Category Archives: World Around Us

The French compare their President to Adolf Hitler

French President Emmanuel Macron introduced drastic measures that are supposed to help his country fight what some still describe as a coronavirus-based pandemic.

Many French citizens aren’t amused. Some of them showed their view in a billboard, erected on the outskirts of Toulon and La Seyne-sur-Mer. It displays an image of Macron dressed in a Nazi uniform, sporting Adolf Hitler’s trademark toothbrush moustache.

Here’s where to find the place: the third-largest French city on the Mediterranean coast after Marseille and Nice. Toulon is known for its naval construction, fishing, and wine-making. You can also find factories making aeronautical equipment, armament production facilities in Toulon, as well as producers of maps, paper, tobacco, printing, shoes, and electronic equipment.

And now the place is scandalised by somebody’s irreverent views of the President. The Toulon prosecutor’s office announced that it views the billboard as a full-fledged defamation of the country’s top elected official, and it opened an official investigation into the matter.

France Bleu was the first to report on the Toulon prosecutors’ indignation.

France Bleu is a network of French local and regional radio stations, a part of the national public broadcasting group Radio France. It serves local audiences and provides local news and content from each of its forty-four stations, as part of its public service mandate.

The billboards disagreeing with the drastic official measures that President Macron announced himself aren’t new. Last week one of the two posters simply displayed the word Honte. It can be translated into English as shame, or ignominy, or disgrace.

Judging by the fact that the Toulon prosecutors didn’t lift a finger on that occasion, we can deduce that telling the head of state he’s disgraced his country is an integral part of public discourse.

Canadian officials would have taken a dimmer view, perhaps, given their violent reactions to critical observations regarding the country’s de facto head of state, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau but, then again, it was the French who had brought such mottos like Liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity) on the political scene, not Canadians.

Aiming high

Hinting that Emmanuel Macron’s anti-Covid-19 rules equal those introduced by Adolf Hitler, that’s taking it too far, according to French officials.

That’s defamation, pure and simple, they say.

What is it? Herewith the legal definition: any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation can be tried as either a criminal or a civil charge. It includes both written statements (libel), and spoken statements (slander).

Whether a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends to a huge degree on her/his standing in society, especially on the answer to the question whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law.

In the eyes of the Toulon prosecutors’ office, showing Macron as a typical Nazi stretches far beyond the permissible limits of civil public debate.

Just imagine how it looks: the billboard features the letters LREM, an abbreviation for Macron’s La Republique En Marche party (Republic On Parade). These significant letters are squeezed into a white circle. They’re precisely where the Nazi swastika used to be in Hitler’s Germany, with the Nazi party infamous red background.

Is this defamation?

The new rules pushed through by Macron personally include, for example, visible marking for the uninoculated. Not much difference between those and the Stars of David worn by the still-surviving Jewish population in Nazi Germany (and her occupied countries).

President Macron’s support has gone down the toilet. Public opinion agency IFOP reported recently for Le Journal du Dimanche (JDD, or Sunday News) newspaper that Macron’s approval went down by 13 points among people aged 18-24. Surprisingly, it was among French retirees where his support did not collapse. In fact, it even grew on some occasions within their group.

But, in any case, French public are not enthused about the new measures such as mandatory vaccines for certain groups, including health workers, and introduction of vaccine passports for entry to leisure and cultural venues.

Compare Canada’s timid and scattered demonstrations to the estimated 114,000 people who rallied across France to protest what they believe is an unjust intrusion into their private lives. Protesters chanted “Liberty!” and demanded that Macron resign.

Anger across the English Channel (La Manche)

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to mandate vaccinations for people entering crowded venues from September has met with similar reactions in Great Britain. Hashtag ‘arrest Boris Johnson’ has become a most popular demand.

Of course, the British situation has just got somewhat more convoluted: the country’s top medical testing facility now belongs to an organisation run by George Soros, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This bodes ill for the British.

Yes, lawsuits have begun popping up against some of the leading politicians (and governments as such), challenging them for violent violations of basic human rights. In fact, the International Criminal Court in The Hague is studying a document filed by a group of lawyers, physicians and sundry scientists from Slovakia, accusing their government precisely of these crimes. And similar actions like this have been emerging elsewhere, including the U.S.

If such a lawsuit happens to be filed in France, and President Macron happens to lose, will the billboard near Toulon remain defamatory? Or will it be simply stating the truth?

Businesses poke their noses into politicking: a bad omen

Ben and Jerry are pulling their product out of parts of Israel that someone described to them as occupied Palestinian territory.

They must be obviously of the view that theirs is the only ice cream in the world worth enjoying, and that the Israelis will pull out from the lands that have been theirs long before Islam was born.

They are walking on thin ice. Just as the Japanese automaker Toyota. Those fools have announced that they are withdrawing their support from groups that do not agree with the current U.S. administration.

Toyota’s announcement was so pompous it looked as if nobody else in the world was making and selling cars. Except, it did happen somehow that Toyota did send some money to Republicans who would not certify last year’s election results in the U.S. Congress. The company caught flak for that from the mainstream media. The result: its tail down, Toyota announced these people can’t expect a single cent from them ever again.

Unanswered questions

Of course, mainstream media have managed to ignore a couple of questions.

Such as: how dare a foreign corporation get involved in American politics in the first place? And: will the calls for boycott of Toyota cars in the U.S. succeed?

They may, in fact. They are coming from both sides of the spectrum. The first wave, coming from Americans who still don’t believe last year’s presidential election was not a fraud, concerned Toyota’s gall. The next wave is coming from those who are not happy that Toyota still paid a few Republicans who had the gall to go against what the left-wing view as winning it all fair and square.

It will take some time before we can see the numbers: will Toyota’s auto sales in the U.S. increase or decrease? Not only in raw numbers, but (especially) in comparison with all the other car manufacturers who are trying to drum up custom in automobile-dependent America.

Meanwhile, across the Big Pond

Many Israelis will prefer Italian gelato to American concoctions ten times out of ten.

That’s point Numero Uno.

