Month: September 2020

Just ahead of the 19th anniversary commemorating the tragic events of September 11, 2001 when America came under attack, the anti-interventionist thinktank The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft has featured a study detailing the millions of people displaced across the globe by US foreign combat operations in the wake of 9/11.

“The wars the U.S. government has fought since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have forced 37 million people — and perhaps as many as 59 million — from their homes, according to a newly released report from American University and Brown University’s Costs of War Project,” the report introduces.

It’s being called “the first calculation of its kind” given neither the Pentagon, nor State Department or any other federal agency has kept track of the mass displacements.

The study identifies that out of this 39 million total, eight of the most violent wars and ‘counter-insurgency campaigns’ are responsible for the vast majority of displacements. They are Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. 

These wars were executed or overseen either by the Bush, Obama, or spanning into the Trump administration. 

To drive home the magnitude, The Quincy Institute underscores that “Displacing 37 million people is equivalent to removing nearly all the residents of the state of California or all the people in Texas and Virginia combined.”

And further, “The figure is almost as large as the population of Canada.” 

Wesley Clark’s famous 2007 ‘Foreign Policy Coup’ speech: “We’re going to take out seven countries in five years” after 9/11:

American military bases have also rapidly expanded across the globe in the wake of 9/11, mostly in Africa and the Middle East, as the following map produced by the Investigative Reporting Workshop (IRW) demonstrates.

“Until now, no one has known how many people the wars have displaced,” the report emphasizes. “Indeed, most Americans are likely unaware that U.S. combat operations have taken place not only in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, but also in 21 other nations since President George W. Bush announced a global war on terror.”

* * *

Here are the breakdown of post 9/11 mass displacements by country according to the Public Anthropology Clinic:

• 5.3 million Afghans (representing 26% of the pre-war population) since the start of the U.S. war in Afghanistan in 2001;
• 3.7 million Pakistanis (3% of the pre-war population) since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 quickly became a single war crossing the border into northwest Pakistan;
• 1.7 million Filipinos (2%) since the U.S. military joined the Philippine government in its decades-old war with Abu Sayyaf and other insurgent groups in 2002;
• 4.2 million Somalis (46%) since U.S. forces began supporting a UN-recognized Somali government fighting the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) in 2002 and, after 2006, the ICU’s breakaway militia wing Al Shabaab;
• 4.4 million Yemenis (24%) since the U.S. government began drone assassinations of alleged terrorists in 2002 and backed a Saudi Arabia-led war against the Houthi movement since 2015;
• 9.2 million Iraqis (37%) since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and occupation and the post-2014 war against the Islamic State group;
• 1.2 million Libyans (19%) since the U.S. and European governments intervened in the 2011 uprising against Moammar Gadhafi fueling an ongoing civil war;
• 7.1 million Syrians (37%) since the U.S. government began waging war against the Islamic State in 2014.

Authored by Nick Corbishley via WolfStreet.com,

“If you discover at a later stage that there was Mafia involvement, how do you undo what you’ve already done?”

The British government acknowledged on Tuesday that it may end up paying out as much as £3.5 billion of taxpayer funds in fraudulent or wrong claims for its job retention scheme, which covers up to 80% of an employee’s salary while they are on furlough. That’s the equivalent of 10% of all the money disbursed by the furlough program by mid-August.

“We have made an assumption for the purposes of our planning that the error and fraud rate in this scheme could be between 5% and 10%,” Jim Harra, the top civil servant at HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), told members of parliaments on the Public Accounts Committee, adding that an academic study had estimated that the level of fraud and error could be even higher than 10%.

The jobs retention program is not the only British stimulus program that’s proven to be susceptible to fraud. The Bounce Back Loan program, which was launched to help small businesses survive the lockdown and its lingering aftermath, has been exploited by a minority of applicants to buy luxury cars, property or even premium bonds.

One of the reasons this is happening is that the loans are self-certified, so that they can be granted within 24 hours. They are also fully guaranteed by the State, meaning that banks are not liable for any unpaid debts and are therefore quite happy to release the funds with little in the way of background checks. Much of the debt — 40%-50% according to the Financial Times — will never be repaid, since many of the businesses will collapse.

