External border controls will continue around Germany until the number of illegal migrants drops significantly, German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser stated on Monday during a meeting with Federal Police Chief Dieter Romann in Rostock.
Although numbers have started to decline, they remain higher than in previous years.
“I am not willing to accept these figures,” Faeser emphasized.
The German interior ministry is reportedly frustrated by the uneven distribution of refugees across Europe, according to Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
Faeser pointed out that only a few countries are shouldering the bulk of the migration burden.
She also confirmed that existing controls at the borders with Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, and Switzerland will remain in place until the implementation of the Common European Asylum System which was approved this spring.
However, this process will take several more months, with the earliest end to the checks expected in June 2025.
Despite a record influx of nearly 128,000 illegal migrants last year, this year’s numbers have dropped, with 53,000 illegal entries reported so far — a 16 percent decrease compared to the same period last year. German authorities attribute this decline in part to the reintroduced border controls.
The Federal Police report that most illegal entries occur via Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, and Switzerland.
The stationary checks on the borders with Poland, the Czech Republic and Switzerland were initially introduced on Oct. 16, following the earlier reinstatement of controls at the Austrian border.
The decision came as German authorities noticed a rising influx of refugees and increased human smuggling activities along these routes.
“A total demolition of the previous forms of existence is underway: how one comes into the world, biological sex, education, relationships, the family, even the diet that is about to become synthetic.”
Silvia Guerini, radical ecologist, in ‘From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Posthuman Cyborg: A Critique of Gender Ideology’ (2023)
We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain.
The big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.
The billionaire interests behind this try to portray their techno-solutionism as some kind of humanitarian endeavour: saving the planet with ‘climate-friendly solutions’, ‘helping farmers’ or ‘feeding the world’. But what it really amounts to is repackaging and greenwashing the dispossessive strategies of imperialism.
It involves a shift towards a ‘one world agriculture’ under the control of agritech and the data giants, which is to be based on genetically engineered seeds, laboratory created products that resemble food, ‘precision’ and ‘data-driven’ agriculture and farming without farmers, with the entire agrifood chain, from field (or lab) to retail, being governed by monopolistic e-commerce platforms determined by artificial intelligence systems and algorithms.
Those who are pushing this agenda have a vision not only for farmers but also for humanity in general.
The elites through their military-digital-financial (Pentagon/Silicon Valley/Big Finance) complex want to use their technologies to reshape the world and redefine what it means to be human. They regard humans, their cultures and their practices, like nature itself, as a problem and deficient.
Farmers are to be displaced and replaced with drones, machines and cloud-based computing. Food is to be redefined and people are to be fed synthetic, genetically engineered products. Cultures are to be eradicated, and humanity is to be fully urbanised, subservient and disconnected from the natural world.
What it means to be human is to be radically transformed. But what has it meant to be human until now or at least prior to the (relatively recent) Industrial Revolution and associated mass urbanisation?
To answer this question, we need to discuss our connection to nature and what most of humanity was involved in prior to industrialisation — cultivating food.
Many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our forebears were built around stories, myths and rituals that helped them come to terms with some of the most fundamental issues of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These culturally embedded beliefs and practices served to sanctify their practical relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.
As agriculture became key to human survival, the planting and harvesting of crops and other seasonal activities associated with food production were central to these customs.
Humans celebrated nature and the life it gave birth to. Ancient beliefs and rituals were imbued with hope and renewal and people had a necessary and immediate relationship with the sun, seeds, animals, wind, fire, soil and rain and the changing seasons that nourished and brought life. Our cultural and social relationships with agrarian production and associated deities had a sound practical base.
People’s lives have been tied to planting, harvesting, seeds, soil and the seasons for thousands of years.
Silvia Guerini, whose quote introduces this article, notes the importance of deep-rooted relationships and the rituals that re-affirm them. She says that through rituals a community recognises itself and its place in the world. They create the spirit of a rooted community by contributing to rooting and making a single existence endure in a time, in a territory, in a community.
Professor Robert W Nicholls explains that the cults of Woden and Thor were superimposed on far older and better-rooted beliefs related to the sun and the earth, the crops and the animals and the rotation of the seasons between the light and warmth of summer and the cold and dark of winter.
Humanity’s relationship with farming and food and our connections to land, nature and community has for millennia defined what it means to be human.
Take India, for example. Environmental scientist Viva Kermani says that Hinduism is the world’s largest nature-based religion that:
“…recognises and seeks the Divine in nature and acknowledges everything as sacred. It views the earth as our Mother and hence advocates that it should not be exploited. A loss of this understanding that earth is our mother, or rather a deliberate ignorance of this, has resulted in the abuse and the exploitation of the earth and its resources.”
Kermani notes that ancient scriptures instructed people that the animals and plants found in India are sacred and, therefore, all aspects of nature are to be revered. She adds that this understanding of and reverence towards the environment is common to all Indic religious and spiritual systems: Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.
According to Kermani, the Vedic deities have deep symbolism and many layers of existence. One such association is with ecology. Surya is associated with the sun, the source of heat and light that nourishes everyone; Indra is associated with rain, crops, and abundance; and Agni is the deity of fire and transformation and controls all changes.
She notes that the Vrikshayurveda, an ancient Sanskrit text on the science of plants and trees, contains details about soil conservation, planting, sowing, treatment, propagating, how to deal with pests and diseases and a lot more.
Like Nicholls, Kermani provides insight into some of the profound cultural, philosophical and practical aspects of humanity’s connection to nature and food production.
This connection resonates with agrarianism, a philosophy based on cooperative labour and fellowship, which stands in stark contrast to the values and impacts of urban life, capitalism and technology that are seen as detrimental to independence and dignity. Agrarianism, too, emphasises a spiritual dimension as well as the value of rural society, small farms, widespread property ownership and political decentralisation.
The revolution which began with machines and chemicals now continues with automation, computers and biotechnology.”
For Berry, agrarianism is not a sentimental longing for a time past. Colonial attitudes, domestic, foreign and now global, have resisted true agrarianism almost from the beginning — there has never been fully sustainable, stable, locally adapted, land-based economies.
However, Berry provides many examples of small (and larger) farms that have similar output as industrial agriculture with one third of the energy.
In his poem ‘A Spiritual Journey’, Berry writes the following:
And the world cannot be discovered by a journey of miles,
no matter how long,
but only by a spiritual journey,
a journey of one inch,
very arduous and humbling and joyful,
by which we arrive at the ground at our feet,
and learn to be at home.”
But in the cold, centralised, technocratic dystopia that is planned, humanity’s spiritual connection to the countryside, food and agrarian production are to be cast into the dustbin of history.
Silvia Guerini says:
The past becomes something to be erased in order to break the thread that binds us to a history, to a tradition, to a belonging, for the transition towards a new uprooted humanity, without past, without memory… a new humanity dehumanised in its essence, totally in the hands of the manipulators of reality and truth”.
This dehumanised humanity severed from the past is part of the wider agenda of transhumanism. For instance, we are not just seeing a push towards a world without farmers and everything that has connected us to the soil but, according to Guerini, also a world without mothers.
She argues that those behind test-tube babies and surrogate motherhood now have their sights on genetic engineering and artificial wombs, which would cut women out of the reproductive process. Guerini predicts that artificial wombs could eventually be demanded, or rather marketed, as a right for everyone, including transgender people. It is interesting that the language around pregnancy is already contested with the omission of ‘women’ from statements like ‘persons who can get pregnant’.
Of course, there has long been a blurring of lines between biotechnology, eugenics and genetic engineering. Genetically engineered crops, gene drives and gene editing are now a reality, but the ultimate goal is marrying artificial intelligence, bionanotechnology and genetic engineering to produce the one-world transhuman.
This is being pushed by powerful interests, who, according to Guerini, are using a rainbow, transgenic left and LGBTQ+ organisations to promote a new synthetic identity and claim to new rights. She says this is an attack on life, on nature, on “what is born, as opposed to artificial” and adds that all ties to the real, natural world must be severed.
It is interesting that in its report Future of Food, the UK supermarket giant Sainsburys celebrates a future where we are microchipped and tracked and neural laces have the potential to see all of our genetic, health and situational data recorded, stored and analysed by algorithms that could work out exactly what food (delivered by drone) we need to support us at a particular time in our life. All sold as ‘personal optimisation’.
Moreover, it is likely, according to the report, that we will be getting key nutrients through implants. Part of these nutrients will come in the form of lab-grown food and insects.
A neural lace is an ultra-thin mesh that can be implanted in the skull, forming a collection of electrodes capable of monitoring brain function. It creates an interface between the brain and the machine.
Sainsburys does a pretty good job of trying to promote a dystopian future where AI has taken your job, but, according to the report, you have lots of time to celebrate the wonderful, warped world of ‘food culture’ created by the supermarket and your digital overlords.
Technofeudalism meets transhumanism — all for your convenience, of course.
But none of this will happen overnight. And whether the technology will deliver remains to be seen. Those who are promoting this brave new world might have overplayed their hand but will spend the following decades trying to drive their vision forward.
But arrogance is their Achilles heel.
There is still time to educate, to organise, to resist and to agitate against this hubris, not least by challenging the industrial food giants and the system that sustains them and by advocating for and creating grass-root food movements and local economies that strengthen food sovereignty.
Most of us get the big things right: Don’t touch fire, wrestle alligators, or play in traffic. But beneath these necessary survival strategies, we are boundless reservoirs of delusion.
While many of our unmoored beliefs are specific to us – I seem to be the only person who thinks I have a beautiful singing voice – some are universal. Chief among these is the claim: I’m my own worst critic.
Instead, we cut ourselves slack at every turn. I have a million reasons why I fell down on the job and disappointed my pals. You see, it’s like this … But woe to the other guy who falls short. Come on, man, stop making excuses.
We instinctively make ourselves the hero of our own story, concocting tales to convert our vices into virtue. This dynamic is ever at work in each of us. On the plus side, if we don’t love ourselves, who will?
But delusion can also grip us on a mass scale – it is the great danger of ideology and fuels the madness of crowds.
We are seeing this unfold with terrible consequence as the dominant media betrays the very foundations of journalism – starting with demanding that only certain leaders answer questions – to transfigure Kamala Harris into a combination of Rosa Parks, Franklin Roosevelt, and Beyoncé.
Their partisanship is so manifold and manifest that it has created a cottage industry in conservative media, which creates terabytes of content each day exposing the false narratives and double standards advanced by Democrats and their laptop lackeys. Such debunking is necessary and important. But there’s a bit of delusion at work here, too: Despite all evidence to the contrary the critics somehow believe their fact-checking and truth-telling will pressure the propagandists into changing their ways.
It won’t. They are impervious to challenge. They are beyond shame.
How come? To figure out why they persist in this untoward conduct, daily compromising the values of skepticism, fairness, and bringing truth to power that they say they hold dear, we need to ask: What higher value do they believe they are serving? What do they tell themselves so they can see their corruption as heroic?
The answer is obvious: They sincerely believe that Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy, an American Hitler. If that’s the case, why would you give him a fair shake or hold his opponents’ feet to the fire?
I know this explanation is not revelatory; the Hitler analogy has been critiqued for years. But I’m not so sure that we have fully reckoned with how deeply a large percentage of the nation is in the grip of this delusion.
Displaying textbook symptoms of the addled, they insist that falsehoods are truths. Despite unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, they continue to maintain that Trump conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election, that he called all Mexicans rapists, praised neo-Nazi marchers at Charlottesville, advised Americans to inject bleach to combat COVID, and promised a “bloodbath” if he loses in November.
They are not lying when they make these claims – they sincerely believe they are expressing truths the rest of us just can’t see. This makes them immune to reason.
Echoing multiple conversations I’ve had with educated and engaged Democrats, a respected plastic surgeon recently told me, “If Trump wins, we will not have any more elections.”
He saw Jan. 6, 2021, as a dress rehearsal for the coming coup – never mind that Trump left office peaceably two weeks later. When I asked him how Trump might pull this off, he said the former president would declare a national emergency and GOP leaders would rally to his call for martial law, rounding up and jailing those who oppose him.
I pushed him again, to explain how all this might work. “Let’s say Trump and his Republican allies truly want to cross that Rubicon,” I said. “They couldn’t do it alone, right? They would probably need the Supreme Court, many state leaders, and the military to come on board. Do you really think the armed forces would support the overthrow of the Constitution?”
He didn’t respond. “Most important,” I said, “he would need the backing of his voters. Do you really believe that half the American people think ending elections and jailing untold numbers of people is fine and dandy?”
“Yes,” he said.
“Okey, dokey,” I said, switching the conversation to my concerns about the New York Yankees’ starting pitching.
His last comment suggested the dangerous depth of the delusion so many Democrats take for reality. They don’t just see Trump, but the other half of America as an existential threat to our Republic. Maybe they will defeat Hitler this November, but what to do with his tens of millions of brown-shirts?
Extreme times will require more extreme measures – more coercion, more censorship, more abrogation of rights in the name of liberty. They will heroically destroy our country in order to save it.
Many people experience chronic inflammation without even knowing it, Arch G. Mainous III, a professor at the University of Florida (UF) College of Medicine, told The Epoch Times.
A large-scale study published in Frontiers in Medicine in 2024 showed that among adults in the United States, almost 35 percent had systemic inflammation. Even among healthy individuals (with no evidence of disease), the proportion was about 15 percent.
Chronic inflammation is linked to a wide range of conditions and often “touches on some big diseases,” Dr. Frank A. Orlando, the medical director of UF Health Family Medicine–Springhill, told The Epoch Times. And its cause lies in what we eat and do every day.
When the Fire Is Allowed to Smolder
“We need inflammation,” Peter Osborne, a clinical nutritionist and chiropractic doctor, told The Epoch Times. The inflammatory response is an essential part of the immune system. When the body is infected or injured, inflammation—often likened to fire—is nature’s way of burning away pathogens and repairing damage. Once the threat is eliminated, inflammation should subside. But if the fire continues to smolder, it can become a chronic issue.
Inflammation that persists for more than three months is chronic inflammation, which triggers heart disease, cancer, diabetes, depression, sarcopenia, autoimmune disease, and neurodegenerative disorders, among others.
A review published in Nature Medicine indicated that over 50 percent of deaths can be attributed to inflammation-related diseases.
Chronic inflammation is a significant contributor to many heart diseases. For example, scientists’ understanding of atherosclerosis has evolved from viewing it as a passive accumulation of cholesterol to recognizing it as a condition driven by chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation triggers biochemical reactions that lead to the formation of atherosclerotic plaques and can cause these plaques to rupture.
A meta-analysis published in The Lancet found that levels of inflammation are linked to increased mortality risk for heart disease, stroke, and several types of cancer. Specifically, every threefold increase in the concentration of C-reactive protein—a standard marker of inflammation—was associated with a 37 percent higher risk of coronary heart disease and a 27 percent higher risk of ischemic stroke.
On the other hand, lower inflammation levels appear to be associated with increased longevity. A study involving hundreds of centenarians in Japan found that inflammation levels were more accurate predictors of longevity than telomere length and better predictors of daily living capabilities and cognitive function in older people than age. The study suggested that “suppression of chronic inflammation could be an essential step towards further improvements in human healthy lifespan.”
Short-Term Solution
Most inflammation can be controlled with medications, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (e.g., ibuprofen, naproxen, and aspirin), steroids, and immunomodulatory drugs. In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved colchicine as the first anti-inflammatory drug for heart disease.
But while using anti-inflammatory drugs is common in clinical practice, “there are no guidelines recommending NSAIDs for general use long-term to control chronic inflammation,” said Orlando. He added that even over-the-counter NSAIDs carry risks, such as heart attack, stroke, acute kidney injury, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and can interact with other medications.
“We do not want to put people on those [medications] for a long time,” especially when it comes to more potent anti-inflammatory drugs like corticosteroids and colchicine, said Mainous, who is also vice chair for research in the Department of Community Health and Family Medicine at UF.
Osborne, who practices functional nutrition, said that anti-inflammatory drugs can affect gut microbiome health and disrupt the production and absorption of certain nutrients. A deficiency in nutrients responsible for regulating inflammation can, in turn, exacerbate inflammation. For example, NSAIDs may lead to vitamin C deficiency, while corticosteroids can result in vitamin D, calcium, and magnesium deficiencies.
Relying solely on medication won’t lead to resolution, said Osborne.
He highlighted a phenomenon: Developed countries have some of the best health care systems in the world, but when it comes to chronic inflammation, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases, and other conditions, “we spend more money trying to treat these diseases, but we fail.”
David Furman, who holds a doctorate in immunology and is the director of the 1000 Immunomes Project at the Stanford University School of Medicine, said that modern lifestyle is a key problem.
While modern technology makes life more convenient and comfortable, this convenience is merely a façade, he said. “We sit for long periods, eat fast food and highly processed foods, and endure high levels of work stress, all of which can trigger and worsen inflammation,” he said.
“The biggest driver of chronic inflammation is found in our food,” Osborne said.
Food’s role is to nourish the body, providing energy and nutrients to maintain proper function. However, various food additives, such as artificial flavors, colors, emulsifiers, and added sugars, can contribute to chronic inflammation. Studies have demonstrated that common emulsifiers in processed foods, such as carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and polysorbate 80 (P80), can damage the gut and induce inflammation. Additionally, the high levels of sugar and refined carbohydrates in ultra-processed foods can lead to elevated blood sugar and oxidative stress, triggering inflammation.
A large study published in 2020 found that individuals who followed a pro-inflammatory diet had elevated levels of multiple inflammatory markers and a 38 percent increased risk of heart disease. Another study based on data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), published in 2022, found that those who consumed a high amount of pro-inflammatory foods had a 41 percent increased risk of cancer mortality.
“You do not eat the food today, and you have a heart attack because of it tomorrow,” said Osborne. The problem is “when you eat poorly day in and day out for decades of your life,” which gradually prevents the body from ceasing inflammation until its defenses break down and disease occurs.
However, Osborne said that doctors in most countries rarely emphasize nutrition. During their eight years of medical education, they receive minimal training in that area. He hopes that diet will become a fundamental component when doctors educate patients on combatting diseases.
Several experts highlighted that avoiding ultra-processed foods is more important than simply consuming foods with potential anti-inflammatory properties. Mainous pointed out that eating a single anti-inflammatory food, such as a specific fruit, may not yield the desired anti-inflammatory effects.
Another important factor contributing to diet-induced inflammation is food allergies.
“There’s an old saying: One man’s food is another man’s poison,” Osborne noted, sharing the story of a patient he helped. The 6-year-old girl, who had an inflammatory disease, was given only six months to live. Fortunately, Osborne discovered that the child was allergic to blueberries, which her mother had been giving her every morning in a blueberry smoothie. Eliminating blueberries from the girl’s diet saved her life.
Gluten and certain substances in soy and milk can also cause inflammation in some individuals, Osborne added. Through modern medical tests and examinations, people can identify their trigger foods and adjust their diets to mitigate and prevent inflammation.
Toxins Inside and Outside Our Homes
Various synthetic ingredients in everyday household items and cosmetics not only directly irritate the skin but can also enter the body, leading to inflammation.
Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), found in drinking water, cookware, and food packaging, can increase inflammatory responses.
Harmful chemicals also exist in the air we breathe, especially in a bustling metropolis. According to Furman, types of air pollutants such as PM2.5 and PM10 (particle matter with diameters of less than 2.5 micrometers or 10 micrometers, respectively) can cause inflammation in the brain and lungs. Moreover, formaldehyde in new furniture or newly constructed homes can lead to cardiovascular inflammation. Osborne recommends using an air purifier at home as a basic protective measure for people living in areas with poor air quality.
High Body Fat, Low Muscle Mass
A 2021 study found that prolonged sitting raises pro-inflammatory cytokines in older women and lowers anti-inflammatory cytokines in older men. Another study showed that individuals who sit for long periods have elevated levels of various inflammatory biomarkers in their blood.
A sedentary lifestyle leads to more fat accumulation. “Thirty percent of the interleukin-6 in our bloodstream is secreted by fat cells,” said Furman, noting that this substance contributes to inflammation.
Adults who do not exercise also experience a 3 percent to 8 percent reduction in muscle mass every decade. Several experts highlighted and emphasized the anti-inflammatory benefits of exercise and maintaining muscle during interviews.
Greater muscle mass leads to the production of more anti-inflammatory molecules, said Furman.
“You have to think about the muscle as a secretory organ,” he said. Muscles produce and release cytokines and various small proteins into the bloodstream, which systemically reduce inflammation. This secretion is even more pronounced during muscle contractions.
A study conducted in the United Kingdom that tracked over 4,000 adults with an average age of 49 over a 10-year follow-up period found that those who exercised regularly exhibited reduced levels of two inflammatory markers: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and interleukin-6. Notably, those who engaged in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise per week had the lowest levels of inflammation.
Mainous recommends aiming for 150 minutes of exercise per week, with the type of exercise tailored to individual health conditions. For young adults, moderate-to-intense exercise can temporarily increase acute inflammatory markers but helps reduce inflammation over the long term. For older adults and those with chronic conditions, it is crucial to avoid overexertion.
A Silent Inflammatory Agent
Experts also highlighted that stress, while intangible and invisible, is a major contributor to chronic inflammation.
One theory behind stress-induced inflammation is that it reduces the sensitivity of immune cells to signals that usually resolve inflammation.
Additionally, “stress causes inflammation by activating the body’s fight-or-flight response, which then triggers the release of what we refer to as pro-inflammatory chemicals and hormones,” Stephen Sideroff, an associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences and the Department of Rheumatology at the University of California–Los Angeles’ School of Medicine, told The Epoch Times.
Sideroff said that the first step in managing stress is to reframe adverse events as positive challenges. He explained that moderate and well-timed stress can be beneficial as it activates the sympathetic nervous system, preparing people to handle threats effectively.
Many people feel powerless against stress, but this mindset contributes to the problem, according to Sideroff. He recommends adopting a growth mindset toward stress: “I have to learn something new if I am going to handle the situation better.” Through this learning process, one can “figure out a better way of dealing with the stressors in one’s life,” he said.
Excessive stress introduces another problem: As we use our energy to manage stress, our metabolism ramps up to produce more energy and directs more blood to the muscles and brain. However, “we all have just a certain amount of personal energy,” Sideroff explained. As a result, the brain reallocates energy from other organs, such as the kidneys, to address immediate needs. This reduces the kidneys’ ability to filter harmful substances from the blood, which can then further trigger inflammation throughout the body. “This is at the heart of one of the ways that stress leads to aging and disease; a lot of the maintenance processes of the body get neglected,” he added.
Letting go of anger and doubt and facing situations with calmness can also reduce inflammation. Sideroff said that these emotions are similar to stress and consume a significant amount of the body’s energy.
“The less we interpret other people’s behavior, the less stress,” Sideroff said. We should be “learning and figuring out all of the ways that we stress ourselves unnecessarily.”
Additionally, it is essential to allow the body’s repair systems more time to heal.
“After a stress is over, we need to give the body the opportunity to recover, to go into the recovery and healing mode,” said Sideroff. One way to achieve this is finding “time in our day where we can say, ‘I am in a zone of safety, or on an island of safety.’” Even just 10 minutes of letting your guard down and relaxing can be beneficial—whether through meditation or relaxation exercises. This activates the parasympathetic nervous system, facilitating the body’s recovery.
A randomized controlled trial showed that even short periods of meditation can improve mental health, decrease pro-inflammatory cytokines, and increase anti-inflammatory cytokines. Experienced meditators exhibited greater resilience and tolerance to stress and stimuli, with lower levels of inflammation in their bodies.
Furman added that the detrimental effects of loneliness should not be underestimated. “People who are socially isolated, lack strong community support, or do not have the care of friends and family experience significantly higher levels of inflammation.”
He said people should choose an anti-inflammatory approach tailored to their individual needs. “It is not a one-size-fits-all,” he added. For instance, someone with a high-stress job—especially if it is their sole source of income—and an unbalanced diet might start by making dietary adjustments and incorporating regular exercise. Additionally, they should focus on strengthening relationships with family and friends to help reduce inflammation.
Democrats Are Desperate To Keep Red Flag Laws As Legal Opposition Grows
If one was to describe the nature of the anti-gun movement, they would probably use the analogy of the frog in the boiling pot. Another way to look at it, though, is unwittingly inviting a vampire into your home. Do it once and he’ll keep inviting himself back every night until you have no more blood left to drain. Red flag laws are like an open invitation for gun grabbing vampires to enter any firearm owner’s home for almost any reason, slowly but surely confiscating weapons from every American they don’t like.
It doesn’t have to happen all at once. It could happen over the span of years, but eventually they’ll get every gun that’s not hidden away without anyone ever committing a crime and without any due process pursued. Donald Trump gave credence to these policies during his first term and it was one of the dumbest things he did in office. Under Kamala Harris, however, we can be guaranteed a federal effort to enforce Red Flags.
Red Flag laws are a backdoor to gun confiscation that undercuts the 2nd Amendment by using standards similar to involuntary civil commitment. Sometimes all it takes is a couple of random accusations that a person is dangerous and they receive a visit from authorities with a warrant to seize their firearms. In some states authorities can hold those guns for up to five years if courts deem it necessary, all without the person ever being convicted of a crime.
Just like civil commitment, there are a host of constitutional conflicts dealing primarily with the 14th Amendment. The political left is usually opposed to involuntary commitment for this very reason, yet, they are highly enthusiastic about Red Flag laws. Apparently, due process applies to some groups and not others.
A steady avalanche of lawsuits is now underway in multiple states to counter Red Flag measures and Democrats aren’t too happy about the level of opposition. In an article co-produced by Rolling Stone and The Trace, anti-gunners argue that the lack of compromise on the part of conservatives is putting people’s lives at risk. They attempt to support their position with a singular anecdote – An ongoing conflict between a 25-year Marine veteran named Don Willey diagnosed with a hoarding disorder and city officials in Cambridge, Maryland demanding he clean up his property.
Rolling Stone writes:
“The right-wing echo chamber expanded, until there was consensus. Red-flag statutes violated due-process rights and protections against unreasonable search and seizure. They also lacked a historical analogue, and, according to a controversial 2022 Supreme Court decision, were therefore incompatible with the Second Amendment.
These arguments would form the basis of Willey’s lawsuit, serving up the fresh outrage the gun-rights movement requires to sustain itself…”
The story drones on, adding little justification as to why Red Flag laws should be tolerated by the greater constitution loving public. But, it does give insight into how such laws might be applied if they are left unopposed.
Rolling Stone describes the battle between the veteran and city bureaucrat Susan Webb as if Willey is a bully terrorizing Webb and other officials with his presence. He’s a Marine, a Christian, he’s bigger than them, he apparently defends the display of confederate flags, he says mean things, he refuses to let them on his property and he owns guns. He’s also a member of the Second Amendment Foundation and a legal campaign called Capture the Flag that is opposed to the trespasses of Red Flag laws.
In other words, Willey is a Democrat bureaucrat’s worst nightmare. Rolling Stone continues with dismay:
“The federal judge in the case recently asked Maryland’s Supreme Court to provide him with a definitive interpretation of the state’s red-flag statute, placing the lawsuit on hold. But he indicated that the plaintiff’s narrative carried weight. The court, the judge wrote, “is no doubt sympathetic to the experience Willey endured as he described it.” These were victories in their own right, a degree of validation that also preserves the status quo for Willey, whose property remains unchanged…”
Here we get a look into the mind of the common Democrat/progressive. Note that they cling to the idea of the property and Willey’s lack of compliance. They automatically attach his defiance of the city to the reason for gun confiscation, and this is a twisted mentality.
The debate over property rights and hoarding is beyond the scope of this discussion, but there’s nothing within the law that allows for law enforcement to disarm a person simply because they have too much trash and they’re not cooperative with the city government.
Red Flags allow such officials to find ways to punish people for non-compliance by removing their 2A rights based on subjective accusations of danger rather than proof of a crime. Maybe they find a relative, an ex girlfriend or a neighbor that doesn’t like the target individual and they coax those people to write up a testimony. In the case of Willey, the city tried to use Veteran’s Affairs documents citing a previous struggle with PTSD as a reason why he should be disarmed.
Once you have disarmament in play, now it’s no longer a legal impasse between the city and the individual. Now they have instigated a confrontation which could end in bloodshed. Rolling Stone claims this concern has been inflated by pro-gun groups, but this is exactly how it works in most states with Red Flag laws.
In California, San Diego has been beta testing Red Flag confiscation for the past few years and they are avidly promoting the use of “task forces” to ensure guns are surrendered. There are no provisions within San Diego’s Red Flag measures allowing for true due process.
In 2022, the California State Legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom approved an expansion of California’s red flag law allowing eligible petitioners to include additional family members, roommates, individuals with a dating or co-parental relationship with a person who may pose a risk to themselves or others.
City officials in San Diego touted a decrease in overall gun homicide rates, but those stats conveniently end in 2020 when violent crime in CA began to spike again.
Maybe Rolling Stone is right and Don Willey is not a nice guy (they do attempt to dig up every last piece of dirt on the man’s life while saying little about Susan Webb). Maybe his land is covered in junk. Maybe his yard is a fire hazard. All of this could be true and it would be irrelevant to his gun rights.
Democrats think very differently, though. The core of Rolling Stone’s argument and The Trace’s argument is that Willey could be perceived by them as dangerous, and that’s enough to trample his rights. The problem is, leftists are terrified of everything and see danger under every rock and behind every tree (or junk pile). They are not qualified to be the arbiters of what constitutes a “dangerous person” and this is why they’re being buried in lawsuits.
Once these arbitrary distinctions and accusations are allowed, anything goes. A combative post or politically incorrect comment on social media could one day become a justification for a Red Flag visit. “Guilty until proven innocent” is an unacceptable dynamic in America and should not be tolerated.
The great James Burnham inThe Machiavellians distinguished between the “formal” and “real” meaning of political rhetoric. The formal meaning of such rhetoric, Burnham wrote, helps to disguise the real meaning.
The American foreign policy establishment has begun to spin the foreign policy legacy of President Joe Biden. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Jessica Matthews, Distinguished Fellow and former president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, claims that although “it is too soon to judge the historical significance of Joe Biden’s one-term presidency, it is clear that the past four years have witnessed remarkable achievements in foreign policy.” But this narrative is not just about Biden’s supposed foreign policy legacy. It is also an effort to boost the foreign policy credentials of Vice President Kamala Harris.
According to Matthews, Biden shifted U.S. foreign policy “from an unhealthy reliance on military intervention to the active pursuit of diplomacy backed by strength,” strengthened our alliances, deepened our presence in Asia, promoted multilateralism, and ended the war in Afghanistan. “Biden,” she writes, “has made profound changes in foreign policy–not to accommodate American decline but to reflect the country’s inherent strength.”
Matthews credits Biden with “boldness” in withdrawing from Afghanistan–others would describe it as amateurish and humiliating. She claims that Biden’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “has been both skillful and innovative” and “masterful,” forgetting perhaps that he was the president that failed to deter that invasion. Biden’s “strength” that supposedly backed his diplomacy consisted of diminished relative naval power, a military leadership that prioritizes diversity, equity, and inclusion and efforts to combat climate change, an emboldened Iran in the Middle East, and an even more aggressive China in the western Pacific. It was during Biden’s presidency that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea grew closer–his administration did nothing to attempt to widen potential cleavages among the so-called “axis of autocracy.”
What Matthews tries to obfuscate is that under Biden, the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan, Iran-backed Hamas invaded Israel, Russia invaded Ukraine, and China became more aggressive in the western Pacific, threatening both Taiwan and the Philippines. This is not a record of “remarkable achievement.” It almost makes Jimmy Carter look good by comparison.
In Ukraine, instead of using American “diplomacy backed by strength,” Biden has rejected any suggestions for a negotiated ceasefire in favor of support for a Ukrainian “victory.” This is the exact opposite of the kind of “realism” that Matthews claims to support. There is no end in sight to the Ukraine war, and the longer it lasts, the greater the chances of escalation to a wider European, or even global, war.
Matthews is closer to the mark when she characterizes the Biden Middle East policy as a “mix of inattention and wishful thinking,” and that is being generous. Matthews writes that Biden should have been willing to use our leverage to “compel Israel” to wage war the way we–separated from our enemies by oceans–think they–surrounded by enemies–should wage it.
Matthews also criticizes Biden for his Taiwan policy, even though she mysteriously credits him for implementing the “pivot to Asia.” She worries that Biden’s policy has strayed from her preferred policy of “strategic ambiguity.” Matthews apparently still believes that the failed dual policy of engagement/competition can still work with China. Her criticism of Biden here is off the mark. Biden has mostly moved away from the more confrontational policy pursued by the Trump administration during its last two years. The fact that Matthews thinks Biden has been too tough on China with respect to Taiwan reveals more about her worldview than Biden’s. Overall, she writes, “relations with China are steadier than those he inherited.”
Biden gets poor marks for his failure to “advance nuclear arms control and nonproliferation.” Matthews criticizes Biden for providing weapons grade fuel to our ally Australia for its submarines. Meanwhile, China has engaged in what some strategists call a nuclear “strategic break out,” which will result in China’s ability to deploy more than 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, and 1,500 such warheads by 2035. And Iran is well on its way to obtaining (if it already hasn’t) nuclear weapons.
But in the end, it is the “remarkable achievements” of the Biden administration that Matthews touts because the real purpose of the article is not to praise Biden’s foreign policy legacy as much as it is to persuade voters to choose a candidate this fall who will “share [Biden’s] worldview.” The choice, she concludes, is between an unmentioned Kamala Harris, who presumably shares Biden’s worldview, and Donald Trump, who will return to a foreign policy of “populism, go-it-alone nationalism, or even isolationism.”
Back to Burnham: Matthews’ formal meaning of her article is to generally applaud the foreign policy record of President Joe Biden, but the real meaning is to persuade voters to vote for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump.
Francis P. Sempa is the author of “Geopolitics: From the Cold War to the 21st Century” and “America’s Global Role.” His work has appeared in Strategic Review, the Diplomat, Joint Force Quarterly, the Claremont Review of Books, the Asian Review of Books, the South China Morning Post, the National Interest, and other publications.
The president of the University of California (UC) said on Monday that the 10-campus university system would enforce policies banning encampments and the wearing of masks to conceal identity in response to pro-Palestinian protests across the country.
In a letter to the university community, UC President Michael V Drake said that his office and campus leaders have reflected on “the events of the past year” and sought ways to strengthen policies and procedures.
They found that while the “vast majority” of protests held on UC’s campuses were peaceful and nonviolent, some activities over the past year were not.
Drake said that “consistent application of policies and laws” is needed to balance protecting free speech rights with ensuring the safety of students and maintaining critical university operations.
He said the policies would prohibit encampments, unauthorized structures, and restrictions on free movement on university property. They will also ban the use of masks to conceal identity and prohibit people from refusing to identify themselves to university personnel.
Drake said the university will also develop a framework for consistent enforcement of its policies and responses to policy violations, as well as launch a campus climate initiative.
“Our ultimate goal is for all of our community members to feel supported in their ability to express themselves, and to pursue their studies, research, patient care, and other work on our campuses,” he stated.
In a separate letter to campus leaders, Drake said the university will implement a “consistent tiered response” for those who violate institutional policies.
Individuals who violate campus policy will first receive a warning. If the conduct persists, the UC police department or campus fire marshal will assess the situation and may issue an unlawful assembly notice.
In the final phase of the tiered response, those who continue to break the law “may be cited, detained and arrested for unlawful behavior, or subject to other police actions.” Stay-away orders may be issued for “higher severity violations” and repeat offenses.
This came a week after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by three students, prohibiting the University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA) from providing programs and access to buildings if Jewish students were blocked.
The students sued UCLA in June for allowing protesters to barricade the center of the campus and establish an encampment that obstructed passage to campus facilities.
In his 16-page ruling on Aug. 13, U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi described the situation at UCLA as “unimaginable” and “so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.”
The university is among the many campuses in the United States where demonstrators have set up encampments to protest the war in Gaza, which was Israel’s response to the Hamas terrorist attack on Oct. 7, 2023.
Of the countless lies about Kamala Harris perpetuated by Democrats and their loyal stenographers in the mainstream media, one of the most egregious is that a Kamala Harris presidency will deliver historic economic opportunity for working women. Unfortunately for these desperate Democrats attempting to erase publicly available data, numbers tell the exact opposite story. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden saddled women with the largest pay cut, inflation crisis, tax hike, and economic crash so far this century, whereas President Trump delivered the greatest economic boost for American women of any modern day president.
The median income for women increased every year during the Trump administration, reaching the highest on record in 2020. Real average weekly earnings increased 8.2% under President Trump yet decreased 3.9% under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The unemployment rate for women overall and for black women in particular reached a record low during President Trump’s term. In 2019, the workforce participation gap between men and women shrank to the narrowest in history. President Trump’s economy made history with the most women in the workforce ever.
This wasn’t by accident. Understanding that working women are also balancing families, President Trump delivered a pro-family economic agenda that included doubling the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 per child and expanding eligibility. Nearly 40 million families received an average benefit of $2,200 under his leadership, totaling credits of approximately $88 billion.
He then created the first-ever paid family leave tax credit for employees earning $72,000 or less and signed into law 12 weeks of paid parental leave for federal workers. He also signed the largest-ever increase in child care and development block grants – expanding access to quality, affordable childcare for more than 800,000 low-income families. President Trump signed into law a provision that enabled new parents to withdraw up to $5,000 from their retirement accounts without penalty when they give birth to or adopt a child.
The oft-asked question about balancing work and family life is: Can women have it all? Under President Trump’s leadership, the answer was a resounding yes.
Under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, not so much.
Biden and Harris’ failed economic policies hurt every American but hit women hardest of all. Women are bearing the brunt of Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote for Biden’s comically named “Inflation Reduction Act,” which turbocharged inflation with a glut of ridiculous climate spending. Women are working longer hours and delaying retirement as a result.
Talk to any woman in America and there is no question that inflation is a women’s issue. Since Kamala Harris was sworn in as vice president, prices have risen by 19.4% – making it increasingly difficult for women to provide for their families. Women are the majority of grocery shoppers, and grocery bills have skyrocketed, forcing many Americans to cut back on essentials. A single mother of two in Nevada had to sell her car to afford groceries under Biden. A mother of two in Michigan had “to think about putting gasoline prices before buying my kids clothes” because of Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote for Biden’s radical green energy agenda.
Families now need an extra $12,590 annually just to maintain the same standard of living they enjoyed three years ago, according to Congress’ Joint Economic Committee—and 67% of parents say inflation has impacted their ability to pay for their children’s education, school supplies, and extracurricular activities this past school year. The cost of childcare has increased 32% for the average family since 2019, and nearly two-thirds are spending 20% or more of their annual income on childcare. The average price for a pack of disposable diapers has increased 32% since 2019, and 47% of families reported struggling to afford them. In 2022, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ incompetence created a baby formula shortage, causing the price to soar to an all-time high. Some 44 million people were living in food insecure households in 2022, a 31% annual increase and the largest one-year increase since 2008.
Women make up the majority of voters in America, so it’s no wonder the Harris propaganda machine is in overdrive attempting to gaslight them into thinking they’ve never had it better. But as much as Democrats may lie, numbers never do. They show that President Trump not only cares deeply about women and all Americans but also knows what it takes to stimulate the economy to create historic opportunities on our behalf. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, sees women as a convenient voting block to pander to, deceive, and then abandon in favor of an economically poisonous, radically liberal agenda.
To my fellow women voters: Don’t be fooled.
Rep. Elise M. Stefanik represents New York’s 21st congressional district. She is the House Republican Conference chair, and chair of Women for Trump.
The United States and several of its allies condemned China over what they said were dangerous actions by Chinese coast guard vessels after they collided with Philippine coast guard vessels in the South China Sea.
The incident happened in the early hours of Aug. 19 near the Sabina Shoal, with Beijing and Manila accusing each other of being responsible for the collisions.
U.S. State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel criticized China for its actions against “lawful Philippine maritime operations” in an Aug. 19 statement.
“PRC [People’s Republic of China] ships employed reckless maneuvers, deliberately colliding with two Philippine Coast Guard ships, causing structural damage and jeopardizing the safety of the crew onboard,” Patel said.
The collision occurred about 20 nautical miles southeast of the Escoda Shoal, which is a part of the South China Sea that the Philippines refers to as the West Philippine Sea. The Sabina Shaol is located near the Second Thomas Shoal.
The latest incident marks renewed geopolitical tension between China and the Philippines, following a short reprieve since the two sides inked a provisional agreement at the Second Thomas Shoal in July. Earlier this month, the Philippines announced it would lodge a diplomatic protest with China after two Chinese fighter jets deployed fares in the path of a Philippine patrol plane.
Jonathan Malaya, assistant director general at the National Security Council of the Philippines, said on Monday that the two Philippine coast guard patrol boats, BRP Bagacay (MRRV-4410) and BRP Cape Engaño (MRRV-441), were on a resupply mission for the Philippine outposts at Patag and Lawak islands in the Spratly Islands. The two boats were rammed by Chinese coast guard vessels and suffered structural damage, he said.
“These actions are the latest examples of the PRC using dangerous and escalatory measures to enforce its expansive and unlawful South China Sea maritime claims,” Patel said. He called on China to abide by international law and desist from “dangerous and destabilizing conduct.”
Malaya said the United States reaffirms that Article IV of the 1951 U.S.–Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty “extends to armed attacks on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft—including those of its Coast Guard—anywhere in the South China Sea.”
Australia’s ambassador to the Philippines, HK Yu, wrote in a post on social media platform X that China’s actions undermine efforts to de-escalate tensions.
David Hartman, Canada’s ambassador to the Philippines, condemned the “irresponsible and dangerous maneuvers of the China Coast Guard” in an X post.
“These actions are inconsistent with China’s obligations under international law and undermine efforts to de-escalate tensions in the South China Sea,” Hartman wrote.
Japan’s ambassador to the Philippines, Endo Kazuya, said in an X post that Tokyo does not tolerate harassment and actions that “increase tensions or disturb navigational rights.”
Kazuya added that Japan “stands with [the Philiphines] by upholding rules-based order and peaceful settlement of disputes based on [international] law.”
Earlier this month, Australia, Canada, the Philippines, and the United States held a two-day “multilateral maritime cooperative activity” within Manila’s exclusive economic zones. The drill was aimed at showing the four nations’ “collective commitment to strengthen regional and international cooperation in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific,” according to a statement from the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
Manila continued its criticism of Beijing over the collision on Tuesday. Alexander Lopez, a spokesperson for the country’s maritime council, expressed “serious concern over the deliberate harassment and infringement by China” on the Philippines’ sovereignty and sovereign rights in the South China Sea.
In July, Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to President Joe Biden over their concerns regarding China’s use of force against the Philippines in the South China Sea.
The lawmakers asked Biden to provide a “full list of military, diplomatic, and economic options developed by the Departments of State and Defense to support the Philippines and deter further escalation by the PRC.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) acted as expected this week and declared Mpox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). So, a problem in a small number of African countries that has killed about the same number of people this year as die every four hours from tuberculosis has come to dominate international headlines. This is raising a lot of angst from some circles against the WHO.
While angst is warranted, it is mostly misdirected. The WHO and the IHR emergency committee they convened had little real power – they are simply following a script written by their sponsors. The African CDC, which declared an emergency a day earlier, is in a similar position. Mpox is a real disease and needs local and proportionate solutions. But the problem it is highlighting is much bigger than Mpox or the WHO, and understanding this is essential if we are to fix it.
Mpox, previously called Monkeypox, is caused by a virus thought to normally infect African rodents such as rats and squirrels. It fairly frequently passes to, and between, humans. In humans, its effects range from very mild illness to fever and muscle pains to severe illness with its characteristic skin rash, and sometimes death. Different variants, called ‘clades,’ produce slightly different symptoms. It is passed by close body contact including sexual activity, and the WHO declared a PHEIC two years ago for a clade that was mostly passed by men having sex with men.
The current outbreaks involve sexual transmission but also other close contact such as within households, expanding its potential for harm. Children are affected and suffer the most severe outcomes, perhaps due to issues of lower prior immunity and the effects of malnutrition and other illnesses.
Reality in DRC
The current PHEIC was mainly precipitated by the ongoing outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), though there are known outbreaks in nearby countries covering a number of clades. About 500 people have died from Mpox in DRC this year, over 80% of them under 15 years of age. In that same period, about 40,000 people in DRC, mostly children under 5 years, died from malaria. The malaria deaths were mainly due to lack of access to very basic commodities like diagnostic tests, antimalarial drugs, and insecticidal bed nets, as malaria control is chronically underfunded globally. Malaria is nearly always preventable or treatable if sufficiently resourced.
During this same period in which 500 people died from Mpox in DRC, hundreds of thousands also died in DRC and surrounding African countries from tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and the impacts of malnutrition and unsafe water. Tuberculosis alone kills about 1.3 million people globally each year, which is a rate about 1,500 times higher than Mpox in 2024.
The population of DRC is also facing increasing instability characterized by mass rape and massacres, in part due to a scramble by warlords to service the appetite of richer countries for the components of batteries. These in turn are needed to support the Green Agenda of Europe and North America. This is the context in which the people of DRC and nearby populations, which obviously should be the primary decision-makers regarding the Mpox outbreak, currently live.
An Industry Produces What It Is Paid for
For the WHO and the international public health industry, Mpox presents a very different picture. They now work for a pandemic industrial complex, built by private and political interests on the ashes of international public health. Forty years ago, Mpox would have been viewed in context, proportional to the diseases that are shortening overall life expectancy and the poverty and civil disorder that allows them to continue. The media would barely have mentioned the disease, as they were basing much of their coverage on impact and attempting to offer independent analysis.
Now the public health industry is dependent on emergencies. They have spent the past 20 years building agencies such as CEPI, inaugurated at the 2017 World Economic Forum meeting and solely focused on developing vaccines for pandemic, and on expanding capacity to detect and distinguish ever more viruses and variants. This is supported by the recently passed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
While improving nutrition, sanitation, and living conditions provided the path to longer lifespans in Western countries, such measures sit poorly with a colonial approach to world affairs in which the wealth and dominance of some countries are seen as being dependent on the continued poverty of others. This requires a paradigm in which decision-making is in the hands of distant bureaucratic and corporate masters. Public health has an unfortunate history of supporting this, with restriction of local decision-making and the pushing of commodities as key interventions.
Thus, we now have thousands of public health functionaries, from the WHO to research institutes to non-government organizations, commercial companies, and private foundations, primarily dedicated to finding targets for Pharma, purloining public funding, and then developing and selling the cure. The entire newly minted pandemic agenda, demonstrated successfully through the Covid-19 response, is based on this approach. Justification for the salaries involved requires detection of outbreaks, an exaggeration of their likely impact, and the institution of a commodity-heavy and usually vaccine-based response.
The sponsors of this entire process – countries with large Pharma industries, Pharma investors, and Pharma companies themselves – have established power through media and political sponsorship to ensure the approach works. Evidence of the intent of the model and the harms it is wreaking can be effectively hidden from public view by a subservient media and publishing industry. But in DRC, people who have long suffered the exploitation of war and the mineral extractors, who replaced a particularly brutal colonial regime, must now also deal with the wealth extractors of Pharma.
Dealing with the Cause
While Mpox is concentrated in Africa, the effects of corrupted public health are global. Bird flu will likely follow the same course as Mpox in the near future. The army of researchers paid to find more outbreaks will do so. While the risk from pandemics is not significantly different than decades ago, there is an industry dependent on making you think otherwise.
As the Covid-19 playbook showed, this is about money and power on a scale only matched by similar fascist regimes of the past. Current efforts across Western countries to denigrate the concept of free speech, to criminalize dissent, and to institute health passports to control movement are not new and are in no way disconnected from the inevitability of the WHO declaring the Mpox PHEIC. We are not in the world we knew twenty years ago.
Poverty and the external forces that benefit from war, and the diseases these enable, will continue to hammer the people of DRC. If a mass vaccination campaign is instituted, which is highly likely, financial and human resources will be diverted from far greater threats. This is why decision-making must now be centralized far from the communities affected. Local priorities will never match those that expansion of the pandemic industry depends on.
In the West, we must move on from blaming the WHO and address the reality unfolding around us. Censorship is being promoted by journalists, courts are serving political agendas, and the very concept of nationhood, on which democracy depends, is being demonized. A fascist agenda is openly promoted by corporate clubs such as the World Economic Forum and echoed by the international institutions set up after the Second World War specifically to oppose it. If we cannot see this and if we do not refuse to participate, then we will have only ourselves to blame. We are voting for these governments and accepting obvious fraud, and we can choose not to do so.
For the people of DRC, children will continue to tragically die from Mpox, from malaria, and from all the diseases that ensure return on investment for distant companies making pharmaceuticals and batteries. They can ignore the pleading of the servants of the White Men of Davos who will wish to inject them, but they cannot ignore their poverty or the disinterest in their opinions. As with Covid-19, they will now become poorer because Google, the Guardian, and the WHO were bought a long time back, and now serve others.
The one real hope is that we ignore lies and empty pronouncements, refusing to bow to unfounded fear. In public health and in society, censorship protects falsehoods and dictates reflect greed for power. Once we refuse to accept either, we can begin to address the problems at the WHO and the inequity it is promoting. Until that time, we will live in this increasingly vicious circus.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.