From the political point of view, here’s what Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett had to say (in a Jerusalem Post interview): “There are many ice cream brands, but only one Jewish state. Ben & Jerry’s has decided to brand itself as the anti-Israel ice cream. This decision is morally wrong and I believe that it will become clear that it is also commercially wrong. The boycott against Israel – a democracy surrounded by islands of terrorism – reflects a total loss of way. The boycott does not work and will not work, and we will fight it with full force.”

Here’s the funniest part: Ben & Jerry’s Israeli branch told the head office in Vermont to go and fly a kite. The head office replied it will not be renewing its agreement with its Israeli licensee over this issue. The existing deal will expire in a year and a half.

Since Ben & Jerry have become a part of Unilever 21 years ago, it has become more of a political tool than a candy maker.

Unilever is a British multinational consumer goods company. It is based in London, England. Its line, according to its own statement, includes food, condiments, ice cream, well-being vitamins, minerals and supplements, tea, coffee, breakfast cereal, cleaning agents, water and air purifiers, pet food, toothpaste, beauty products, and personal care.

Not a word about politics.

That’s why the Israeli licensee’s reaction is not too surprising: “This is an unprecedented move by Unilever.”

Ice cream and politics should not be mixed, the company’s spokesman added.

Unilever Israel was quick off the mark to clarify that it had no involvement in this decision. It was made by Ben & Jerry’s globally.

“We are very proud of our history in Israel and are fully committed to our long-term presence,” Unilever Israel said in a statement published in the Jerusalem Post. “We employ around 2,000 employees, the majority of which are in our factories in Arad, Acre, Safed and Haifa. In the last decade alone, the company has invested in the Israeli market more than NIS 1 billion, and will continue to invest in its people, brands and business in the local market.”

The global parent company of Unilever said: “We remain fully committed to our presence in Israel, where we have invested in our people, brands and business for several decades.

“Ben & Jerry’s was acquired by Unilever in 2000. As part of the acquisition agreement, we have always recognized the right of the brand and its independent board to take decisions about its social mission. We also welcome the fact that Ben & Jerry’s will stay in Israel.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid dismissed the global companies’ excuses as so much drivel. He called the boycott a “shameful surrender to antisemitism, to BDS and to all that is wrong with the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish discourse.”

“We will not be silent,” he added.

BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, a Palestinian-led movement promoting boycotts, divestments, and economic sanctions against Israel.

“Over 30 states in the United States have passed anti-BDS legislation in recent years,” Lapid said. “I plan on asking each of them to enforce these laws against Ben & Jerry’s. They will not treat the State of Israel like this without a response.”

Politicking defies reality

The so-called Occupied Palestinian Territories fly in the face of basic history: the Bible refers to them as Judea and Samaria.

Examples? Abraham is buried in Hebron, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and so on.

Meanwhile, BDS activists described Ben and Jerry’s as a leading socially responsible international company. They praised the company for what they called “finally bringing its policy on Israel’s regime of oppression against Palestinians in line with its position on Black Lives Matter and other justice struggles.”

Future will tell whether businesses trying to play political games will get away with it.

In a normal world, they shouldn’t.

But we live in a world that’s everything but normal.

Numbers tell a sordid story of deceit

This data is incontestable: the World Health Organisation (WHO) reported on Tuesday, December 31, 2019 that a novel coronavirus outbreak was spotted in Wuhan, China.

The American pharmaceutical company, Moderna, sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on Thursday, December 12, 2019.

The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) was involved in this mailing, too.

It was about that same time that leaked reports indicated that Klaus Martin Schwab, the boss of the World Economic Forum, had been telling all who were wishing to listen that a virus was coming in January 2020.

Are these events linked?

Historians insist that nothing happens by accident.

Did this?

No.

The by now infamous Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the highest ranking American medical policy makers, just happens to be one of the principals in the Moderna company’s power structure.

Again: a coincidence?

Not really, and nobody asks him, the current U.S. Administration least of all.

On the other hand, the sequence of events says it all.

And so does the logic: how could Moderna (and NIAID) know more than two weeks before the WHO made its announcement that a mysterious pneumonia was sending people to hospitals in China?

Looking the other way

And how about that bubonic plague that has emerged in China in September 2020? Where are the panic-mongering announcements coming from the WHO?

It started in southwestern China’s Yunnan Province: a three-year-old boy was diagnosed with the Black Death killer. Luckily, that boy’s case was mild and since he got treated right away, he’s on the mend now.

Still: there were many more cases of bubonic plague reported in China at that time. Bubonic plague is much more serious than any form of pseudobronchopneumonia, the complaint allegedly caused by Covid-19, and yet, the sound of silence has been deafening.

Bubonic plague has been the murderer of tens of millions of people in humanity’s history. It wiped out about half of Europe’s population in the Middle Ages. It is spread by rats and other rodents, not from person-to-person.

Yunnan Province was not the only area affected: so was southwestern China’s Menghai County. It borders with Myanmar and Laos, and is quite close to China’s borders with Vietnam and Thailand.

And a herdsman in Inner Mongolia, a Chinese autonomous region 3,520 kilometres northeast of Menghai caught the bubonic plague, too.

Just so we’re not feeling too safe: there have been a few cases of plague diagnosed and reported in the U.S., too. They included all three forms of plague, starting with Bubonic, going through pneumonic, all the way through to septicemic.

Still, the two basic questions about the coronavirus remain: what did Dr. Fauci (and, by extension, Moderna) know, and when did they know it?

To help us sort it all out, Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics compiled a table showing what happened when.

A sadly useful piece of reading material.