The program has so far disbursed £31 billion to 1 million small businesses — roughly a fifth of the estimated 5 million registered businesses. The vast majority of these businesses had perfectly legitimate claims to the loans. With the economy brought to a virtual standstill by the government-imposed lockdown, they needed money as quickly as possible. But in all the haste to get credit flowing, juicy opportunities were created for fraudsters to fill the pockets along the way for fraudsters to also fill their pockets.

In July, the Policy Exchange think tank warned that fraud and error could set the government back between £1.3 billion and £7.9 billion. The think tank said the government’s financial rescue scheme was prone to abuse and scams due to the sheer scale of the loan program as well as the speed at which measures were rushed through.

Governments all over the world are beginning to admit that a considerable part of their unprecedented stimulus programs has been dished out on fraudulent or incorrect claims.

In the U.S., a report authored by House Democrats last week warned that $3 billion of the funds rolled out in the taxpayer-funded Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) program went to businesses that had been flagged as potentially problematic by the government. Some applicants received multiple loans — in violation of the program’s rules.

Three billion dollars may seem like a drop in the ocean compared to the $525 billion thus far disbursed by the program, but it could be just the tip of the iceberg. For the moment, there’s little way of knowing, since the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Treasury Department only manually audit PPP loans of more than $2 million, which account for less than 1% of all the loans approved.

Court records for the fraud schemes uncovered thus far outline how some opportunistic individuals wired money ostensibly intended to fund their payrolls to their personal accounts or those of friends and family. Others splashed out on luxury jewelry, cars and property, while some hoarded bundles of cash or frittered away thousands in PPP funds on strip clubs or in gambling joints.

Questions are now being asked about private banks’ apparent failure to administer the loans. The PPP loans are 100% guaranteed by the State. As such, the banks themselves have zero liability and as such little incentive in ensuring that the loan recipient is credit worthy or even whether their claim appears to be legitimate.

No one has played a bigger role in dishing out PPP loans than America’s biggest bank, JPMorgan Chase, which has issued around 280,000 loans totaling more than $29 billion. In a memo to staff, senior management said they had uncovered “instances of customers misusing PPP Loans, unemployment benefits and other government programs” and that some “employees have fallen short, too.” The firm said the incidents “may even be illegal.”

Another country where concerns have been voiced about stimulus-related fraud is Switzerland, where over 400 criminal proceedings have so far been launched against company executives, often for overstating their company’s turnover in order to receive a bigger loan. Roughly one out of every 300 loans issued is currently suspected of fraud, though that number could rise in the coming months.

In Italy fears are rising that the mafia is finding new innovative ways of tapping the government’s stimulus funds. Given that an estimated 40% of businesses were considered to be at risk of bankruptcy due to the coronavirus crisis, according to the National Institute of Statistics, money had to be injected into the economy as quickly as possible. That meant that the normal anti-mafia checks were jettisoned.

The onus is now on stepping up control efforts after the funds are released. But recovering funds after they’ve been disbursed is a lot harder than checking for fraud before releasing them, says Anna Sergi, a professor at the University of Essex who specializes in organized crime: “If you discover at a later stage that there was Mafia involvement, how do you undo what you’ve already done?”

Back in the UK, a big problem is opacity. The government refuses to disclose the recipients of £52 billion of state-funded coronavirus business loans, including the 516 large companies that received £3.5 billion between them. Without full disclosure, says the editor of The Guardian, the public has no idea whether the money, which is essentially theirs, went to “politically connected insiders”, “firms with thin trading histories or directors previously convicted of fraud”, or whether it ended up in a tax haven.

The Bank of England has been a little more forthcoming about the identity of the 63 companies it has lent more than £17 billion to as part of its Coronavirus Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF). Close to 30% of the money disbursed went to firms that are owned by a tax haven company or a tax exile, or are themselves incorporated in a tax haven, according to the investigative thinktank Taxwatch UK.

The recipients also include American oil giant Schlumberger, which was fined $237 million in 2015 for knowingly violating sanctions against Iran and Sudan, and Chemring, a UK arms company that is under criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office for bribery, corruption and money laundering. As confirmed by the SFO website, this is still an ongoing investigation. But Chemring was able to pick up a £50-million loan from the BoE.

In this “new normal” pandemic economy, fraud is exploding at all levels. With central banks and governments creating new money in unprecedented volumes and then releasing it into the economy as fast as they can, with little in the way of checks and balances and, in some cases, virtually no transparency, it’s hardly any surprise.

