Author: admin

Authored by Martin Jay via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

I often ask myself how did Boris Johnson become PM of Britain, as I for one, don’t believe it’s entirely to do with Brexit, but more to do with a broader protest vote from a big part of the UK population who voted him in to redress the balance of PC madness which is threatening to destroy the country.

This great democracy, which many look up to as a beacon in the world, has advanced so far down the politically correct road, based on the erroneous assumption that free speech itself should come with caveats which protect those which might be ‘affected’ by it, that white males are losing the right and even the ability to debate.

I generally want to throw something at my 20 year old Samsung plasma (which is about 15cm in width) the moment I hear after a TV show on the BBC the gentle voice which asks “have you been affected by this program?”.

The decline in politics as a subject of common interest, the advancement of ‘comment’ on social media which overshadows raw news reporting and the incomprehensible guilt complex about Britain’s colonial history all combine to feed, if not sustain, a new mantra incubated in Britain’s debating forums: white people should keep quiet and listen to the thumb-sucking liberals and their two-faced moral tutelage, based on simply them being the victim class.

This new space is accommodated by anyone who feels that not being white, male and employed is in itself is a handicap to function in society and therefore, by definition, is entitled to an artificial-assisted narrative which should be given greater prominence – regardless of how ill-informed, biased, idiotic it may be, like only allowing alcoholics an opinion on drinking.

Britain’s multiculturalism is being threatened by these new ‘victims’ and the left wing British media’s obsession to promote their cause at any cost. Even ‘conservatives’ lend them some sympathy as we have got to the stage in Britain where more and more white people feel they don’t have the right to talk about any number of incendiary subjects and so have started to remain mute – which in itself gives further impetus to the loony left who drown in their own excreta of bigotry and hatred of everything which was once considered ‘great’ about Great Britain. The irony of course that often these people have been given prominence in British society by its multiculturalism and its loathing of discrimination, which they would not get in France or Germany. Or in the US for that matter.

This group, which claims to be anti fascist, is actually becoming a movement in itself which aims to achieve everything that Hitler, Mussolini or even Oswald Mosley would hope to achieve. The same group, hilariously, sees the EU as a kind of multicultural organisation which is there as an antithesis to fascism – without even bothering to check how the European Commission in Brussels doesn’t even employ 1% of its staff from brown skinned ranks and that its absolute determination to grab more power from voters is actually fuelling a far-right presence in the European parliament which is breaking all records.

In Britain, this Orwellian madness has reached new levels of absurdity, as an on line army of self-righteous activists have managed to establish a protocol of shaming anyone with an opinion. On anything which doesn’t chime with theirs. And the well organised gang bang on twitter puts the boot in far better than any Kristallnacht

White men are not allowed to talk or write about feminism without a unruly backlash; the same goes for colonial history, slavery and of course Brexit. The bigoted Left have stigmatised the word itself ‘Brexit’ to automatically mean ‘racist, anachronistic, colonial’.

The vortex of banality is the subject of race itself which as we have seen recently with the Laurence Fox debacle, is a subject which the Left have convinced us all that white males are not qualified to talk about – that when they do, we are led to believe that talking about race, is an act of racism itself.

Fox just recently left Twitter following his BBC talk show spat where he was accused to being “racist” for really having the nerve to do something even more horrific than dare to have an opinion on the subject but to actually speak common sense on it. The horror. The horror. How dare a white Englishman say “booh” to the lies being spread by the Left about Meghan being hounded out of Britain because of her skin colour?

We should be worried about Fox stepping away from Twitter?

The race debate has been dominated to such an extent by left wing ‘victims’ that we have reached a point of preposterousness where white people can’t even debate the subject itself.

Yet this absurdity is championed by the Left’s acolytes – often people who are victims of being neither white nor male and who have profiteered by positive discrimination – such as Kuba Shand-Baptiste who recently had a tantrum on twitter with me for simply having the audacity to pitch her an opinion piece on the subject of race.