TIMELINE

Dec. 31, 2019:WHO says mysterious pneumonia sickening dozens in China
Jan. 11, 2020:China reports 1st novel coronavirus death
Jan. 21, 2020:1st confirmed case in the United States
Jan. 23, 2020:China imposes strict lockdown in Wuhan
Jan. 30, 2020:WHO declares global health emergency
Feb. 5, 2020:Diamond Princess cruise ship quarantined
Feb. 11, 2020:Novel coronavirus renamed COVID-19
Feb. 24, 2020:COVID Crash begin in share markets
Feb. 26, 2020:1st case of suspected local transmission in the United States
Feb. 29, 2020:1st death reported in the United States
March 3, 2020:CDC lifts restrictions for virus testing
March 15, 2020:CDC warns against large gatherings
March 17, 2020:Coronavirus now present in all 50 states
March 17, 2020:Northern Californians ordered to ‘shelter in place
March 18, 2020:China reports no new local infections
March 19, 2020:Italy’s death toll surpasses China’s
March 20, 2020:New York City declared U.S. outbreak epicentre
March 23, 2020:Dow Jones Industrials bottoms in COVID Crash
March 24, 2020:Japan postpones Olympics
March 24, 2020:India announces 21-day complete lockdown
March 26, 2020:United States leads the world in COVID-19 cases
March 27, 2020:Trump signs $2 trillion stimulus bill
March 27, 2020:UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson tests positive
April 2, 2020:Global cases hit 1 million
April 4, 2020:New York sets single-day record for new COVID-19 cases
April 9, 2020:Evidence that the first COVID-19 cases in NYC came from Europe
April 21, 2020:Autopsy revels 1st U.S. COVID-19 death was earlier than previously thought
May 27, 2020:U.S. reaches 100,000 deaths
May 31, 2020:George Floyd’s killing spurs mass protests
June 11-17, 2020:Cases in Arizona, South Carolina, and Florida soar
June 24, 2020:NY, NJ, Conn. tell Florida travellers to quarantine
June 30, 2020:EU says it will reopen borders to 14 countries, but not the U.S.
July 7, 2020:U.S. submits formal notice that it will withdraw from the WHO
July 7, 2020:Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro tests positive
July 11, 2020:Trump wears a mask in public for the first time
July 12, 2020:Florida breaks single-day record for new COVID-19 cases
July 26, 2020:Florida surpasses New York in total coronavirus cases
July 31, 2020:$600 per week pandemic aid expires
Aug. 7, 2020:Sturgis Motorcycle Rally seeds multi-state outbreak
Aug. 7, 2020:COVID-19 outbreak at Georgia summer camp infects 260
Sept. 11, 2020:Trump officials said to manipulate CDC reports
Sept. 22, 2020:U.S. reaches 200,000 deaths

Dictatorship back in full force in Germany

Germany has a rich history of fascism. It shows in her authorities’ treatment of those whose experience and expertise differ from what the officialdom had ordered.

They know that what people don’t know, doesn’t exist.

Bodo Schiffmann, a German physician, has experienced the official wrath first-hand.

Dr. Schiffmann was, until recently, a chief physician in a clinic treating vertigo in Sinsheim, a town in south-western Germany, close to Heidelberg and its famed university.

Dr. Schiffmann didn’t leave his post voluntarily. He was forced to leave.

He told his story publicly and was punished for his honesty.

Honest success story

The clinic to treat vertigo took a long time to build, and Dr. Schiffmann has been an integral part of it. Aged 53, he was thinking of finding a successor as soon as possible: the experiences gained at the clinic often contradicted what young physicians could learn from thick tomes of medical textbooks. He wanted his successor to learn from his success.

He realised that accepting everything at sight does not help anybody in their development.

Dr. Schiffmann’s clinic would treat cases described as hopeless by others, and they reached a success rate of four out of five cases cured, an 80 per cent success rate, that is. That included cases where others had told their patients to learn to live with their condition.

The Sinsheim clinic would often ignore the medical textbooks and act on their own research. That was the root of their success.

Scientific research is based on finding out what’s new, not rehashing what the previous generations claimed to be gospel truths. If we were to accept the view that all new information that contradicts what used to be taught is false, we wouldn’t need any new research. We might as well spend the money saved on recreational drugs.

Some called them realists, others call them cynics, but those who say that progress in science is measured at a rate of one funeral at a time have a point.

But swimming against the current stream is a really tough proposition.

Dr. Schiffmann’s story is yet another proof.

Dr. Schiffmann had the courage (gall, say some) to submit proof that face masks worn in order to prevent the spread of the Covic-19 virus are useless.

Dr. Schiffmann had the courage (gall, say some) to submit proof that so-called lockdowns kill more people than the condition caused by the Covid-19 virus.

Dr. Schiffmann had the courage (gall, say some) to submit proof that the experiment some call inoculation and others vaccination is obviously more dangerous than any respiratory disease on record.

Dr. Schiffmann had the courage (gall, say some) to submit proof that all those many so-called preventative measures endanger children the most, and that they lead to serious and permanent mental and psychic damage.

And, finally, Dr. Schiffmann had the courage (gall, say some) to submit proof that everything that has been happening in recent months shows beyond any doubt that we live in bloody totalitarian regimes.

The outcome?

All of Dr. Schiffmann’s business accounts were cancelled.

And so were his consulting rooms.

As Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz put it recently, most of us know of someone who had passed away following an injection of a vaccine that was supposed to save her/his life.

And, Dr. Schiffmann elaborates, there aren’t many who would be able to prove that they know anyone who had passed away with a positive PCR test, and if they had, they rarely had any symptoms of conditions caused by Covid-19. Their test returned a positive result, that’s all.

By way of explanation: A polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, a recent invention (1983, by American biochemist Kary Mullis) is supposed to detect genetic material from a specific organism, such as a virus. The test is expected to detect the presence of a virus if you are infected at the time of taking it. The test could also detect fragments of virus even after you are no longer infected. Recent results prove that PCR test reliability is far from 100 per cent. End of explanation.

The condition caused by Covid-19, usually known as pseudobronchopneumonia, resembles all kinds of flu, and that complaint, as humans know, is highly seasonal.

So, Dr. Schiffmann adds, when another wave of colds or chills appears, as it always does, many of those who had been vaccinated will die. Survivors will notice it’s those inoculated people who are dying en masse. They will be blaming those who had not undergone inoculation.

It will be too late when people begin to understand what’s going on. And it will be way too late to figure out how to save those who had succumbed to the propaganda and had themselves vaccinated.

To be able to save people, Big Pharma and government authorities must reveal the full and detailed content of those vaccines. What we know now, Dr. Schiffman says, is that those so-called vaccines aren’t what they claim to be. That’s not enough.