*  *  *

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? Using ad blockers – I totally get why – but want to support the site? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. 

It’s been no secret that over the past two years the tumultuous and historically antagonistic relationship between Russian and China has warmed, with Presidents Putin and Xi enjoying a rapid thawing of tensions amid mutual visits over the years in common cause aimed at the “mutual enemy” of Washington and its sanctions.

This has been accompanied by a corresponding positive military to military relationship as well — something that would have been unheard of throughout much of the 20th century. 

And now the two major powers are set to kick off the “Caucus 2020” joint war games in southern Russia which will run in late September.

The Associated Press reports “Chinese and Russian forces will take part in joint military exercises in southern Russia later this month along with troops from Armenia, Belarus, Iran, Myanmar, Pakistan and others, China’s defense ministry announced Thursday.”

The drills are expected to run for a week at the end of September, from the 21st through 26th, and will feature PLA infantry units, armored carriers, upgraded transport aircraft, and light weaponry, according to China’s defense ministry.

The defense ministry further underscored that China-Russia ties are increasing “at this important moment when the whole world is fighting the pandemic,” according to the statement.

The ongoing military cooperation among the countries is the continued outgrowth of Beijing and Moscow’s “comprehensive strategic partnership” two decades ago which the US has kept a close and worrisome eye on.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

There is always an excuse for the enforcement of totalitarian restrictions on the public. There is always a reason.  And, often these reasons are engineered to sound logical and practical at the time.

In Germany after WWI and into the early 1930s Bolshevik activists and the German Communist Party (KPD) engaged in aggressive economic sabotage, street violence and even assassinations. This along with the Great Depression led to German middle class support for the National Socialist Party and the Third Reich (fascism).  Much of history’s focus is on the horrors of the Nazis, but many people are unaware of the extreme threat of communist revolution in Europe during this era, a threat which was used by the Nazis as a perfect rationale for constructing a police state. Arguably, without the existence of hardline communism, the fascists never would have had the public support needed to rise to power.

In Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Cheka secret police were established in the name of preventing “counter-revolution”. This is an interesting aspect common to communism in particular; they desperately cling to the narrative that THEY are the “revolutionaries”, even when they have all the power. Thus, the revolution never ends because there are always people who disagree with communism. Anyone who refuses to comply with Marxist mandates becomes an imperialist enemy and bogeyman, and is held up as an example of why the revolution must perpetually continue. The police state must exist forever to root out the evil classists lurking in the shadows.

During the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak, a virus with a much higher death rate among younger Americans compared to today’s coronavirus, major US cities such as New Orleans instituted martial law measures and lockdowns on the economy; closing schools, churches, public transportation, and places of leisure. Of course, despite claims in the wake of Covid, these measures did little to nothing to stop the spread of the virus and the public became frustrated with their inability to function in the day-to-day economy (sound familiar). The population began to rebel against restrictions that were leading to financial decay, and there was little governments could do about it.

I’ve noticed that the mainstream media has attempted in the past six months to rewrite the history of the Spanish Flu as if martial law measures were a success, even though ultimately the flu ran its natural course in the majority of US cities. Infections and deaths continued unabated until the virus burned itself out and disappeared (no working vaccine was ever produced though there were many failed attempts based on the assumption that the disease was bacterial). Martial law actions only served to drag out the timeline of the virus.

One could argue that a hundred years ago governments did not have the same tools at their disposal as they do now. But are we really that much further ahead? Virologists have been working on an effective SARS vaccine for almost two decades with little success; the idea that they could come up with a working vaccine for Covid in the span of a year (as many governments are suggesting) seems absurd. History shows us that when vaccines are rushed into production by authorities, very bad things happen.

Regardless of lockdown measures, infection rates continue to climb in many nations, thereby justifying EVEN LONGER or more frequent lockdowns. This creates an endless cycle of economic instability which the public cannot endure, and many people are beginning to wonder what purpose of the pandemic restrictions serve? It’s obviously not to slow the virus and save lives as an effective vaccine is unlikely to be developed in time for the lockdowns to matter. But, if you wanted to quickly implement a totalitarian system, then using a global health threat as justification might be the ticket.

The problem for the establishment will be this: How can they keep the tyranny going once they have it? Ultimately, for a totalitarian system to work it NEEDS a large portion of the public to support it on principle. The public has to believe that the loss of their liberties is necessary to their survival for the long term.

