21st-century technology.

There turns out to be much more than that. There was an angle to all of this that impacts the mechanisms we use for democratic control of societies. Buried in the flurry of bills shoved through in March 2020 was a liberalization of balloting and voting that would never have been tolerated before. In the name of social distancing, mail-in ballots would become the norm, along with the known irregularities they introduce.

Implausibly, this too was part of the plan.

Researching and realizing all of this in real time has been a bit much. It has shattered the old ideological paradigms. The old theories no longer explain the world as it is unfolding. It causes all of us to revisit our priors, at least those with minds adaptable enough to pay attention. For vast swaths of the intellectual class, this is not possible.

Looking back, we should have known something was up at the outset. There were too many anomalies. Were the people in charge really so stupid as to believe that you can make a virus go away by making everyone stay home? It’s absurd. You cannot control the microbial kingdom this way, and surely everyone with a modicum of intelligence knows this.

Another clue: there never was an exit plan. What exactly was fourteen days of frozen activity going to achieve? What was the benchmark of success? We were never told. Instead, the elites in media and government simply encouraged fear. And then met that fear with ridiculous protocols like dousing ourselves with sanitizer, masking while walking, and presuming every other person is a disease vector.

This was psychological warfare. To what end and how ambitious are these hidden plans for us?

Only four years later, we are grasping the fullness of what was going down.

For those of us schooled in the persistent incompetence of government to get anything right, much less deploy a plan with anything like precision, elaborate conspiracy theories of plots and schemes always seem implausible. We just don’t believe them.

This is why it took us so long to see the fullness of what was deployed in March 2020, a scheme that combined a plethora of seemingly disparate governmental/industrial ambitions including:

1) rollout of subscription/platform model of Pharma distribution,

2) mass censorship,

3) election management/rigging,

4) universal basic income,

5) industrial subsidies to digital platforms,

6) mass population surveillance,

7) cartelization of industry,

8) shift in income distribution and entrenchment of administrative state power,

9) crushing of ‘populist’ movements worldwide, and

10) the centralization of power generally speaking.

To top it off, all these efforts were global in scope. This whole model truly stretches the bounds of plausibility. And yet all the evidence points to exactly the above. It just goes to show that even if you don’t believe in conspiracies, conspiracies believe in you. It was a digital-age coup d’état unlike anything humanity has ever experienced.

How long will it take us to process this reality? We seem to be only at the early stages of understanding, much less resisting.

Leaked Military Files Show Russia's Nuclear Strike Threshold Lower Than Previously Known

  How far are we from a nuclear war? If both Russia and the West consider the war in Ukraine as existential, the answer may be very close! 

  With this in mind, the current policies of Europe are difficult to understand. They want to save the planet and for this are ready to deindustrialize and make our lives quite difficult indeed by focusing on one atom (C) , But conversely won't negotiate with Russia and take into consideration another far more dangerous atom (U). 

  So Global Warming is wrong but Global Scalding is fine? 

This week the Financial Times has published contents of a cache of leaked classified Russian documents said to lay out the country's doctrine and strategy for tactical nuclear weapons use. Included in the documents is info on the Kremlin's minimum criteria for using tactical nukes.

The criteria outlined in the secret files range "from an enemy incursion on Russian territory to more specific triggers, such as the destruction of 20% of Russia's strategic ballistic missile submarines," according to FT.

Images: Getty & Wikimedia 

The question of the possibility of Russia and NATO stumbling toward nuclear war is without doubt heavy on the minds of many this week, especially after French President Emmanuel Macron's Monday comments wherein he raised sending Western troops to fight Russia in Ukraine and said of the possibility, "nothing should be ruled out."

Putin appeared to respond directly in his Thursday state of the nation televised address, spelling out: "Everything that they are coming up with now, with which they threaten the entire world – all this really threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, and therefore the destruction of civilization – don’t they understand this, or what?"

"They must ultimately understand that we also have weapons – and they know about it, just as I now said  – we also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory," he warned.

As for tactical nuke usage, Russia's tactical arsenal has more limited range in comparison to strategic weapons, and thus are designed and intended for the possibility of a 'nearer' war in Europe or Asia. 

But worrisomely, the FT review of the documents (which date from 2008-2014) finds that the Kremlin likely has a threshold "lower than Russia has ever publicly admitted, according to experts who reviewed and verified the documents." Experts cited in the FT say the contents of the leaks likely remain part of Moscow's current nuclear doctrine.

The documents show that Russia has recently rehearsed scenarios involving war with China. Per the leaks and the FT report:

One exercise outlining a hypothetical attack by China notes that Russia, dubbed the “Northern Federation” for the purpose of the war game, could respond with a tactical nuclear strike in order to stop “the South” from advancing with a second wave of invading forces.

“The order has been given by the commander-in-chief . . . to use nuclear weapons . . . in the event the enemy deploys second-echelon units and the South threatens to attack further in the direction of the main strike,” the document said.

And for another scenario involving a hypothetical enemy invasion of Russian territory: 

A separate training presentation for naval officers, unrelated to the China war games, outlines broader criteria for a potential nuclear strike, including an enemy landing on Russian territory, the defeat of units responsible for securing border areas, or an imminent enemy attack using conventional weapons.

The slides summarise the threshold as a combination of factors where losses suffered by Russian forces “would irrevocably lead to their failure to stop major enemy aggression”, a “critical situation for the state security of Russia”.

Another envisioned situation seems to apply more for something like a Ukraine escalation scenario where there's runaway escalation. According to the FT's analysis and citations of the documents:

Other potential conditions include the destruction of 20 per cent of Russia’s strategic ballistic missile submarines, 30 per cent of its nuclear-powered attack submarines, three or more cruisers, three airfields, or a simultaneous hit on main and reserve coastal command centres.

Russia’s military is also expected to be able to use tactical nuclear weapons for a broad array of goals, including “containing states from using aggression […] or escalating military conflicts”, “stopping aggression”, preventing Russian forces from losing battles or territory, and making Russia’s navy “more effective”.

The particular above section has language in it which seems to lay out the most minimal threshold, but which perhaps leaves open the most interpretation for Russian leadership. Publicly at least, Kremlin leadership has said nuclear weapons could only be deployed if Russian territory and population face existential threat.

Putin in his aforementioned Thursday major address seemed to appeal in his nuclear warning given to NATO to this doctrine of "containing states from using aggression" - given that's precisely what he's now accusing the West of in Ukraine.