Lies as official program

This is about future generations, Dr. Schiffmann points out. Today’s mighty seem very happy making sure that most of those who could be able to change this world for the better won’t even be born. Just check out their genocidal plans: there are way too many people on the earth today, and the 6.8 billion lives ought to be cut to not more than 1.5 billion.

How can you achieve this goal? Genocide is the answer.

Not many realise that we live in the Third World War. Yes, Dr, Schiffmann says, this fact escapes our attention because we don’t see nuclear bombs falling from the skies, we don’t hear any sirens wailing to warn us of the dangers.

This war is about information. The majority of people do not receive the most important information. They believe their politicians and people employed in the media (journalists they are not). Both of these groups are corrupt beyond any imagination. And both of these groups do the Big Pharma bidding, not realising that even the Big Pharma people would be victims, eventually: all revolutions eat their children, an old saying from the times of the French Revolution goes.

It’s wrong, by the way: revolutions eat their parents. In particular, history’s left-wing revolutions eat the left-wing intellectuals who made them happen.

In any case, here’s the most important warning sign: it takes enormous courage to be telling the truth. This is not the first time in history that we face this dire situation.

But this seems to be the most dangerous time history to face it, with all the mighty tools those who want to rule the world instead of us have at their disposal.

Dr. Bodo Schiffmann is paying a huge personal price for his courage.

We all must stand up and fight, if we don’t want to end up being in his predicament.

Big Tech nerds in hot water

No matter the outcome, Donald J. Trump’s lawsuit against the so-called social media Big Tech companies is bound to have worldwide implications.

These media networks enjoy worldwide reach. Not only with their users but, much more importantly, with their business partners. Their dealings, both visible and invisible, amount to huge chunks of money. Having these amounts coming in or not will definitely make a world of difference for the Big Tech gang.

A number of governments around the world are either enacting or about to enact laws that will punish social media providers for any attempts to censor their users’ freedom of expression. The idea is to hit the Big Tech companies where it hurts them the most: right in their wallets.

Should President Donald J. Trump prevail in the U.S., many other governments are bound to follow suit. They will use the American verdict as a precedent, even though their countries’ constitutions do not include such articles like the First Amendment.

Here it is, in full: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The social media clan claim they are not the U.S. Congress and, thus, while the First Amendment is definitely an interesting piece of reading material, it fails to bind them to anything.

Well, they are irritating a snake barefoot.

This is not to compare President Trump to a snake, this is to describe the Big Tech big bosses’ behaviour.

Lawyers’ paradise

The heated debate about what does and what does not apply to individual business concerns so far as the American Constitution goes has been raging for quite some time.

Such as: if a business bars a potential customer because s/he is not wearing a face mask, even when the customer provides a notice from her/his physician explaining the need for such an exemption, is it discrimination based on medal or health condition? Can such businesses do whatever they want on their premises because they are private entities? If yes, what are the authorities to do if they refuse to serve black females, a discrimination based on skin colour (race, that is), and gender?

In the case of the Big Tech gurus, they seem to have forgotten that they are acting with the sanction of the government.

As American economist Martin Armstrong puts it: this is similar to a situation where you hire someone to kill somebody else and you claim in court that you did not kill anyone.

Here’s the legal reply: the assassin did so under your orders so you are still liable for the murder.

And that’s precisely President Trump’s point of departure.

The social media enjoy immunity from legal liability. They received this from the government. Meaning: they are state actors, bound by the First Amendment when they engage in selective political censorship.

And that they make no secret of engaging in selective censorship that kills free speech is perfectly obvious, too.

In legal lingo, U.S. Section 242 of Title 18 describes a person as a criminal whenever s/he acts under colour of any law and wilfully deprives a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

In addition, Section 230 neither authorises nor permits censorship of political speech. Neither will you be able to find any notion that it authorises or permits cancelling a user’s access or posts just because they were against something the social media view as legitimate. That includes vaccines, inoculations in general, as well as Dr. Anthony Fauci.

No, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 does not pre-empt any such state laws. And no, it does not shield Big Tech 100 per cent from any lawsuits.

It’s the word “decency” that’s important here. Big Tech does not have to fear civil liability suits regarding the censorship of sexually obscene or excessively violent material. In this context, strangely, posts that glorify sexual perversions, including paedophilia, seem to be perfectly safe.

What the Big Tech social media companies have been doing used to be the trademark of authoritarian regimes, from communism through fascism, nazism, all the way to social democracy. The idea is to silence all opposition. Note, too, that political speech and cultural commentary have been only rarely found to be sexually obscene or excessively violent.

President Trump calls the entire Section 230 unconstitutional. Many legal minds, even those that do not necessarily support President Trump, agree that the section really does not meet the test of constitutionality when viewed in the context of pure censorship.

Martin Armstrong, the U.S. economist, has done the work here, finding the appropriate parts of Section 230:

(b) Policy

It is the policy of the United States—

(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;

(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and

(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

A warning shot

In 2019, YouTube and its mom and dad, Google, had to pay $170 million to settle a joint lawsuit, filed by the State of New York and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The social media network, the lawsuit alleged, violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA). A new set of rules would emerge as a result of the settlement. They all mention protection of children, not censorship of political views (and political personalities who express them).

The rich Big Tech nerds have something else coming.

The world has come to trust liars, and that’s tragic

Wikipedia is run by a bunch of bloody liars, and if they think this is a libellous smear, let them think again: even their co-founder, Larry Sanger, says so.

To be precise, Larry Sanger said earlier this year that “The days of Wikipedia’s robust commitment to neutrality are long gone.”

Whether he knew he was exaggerating matters not. What matters is that he was exaggerating like nobody’s business.

It begins with the site’s name: Wikipedia. It’s the second part of the name, pedia, that offends.

Based on the Greek paideia, translated verbatim as general knowledge, it has become a part of a combination that means either to educate or to indicate a full list or inventory of knowledge.

Yes, encyclopaedia is one of the resulting expressions. And that’s precisely what Wikipedia has been trying to suggest that it is.

And that’s precisely what it’s not, and what it has never been.

Bias? Lies? Both stink

Larry Sanger, its co-founder and, obviously, one of the guys who would be expected to know, went on in his criticism: “Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world, has made itself into a kind of thought police that has de facto shackled conservative viewpoints with which they disagree. Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions: I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy.”