What I find most interesting is the disparity in response to the two sides of the crisis today. Just as in the early part of the 20th century, we have a communist uprising as well as global pandemic that the public is growing increasingly suspicious of. How the government treats each problem is obviously different.

For example, the law enforcement response to the BLM and ANTIFA riots has been rather subdued and passive. I was in Pittsburgh for the G20 event in 2009 and I can tell you from experience that the police response was vicious and highly coordinated, and this was against groups that were doing nothing more that chanting slogans in the street without a permit from the city (the city government only gave out ONE protest permit while the G20 were present in Pittsburgh).

There was no rioting and minimal damage to private property, yet law enforcement deployed full force measures including Spartan formations, sound cannons, rubber bullets and armored vehicles. Watch video footage of the G20 in Pittsburgh and then compare it to the riots in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, New York, etc. It should become clear to you that for some reason police are being ordered to hold back the majority of the time.

Another glaring issue is the media response to the riots. They refer to the protests as exclusively peaceful despite mass looting, destruction of private property and violence. They treat BLM as sacrosanct and untouchable and act as an attack dog against anyone criticizing the actions of the organization. The issue of social distancing and virus spread is dismissed or ignored when it comes to BLM.

By extension, examine the mainstream media response to the protests against coronavirus lockdown restrictions. No riots, no looting, no violence on the part of conservative and moderate protesters, yet the media demonizes them as if they are a threat to the very fabric of our society. Look at how quick authorities have been to arrest people who refuse to follow lockdown restrictions, and take into account how aggressive arrests have been in other countries like Australia, Spain or the UK for doing nothing more than posting messages on Facebook or not wearing a mask on the street.

I think my point here is clear: The establishment supports social justice violence and unrest, and is cracking down hard on any resistance to medical tyranny. The hypocrisy is evident.

But this brings up some questions; such as why they are so keen to allow the BLM riots to continue? As noted at the beginning of this article, I think the strategy is evident – It’s a two pronged attempt, a bait and switch: If the Marxists are successful and meet little resistance from the public then they will tear down the current system, and the elitists institutions that fund them like George Soros’s Open Society Foundation and the Ford Foundation will use the opportunity to build an Orwellian collectivist society from the ashes.

On the other hand, as in Germany in the 1930s, the civil unrest caused by hard left groups could also convince the general public that martial law measures are an acceptable solution and make them willing to sacrifice constitutional protections in order to rid themselves of the threat. There have been examples of this recently when federal agents initiated black bagging of protester in Portland using unmarked vans; all I saw from most conservatives was cheering. This would undoubtedly lead to a long term totalitarian structure that, once again, benefits the elites that inhabit every aspect of government including Trump’s White House.

In both cases, the power elites get what they want – a police state.

In terms of the pandemic response, a police state is already being established in many nations, and with most Western people’s predominantly disarmed there is little chance they will be able to resist the crackdown that will ensue as they try to protest the restrictions. But what about in America?

This is why it does not surprise me that the BLM riots are being encouraged so openly in the US. Look at it this way: If the elites cannot get us to go along with medical tyranny for fear of sparking an armed uprising from conservatives with actual training and ability, then they figure maybe they can trick us into supporting martial law in the name of defeating the political left.

The only solution is to refuse to support either option. We must repel the establishment of medical tyranny and stand against any overstep of state and federal governments against the constitution when it comes to protests. Riots and looting can be dealt with, and dealt with within the confines of the Bill of Rights. Also, once again I would point out that in almost every place where armed citizens organize and take up security measures in their communities the protests remain peaceful, or they don’t happen at all.

There is no legitimate excuse for a police state. There is always another way. Anyone that tells you different has an agenda of their own.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Authored by Chris Farrell via The Gatestone Institute,

How does one ensure their political allies are ideologically synchronized, and know exactly how to disrupt a presidential election? What about the “journalists” in the news media and the babblers on social media — how does one get them onboard with the planned nationwide revolutionary disruption? Easy! Publish a report titled: “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election.”

In one of the greatest public disinformation campaigns in American history — the Left and their NeverTrumper allies (under the nom de guerre: “Transition Integrity Project”) released a 22-page report in August 2020 “war gaming” (their term) four election crisis scenarios:

1. A decisive Trump win;

2. A decisive Biden win;

3. A narrow Biden win; and,

4. A period of extended uncertainty after the election.

The outcome of each TIP scenario results in street violence and political impasse.