The black comment editor, it would seem, writes almost entirely about race and racism. And so, naturally, I pitched to her in preference to her colleagues. But within seconds a spasm of misplaced antagonistic replies came before being blocked by the lady who took great acceptation to the idea of a white make journalist writing about racism in Britain.

Yet her anger wasn’t real. It couldn’t be as there was nothing really to get angry about. And herein lies the crux of what is wrong about the Left’s possession of these prickly subjects: their hue and cry is fake and they will go to any lengths to protect their own incomes and raison d’etre which derive from taking control of these subjects.

Shand-Baptiste wasn’t angry with me at all. She faked it so as to justify not replying to my pitch for an article on the subject, which I assume she does on a regular basis.

And who could blame her? After all, what would the Shand-Baptistes do in Britain if white males were able to promote their own ideas about racism in Britain? The answer is they’d be out of a job, even with the vociferous positive discrimination which the Indie (and the Washington Post for that matter) applies on its comment desk. If more celebrities like Laurence Fox were freely able to tweet his views about racism and how the subject has been hijacked by people like Shande-Baptiste then perhaps others would think more about the irony of a black journalist enjoying the privilege of an elitist job in Britain, writing about mainly her cause. Talk about low hanging fruit. And what irony.

She doesn’t like Laurence Fox nor his opinions as she, in her column, associates white males’ opinions to a “sliding bigotry” in a media landscape which she believes has airbrushed out the “marginalised” (black, Asian, Muslim, handicapped, lesbian etc), simply because one popular talk show was recently axed. It escapes her that the popular PC view championed by the Left doesn’t have to be necessarily fronted by black people on TV debates each night. Plenty of white folk carry the ‘victim’ torch on their behalf which is why we are in the position today where someone like Fox has to close his Twitter account. Fox appears to be a proponent of free speech and would probably die for Shande-Baptiste’s right to exercise it. I doubt if this would work the other way around as the black race commentator appears to burst into tears when a white male pitches a piece to her about racism. But her argument is flawed and churlish at best. On the one hand she claims that there is no real representation of ‘marginal’ voices (black) but then admits later in the piece that she has stopped taking the calls from producers to appear on such debates herself. Speaking on behalf of the entire black community in the UK, she gushes “ we either defend our rights and get screamed at, or we “go high” and embrace, sometimes physically, the people who attack us. No wonder some of us just don’t want to get involved”.

That hilarious if not invincible defeatism is the heart of the matter. Black commentators when challenged in the public debate are finding it harder to defend their corner in a country which is probably one of the least racist, multicultural countries in the world which gives black people opportunities. Indeed, the commentators’ journalistic career before becoming Oped editor at the Independent in 2018 appears to be pretty unremarkable, to say the least and many might argue that positive discrimination has placed her in a top job there. Is it an insecurity pang from her then that to continue to carry off the work of a respected journalist that racism needs to be a subject which is dominated by such ‘marginalised’ people? And if so, then why not let the truly marginalised take it, rather than those who preach about poverty from ivory towers?

The so-called liberal in the UK which Fox chooses to attack do not like being the subject of debate as people might look too closely at their theatre props and see a different story. Fox being threatened with death threats by such ‘marginals’ who don’t want anyone else to debate the issue of race is symptomatic of an advanced multicultural country which is confused at best and bewildered at worst by its colonial history. The PC cavalcade of those who wish to destroy all debate by white males in Britain is very much why and how Boris took the top job. But we should be very worried about Laurence Fox leaving Twitter as it is a victory for “black” commentators like Shande-Baptiste who goes cold all over when she sees a white male talk about her favourite subject.

Turin soccer club Juventus, home of Christian Ronaldo, arguably the world’s most famous football star, has cancelled practice until further notice and placed its youth team under quarantine over fears several players may have come into contact with infected players on a rival team.

According to the Daily Mail, the Juventus’ management made the decision after learning that three players and a manager from the youth team of Serie C Pianese had tested positive for the virus. The two youth squads recently played each other.

So far, no Juve players have displayed any symptoms of the virus, and none have tested positive. However, the youth team will need to self-quarantine until March 8.

The training ban will extend to Ronaldo and his teammates on the main squad. The squad recently posted a match against Inter Milan, a team that recently played a match in an empty stadium, as several cases have been detected in Milan, a city in Lombardy, the worst-hit province in Italy.

A statement from the Serie A champions read: “The situation is being taken very seriously and the medical staff have told all the players to keep washing their hands and using hand gels.”

“No one has tested positive but bearing in mind the Inter game has been postponed because of health concerns nothing is being taken for granted.”

The team confirmed that “some of the players” from the youth squad trained with Ronaldo a few days ago. Just imagine the hysteria that would ensue if CR7 caught the coronavirus.

“Some of the players involved in the Under 23 match did train midweek with Ronaldo and the first team but that will now not happen again for a few weeks.”

Meanwhile, the Pianese squad has released a statement about the outbreak.

“At the moment those infected are four, three players and a team official.”

“The first is a young player who had started to experience a slight rise in temperature and headache last Saturday, when the team was away to Alessandria to play a championship game.”

“The second player is in self-isolation at his home, while not showing any symptoms, as well as the third player who is slightly feverish.”

“The fourth person tested positive for the swab is a club official who this morning, after spending the night in a feverish state, was transported by ambulance to the hospital in Siena.”

“Currently all the players, the technical staff and the managers present during the trip last weekend are in a 15-day quarantine.”

As the outbreak worsens, the CEO of Inter Milan speculated that the whole Serie A season could come to an early halt if Italy fails to suppress the outbreak.

The number of confirmed cases in Italy reached 1,128 since the start of the epidemic, up from 888 on Friday. According to Al Jazeera, health officials said only 52% of individuals tested showed few to no symptoms.

Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms of Muslims can be curtailed if public displays of religiosity – in this case wearing Islamic headscarves in German courtrooms – endanger the ideological and religious neutrality of the state.

The court’s landmark ruling effectively smashes a backdoor effort to enshrine Sharia law into the German legal system.

The case involves a 38-year-old German-Moroccan law student who was born in Frankfurt and customarily wears a headscarf in public. In January 2017, she began legal training in the German state of Hesse, where the law bans any expression of religion in its courtrooms for judges, lawyers and legal trainees.

According to the law, legal trainees (rechtsreferendar) are allowed to wear a headscarf — except when they are performing certain official tasks in which they serve as representatives of the judiciary or the state. This means, for instance, that trainee lawyers are not allowed to wear a headscarf when presiding over a hearing, taking evidence or representing the public prosecution office.

The complainant filed a lawsuit claiming that the headscarf ban interfered with her right to freedom of religion. She argued that she was being forced to choose between performing the intended tasks or fulfilling a religious clothing requirement that she considers imperative.

The Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) ruled that, according to the law in Hesse, legal trainees have a duty to conduct themselves neutrally with respect to religion and that, when wearing a headscarf, the complainant was therefore barred from performing any tasks in the course of which she might be perceived as being a representative of the justice system or the state.

The complainant filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Hesse Higher Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). She then filed an appeal with the Federal Constitutional Court, which affirmed the lower court rulings. In a statement published on February 27, 2020, the high court explained:

“The principle of the state’s religious and ideological neutrality can be considered a constitutional interest that may justify an interference with freedom of religion in this case. The state’s duty to be neutral necessarily also entails a duty for public officials to be neutral since the state can only act through individuals. However, when public officials exercise their fundamental rights as private individuals in the performance of their duties, this cannot be attributed to the state in every case. Yet it can potentially be attributed to the state in cases where the state has specific influence on the visible character of an official act — as is the case in the justice system.

“Freedom of religion can be subject to a further constitutional limitation inherent in the Basic Law (Grundgesetz): the proper functioning of the justice system in general, which is one of the essential elements underpinning the rule of law and is firmly rooted in the values enshrined in the Basic Law, given that every court decision ultimately serves to safeguard fundamental rights.

“The proper functioning of the justice system requires that society not only place trust in individual judges, but also in the justice system in general. It is true that it will not be possible to achieve absolute trust among the entire population. However, it falls to the state to improve levels of trust. In the present case, the negative freedom of religion afforded parties to legal proceedings is also an argument in favor of the ban on wearing a headscarf.

“In the justice system, the state exercises public authority vis-à-vis the individual in the classic hierarchical sense, which gives rise to more serious impairments than public authority exercised in interdenominational state schools, which are meant to reflect society’s pluralism in religious matters….

“From a constitutional-law perspective, the legislature’s decision to establish a duty of neutral conduct with respect to ideological and religious matters for legal trainees must therefore be respected….

“In support of the complainant’s position, it must be taken into consideration that to her, the headscarf is not only a sign of affiliation with a certain religious group that could be taken off at any time — like, for example, the cross worn on a necklace. Rather, wearing the headscarf to her means fulfilling a requirement that she considers imperative. As there is no similarly widespread equivalent requirement in the Christian faith, a general ban on manifestations of religious belief has a stronger impact on the complainant than on other religious public officials….

“In support of the constitutionality of the ban, it must be taken into consideration that it is limited to a few individual tasks. The ban applies where legal trainees perform judicial tasks, represent the public prosecution office in trial hearings and take on quasi-judicial roles. In doing so, legal trainees — like civil servants — must represent the values that the Basic Law lays down for the justice system.”

Hesse’s Minister of Justice Eva Kühne-Hörmann (CDU) described the ruling as “groundbreaking” (wegweisend):

“With this groundbreaking decision, the court sent an important signal in favor of the ideological neutrality of state institutions. Especially in today’s society, in which people from many countries around the world live with different cultural biographies and also with different religions, the state order must place more value than ever on its ideological neutrality. This is only possible if the state parties to judicial proceedings are not allowed to show religious insignia.“

Islamic head coverings have been a recurring issue in Germany, where the Muslim population has surpassed six million to become approximately 7.2% of the overall population of 83 million, according to calculations by Gatestone Institute.

On February 3, 2020, the Hamburg Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht) ruled that a 16-year-old German-Egyptian student was allowed to wear a niqab, a garment that covers the face, at a vocational school in Hammerbrook.

Hamburg education officials had ordered the girl not wear the veil at school. In a statement, the court explained that according to the Hamburg School Act as it is currently written:

“Education officials cannot require the student to refrain from covering her face while at school. The student can claim the right to an unconditionally protected freedom of religion. Interferences with this fundamental right require a sufficiently defined legal basis.”

Hamburg politicians from across the political spectrum have vowed to change the law to ensure that full-face veils are banned in classrooms. Hamburg’s Senator for Education Ties Rabe, who belongs to the center-left Social Democrats, said:

“In school, it is a matter of course that the teachers and the pupils have an open, free face. This is the only way that school and teaching can function. That is why we are going to change the school law quickly so that this is guaranteed in the future too.”

Hamburg Deputy Mayor Katharina Fegebank from the Greens party also called for the law to be changed:

“The burqa and the niqab are, for me, symbols of oppression. Successful school lessons need good communication at eye level. For this, it is important to see the face of the other. This is not possible with a full veil. That is why we reject them.”

The opposition parties in Hamburg’s parliament, the Christian Democrats (CDU), the Free Democrats (FDP) and the conservative AfD, also support banning niqabs and burqas from classrooms.

The student’s lawyer, Alexander Heyers, said that while his client “does not see herself as the Greta Thunberg of Islam,” a ban would be tantamount to a declaration of war. He has threatened to take the case to the Federal Constitutional Court: “Political questions that have a deep impact on fundamental rights should be clarified before the Federal Constitutional Court.”

In the southwestern state of Baden-Württemberg, which is governed by a coalition of Greens and Christian Democrats, Culture Minister Susanne Eisenmann (CDU) also announced a ban on veils through adjustments to school legislation:

“Religious freedom has its limits — specifically at our schools, when teachers can literally no longer look at each other’s faces. We do not tolerate full veiling at our schools.”

Other headscarf-related bans in Germany include:

January 29, 2020. The University of Kiel (Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, CAU) banned students from wearing face-covering veils while in class:

“The Presidium of the CAU has to ensure that the minimum requirements for communication in research, teaching and administration necessary for the fulfillment of university tasks are ensured. Open communication, which is based not only on the spoken word, but also on facial expressions and gestures, is one of these minimum requirements. Since a face veil hinders this open communication, it must not be worn in courses, exams and discussions relating to study, teaching and advice in the broadest sense.”

December 2019. Officials in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) abandoned plans to ban girls under the age of 14 from wearing headscarves or hijabs in NRW schools. Secretary of State for Integration Serap Güler said that after lengthy legal review, she determined that such a ban had no chance of being upheld by the Federal Constitutional Court.

September 2018. The Federal Council of the State of Lower Saxony approved an amendment that prohibits persons involved in court hearing — in particular parties, witnesses and legal representatives — from covering their faces in whole or in part ban on face coverings in courts. Justice Minister Barbara Havliza explained:

“Checking statements for their truthfulness is often of crucial importance in court proceedings. The judges must be able to look those involved in the face because the facial expressions sometimes say more than words. In addition, a face covering can make it difficult or impossible to identify people.”

August 2018. The justice ministers of Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) presented a draft amendment to the Court Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz) that would ban face-covering veils in all German courts. NRW Justice Minister Peter Biesenbach (CDU) said:

“Without facial expressions and gestures, a statement is hardly worth anything. If a witness’s sweat is on his forehead or his facial features slip away, judges must be able to take this into account when evaluating a statement.”

October 2017. The Federal Highway Code (Straßenverkehrsordnung) banned motorists wearing face coverings while driving.

June 2017. The Bundestag banned civil servants and military personnel from covering their faces in public.

Authored by Jeff Deist via The Mises Institute,

Sometimes terrible things happen without any human malfeasance, and the novel Wuhan coronavirus may in fact be one of those things. It is entirely plausible the virus emerged from “wet markets” in the Hubei Province of China rather than as a fumbled (or worse, intentionally released) bioweapon cooked up by the Xi Jinping government. 

We may never know, of course. But easy or readily apparent answers to the question of how this could have been avoided should be viewed with the skepticism appropriate to any state propaganda. Crises of all kinds, whether economic, political, military, or health, send ideologues scrambling to explain how such events fit neatly into their worldview. In fact, political partisans often attempt to paint any crisis as having occurred in the first place precisely because their policies and preferences have not been adopted. 

The Wuhan coronavirus seems tailor-made for this. Alarmists who argue for (i) much more robust and comprehensive “public health” measures by national governments and (ii) greater supranational coordination inevitably point to infectious diseases as justification for increased state power over personal medical decisions. Scary and fast-spreading viruses are perfect fodder for their busybody argument that people cannot simply be left to their own devices.

Cross-border outbreaks of illnesses are particularly well suited to the preexisting bureaucratic desire for power over populations: they make the public much more willing to accept forced quarantines and arrests for noncompliance; forced immunizations; involuntary commitments to state facilities; curfews; restrictions on business operations and travel; and import controls. They also allow public health officials to commandeer and manage efforts to find “the cure,” who then take credit when the virus eventually relents. 

These are the sorts of things that authoritarian politicians want all the time. Crises simply provide an opportunity to ratchet up their power and also to accustom the public to being ordered around and taking cues from centralized government sources.

Antistate libertarians are not immune to this phenomenon of attempting to place square events into round holes. We tend to explain crises as the result of state (or central bank) interference, either created or made worse by the lack of market discipline, incentives, and property rights lacking due to state action or state regulation. Libertarians think the Food and Drug Administration, for example, kills more people than it saves by approving bad drugs and delaying regulatory approvals for promising treatments. 

Moreover, an individualist libertarian perspective on bodily sovereignty poses an obvious challenge to public health. No individual should be forced to accept quarantine or immunization against his will, and in fact no individual should be forced to consider herd immunity or other collectivist notions when making medical decisions. Just as most libertarians don’t think Doritos and Mountain Dew should be banned because their consumption imposes “public” healthcare costs in a statist/fascist system of mandatory insurance and tax-funded Medicaid, most don’t think that individual health decisions should be overridden by politicians—even in an “emergency” outbreak situation. 

So how do we reconcile public health with individual rights? Should the latter be sacrificed to protect the former?

Three observations present themselves.

First, even the highly authoritarian Chinese national state has been unable to contain the virus, though it can cordon off whole cities by dictatorial fiat and impose wholesale house arrest over cities in a manner unthinkable in Western countries. Chinese state police literally drag people suspected of carrying the virus out of their cars, forcibly put them handcuffed in hazmat vehicles, and haul them off to what amount to prison hospitals. Chinese citizens who speak out publicly against the Xi government’s handling of the crisis are arrested. So, if the Chinese government can’t contain it, even with martial law and control over media, how in the world do Western countries expect to do so? Imagine trying to quarantine, say, Dallas and Fort Worth!

Second, poor countries (and China is quite poor per capita compared to the West, ranking around sixty-fifth internationally) almost invariably suffer from worse public health conditions. Sanitation, nutrition, and access to drugs, facilities, and competent doctors matter a great deal when it comes to incubating infectious diseases. Richer countries are healthier countries, and the West benefits when conditions improve and modernize in the Third World.

Third, we already have de facto supranational bodies such as World Health Organization tasked with preventing and lessening the spread of diseases like the coronavirus. The WHO has been around since 1948 and hasn’t prevented a host of modern epidemics like SARS and Zika; excatly what new international agency or organization will do better?

If anything, pandemics call for decentralization of treatment. After all, the best approach is to isolate infected people rather than bringing them into large hospital populations in crowded city centers. What doctor or nurse wants to work in a hospital full of coronavirus cases?

We might wish for a utopian libertarian answer to public health crises like the coronovirus, along the lines of a Rothbardian externality argument for airborne pollution. But sometimes bad things simply happen. The best hope is market incentives, the rapid application of individual human ingenuity and self-interest to the situation. Liberty is better, not perfect. And governments, including the Chinese government, are clueless as always.

Tulsi Gabbard has once again gone on the offensive, skewering Washington mainstream foreign policy and the Trump administration’s refusal to stand up to “dictator” Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Trump reportedly told Erdogan in a phone call last week as the Idlib crisis escalates, now in an open state of war between the Turkish and Syrian armies, and with Russia supporting the latter, that the US “reaffirmed” its support for Turkey in Idlib. Ankara is now demanding greater support from NATO as well, after Russian jets were widely believed behind last Thursday’s massive air strike which killed 33 Turkish soldiers.

Congresswoman and Democratic presidential hopeful Gabbard attacked this stance in a weekend video statement, urging Trump instead to make clear that “the United States will not be dragged into a war with Russia by the aggressive Islamist expansionist dictator of Turkey via NATO.”

.@realDonaldTrump needs to make it clear to NATO and Erdogan that the United States will not be dragged into a war with Russia by the aggressive, Islamist, expansionist dictator of Turkey, a so-called “NATO” ally. #StandWithTulsi pic.twitter.com/Fbjv7m3jcm

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) February 29, 2020

She also slammed the mainstream media’s efforts to renew holding up al-Qaeda terrorists on the ground in Idlib as mere “rebels” and “freedom fighters” — saying it’s a disgrace to men and women in uniform who signed up to fight terrorists in the wake of 9/11.

“Turkey’s been supporting ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists from behind the scenes for years,” she pointed out.

“Turkey’s Erdogan wants to create an Islamist caliphate in Syria, reestablish the Islamist Ottoman Empire, and is working with al-Qaeda and other terrorists to achieve his goal.”

“He wants to be the caliph,” she added, explaining further he’s not a “friend” of America, but remains one of the most dangerous dictators in the world.

.@realDonaldTrump Remember this? https://t.co/clk808kH6p

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) March 1, 2020

She ended by urging the American people to get behind passage of her Stop Arming Terrorists Act, which seeks to remove all support to terrorist factions in Syria as well as aid to those state actors like Turkey which back them.

Notably, she also called out President Trump for contradicting past accurate statements which highlighted the terrorist links of Syria’s so-called “moderate rebels”. 

And in what could be a first, Syrian state media has reportedly translated Gabbard’s speech and broadcast it all over Syria.

* * *

Tulsi’s speech on #Turkey’s invasion of #Syria has been translated and broadcast across the country. @TulsiGabbard #TulsiGabbard pic.twitter.com/zoFXP0aKnU

— Syrian Girl 🇸🇾 (@Partisangirl) March 1, 2020

Via GreatGameIndia.com,

Since the outbreak of Coronavirus in Wuhan, the Chinese Communist Party has concealed the epidemic from the local government to the central government and shirked from its responsibility. Recently, Caixin, a Beijing-based media group published a shocking report that the Hubei Provincial Health and Medical Commission ordered the destruction of Coronavirus samples. Soon after the story was gagged with the article subsequently taken down.

Were Coronavirus Samples Destroyed By Chinese Health Commission?

Gene sequence detected and reported at the end of December

On February 26, Caixin published a shocking article titled “Tracking the Source of New Coronavirus Gene Sequencing“. Caixin sources told GreatGameIndia on condition of anonymity that the article was taken down due to mounting pressure from the Chinese authorities. The article was archived on the web but even the archived version redirects to an error page. So, we decided to publish the Caixin report in full translated into English from Chinese (found at the above link).

Archived version of the deleted Caixin report “Tracking the Source of Novel Coronavirus Gene Sequencing” also redirects to an error page

The Caixin report said:

As of February 24, more than 2660 people have died and more than 77,000 people have been diagnosed with the novel coronavirus, a novel coronavirus similar to SARS. When was it found? Caixin reporters conducted interviews from various sources and sorted out relevant papers and database materials. By piecing together all sorts of information, the full picture is gradually emerging.

The Caixin article stated that there were no less than 9 unknown pneumonias before the end of December last year. Samples of the cases were collected from various hospitals in Wuhan. Gene sequencing showed that the pathogen was a SARS-like Coronavirus (similarity is about 80% and infectious). These test results were returned to the hospital and reported to the Health and Medical Commission and the Center for Disease Control.

A private enterprise in Huangpu district of Guangzhou, analysed the gene sequence of the virus on December 26. The results of the study found that it was most similar to the bat SARS Coronavirus, with an overall similarity of about 87% and a similarity with SARS of about 81%.

The company officials communicated with the hospital and CDC by telephone on December 27 and 28, and even went to Wuhan to report all the results of the analysis in person to the hospital management and CDC on December 29 and 30.

Zhang Jixian, director of the Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Xinhua Hospital of Hubei Province, received four consecutive unexplained pneumonia cases on December 26. On December 27, Zhang Jixian reported the discovery of four “unknown viral pneumonias” to the hospital, which was inturn reported by the hospital to Jiang Han District Center for Disease Control.

From December 28th to 29th, Xinhua Hospital treated 3 patients from the South China Seafood Market. They had similar symptoms of viral pneumonia. At 1 pm on December 29th, Xia Wenguang, deputy director of Xinhua Hospital, convened ten experts to discuss the seven cases. The experts agreed that the situation was unusual. Xia Wenguang reported directly to the disease control department of the provincial and municipal health committees.

On December 29, the industry leader Huada Gene (Shenzhen, China) completed a case of gene sequencing, and the results showed that the virus and SARS gene sequence similarity was as high as 80%. On January 1, the company’s three sample test reports were reported to the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission.

On December 30, Beijing Boao Medical Laboratory reported the patient report to the doctor, and the test result was – “SARS Coronavirus”.

Health and Medical Commission of Hubei Province ordered destruction of Coronavirus case samples

The Caixin report said that it was not until January 9th that the Chinese Communist Party officially declared the pathogen a “new Coronavirus.”

The report also quoted a person from a gene sequencing company who disclosed that on January 1, 2020, he “received a phone call from an official of the Health and Medical Commission of Hubei Province, informing him that samples of cases of new Coronavirus in Wuhan could not be re-examined. Existing case samples must be destroyed and sample information cannot be disclosed. Relevant papers and related data cannot be released to the public. If you detect it in the future, you must report to us.”

This article from Caixin has now been deleted, but has been circulated widely overseas and in Chinese social media attracting a strong response from the administration.

Beijing authorities concealed the epidemic

In fact, not only the authorities in Wuhan and Hubei provinces and related medical units were involved in the Coronavirus coverup, but also the National Health and Medical Committee of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese authorities concealed the epidemic.

On January 5th, the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center detected a new SARS-like Coronavirus and sequenced it to obtain the entire genome sequence of the virus. On the same day, the center immediately reported to the National Health Commission of the Communist Party of China and “suggested to take corresponding prevention and control measures in public places.”

The report states that the virus shares 89.11% homology with SARS Coronavirus and is named Wuhan-Hu-1 Coronavirus.

On January 5, the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center reported to the National Health Commission of the Communist Party of China, asking for the prevention of Coronavirus

Numerous such internal circulars, notifications and reports of studies warning the Chinese administrations were sent out in the weeks leading to the outbreak which were not only ignored but actively suppressed from reaching to people. We have cataloged these findings in our scientific investigation on the origin of Coronavirus – the COVID19 Files – from five major areas, including epidemiological investigation, virus gene comparison, cross-species infection research, key “intermediate hosts” and the findings on the Wuhan P4 lab.

However, the Wuhan Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Health Commission of the Communist Party of China declared that the epidemic was “preventable and controllable” until January 19, and “the possibility of limited transmission from person to person was not ruled out”.

On February 3rd, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hua Chunying said that since January 3rd, the Chinese Communist Party has notified the United States of a total of 30 outbreak information and control measures. Immediately after the remarks were published, it was strongly condemned.

When Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hua Chunying’s remarks appeared in the press, it immediately aroused the anger of the Chinese people

However, it was not until January 20th that Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang made public statements on the prevention and control of the epidemic for the first time. Zhong Nanshan, a CCP expert, acknowledged for the first time that the new Coronavirus was “person-to-person.”

On January 26, the Communist Party of China set up a task force for epidemic prevention and control with Li Keqiang as the leader. It was after more than two months since the outbreak.

Wuhan pneumonia cases were discovered by the Communist Party of China CDC, Wuhan Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CPC Health and Medical Committee, and the Hubei Health and Medical Committee by December 1st, and the relevant results were published in international journals.

However, the Chinese Communist Party has been concealing the epidemic, suppressing doctors and people who spread the truth of the epidemic, and spreading a false narrative that the epidemic is “preventable and controllable” and is not “person-to-person”.

EXCLUSIVE#Coronavirus Bioweapon Thread

How China Stole Coronavirus From Canada And Weaponized Ithttps://t.co/tc7W2DrmAA

— GreatGameIndia (@GreatGameIndia) January 27, 2020

The claims of the Caixin report that gene sequencing studies carried out by the Chinese administration found that COVID-19 Coronavirus is almost 80% similar to SARS gives further credence to GreatGameIndia‘s report on how Chinese Biowarfare agents smuggled SARS Coronaviruses from Canada and weaponized it – Coronavirus Bioweapon. Further, the Canadian Scientist Frank Plummer who received these SARS Coronavirus samples of the first patient from Saudi Arabia was found dead in mysterious conditions in Nairobi, Kenya within 11 days of the publication of our report.

*  *  *

We need your support to carry on our independent and investigative research based journalism on the external and internal threats facing India. Your contribution however small helps us keep afloat. Kindly consider donating to GreatGameIndia.