This is a verbatim quote.

Wikipedia has come with a brilliant way to deflect criticism.

Say, you read a piece on their site that you happen to know is perfectly and factually false. It just so happens that you were an eyewitness, for example.

You write a polite message stating that Wikipedia has got it all wrong, and saying precisely what had actually happened, with all possible details.

First, you get a cookie-cutter response: we’re being edited by volunteers, and how can you expect them to know everything, etc. The Wikipedia reply suggests in fact that only a complete anti-social moron and unscrupulously irresponsible imbecile can be so ruthless, inconsiderate, thoughtless, even, to demand that Wikipedia editors do their job by at least checking the stories they publish: for facts they are not.

If you persist and reply by telling them, fine, but now I have sent the facts to you, and you should check them, and if you find the proof sufficient, you ought to adjust your story accordingly, their reply is that you can do it yourself. Just click on edit, they say.

Well, that may be one way of doing it, except there have been examples where stories thus edited by people who knew the real facts somehow continued to appear on Wikipedia without the edits showing to the general public.

A dirty trick

Here’s a story that happened several years ago.

A guy with extensive and intensive knowledge in international politics and economics spotted a huge howler in Wikipedia’s item covering a story in which he had been involved personally.

After a few weeks of getting the Wikipedia run-around (volunteers, do it yourself, and whatnot), he decided to expose Wikipedia using Wikipedia.

He wrote an item about himself, chastising several Nobel Prize committees for not giving him their awards (in fields he knew nothing about, except, perhaps, that they existed).

He praised himself to high heaven, coming close to saying that all Gods people have been worshipping during the last few centuries have been on first-name basis with him (and he with them, too).

After a few weeks, having counted several million readers from all over the world, the guy decided enough was enough. So, he wrote to Wikipedia to tell them that the entry was fake.

How do YOU know? Wikipedia demanded.

I wrote it myself, he replied, adding that he had never been involved in any of the sciences listed in the entry

To cut a long story short, it would take some time, and a number of e-mails, with Wikipedia explaining (again) it is edited by volunteers and how could they know, blah, blah, blah.

It never occurred to them that so long as they could not establish the story’s veracity, they should have withheld it.

So far, so good. The problem here is that even Wikipedia’s excuses are a bloody lie.

The pattern is so obvious it borders on the insane: stories that spread lies about people are almost always those where individuals or groups who are called all kinds of derogatory names somehow contradict the accepted left-wing bias.

Wikipedia’s policy is straightforward. At least officially so: “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV).”

Co-founder Sanger to the rescue again: “From a truly neutral article, you would learn why, on a whole variety of issues, conservatives believe one thing, while progressives believe another thing. And then you would be able to make up your own mind. Is that what Wikipedia offers? As we will see, the answer is No.”

Slander or lie? Both

Examples galore, one comes to mind immediately: German physician Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg.

As chairman of the European Union health commission (this equals in standing ministry or department of health), Dr. Wodarg formed a committee of inquiry to probe some strange proceedings within the World Health Organisation (WHO). That body have deleted the two reliable standards that help determine the spread of diseases (morbidity and mortality), while changing the third one (known as speed of spread) so as to make it perfectly useless.

The result: WHO’s medical experts who proposed the change had just received lucrative offers from pharmaceutical companies (they accepted, of course). And all that happened just as the so-called swine flu, and bird flu, and SARS, and H1N1 viruses appeared on the scene, and those companies were flogging their potions as miracle medications.

To Wikipedia, Dr. Wodarg was a Covid-19 denier to begin with. The denier description, scandalously insulting in today’s context, was perhaps deemed too explosive. In any case, it was later removed. The rest of the entry remains still the article of faith for Wikipedia (and its users): Dr. Wodarg’s views run contrary to what is called accepted science.

An aside: the main feature of science is, or should be, that it keeps developing. What used to be the gospel yesterday is questionable today and becomes a faint memory tomorrow. End of the aside.

And here comes the real problem: all kinds of fact-checkers, from Snopes all the way to most of the social media, consider Wikipedia the fountain of truth.

If you check the fact-checkers’ credentials, they would be laughable if their impact wasn’t that overwhelming. Undergraduate students, most in their early years, and mostly in humanities (how a gender studies apprentice decides on, for example, climate change?). Or people who used to be employed in journalism, and never had a word removed from their copy for censorship reasons simply because they never saw (and wrote) uncomfortable truths even if they hit them between the eyes.

Yes, there exist teachers who fail students who have used Wikipedia as their sources in the papers they had submitted. But their numbers are dwindling.

We have come full circle. Wikipedia is run by a bunch of bloody liars, and, alas, the rest of the world has yet to figure out that the king is naked.

Spooks may be guilty as heck, but the outrage is misguided

The Americans’ obsession with all things Russia is no longer funny. Rather, it has become an embarrassment.

First and foremost, if the American mainstream media and sundry politickers avoided politicking, they would have known it’s not the Russian Federation they should be scared of, it’s the People’s Republic of China.

The Russians, under their President Vladimir Putin, pursue what could be described as “Make Russia Great Again” policy.

The Chinese, under their President Xi Jinping, pursue a policy of “let’s see how far we can get with getting the rest of the world under our thumb.”

That the Chinese have the U.S. by the testicles has become an established fact, with the arrival of Joe Biden’s administration: the People’s Republic of China won this war without wasting a single bullet. Fake news of a killer virus sufficed.

Whom do the Americans owe the most money?

It was in this context that Fox News host Tucker Carlson approached several Russians who he thinks could help him score a sit-down, one-on-one interview with Putin.

The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted Carlson’s communications, which, in and of itself, happens to be illegal on their part. The agency is not allowed to spy on Americans. And, by the way, neither is Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

But NSA went one step further: it shared the content of Carlson’s e-mails with journalists that it knows are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The hope was obvious: these journalists may find it interesting to write stories about Carlson being a Russian mole.

They didn’t manage to nail President Donald J. Trump on Russian collusion charges, unsubstantiated each and every one of them. All their efforts ended as eggs in their own faces. So, why should they not try to smear a guy whom they all hate, and who works for a network they all hate?