TIP organizers and leaders include Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks, Nils Gilman of the “independent” Berggruen Institute in California, and John Podesta, the longtime fixer and handler of the Clinton political dynasty. The nominally Republican members of group include former Republican National Chair Michael Steele, journalist David Frum, and former magazine editor Bill Kristol.

Publication of the TIP report is an information warfare strategy employed for revolutionary political purposes. The strategy is sophisticated and multifaceted. The TIP document:

• Lays the groundwork for “consensus” news media and social media narratives;

• Rationalizes “unconventional strategies” for generating maximum confusion and turmoil over “unfavorable” election outcomes;

• Projects accusations of unlawful/criminal conduct on President Trump and those voting for him;

• Co-opts the (already politically sympathetic) Washington DC federal bureaucracy to support their strategy from the headquarters of every department and agency of the Executive;

• Relies (correctly) on a low-awareness/low-energy response from the political Right to counter the TIP program.

Is it possible that the leadership of the American Left, along with their NeverTrumper allies, are busy talking themselves into advocating and promoting street violence as a response to a presidential election?

The answer is: Yes.

In the opening paragraph of their “bipartisan” report, TIP states: “We assess with a high degree of likelihood that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape.” Especially if they have their way.

An alternative to one of the war-gamed scenarios resulted in the TIPsters advocating for the secession of Washington, Oregon and California. Is there no sense of historical irony in the Democrat party? Secession over an election? Again?

The single greatest irony of the TIP report is the overwhelming use of “projection” in framing and characterizing various claims against President Trump (and his supporters) as a means to justify the Left’s “irregular” plans to disrupt the election process.

Projection, as a political technique, is not a secret. The American Left has never bothered to hide or disguise it, nor have they even found it desirable to do so.

The covert portion of the projection technique is the funding and organizational involvement behind the projection itself. Who is paying the bills for TIP and its affiliates? This is a highly organized, sophisticated operation with career political operatives calling the shots. No one does this for free, and someone (or some entity) is paying the bill. Who?

The TIP report is itself an exercise of power. Political intelligence information and public policy strategies are being fused through the actions of TIP. That synthesis is a demonstration of real political power, and it is being implemented in a written plan that contemplates street violence to affect the outcome of the US presidential election. The political power resourced and generated from a document like the TIP report can be used for persuasion (through news and social media), indoctrination (of activists and other “true believers”), and introduces the threat of terror and street violence (to the general population) as a “normal” or “expected” outcome.

Here is how the news and social media narrative is coming together and what you will see, hear and read in the next few weeks:

“Yes, expect violence in the aftermath of the election, because now that is the new ‘normal.’ Trump made us do it. He made us take the election, because the old, regular system just cannot be relied upon. That’s why we had to publish our report, so we could organize ‘around’ all of the regular processes. Obama promised ‘fundamental transformation,’ and now, years later – we’re finally going to deliver.”

What evidence is there of awareness and preparedness on the political Right to confront and counter the TIP (and other Leftists) and their plans to disrupt the election? Not much. Time is short. The Left’s threat of violence and subversion of the election is real. How we respond is critical.

For the second day in a row, on Thursday, Chinese military aircraft entered Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ), according to an Al Jazeera report. 

Taiwan was forced to scramble fighter jets as Chinese warplanes breached the air defense buffer zone off its south-western coast.

Chinese fighter jets entered Taiwan’s southwestern ADIZ for two consecutive days. ROCAF responded accordingly and will continue to surveil the region https://t.co/sMiK89Iy9V via @MoNDefense #Taiwan pic.twitter.com/XvmxKt7IIj

— Live Eurasia Map (@eurasiamap) September 10, 2020

Taiwan’s defense ministry urged China to stop “destroying regional peace” as tensions in the unstable Taiwan Strait continue to ramp up ahead of the US presidential election on Nov. 3.

Chinese jets first breached the ADIZ on Wednesday (Sept. 9), then again, on Thursday (Sept. 10), the Taiwanese defense ministry said, adding that Su-30 fighters and Y-8 transport aircraft were among some of the planes that entered the ADIZ on Thursday morning.

“The defense ministry once again urged the Chinese Communist Party must not to repeatedly destroy regional peace and stability,” the Taiwanese defense ministry said, adding that the ADIZ breach by Chinese warplanes triggered hostility among the people of Taiwan.

Beijing claims Taiwan as “sacred” territory and threatens to invade the country if it refuses to unify with Mainland China. 

Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen warned in late August of accidental conflict could occur in the Taiwan Strait, or the South China Sea, as China and the US have ramped up warship sails in both regions. 

When it comes to relations between China and the US, well, readers know Sino-US relations are at multi-decade lows as mistrust over the virus pandemic, unfair trade, and disputes over Hong Kong, the South China Sea, and Taiwan have fueled the geopolitical fire. It’s even to the point, President Trump called for economic decoupling of the US and Chinese economies on Monday (Sept. 7). 

“So when you mention the word decouple, it’s an interesting word,” Trump  said earlier this week, at a White House news conference, and added:

“We lose billions of dollars and if we didn’t do business with them we wouldn’t lose billions of dollars. It’s called decoupling, so you’ll start thinking about it,” he said.

To make matters worse, Taiwan recently signed a deal to purchase fighter jets from Lockheed Martin as concerns of a hot conflict could be on the horizon. 

Last November, Taiwan warned that the threat of a Chinese invasion would increase if Beijing could not stabilize its economy. Fast forward today, the global economy continues to falter and the downturn could last for years – opening up the idea that a regional war could develop to mask China’s economic slide. 

China’s growing military presence in the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Philippine Sea continues to suggest regional tensions will increase this year. 

Authored by Edward Curtin via EdwardCurtin.com,

For anyone old enough to have been alive and aware of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and of so-called COVID-19 in 2020, memory may serve to remind one of an eerie parallel between the two operations. 

However, if memory has been expunged by the work of one’s forgettery or deleted by the corporate media’s flushing it down the memory hole, or if knowledge is lacking, or maybe fear or cognitive dissonance is blocking awareness, I would like to point out some similarities that might perk one up to consider some parallels and connections between these two operations.

The fundamental tie that binds them is that both events aroused the human fear of death.

Underlying all fears is the fear of death.  A  fear that has both biological and cultural roots. On the biological level, we all react to death threats in a fight or flight manner. Culturally, there are multiple ways that fear can be allayed or exacerbated, purposely or not. Usually, culture serves to ease the fear of death, which can traumatize people, through its symbols and myths. Religion has for a long time served that purpose, but when religion loses its hold on people’s imaginations, especially in regard to the belief in immortality, as Orwell pointed out in the mid-1940s, a huge void is left.  Without that consolation, fear is usually tranquilized by trivial pursuits.

In the cases of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the current corona virus operation, the fear of death has been used by the power elites in order to control populations and institute long-planned agendas.  There is a red thread that connects the two events.

Both events were clearly anticipated and planned.

In the case of September 11, 2001, as I have argued before, linguistic mind-control was carefully crafted in advance to conjure fear at the deepest levels with the use of such repeated terms as Pearl Harbor, Homeland, Ground Zero, the Unthinkable, and 9/11.  Each in its turns served to raise the fear level dramatically. Each drew on past meetings, documents, events, speeches, and deep associations of dread. This language was conjured from the chief sorcerer’s playbook, not from that of an apprentice out of control.

And as David Ray Griffin, the seminal 9/11 researcher (and others), has pointed out in a dozen meticulously argued and documented books, the events of that day had to be carefully planned in advance, and the post hoc official explanations can only be described as scientific miracles, not scientific explanations. These miracles include: massive steel-framed high-rise buildings for the first time in history coming down without explosives or incendiaries in free fall speed; one of them being WTC-7 that was not even hit by a plane; an alleged hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flying a massive Boeing 757 in a most difficult maneuver into the Pentagon; airport security at four airports failing at the same moment on the same day; all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies failing; air traffic control failing, etc.  The list goes on and on.  And all this controlled by Osama bin Laden. It’s a fairy tale.

Then we had the crucially important anthrax attacks that are linked to 9/11. Graeme MacQueen, in The 2001 Anthrax Deception, brilliantly shows that these too were a domestic conspiracy.

These planned events led to the invasion of Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, the invasion of Iraq , the ongoing war on terror, etc.

Let us not forget years of those fraudulent color-coded warnings of the terrorist levels and the government admonition to use duct tape around your windows to protect against a massive chemical and biological attack.

Jump to 2020. 