Sordid details

Carlson described NSA’s action as a “totally dysfunctional, out-of-control third-world system” of targeting political opposition.

He has a point, of course, but it’s not the main point.

Carlson may have had another point: he accused NSA of trying to find damaging material that would force Fox to take his top-rated show, Tucker Carlson Tonight, off the air.

NSA denied Carlson’s allegation, but if there ever was a half-baked denial, this was the one: the Fox host “has never been an intelligence target.”

By not saying they never intercepted Carlson’s communications, and they never shared them with anybody outside of their organisation, NSA basically confirmed Carlson’s charge.

Besides, the rule that has been known as an absolute in authoritarian countries, seems to take hold in the U.S.Q., too: don’t believe any rumours (allegations, charges, your pick) until and unless they’d been officially denied.

Jonathan Swan, a reporter for Axios, reported that Carlson had reached out to “U.S.-based Kremlin intermediaries” about a potential Putin interview in recent weeks. The story by Swan — an occasional guest on Fox News programs like Special Report — cited “sources familiar with the conversations.”

What or who is Axios? An American website that posts what it considers news. Based in Arlington County, Virginia, it came to life in 2016. Its parents: former Politico journalists Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen and Roy Schwartz. Axios is a Greek word (ἄξιος), meaning “worthy”.

What kind of publication is Politico?

An openly left-wing magazine that, from time to time, blows with the prevailing winds, but mostly stays on course supporting the so-called “progressive” ideas.

Obviously, there seems to be a pattern developing.

Carlson would elaborate, telling his audience: “Late this spring, I contacted a couple of people I thought could help us get an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. I told nobody I was doing this other than my executive producer, Justin Wells.

“I wasn’t embarrassed about trying to interview Putin. He’s obviously newsworthy. I’m an American citizen, I can interview anyone I want, and I plan to. But still, in this case, I decided to keep it quiet. I figured that any kind of publicity would rattle the Russians and make the interview less likely to happen. But the Biden administration found out anyway by reading my e-mails.”

Cloak and dagger stuff

The U.S. intelligence tried to “unmask” Carlson, the Fox News host said.

As Carlson put it, the NSA planned to leak his e-mails to media outlets.

Why?

They tried to “paint me as a disloyal American, a Russian operative (I’ve been called that before), a stooge of the Kremlin, a traitor doing the bidding of a foreign adversary.”

In the intelligence world’s lingo, the word “unmasking” describes the spooks’ way how to reveal the names of American citizens corresponding with foreign nationals under surveillance. Officials with proper security clearance can ask the spies to make this step, provided they have a good reason, and can prove it in court.

The last such publicised effort happened during the Barack Hussein Obama presidency: top officials, including then-Vice President Joe Biden, tried to “unmask” the identity of then-National Security Adviser designate Michael Flynn during the Russia investigation. As a result, The Washington Post reported on Flynn’s conversations with then-Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak.

That would lead to Flynn’s resignation, unwarranted as it was, as later events would prove.

In Carlson’s case, the mainstream media have been strangely quiet. This approach differs wildly from their expressions of shock and disgust when the Trump Justice Department had been accused of seizing the records of Washington Post and New York Times reporters. This accusation led to weeks of coverage.

The Biden administration would later declare it is committing to ending such practices.

That President Biden has issues with memorising the simplest replies to the simplest of questions has been known.

That his administration, under his guidance, has been playing the game of dirty pool with unusual abandon has been known, too.

That they engage in illegal activities is self-explanatory to all, with the exception of the ideologues who pose as members of the journalistic community.

Money not worth the price of paper it’s printed on

Putting your money under your mattress, or your pillow, used to be a great idea. With one proviso: it had to be cash.

But: is cash going the way of ancient dinosaurs and other such animals?

The answer is: yes. And it won’t require any asteroids wreaking havoc on our planet. Our governments will take care of our money without much fuss. You’ll just wake up one day and see that you have barely enough to get yourself a breakfast, and forget about any other meals.

Governments have been looking for and finding ways how to sneak laws and regulations through to omit banknotes and coins as legal tender.

In Canada, for example, the federal government now has the right to announce that banknotes and coins are no longer acceptable as means to conduct any transaction.

As of January 1, 2021, they can pull the trigger any moment they please.

Seen any banner headlines in mainstream media announcing it?

New fad? No, new invasion

The word cryptocurrency has been growing in its currency. What the heck it means? Its source is a Greek word, kryptein. It means “to hide.”

An underground chamber is known in English as a crypt. Apocrypha is known as “writings of dubious authenticity.” How about secret codes, cryptograms, describing a communication in cipher or code, and the entire science of cryptography (“the coding and decoding of secret messages”)?

If you say something is cryptic, you usually mean it was written in code.

So, why these changes so far as money is concerned?

All in the name of progress.

From there to here

We used to exchange goods and services (say, for example, a cow for several bushels of grain). Currencies that would unite individual countries under one roof are a pretty recent innovation, compared to a brand new wife in exchange for two years’ worth of wheat harvest. Currencies based on such standards as gold are even more recent, and they haven’t lasted too long, either.

Many saw promissory notes and other IOU documents as the upper limit. Until, that is, someone replaced that with chequing accounts and cheques as acceptable means of payment.

Of course, some thought that issuing a cheque would take care of their end of their business transactions, forgetting that you had to have some dough in your account to be able to cover the demand by your partner. The cheque, after all, did resemble promissory notes to a huge degree.

Some found it perfectly honourable to issue cheques that would not be covered. The person who had sold you the goods or services would be facing notes from her/his bank, saying they could not honour this instrument. And her/his mail, asking the miscreant for money owed, would be coming back stamped as “no such person, moved, did not leave forwarding address.”

So, some governments found it necessary to introduce laws that would punish this abuse of trust.

Except: recent developments in the business of money are sinister beyond belief.

Plastic, a.k.a. credit cards would follow.

This then-new instrument would allow your lenders, credit card and, hence, credit, issuers, to record if you bought something, and how much you spent on it.

They would also know how good you are at settling your debts, and to make sure that you settle as quickly as possible, they charge you interest on late payments in digits that more than sufficiently remind you of usury.