Let me start in reverse while color-coded designs are fresh in our minds. As the COVID-19 lockdowns were under way, a funny thing happened as people were wishing that life could return to normal and they could be let out of their cages. Similar color-coded designs popped up everywhere at the same time.  They showed the step-by-step schedule of possible loosening of government controls if things went according to plan. Red to yellow to green. Eye catching. Red orange yellow blue green.  As with the terrorist warnings following September 11, 2001.  In Massachusetts, a so-called blue state where I live, it’s color chart ends in blue, not green, with Phase 4 blue termed “the new normal: Development of vaccines and/or treatments enable the resumption of ‘the new normal.’” Interesting wording.  A resumption that takes us back to the future.

As with the duct tape admonitions after 9/11, now everyone is advised to wear a mask. It’s interesting to note that the 3 M Company, a major seller of duct tape, is also one of the world’s major sellers of face masks.  The company was expected to be producing 50 million N95 respirator masks per month by June 2020 and 2 billion globally within the coming year.  Then there is 3 M’s masking tape…but this is a sticky topic.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, we were told repeatedly that the world was changed forever. Now we are told that after COVID 19, life will never be the same.  This is the “new normal,” while the post-9/11-pre-Covid-19 world must have been the old new normal. So everything is different but normal also.  So as the Massachusetts government website puts it, in the days to come we may be enabled to enact “the resumption of ‘the new normal.’”  This new old normal will no doubt be a form of techno-fascist transhumanism enacted for our own good.

As with 9/11, there is ample evidence that the corona virus outbreak was expected and planned; that people have been the victims of a propaganda campaign to use an invisible virus to scare us into submission and shut down the world’s economy for the global elites.  It is a clear case, as Peter Koenig tells Michel Chossudovsky in this must-see interview, that is not a conspiracy theory but a blatant factual plan spelled out in the 2010 Rockefeller Report, the October 18, 2019 Event 201, and Agenda 21, among other places.

Like amorphous terrorists and a war against “terrorism,” which is a tactic and therefore not something you can fight, a virus is invisible except when the media presents it as a pale, orange-spiked bunch of floating weird balls that are everywhere and nowhere.  Watch your back, watch your face, mask up, wash your hands, keep your distance – you never know when those orange spiked balls may get you.

As with 9/11, whenever anyone questions the official narrative of Covid-19, the official statistics, the validity of the tests, the effectiveness of masks, the powers behind the heralded vaccine to come, and the horrible consequences of the lockdowns that are destroying economies, killing people, forcing people to despair and to commit suicide, creating traumatized children, bankrupting small and middle-sized businesses for the sake of enriching the richest, etc., the corporate media mock the dissidents as conspiracy nuts, aiding the viral enemy. 

This is so even when the dissenters are highly respected doctors, scientists, intellectuals, et al., who are regularly disappeared from the internet. With September 11, there were initially far fewer dissenters than now, and so the censorship of opposing viewpoints didn’t need the blatant censorship that is now growing daily.

This censorship happens all across the internet now, quickly and stealthily, the same internet that is being forced on everyone as the new normal as presented in the Great Global Reset, the digital lie, where, as Anthony Fauci put it, no one should  ever shake hands again.

A world of abstract images and beings in which, as Arthur Jensen tells Howard Beal in the film, Network, “All necessities [will be] provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.”  A digital dystopia that is fast approaching as perhaps the end of that red thread that runs from 9/11 to today.

Heidi Evens and Thomas Hackett write in the New York Daily News:

With the nation’s illusion of safety and security in ruins, Americans begin the slow and fitful process of healing from a trauma that feels deeply, cruelly personal…leaving citizens throughout the country with the frightening knowledge of their vulnerability.

That was written on September 12, 2001.

Starbucks announced on Thursday that all of its stores in the United States and Canada will offer strawless lids on its iced coffee, tea, espresso and Refreshers drinks, after successfully test-bedding them over the last year.

The lids, modeled after those used for hot drinks, use 9% less plastic than the previous ‘lid and straw’ according to the company, which has targeted a 50% reduction in waste sent to landfills from stores and manufacturing sites by 2030.

“A recyclable, strawless lid becoming the standard for iced drinks is one small way we can give more than we take from the planet,” said Starbucks director of global packaging, Andy Corlett. “This is a significant moment for Starbucks as we work to reduce waste and safeguard the environment.“

The company says that straws will still be available upon request, and will be given to those ordering Frappuccinos and other whipped-cream drinks.