That usury in and of itself is illegal in most civilised countries matters little.

The idea is known as blockchain. It allows the money institutions to trace every transaction. On top of the credit card information, cryptocurrency lets financial institutions determine who gave you the money, how and what for, and then watch what you spent it on.

Besides, most central banks want all transactions taxed. Cryptocurrency will let them do precisely that.

One of the more benign explanations comes from the Bank of England. Parents will be able to control what their children spend money on.

How frightfully kind-hearted of them.

Or not?

Here’s the issue: as a result, governments will be able to control what we, each and every one of us, can spend our money on. To hell with bank secrecy.

Who knows what?

Governments now claim they have every right to know, for example, whether any of us had succumbed to the clarion call of inoculation. That, in order to be able to force you to obey or else.

This definition of cryptocurrency says it almost all: a digital asset supposed to work as a way of exchange.

Individual ownership records are stored in a ledger (a computerized database using strong cryptography to secure transaction records).

The idea is to control the creation of additional units of cryptocurrency (a.k.a. coins right now, but that can change any time), and to verify the transfer of ownership.

Logically, it would be the issuers who own the data.

Knowing the governments’ appetite to control everything, and the banks’ willingness to share their information, to do everything and anything to keep governments off their backs in other, even more nefarious dealings, any sign of bank secrecy has become a matter of distant past by now.

American economist Martin Armstrong’s group interviewed a representative from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS).

His words were chillingly clear.

When clients use cash, banks today do not know who’s using what. With cryptocurrency, they will not only know precisely what’s going on, and their information will be up-to-date within second. They will also be able to enforce whatever rules and conditions they (or their governments) decide to implement.

So, if you think your money is yours, just because you worked hard to earn it, start thinking again.

Noble savages? Pardon the (unintended) pun

Political correctness seems to have no limits. A number of Canadian government departments and private companies have taken to bending over backwards, denying facts of history all the while, at will.

Such as this statement on a telecommunications company’s website: We acknowledge that our work spans many Territories and Treaty areas and that our head office is located on the unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish) and Sel̓íl̓witulh (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations. We are grateful for the traditional Knowledge Keepers and Elders who are with us today, those who have gone before us and the youth that inspire us. We recognize the land as an act of Reconciliation, as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) 94 Calls to Action and gratitude to those whose territory we reside on, work on or are visiting.

Beside the fact that the website (and the company itself) are close to being useless, it’s the word unceded that should raise an eyebrow or two.

It seems that those who claim they ceded nothing should make a bee-line to the nearest public library, look up a dictionary or to two and find:

Cede means “to yield or grant typically by treaty.”

Another dictionary says: The act of cession is the assignment of property to another entity. In international law it commonly refers to land transferred by treaty.

Now, do the tougher part: instead of looking at high school textbooks, visit an archive or two to check what happened to which territory of Canada.

What regions are covered by treaties between the Crown and the local bands, and on what foundations are they based? To be blunt: who is receiving money from the Crown (to make it easier to grasp: from Canadian taxpayers)?

That, by definition, equals consummated cessation.

Good? Bad? Irrelevant

Generations of activists, posing as scientists, have been arguing whether the treaties are fair or not. Whether yes or not is meaningless for this debate: both sides signed them. That would be all argument needed at the moment.

Which leads to another side of the coin: were those who signed the treaties on the Indian side really the correct interlocutors? To be blunt again: had they or had they not have the right to sign them? To be even more outspoken: did they own the land that they were ceding?

No, they did not. Not only was the concept of ownership quite foreign to them, but they also used to lead nomadic lifestyles. Once they managed to exhaust one place’s resources, they would move elsewhere.

No need to debate whether this was the best approach. It was their approach, and that should suffice.

That this approach would become one of the reasons for internecine wars between individual tribes (or bands, if you wish) is a matter of record, too.

In any case, here’s the result: adding it all up, the Indians are staking claims on more territory than listed anywhere in Canada. How does about 115 per cent of Canada’s British Columbia’s Lower Mainland sound?

The startlingly terrified statement above comes from British Columbia, after all.

Why all that?

Democracy is the worst system of government, bar all others. Many a statesman had made an observation like this.

Today’s politickers (politicians they are not) have enhanced the definition of democracy: it is defined by its attitude towards minorities.

Except: this does not mean that minority should dictate what majority are doing. This only means that majority let minority live and do their thing in the hopes they would become majority one beautiful day not far hence.

And, which is more important still, democracy means obligations first, rights second. Without doing what you’re obliged to do, you haven’t the rights.

Discrimination? Absolutely. But: only those who want to shirk their obligations, and keep their rights all along, call it unfair.

Most people brought up in democracy, majority, that is, see it as a logical sequence of events.

Unfortunately, we now live in a world that seems to have forgotten that some rules remain valid no matter what. We live in a world of so-called fake narratives (another modern word that’s as close to reality as Baron Münchhausen’s stories).

Note for the illiterate: German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe created the character of the inveterate liar in his 1785 book, Baron Münchhausen’s Narrative of his Marvellous Travels and Campaigns in Russia.

Raspe based his hero loosely on a real baron, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen. His Lordship were not amused, but that’s another story. End of the note for the illiterate.

Modern history textbooks gives their authors’ opinions instead of the facts. The accepted view reflects those opinions. Students are not marked on their individual ability to think and question, but, rather, on their ability to recite verbatim what their teachers had told them.

That’s why so many accept the fallacies about the cruel fate history dished out to poor Indians, ignoring reality altogether.

All this creates a population easily misled into blind obedience.

That’s why the outright lies about the past have reappeared once again. It’s all about divide and conquer (an old trick, as shown by its classic status in the Latin language: divide et impera).

A real story

It happened decades ago. An Indian mother took her brood of five to a highway intersection, dropped them all off, and told her oldest daughter, then eight or 10 years old, that from now on she would be responsible for her siblings’ survival.

The mother said, frankly and openly, that she had had enough of all that trouble of bringing up her family, and she would find another path in life for herself.

But, she concluded, should the daughter ever succumb to “whiteys’ ways” or, Manitou forbid, accept “whiteys’ help,” her mother would curse her and her children and grandchildren and whatnot into a number of generations.

Another note for the illiterate: Manitou is the spiritual and fundamental life force in the Indian theology. It is omnipresent and manifests everywhere: organisms, the environment, events, etc. End of another note for the illiterate.

It happened on Canadian Prairies, and the winter was coming up. Winter in Canada, in the Prairies in particular, is as cruel a season as cruel can be.

The girl was lucky to get herself and her siblings into a residential school. They all got basic education, and, most importantly, they all survived.

The girl, an aging woman now, is still horrified about her mother’s curse that might come upon her and her family one day.

Where are the headlines? And the official apologies from all corners of the North American Indian world?

Rhetorical questions, both.

And legitimate, too. Both.

Mass inoculation equals mass murder

Does a vaccine, any vaccine, really require the presence of graphene?

And why are at least two of the major makers of Covid-related vaccines using it?

What is graphene?

Scientists describe it as an allotrope of carbon that consists of a single layer of atoms arranged in a two-dimensional honeycomb lattice.

The word itself is a compound (would-be intellectuals say portmanteau) of “graphite” and the suffix –ene. Scientists explain that they use this linguistic trick to reflect the fact that the graphite allotrope of carbon consists of stacked graphene layers.

And what the heck is allotrope?

This expression refers to one or more forms of a chemical element that occur in the same physical state. Atoms may be bonded together in different forms. Swedish scientist Jons Jakob Berzelius defined the concept of allotropes in 1841. The ability for elements to exist in this way is called allotropism.

The bomb

A Spanish scientific team at Almeira University report that they analysed a Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine and found that it looks, sounds and smells like fluid graphene oxide. Here it is in its full beauty for those who can answer the question ¿Hablas español? with a straightforward .

The Almeira University team summary is terrifyingly shocking: the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is “99 per cent graphene oxide.” And that, they add, is “toxic to the human body and causes a number of problems.”

As could be expected, Pfizer says it does not use graphene oxide and no such ingredient is listed in any of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorised for use in the U.S.

The wording of Pfizer’s denial is interesting: no such ingredient is listed. Does that mean Pfizer’s vaccines do not contain any such ingredient? No. It only means that no such ingredient has been listed in the company’s official reports.

No reaction yet from AstraZeneca, whose Covid-related vaccine reportedly contains similar material.

Which confirms the rule developed in authoritarian regimes of the past: don’t believe any rumours, speculation or surmise until and unless they are officially denied.

And since governments in even the most democratic countries have been turning their regimes back to authoritarianism with unbecoming speed in recent decades, this rule has come back into effect. Governments that used to rule in formerly democratic countries have become the most reprehensible sources of fake news. They march ahead hand in hand with mainstream media (MSM) and a number of international cartels.

Way too many have trusted them: inertia and an incredible degree of mental laziness.

Discovery for the ages

Two young Russian scientists, toiling at Manchester University, discovered the superconductive material in 2004, and medical people now say graphene’s presence could explain for the magnetic field effects at the injection spot that have been reported recently on numerous occasions.

According to Almeira University research team leader Prof. Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid, graphene is capable of adjusting human bodies’ conducting capabilities. That, his team’s report continues, can enhance human bodies’ ability to receive high frequency signals coming through 5th generation mobile transmitters.

And that’s precisely what many opponents of the Covid-19 mass vaccination have been saying. The concoctions contain who knows what. Their clinical testing won’t be over before year 2023, two years hence. And yet, the official propaganda outlets, with mainstream media (MSM) joining the chorus, have started blackmailing entire populations into getting inoculated, way too often against their free will and good judgement.

Perfect tragedy

The guy who discovered graphene obviously meant no harm.

Andrei Geim, along with his colleague, Konstantin Novoselov (both of Russian origin), took a block of graphite, some Scotch tape and a lot of persistent patience.

It took some time, but in 2004 they managed to produce an incredible wonder material: a million times thinner than paper, stronger than diamond, more conductive than copper.

That’s the best description of graphene.

This was not the discovery that made Geim’s name in the world of physics. Just seven years earlier, he used a magnetic field to levitate a frog.

He is very inventive, and his approach to research is simple: use whatever research facilities available, and try to do something new with the equipment at hand. It’s his Lego doctrine, as Geim describes it: “You have all these different pieces and you have to build something based strictly on the pieces you’ve got.”

Except, even the best inventions can be used to abuse people rather than serve them. And not all innovation equals progress, either.

That’s the case of graphene.

It’s the case of many such inventions. Remember the plastic explosive known as Semtex? Yes, the stuff used by terrorists to bring down passenger planes galore.

The Czech chemist who invented it was told to come up with an explosive to use in quarries and stone pits. The idea was to push the explosive into fissures and eliminate the need for difficult drilling that, on top of everything else, created too much dangerous dust that the workers breathed in.

Little did he know that his invention would kill so many innocent people.

It seems to be the same scenario with graphene. Superconductive material capable of receiving whatever signalisation is coming from the most modern networks, sent out for nefarious reasons by people who have been describing with chilling openness their stubborn desire to ruin the civilisation we live in.

Beware fact checkers

It’s pretty obvious that, following Pfizer’s half-baked denial, Snopes, Facebook and other similar media will start yelling that any mention of graphene in any of the Covid-related vaccines equals panic-mongering, and their fact checkers have found that each and every of the big pharma industry corporations are a bunch of honest guys who want the best for humanity, and nothing else.

Having checked several of the so-called fact checkers, here’s the preliminary summary: a bunch of semi-illiterate morons, many of them undergraduate students at humanities departments in long-distance learning institutions, or failed journalists who have never chased an ambulance. To explain: it’s the most difficult part of journalism, to report from all kinds of accidents: none of the authorities have time to answer your questions, most of the victims are too distressed to even speak, and yet, you’re expected to provide a competent report, and all that on deadline.

In any case, while it may be too late for those who eagerly got themselves inoculated and now are dancing with glee, telling all those willing to listen that they got jabbed, the report from Almeira University should come as a major warning.

Governments are now using all kinds of tactics, from open blackmail, through attempts to bribe their populations, all the way to intimidation, to enforce full vaccination.

You’ve been warned.