“Strawless lids and straws made from alternative materials will continue to be tested and rolled out to more markets in the coming year,” the company added.

As the Miami Herald notes, “Half a billion straws are used every day in the U.S., and 8.3 million plastic straws pollute the world’s beaches, according to National Geographic. There has been a push in recent years to eliminate plastic straws to prevent added waste.”

“(Single use plastic) straws have been described as a ‘gateway plastic,’ which if curbed, can help change the behavior of consumers and retailers to reduce other SUP items,” said Dr. Tony Walker, assistant professor of environmental science at Dalhousie University in Canada, in a statement to USA Today last summer.

According to the Center for Disability Rights, the move may make it more difficult for disabled people.

“For many individuals with mobility and strength issues, they cannot lift cups high enough to drink from them,” said the organization, adding “Some individuals with poor motor coordination cannot safely hold a drink steady without spilling it. Certain medicines must also be taken via straw. Bendable plastic straws allow individuals to nourish themselves and avoid spilling things on themselves, and others.”

Via MunkDebates.com,

Are we overreacting to COVID-19?

Be it Resolved, the scientific community has overreacted to the threat of COVID-19 and the data prove it…

Six months into a global pandemic and 63,000 scientific papers later, scientists and medical researchers continue to be perplexed by COVID-19. There are many unknowns with the virus, and one of the most controversial is how deadly it really is. Since the beginning of the pandemic, leading health institutions such as the World Health Organization and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases have warned that COVID-19 is much more dangerous than the seasonal flu and that, without expansive public health measures, millions of people around the world could die from the virus.

But there are some in the scientific community who disagree. And they say they have the data to prove it. Antibody testing of large population groups indicates that we could be grossly underestimating the number of people who have been infected by the virus – which means we are dramatically overestimating the death rate. Given these findings, they question whether sweeping public health controls are the way to approach a possible second wave of COVID-19 this autumn.

GUESTS

To understand the true prevalence of COVID-19 infections in the United States, Jay Bhattacharya has recently undertaken several seroprevalence studies (the study of antibodies in a population). You can read about his study of Santa Clara County in California here and his study of 5,600 Major League Baseball employees here.

Sten Vermund has published numerous scholarly studies on infectious diseases, which you can view here.

During the debate both Jay and Sten speak about COVID-19’s “infection fatality rate” (IFR). IFR is one of the most important characteristics of an infectious disease in determining its severity. It is basically the ultimate measure of a disease’s ability to cause death. You can learn more about IFR and how it is estimated here.  In the debate, both Jay and Sten agree that the current estimates of the COVID-19 infection fatality rates are overestimated and therefore misleading. To learn more, read Jay’s Wall Street Journal op ed.

During the debate, Sten points out that between March and May of 2020 there was a 19 per cent excess death rate in the United States.  Excess death rates refer to the difference between the observed numbers of deaths in specific time period and expected number of deaths in the same time period. According to Sten, the excess rates are probably 28 per cent higher than the official deaths tally of COVID-19 because so many cases are not reported. This Nature.com article supports this view.

Jay argues that part of the science community’s overreaction to COVID-19 has been censorship of unpopular scientific views. Jay refers to an op ed in the New York Times by Michael Eisen that expresses concern about how scientific study pre-prints are being released before they are peer reviewed, and calling for the establishment of a scientific “rapid review” service for pre-prints.

One of the scientists Jay identifies as having an unorthodox view on COVID-19 is Gabriela Gomez, She speaks about her research on herd immunity occurring when as little as ten percent of the population has been infected with the virus here and you can read her research article here.

Sten and Jay disagree with each other about the feasibility of isolating the most vulnerable members of society, particularly the elderly, while letting the rest of the population continue to live normally. Sten refers to a New York Times article by David Katz which supports the strategy of “vertical interdiction”, where those over 60 are “preferentially protected.”

Jay refers to the recent release of findings from a Public Health England study that found negligible spread among one million students who returned to school in June.

During the debate Jay identifies Sweden’s approach to COVID-19 as a model for the world, while Sten argues it represents a failed strategy. You can decide for yourself by listening to the Munk Debate, Be it resolved, Sweden is the model for how to fight this pandemic and the next.

Listen to the full debate below: