In case we had any doubt that this comedian is not right in the head:
Okay, so about #Zelensky asking the real-world Luciferian Witch Marina Abromovich to be an ambassador for Ukraine…with an emphasis on helping rebuild schools for children.
This photo of her with Jacob Rothschild in front of a painting of Satan summoning his legions should help shed light on WTF is really going on. Are you paying attention yet?
The failure of Ukraine’s much-hyped counteroffensive – which began in June of this year and has stuttered for over three months – has by now become a universally recognized fact. It has been acknowledged not only by Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, but also by Western media and experts. However, the summer campaign has made the world reconsider not only the capabilities of Kiev’s armed forces, but also the power of the country’s main sponsor – the United States, when it comes to waging a large-scale war with a modern enemy.
Unexpected news? Not really. Various analytical reports have repeatedly stated that the US, despite a mind boggling annual financial outlay, may have trouble confronting a major power. A number of American experts, whose opinions will be mentioned below, have warned that Washington’s superiority in terms of precision weapons, intelligence, and targeting may not be enough, when facing a really large enemy – as opposed to a third world country or an insurgent formation.
Nevertheless, for a long time these warnings were ignored. Washington overestimated its own capabilities and underestimated those of the enemy (in this case, Russia) and as a result, its assistance to Ukraine turned out to be insufficient. Meanwhile, the US and its NATO allies are not ready to provide more aid, since this would greatly weaken their own military power. So how did Washington’s military machine get into this situation?
After Germany and Japan were vanquished in 1945, the development of the US military may be clearly divided into several cycles. The first started with the Cold War in the second half of the that decade. Up until the mid to late 1960s, it was characterized by preparations for World War III. This was imagined as a replica of the Second World War, only with the USSR as the main enemy and the concept that it would be nuclear.
In that period, local conflicts, including the Korean War, did not significantly influence military development and were conducted using the same forces that were supposed to be used in a major war. Nevertheless, the US drew certain conclusions. For example, after the Korean War, it became obvious that using piston-engined bombers as carriers of nuclear weapons was pointless, and this significantly accelerated the transition of the US Strategic Air Command to jet aircraft.
The second period started when the United States understood the realities of a confrontation in conditions of strategic parity: the massive nuclear arsenals of the USSR and the USA made the outcome of a potential war between the two countries meaningless, given mutually assured destruction. The preparations for a potential confrontation continued, but at the same time things started moving closer to a peaceful resolution. This finally happened when treaties on the limitation and reduction of nuclear arsenals were signed.
Direct military clashes were now limited to local conflicts, and these required new approaches, since many strategies intended for a global nuclear war could not be applied to low-intensify conflicts. When it came to military equipment, economic parameters like long-term service, the ability to modernize, and total life cycle cost became important. Previously, none of this had fit into the concept of “equipment built to burn in the furnace of a nuclear war in five minutes.” Some socio-economic parameters also changed – the idea of a conscript army was rejected, the number of army reserves was reduced, and so on.
These changes became even more apparent after 1991, when local conflicts became the main scenario in military planning, while the idea of a confrontation between the great powers was discarded as outdated.
The future seemed bright and predetermined – the superiority of the US army in terms of intelligence, management, targeting, and its ability to act in any weather and at any time of day, were supposed to provide an advantage over any enemy, as was demonstrated in Iraq and Yugoslavia. The fact that this superiority did not guarantee victory – or at least not always – became clear in the 1990s, following the operation in Somalia. However, private conversations with representatives of the US expert and military communities have revealed that Washington considered this episode a “misfire.”
The downsizing of the US Army was accompanied by a massive reduction in weapons and equipment stocks. In America itself, the situation was not as radical as in Europe, where in some cases entire categories of military equipment disappeared. But in absolute terms, given the scale of the military, the reductions were huge – thousands of tanks, planes, artillery pieces, hundreds of ships, millions of tons of ammunition, and other military property items were sold or liquidated.
This did not give rise to any political or military fears, since in the first post-Soviet years, Russia expressed no desire to replace the USSR as the “preferred enemy” of Washington. China did not seek any confrontation either, but only strived to effectively fit into the global economy which then provided it with rapid industrial growth and technological advancement. And apart from Moscow and Beijing, Washington did not have any potential rivals at all.
It must be noted, however, that some experts assumed that this situation could change in the coming decades. For example, back in 1997, US diplomat George Kennan warned that the expansion of NATO was a major mistake that could radically worsen relations between Russia and the United States in the future. The authors of the 1997 issue of Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) also said that “In the period beyond 2015, there is the possibility that a regional great power or global peer competitor may emerge. Russia and China are seen by some as having the potential to be such competitors, though their respective futures are quite uncertain.”
However, at the time, these warnings sounded too vague, and the prospects for their implementation were too remote to have a significant impact on the planning and decision-making processes in Washington. As a result, by the 2010s, when the rivalry between the great powers resumed, the Americans and their closest allies found themselves unprepared for it.
The views of the US military-political leadership changed a lot in the early ‘90s, and this had wide-ranging consequences. The military industry slowed down, equipment inventories were reduced, and there were changes in military statutes – for example, field fortification manuals were no longer updated, and for a long time, “fire power” was excluded from the parameters defining “combat power” in the Army Field Manual FM 3-0 “Operations.”
After the army was downsized, so was combat training – maneuvers were now considered “large” when a division was represented by one brigade with reinforcement units and under the control of the division headquarters. War games utilizing large ground forces (corps and larger) against an equivalent enemy were practically eliminated, and remained mostly in the form of “games on maps.” Along with the downsizing of reserve formations and reductions in equipment and ammunition stocks, this had two key consequences. Firstly, the army itself shrank in size. And secondly, the US lost its ability to quickly accumulate sufficient forces, since it no longer had enough people capable of managing large numbers of troops and would need to train them from scratch.
The changes affected not only the Army, but also the Air Force and Navy.
The idea of supplying all types of troops with high-precision long-range weapons looked good in theory. However, in practice, it turned out that there were not enough of them. Even the number of jets wasn’t sufficient – for example, the 1991-type grouping used during Operation Desert Storm might not be possible today, and even then would require the Air Force and Navy to concentrate all available forces.
An accumulation of high-precision long-range weapons can probably help in a local conflict (although, as practice shows, even the ability to hit any target in some small remote place does not guarantee victory). However, these weapons are clearly not enough for a war with a major power. Renowned US military expert Mark Gunzinger in his November 2021 report “Affordable Mass: The Need for a Cost-Effective PGM Mix for Great Power Conflict,” noted that in the event of a clash with Russia or China, the US Air Force would have to strike a huge number of targets (100,000 and more) at various distances. This requires a large arsenal of various high-precision weapons, and the production rates for each type of weapon should range from several thousand units to tens of thousands of units annually.
At the same time, as CSIS vice-president Seth Jones noted in his report titled “Empty Bins in a Wartime Environment: The Challenge to the U.S. Defense Industrial Base,” the US inventory of conventional long-range missiles of the JASSM, JASSM-ER, and LRASM type will number about 6,500 units by 2025. And this stock could be depleted within eight days of a conflict against a major power.
US Navy: power without a foundation
The US Navy ran into similar problems. The development of its fleet from the 1940s to the present day has also been cyclical. In the first stage – from the Korean War to the early 1970s – it was oriented towards fighting an enemy on the coast since it did not have any major rivals at sea. As the United States prepared for a possible confrontation with the USSR’s Navy, it mainly focused on anti-submarine defense, and – closer to Soviet waters – on repulsing attacks by naval missile-carrying aviation.
In the early 1970s, after a series of incidents in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, the United States realized that the USSR had a modern, substantial fleet with both surface-launched and submarine-launched missiles. This armada could pose a serious threat to carrier strike groups which at the time did not have adequate protection from salvo launches of anti-ship missiles. The situation required a change in naval development concepts, and for the next 20 years, the US Navy focused on defending its supremacy at sea, which was challenged by the Soviet Navy.
After the USSR collapsed, the US Navy resumed “fighting on the coast” and considerably cut its fleet – from almost 600 ships in the second half of the 1980s to less than 300 by the end of the 2000s. The ability of the US to conduct naval combat against a strong enemy fleet also decreased – the navy did not receive a new generation of anti-ship missiles and after RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk TASM missiles were removed from service – it only developed the lightweight Harpoon anti-ship missile defense system. The escort forces of the US Navy, intended to fight enemy submarines, were also significantly reduced.
This strategy was understandable, since there was no rival in sight – globally speaking, the Soviet Navy had ceased to exist, while China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy was more of a coastal self-defense force until the 2010s. However, by the early 2020s, it turned out that Beijng had a rapidly growing surface fleet capable of challenging Washington in its effort to hold dominance in the Indo-Pacific, and the US found this challenge difficult to respond to. The Chinese fleet is greater in number than the American equivalent, and although it has fewer large ships – like aircraft carriers, cruisers, and nuclear submarines – this gap could be compensated for by other means. A key region for China, where the PLA intends to challenge the dominance of the US Navy, is the western Pacific Ocean. These are its home waters, and Beijing can concentrate its entire fleet there while Washington, due to its global commitments, may accumulate only part of its forces. Meanwhile, close to its own coast, China’s shortage of large ships can be compensated by a superior fleet of smaller vessels, as well as coastal missiles and aviation.
Similar to the situation in the US Air Force and Army, the reduced combat potential of the US Navy was accompanied by the loss of production output and potential. Once the world leader in commercial shipbuilding, Washington lost its dominance. The industry stalled, facing issues such as a significant shortage of modern production facilities and personnel. Today, three East Asian countries account for over 93% of the world’s commercial shipbuilding: China (47%) South Korea (30%) and Japan (over 17%). South Korea and Japan are US allies and unsurprisingly, both possess a rapidly growing fleet. But as military powers, they are not large enough to support Washington in its goal of retaining maritime supremacy.
Meanwhile, the US itself is not able to quickly increase production output to equip, arm, and provide its Army, Air Force, and Navy with everything they need to wage a large-scale war with a modern enemy, particularly one with a substantial combat-ready army.
Rivals and prospects
All of the above does not mean that the rivals of the US don’t have problems of their own. Of course they do. The Russian Armed Forces, which survived the collapse of the USSR, are now undergoing a long-term and at times, inconsistent, reform. The country’s military industry also has notable issues with developing modern systems, particularly in the fields of intelligence, communications, and targeting.
All things considered, however, Russian military planners never completely dismissed the threat of large-scale land warfare and this led to a different attitude when it came to weapons storage and the capacity to quickly boost military production.
Over the past year, there’s been a joke going around in Russian military circles: “In 1993, we looked at the endless fields of stored weapons with countless tanks, guns, and ammunition boxes, and asked ourselves, ‘My God, why do we need all this, what are we going to do with it?’ And now we look at these stocks of weapons (considerably less full, but still there) and say, ‘Oh, so that’s why!’.”
A big war was not considered probable until NATO began to set it sights on Ukraine, and Moscow started to take the threat from the military bloc seriously. In the West, however, the seriousness of the situation was apparently underestimated, and so was Russia’s readiness to deploy its armed forces. What would the conflict have looked like if the West had understood Russia’s readiness to act? Would it have started at all, or could there have been serious talks on how to avoid it? No one knows for sure.
Meanwhile, the combat readiness of China’s armed forces is more theoretical than practical, since they were last tested back in 1979 – and that was small conflict with Vietnam. Nevertheless, Beijing has largely borrowed its military culture from Russia, and takes the quantitative aspect very seriously. We cannot say how well the PLA will use its weapons, but there is no doubt that Beijing will make sure that it has a lot of them.
***
In 1941, the British Empire’s inability to defend itself in the Far East while simultaneously fighting for maritime supremacy in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic forced Winston Churchill to sign the Atlantic Charter, asking the US for assistance on conditions that eventually led to the end of the British Empire. But London, at least, had the opportunity to turn to Washington for support. The US economy was more powerful than those of Germany and Japan, and, combined with the USSR and UK, it formed an alliance of three of the four largest economies in the world.
The industrial capabilities of the present-day United States, however, are inferior to those of China, and its standing in the financial and technological spheres is also being challenged. Therefore, Beijing, is a much more substantial strategic rival than Germany was in the 1940s.
ByIlya Kramnik, military analyst, expert at the Russian International Affairs Council and researcher at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations
Over a third of children placed on puberty blockers by Britain’s controversial Tavistock child gender clinic suffered mental health problems after taking the hormone-altering drugs, according to fresh analysis.
A new look at a 2011 study conducted by the University College London Hospitals (UCLH) and the Tavistock Centre’s Gender Identity Development Service — the UK’s only child gender transition clinic that is set to be shut down over safeguarding failures — has found that the mental health of 34 per cent of children placed on puberty-blocking drugs “reliably deteriorated”, while 37 per cent saw no difference, and 29 per cent “reliably improved” following the administering of the drugs.
The new findings fly in the face of the 2011 analysis of 44 children aged between 12 and 15 years old which claimed that there had been “no changes in psychological function” after the youngsters were put on puberty blockers. While the original analysis was based on averages of groups based on questionnaires provided to the children and their parents, the new findings were based on individual results, The Telegraphreported.
Professor of psychology and sociology in the School of Health and Social Care at the University of Essex, Susan McPherson and retired social scientist David Freedman — who led the new inquiry — said that their methodology provides a “greater indication as to variation across participants”
“This complementary analytic approach allows us to look at how a treatment is performing in terms of the percentage of patients improving, deteriorating and showing clinically significant change,” the researchers said.
“It is possible, using this approach, to look at patterns, such as who is benefitting and who is not,” they continued. “We recommend that these approaches be incorporated into new GD [gender dysphoria] services being established in the UK as well as new research studies being designed.”
Membership of the groups is estimated to be in the vicinity of 175,000 people
Data from the Mexican Statistical Agency (INEGI), meanwhile, states that there were 32,223 homicides in Mexico in 2022 – or 25 murders per 100,000 people.
Membership in Mexico’s deadly drug cartels continues to surge as dozens of people join the crime groups daily, according to research published by the academic journal Science on Thursday. The study also estimated cartels to be the fifth-largest employers in the Latin American country.
Tracking information on homicides, incarcerations, and other related data over the past decade, researchers created a mathematical model to trace cartel recruitment numbers. It found that membership of around 150 drug cartels is cumulatively estimated to be 175,000, which placed it above most of Mexico’s largest employers.
The study’s authors said that their goal was to provide analysts and lawmakers who “have long struggled to understand cartels” a method to find a “better way out of this cycle of violence.” It also indicated targeting cartel recruitment methods, rather than imprisoning members, is the most effective measure to curb the issue.
“More than 1.7 million people in Latin America are incarcerated,” the study says. “Adding more people to saturated jails will not solve the insecurity problem.”
Additionally, the research found that drug cartels recruit up to 20,000 new initiates each year to continue their growth, which it indicates is necessary, given that around 37% of known cartel members have been killed or incarcerated in the past decade.
“If cartels cannot recruit, then they cannot replace their losses, then they cannot keep fighting each other,” Valentin Pereda of the University of Montreal, who was involved in the study, said, according to The Guardian. “Until now, no one had provided a data-based assessment of how it would work in practice.”
Pereda added that, for cartel violence to be controlled, the weaponry available to them must also be addressed. “We’re not talking about people with knives going at each other in a bar,” he said, “We’re talking about paramilitary units with military-grade weapons.”
A July estimate from the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) said that two of the most infamous Mexican cartels, Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation, employ around 45,000 people.
The study noted that the DEA’s figures might not be fully representative of the actual reach the organized crime groups possess, given that the “model only accounts for those directly involved in work that puts them at risk of violence, and not members – such as bankers – who help move and launder cartels’ money.”
Data from the Mexican Statistical Agency (INEGI), meanwhile, states that there were 32,223 homicides in Mexico in 2022 – or 25 murders per 100,000 people.
The cheap and highly addictive stimulant Captagon shows signs of following in the opioid fentanyl’s footsteps…
THE OPIOID CRISIS continues to rage across the U.S., but there are some positive, if modest, signs that it may be slowing. Overdose deaths due to opioids are flattening in many places and dropping in others, awareness of the dangers of opioid abuse continues to increase, and more than $50 billion in opioid settlement funds are finally making their way to state and local governments after years of delay. There is still much work to be done, but all public health emergencies eventually subside. Then what?
First, it’s important to realize that synthetic opioids like fentanyl will never fully disappear from the drug supply.
They are too potent, too addictive, and perhaps most importantly, too lucrative. Opioids, like Covid-19, are here to stay, consistently circulating in the community but at more manageable levels.
More alarming is what may take its place. Since 2010, overdoses involving both stimulants and fentanyl have increased 50-fold. Experts suggest this dramatic rise in polysubstance use represents a “fourth wave” in the opioid crisis, but what if it is really the start of a new wave of an emerging stimulant crisis?
Substance abuse tends to move in cycles. Periods with high rates of depressant drug use (like opioids) are almost always followed by ones with high rates of stimulant drug use (like methamphetamine and cocaine), and vice versa. The heroin crisis of the 1960s and 1970s was followed by the crack epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s, which gave way to the current opioid epidemic. As the think tank scholar Charles Fain Lehman quipped, “As with fashion, so with drugs — whatever the last generation did, the next generation tends to abhor.” The difference now is the primacy of synthetic drugs — that is, illicit substances created in a lab that are designed to mimic the effects of naturally occurring drugs.
Today, anyone with a few thousand dollars and internet access can find instructions to build their own little drug empire. Look no further than “Breaking Bad,” the hit television series in which a high school chemistry teacher starts cooking high-quality methamphetamine out of an RV to help provide for his family. “Breaking Bad” is of course a work of fiction, but in the age of synthetic drugs, the plotline is not that far-fetched.
Back in the real world, methamphetamine has already become a significant threat. From 2015 to 2019, overdose deaths attributed to methamphetamine nearly tripled, according to a study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a staggering increase driven primarily by its combination with fentanyl. And yet, even with methamphetamine’s use on the rise, it still trails America’s favorite illicit stimulant drug — cocaine — by a significant margin. In the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than twice as many adults aged 18 or older reported using cocaine over methamphetamine in their lifetime.
Cocaine holds a special place in American pop culture. Long considered a party drug, cocaine has often been associated with celebrities, lawyers, and so-called finance bros, and its sale and use has been romanticized in music, TV, and cinema. The sad reality is that for the year preceding April 2023, more than 27,000 Americans died while using cocaine, according to provisional statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is indeed a hell of a drug.
But its days may be numbered.
The vast majority of cocaine is currently produced in three countries in the world — Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia — primarily due to a favorable climate and a cultural affinity for the coca plant from which cocaine is derived. But what if, instead of being produced in the jungles of South America, cocaine — or something like it — could be manufactured anywhere?
This is not a new idea. In the last decade alone, illicit drug chemists have synthesized more than 1,200 new psychoactive substances, or NPS, also known as designer drugs or research chemicals, in search of a better high. So far, none of these lab-made drugs have threatened to unseat cocaine, but with advances in artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, and biotechnology, it is only a matter of time until some enterprising chemist strikes white gold.
Officials in Europe recently sounded the alarm about counterfeit Captagon, an amphetamine-like drug that produces many of the same physiological effects as cocaine. Often referred to as “poor man’s cocaine,” Captagon is already wildly popular in the Middle East where it sells for as little as $3 per pill and fuels the Gulf states’ party scene.
Captagon is the trade name for fenethylline, a chemical compound related to natural neurotransmitters like dopamine and epinephrine. It was first developed in the 1960s to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, narcolepsy, and depression, but was later banned worldwide due to its high potential for abuse. Although still referred to as Captagon, virtually all the pills seized today are counterfeit and comprised of a hodge-podge of dangerous substances, including fenethylline, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and even caffeine.
In this way, Captagon is a lot like the counterfeit oxycodone pills flooding the U.S. drug market: They are advertised as one drug but contain another. And because they come in pill form, they are more approachable to the average drug consumer, who tend to associate pills with legitimate prescription medications.
While most drug overdose deaths are currently attributed to synthetic opioids like fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamine carry significant risks of their own. Stimulants place extreme strain on the body’s regulatory and cardiovascular system and increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, or death. And unlike opioids, there is no miracle overdose reversal drug like naloxone — which was recently made available over the counter in the U.S. — or medication-assisted treatments for stimulant use disorders.
Interestingly, late last year the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration did not increase the annual production quotas for several amphetamine-based prescription medications, including Adderall and Ritalin, although drugmakers had raised concerns about ongoing shortages. The agency’s response was due partly to concerns that aggressive marketing of these drugs could spark the next crisis. Recent studies suggest the use of ADHD medication by young adults does not necessarily lead to the use of illicit drugs in the future, but if shortages persist, will users turn to the black market as they did with prescription opioids?
The illicit drug trade is surprisingly regional, and preferences come and go. Just because a substance is popular in one region of the world doesn’t mean it will inevitably become popular in another. But Captagon displays all the hallmarks of the next big thing for the American public. Like fentanyl, it has a natural user base, is cheap and easy to make, and is highly addictive. It also avoids bizarre side effects (such as a notorious case of face-eating and other unusual behaviors) sometimes encountered with NPS.
It is difficult to predict what form the next drug crisis may take, but I believe one thing is certain: There will be another crisis. Early indications and warnings will be essential to identify the next threat and protect health and safety. Public health and law enforcement organizations must improve data collection and monitoring of emerging drug threats through intelligence collection, wastewater analysis, and forensic testing. They must also enhance information sharing and collaboration across the prevention, supply reduction, and treatment continuum. And the U.S. and its partners must act now to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past — before it’s too late.
* * *
Jim Crotty is the former Deputy Chief of Staff at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and a member of the Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime’s network of experts. He is currently a Supervisory Criminal Research Specialist with the DC Metropolitan Police Department and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies.
“What clinicians have been seeing,” said Dr. Risch, “is very strange things: For example, 25-year-olds with colon cancer, who don’t have family histories of the disease—that’s basically impossible along the known paradigm for how colon cancer works—and other long-latency cancers that they’re seeing in very young people.”
He said this is not how cancer normally develops.
“There has to be some initiating stimulus to why this happens,” he said.
Dr. Risch said that while the individual risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine is relatively low, once that risk manifests itself at a greater scale when millions of people have received the vaccine, the result is that hundreds of thousands of people are left with injuries and serious adverse events that are often worse than the virus itself.
There is evidence that cancers are occurring in excess after people receive COVID-19 vaccinations, according to Dr. Harvey Risch.
Dr. Risch is professor emeritus of epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. His research has focused extensively on the causes of cancer as well as prevention and early diagnosis.
In an interview for EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders,” Dr. Risch said patients must now wait months, not weeks, to get an appointment at an oncology clinic in New York.
There is difficulty in observing whether a vaccine can cause cancer because cancer usually takes time to develop, Dr. Risch said. It can take anywhere from two years to 30 years, depending on the different types of cancer, from leukemia to colon cancer.
“What clinicians have been seeing,” said Dr. Risch, “is very strange things: For example, 25-year-olds with colon cancer, who don’t have family histories of the disease—that’s basically impossible along the known paradigm for how colon cancer works—and other long-latency cancers that they’re seeing in very young people.”
He said this is not how cancer normally develops.
“There has to be some initiating stimulus to why this happens,” he said.
Fighting Cancer
Dr. Risch said that in his opinion, cancer is something a healthy human body can fight and disable, as the non-normal cancerous cells are gobbled up when detected in a body with a functional immune system. If the immune system is compromised, however, it cannot cope with the task of neutralizing cancerous cells and cancerous cells are left to multiply and grow, leading to symptoms of cancer.
“That’s the mechanism I think is most likely here,” Dr. Risch said. “We know that the COVID vaccines have done various degrees of damage to the immune system in a fraction of people who have taken them.”
That damage could translate to getting COVID more often, getting other infectious diseases, or getting cancer.
Another example Dr. Risch gave was breast cancer, which normally, if there is a remanifestation after surgical removal, the remanifestation occurs after two decades. However, vaccinated women are now seen to remanifest breast cancers in much shorter periods of time.
“Those are the initial signals that we’ve been seeing, and because these cancers have been occurring to people who were too young to get them, basically, compared to the normal way it works, they’ve been designated as turbo cancers,” Dr. Risch said.
“Some of these cancers are so aggressive that between the time that they’re first seen and when they come back for treatment after a few weeks, they’ve grown dramatically compared to what oncologists would have expected for the way cancer normally progresses,” he added.
“Be attuned to your body,” Dr. Risch recommended, for noticing any new signals the body might give.
Adverse Events After Vaccination
Dr. Risch also talked about the aspect of official medical agencies not recognizing someone as being vaccinated inside the first two weeks of vaccination. This happens, he said, because the medical agencies say that the effects of the vaccine need two weeks to start manifesting. Adverse effects occurring a few days after vaccinations were officially counted as health conditions manifesting in unvaccinated people, he said.
However, serious adverse events after receiving the vaccine have occurred within the first four days, Dr. Risch said. He said three-quarters of adverse effects are being recorded as happening to unvaccinated people.
The decision makers who were in charge during the pandemic “threw out the principles of public health six days into the pandemic and did the opposite of everything that we knew should be done for respiratory viruses,” he said.
One example was the denial of effective early treatment and unnecessary vaccinations, which show a “colossal failure of public health through this period,” he said.
Dr. Risch said that a lot of people are now less likely to be “propagandized” regarding COVID and that news reports about a new variant that is going to take over the world in the next month are “propaganda to sell the next batch of vaccines coming out in a few weeks.”
“People are fed up with this and it’s going to be a lot more pushback,” he said.
Risks to Society
Dr. Risch said that while the individual risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine is relatively low, once that risk manifests itself at a greater scale when millions of people have received the vaccine, the result is that hundreds of thousands of people are left with injuries and serious adverse events that are often worse than the virus itself.
Dr. Risch’s opinion is that nobody should get vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, as the new variants are mild and not life-threatening. He has heard of a few hospitalizations that lasted for some days, but as most people had COVID in the past, they have some immunity to these new variants as well.
“There is no reason for people to be vaccinated now, to any degree,” he said.
He said COVID has become an illness similar to the flu in its degree of severity, and that propaganda to scare people is being pushed by the government on behalf of pharmaceutical companies to sell more vaccines.
“We live in social contact with each other and therefore spread low-level infections. This is part of human life that we take for granted and we try to treat it the best we can,” he said. “That’s how we should be managing this.”
Member of the European Parliament Christine Anderson has been an unyielding opponent to Klaus Schwab’s ‘Great Reset’ Agenda. Known best for her famous smackdown on Justin Trudeau, MEP Anderson has established herself as one of the few politicians left who represent the interests of the European people.
September 13 was no different as MEP Anderson took no prisoners in her latest warning to the globalitarian elite. Before the European Parliament, in a session specifically focused on the COVID-19 response and the World Health Organization, MEP Anderson ended the meeting with a powerful statement.
Here’s what she said, word for word:
“We just need to find a way to wake the people up. Because the point is simply this: it comes down to a choice. It’s either freedom, democracy, and the rule of law — or enslavement.
“There is no such thing in between. There is no such thing as a little freedom, a little democracy, a little rule of law, just as there is no such thing as a little enslavement. So that’s the choice. It comes down to – it’s either the globalitarian misanthropists or the people. It comes down to – it’s either us or them. And that’s, I think, what this really is all about.
“Now, when my colleagues and I were elected to this parliament, there was no question about it. We were on the side of the people because the people actually pay us to act in their best interests. That’s our job. And once again, I will say to every single elected representative around the world, to every single member in every elected government around the world, if you do not unequivocally stand with the people and serve in their best interests, act in their best interests, you have no place in any parliament or in any government. You belong behind bars. You may even rot in hell for all I care at this point because that’s exactly what you deserve if you sell out the people.”
*Applause ensued*
MEP Anderson continued. “Now, I would like to make a promise to the people, and I’m pretty sure I can speak or speak on behalf of my colleagues. We will continue to stand with you, the people. We will continue to fight for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. We will not shut up, and we will not stop going after those despicable globalitarian misanthropists.
“But we would also like to have you make a promise to us. You may have heard it’s all coming back. The first country is already starting [to talk about] mask mandates in Israel. They’re already imposing it. I’ve heard of a few universities in the United States. They’re already bringing it all back. And I would really like for you, the people, to not go along. Simply say no! They want you to wear a mask; say no. They want you to put in another mRNA shot; say no. They want to impose a curfew on you; say no. That’s really all you have to do.
“And it might not be or might sound a little hard, but it’s actually not that hard. Because once you have made it clear to them that you will no longer go along, once you’ve let them know, they cannot scare you anymore. Because as long as you are afraid of what they might do if you don’t comply, they have power over you. Take the power away from them! Simply say no. Once you do that, they don’t have power over you anymore. You will feel so free. Simply say no.
“And considering what we’ve heard today, and considering what we’ve seen in the last three years. Considering what we know they want to implement, heck, you might even be well within your right to tell them to screw themselves and go to hell! That’s where they belong. What will you get out of that? I can tell you. Once you’ve done that, once you’ve told them to just go to hell, they no longer have power over you. You will have an incredible feeling — kind of like a sensation of freedom will swap through your body. I promise you will feel so relieved.
“And this is the state of mind that I would ask all of you to get to. Simply don’t let them grind you down anymore. You are worth it. You are deserving of just standing up for yourselves. And tell them all to go to hell. Thank you very much.”
What is BlackRock? Where did this financial behemoth come from? How did it gain such incredible power over the world’s wealth? And how is it seeking to leverage that power in shaping the course of human civilization?
Find out in this in-depth Corbett Report documentary on How BlackRock Conquered the World.
Canada has provided more than 8.9 billion Canadian dollars ($6.6 billion) since January 2022, in direct financial aid and military equipment, according to the office.
Meanwhile, we are experiencing an exceptional housing crisis where seniors, the disabled, the mentally ill, and the poor are ending up in tent cities and RV caravans. Our elitist leaders are out of touch.
After leaving Washington, President Zelensky is in Canada, where entering the House of Commons alongside PM Justin Trudeau he was greeted to loud cheers of “Slava Ukraini”.
Trudeau said this marked a “pivotal moment in history” and said of Zelensky there’s “no better inspiration”. Amid these flowery displays of admiration, Trudeau on Friday announced C$650 million more in military aid to Ukraine, set for a three-year period.
Trudeau also informed parliament, “We are providing funding to support mental health care in Ukraine,” after which the assembly erupted in applause.
He then went after Putin, who he said has broken international norms which “protect our freedom”. He added that “Putin governs with violence and oppression,” but than Ukraine is mounting a fierce defense. “For a lasting peace we must oppose Putin,” he added.
“We are all seeing a rise in disinformation, some state sponsored, some politically motivated that twists facts and refuses evidence and science. In this era of uncertainty, rules are what will protect us,” Trudeau said.
Importantly, the Canadian leader then unveiled the “longer term multi-year commitment” to the value of 650m Canadian dollars ($482m), to included 50 armored vehicles.
He further said Canada’s military is committed to training F-16 pilots and plane technicians, fresh on the heels of the US recently announcing its own program at American bases. According to the itinerary of the rest of Zelensky’s trip:
After addressing Parliament, Trudeau and Zelensky “will then travel to Toronto, where they will meet with Canadian business leaders to strengthen private sector investment in Ukraine’s future.” Canada has provided more than 8.9 billion Canadian dollars ($6.6 billion) since January 2022, in direct financial aid and military equipment, according to the office.
Even though last year (Dec. 2022), Zelensky was able to address the US Congress in a major televised speech, he wasn’t given that opportunity this year, at a moment GOP resisters have voiced disapproval for issuing more unlimited Ukraine aid. But Zelensky was given the opportunity Friday to address Canadian lawmakers on Friday in a live televised event, so at least there’s that as a consolation… from Kiev’s perspective.
The two institutional investment companies that are the major owners and controllers of all the others in the world are Vanguard Holdings and Blackrock, and Vanguard is the largest shareholder (owner) of Blackrock. What this means is that Vanguard and Blackrock own and control this planet.”
“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean a conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, incredibly evil in intent.”
~ Rep. Larry P. MacDonald (Note: Lawrence McDonald was killed (likely murdered) on Korean Air Lines 007, 1983, a few months after making this statement.)
To begin, I will preface my remarks by saying that this is an attempt to explain in simple terms, very complicated financial and economic crimes being used against Americans, and also against the entire world population, in order to create and sustain total control over humanity. This is meant to manifest itself in the concept of one world governance, the ‘Great Reset,’ or the New World Order. This may seem a bold statement; it is not, but once you understand that everything that has happened over many decades is linked, especially since the plotted and premeditated false flag event called ‘9/11,’ you should be able to recognize the massive number of obvious connections that are incredibly evil.
It has recently become more prevalent by mostly alternative news sites and bloggers, to put forth the notion that many are waking up, and that the people are winning the battle for freedom. In my opinion, this is just not so, and in fact is misleading, as false hope is the driving force of this thinking. It is evident that more are claiming to be against government tyranny, but absolutely nothing has been done to reduce or eliminate the power of the State at any level to date. In addition, the nefarious efforts of the State and its controllers continue to expand, and the drive toward more draconian policies is never-ending. In the current environment, it is not known what the reaction by the masses might be considering the vast and imminent array of so-called ’emergencies’ that are certain to arise as this controlling cabal seeks to advance its agendas, but if the past is any indication, compliance should be expected.
The takeover framework of these ruling psychopaths is based always on the prototype of problem-reaction-solution, of which all are fake premeditated events and false emergencies; conspiracies in fact, meant to instill fear, hatred, or confusion, so that the State can pretend to come to the rescue of its hapless slave-class. This strategy has worked most every time it has been tried to date, and the herd continues to simply go along, regardless of the erroneous rhetoric being spewed that this populace is winning. It is not, and so long as the State continues and succeeds in its push to remake and transform society, whether psychologically, financially, or economically, the power of the ruling class and its governing system, will advance its wealth transfers, its monetary monopoly, and its depopulation efforts.
Psychological manipulation and control is necessary in order for the State thugs to accomplish their mission of world takeover, but financial and economic control is mandatory. This brings us to the real question; who owns and controls this world? It is certainly the big banking cartels, including all central banks, the large corporate magnates, the government-protected NGO foundations, and of course, the entire global asset industry, which by 2020 controlled well over $100 trillion dollars. But who owns and controls all of these entities? Who has controlling interest in everything on earth? That is Blackrock and The Vanguard Group, and as I explained a year ago:
“There are a few thousand institutional investment firms that own every large bank, every large corporation, every large investment firm, every ‘news’ outlet, every large communication company, every large pharmaceutical company, every large transportation company; in other words, most every large company on earth is owned by these institutional investors. In turn, the small institutional investment firms are owned by larger institutional investment firms, and the larger investment firms, are owned by even larger investment firms. The two institutional investment companies that are the major owners and controllers of all the others in the world are Vanguard Holdings and Blackrock, and Vanguard is the largest shareholder (owner) of Blackrock. What this means is that Vanguard and Blackrock own and control this planet.”
The current CEO of Vanguard is Tim Buckley, and of course, the head and founder of the powerful Blackrock institution is Larry Fink. It should be noted that Fink and Blackrock have attained a position of extreme and almost infinite power over finance and economics, and according to many are now the fourth branch of government. The connections of Fink are incredibly telling of the power wielded by Blackrock. Blackrock effectively has control of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury, as well as banks around the world. It should be noted that Fink was appointed to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Board on August 22, 2019, the onset of the fraudulent ‘covid pandemic,’ which was set up, solidified, and begun, the same month that Fink took his seat on the board of the WEF. To gain a full picture of Fink and Blackrock’s history through today, watch this superb documentary by James Corbett; “How Blackrock Conquered the World.” In it, Corbett explains with full reference in video and text, how the entire ‘covid’ hoax was staged, and was first and foremost a financial takeover coup led by Blackrock. This connection of dots and people is of vital importance.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a very simplistic view of events, but it is necessary to tie a few things together in order that all can be seen to be completely connected; which would indicate a vast conspiracy that has been propagated over a long period of time. All so-called ’emergencies’ since the fraudulent 9/11 inside job, have much in common, and why would they not, as the main agenda of world governing domination was always the goal sought. Consider just three events, but there are many, many more, over that time.
The buildings that came down on 9/11 were turned into powder, an impossibility with fire caused by jet fuel. Consider that cars far away from any fire were burned to nothing, with melted metal, aluminum, windshield glass; all as if by spontaneous combustion. But the same thing happened in the Paradise, California fires in 2018, with many similarities, including the incredible damage to automobiles not even in the path of fires that had to be well above any heat level of a wildfire. The same also just occurred this past month in Lahaina, Hawaii. How could this be? It could not, unless similar or exact methods of destruction were plotted beforehand, and carried out by criminal State (military) means. And this is happening around the world as well, all falsely explained away by the complicit and controlled mainstream media.
One very telling aspect of all these bogus ’emergencies,’ from 9/11 to Maui, is that Wall Street and the financial firms, the institutional asset firms, central banks, defense contractors, and military-controlled tech companies, and of course this includes Blackrock, tended to gain huge profits, capture (steal through land grabs) more property, government contracts, and massive bailout money, while walking away from disaster far richer and more powerful than ever before possible. This happened with 9/11, the 2008 finance and housing collapse, the fake ‘covid’ plot, and now with the ultimate weapon against humanity, the completely illegitimate ‘climate change’ agenda; and this agenda placed Blackrock at the top of the heap worldwide, of this criminal fraud.
Each and every emergency brings about a bigger and more powerful State, more restrictions, more regulation, more mandates, more lockdowns, less travel, and more surveillance and censorship. This is all by design, and never coincidental or accidental, as all is a deliberate plot against humanity. Regardless of political considerations or parties, this assault against us all is ongoing, and forever expanding. Every incident, every manipulation, every ’emergency,’ has been planned far in advance, and the world takeover is now closer at hand.
While the state continues to build its new world order, the general population is consumed by one after another false flag event, claimed ’emergency,’ or new ‘threat,’ as stated by the ruling class bent on taking over the world. While the masses are at each other’s throats, the state continues its drive toward total domination. What this indicates is that the people are complicit in their own slavery due to their inability to see the big picture, while concentrating on every distraction thrown at them by this evil ruling force.
What is being ignored is that this world has already been taken over and is being fully controlled by the very few, and the fighting of one against another is continuing to aid in this takeover plot. By concentrating on each and every tyrannical distraction, the people have left themselves open to dictatorial management, and in the process have lost all ability to stop the totalitarian usurpation of their lives and property at the hands of the financial cabal bent on world rule.
By treating each indiscretion as independent of the real agenda being sought, nothing is being done to stop the state in its efforts to fully control all people on earth. By participating in the political and ‘voting’ process; a process designed and implemented for the single purpose of control, by concentrating on the political side shows, by attempting to use corrupt government courts to gain redress from tyrannical maneuvers, by accepting the ruling system as legitimate, by allowing the Federal Reserve and all banks the ability to monitor and control assets through complete digitization, the lowly people are digging their own graves.
It may already be too late to continue this asinine exercise in futility, as the ruling class few are in control of the systems that will allow them to complete their takeover plot. The only answer to this evil attempt to destroy us in favor of the few most powerful, is to negate all government, to negate and abolish the federal reserve system, to disallow any and all control by the banking cartels, to stop any and all efforts to monopolize the economic and monetary system’s efforts to create and implement any central bank digital currencies, and to not accept any new feigned emergency concerning health, fake ‘climate change,’ war threats, unnatural events, or any other intentional criminal acts meant to cause undue fear among the seemingly helpless proletariat.
The people are not winning; they are losing, but this deadly assault on humanity can still be reversed if even a small majority stand up and take responsibility for their own lives and freedom. If the current trend continues, if the bulk of this population persists in hiding from the truth, if most expect others to save them, all will be lost, but if any true actionable awakening by large numbers becomes evident, the state will fold. This will never happen with any election, and no politician can change the course we are on, as depending on any master participating in this evil governing system, is the epitome of failure, and can only lead to eternal enslavement.
“The one thing man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by a World Government, a New World Order.”
Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional that has been writing about freedom and liberty matters, politics, and history for two decades. He is against all war and aggression, and against the state. He recently finished a collaboration with former U.S. Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, and was a contributor to her new book, “When China Sneezes” From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Political-Economic Crisis.” Currently, he lives in Montana with his wife and son. Visit his website.
There are thousands of African and Latin American migrants coming through daily. More than two million came last year, over 5,000 per day, and nearly as many will come this year.
During the Trump years, Democrats attacked Trump as cruel for separating migrant parents and children.
“A policy that separates young children from their parents isn’t a ‘deterrent.’ It’s unconscionable,” said Biden in 2018. “A policy that traumatizes children isn’t a bargaining chip. It’s abhorrent.”
But Dr. Paul Wise, a pediatrician in charge of monitoring the treatment of migrant children in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, reports that the Biden administration’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been separating children as young as eight from their parents.
“Interviews with parents and children found that there were minimal or no opportunities for phone contact or direct interaction between parent and child,” Wise said in the court filing. “The separation of families and the lack of interaction while in custody do significant, and potentially lasting, harm to children, particularly younger children.”
There’s no denying the crisis. In some areas, the border between Texas and Mexico looks like a refugee camp in sub-Saharan Africa. There are thousands of African and Latin American migrants coming through daily. More than two million came last year, over 5,000 per day, and nearly as many will come this year.
The Biden administration rightly points out that it tried telling migrants not to come. “Do not come,” said Vice President Kamala Harris in Guatemala in 2021.
But Biden had made clear from 2018 to 2020 that he would reverse President Trump’s immigration policies. And so, many more migrants are coming.
They also do so because they know we won’t turn them away. Doing so would be cruel. Children, babies, and mothers would die. And the photographs and videos of the horror would travel the world in minutes or seconds.
If you doubt that this is true, watch the videos of parents sending their children through barbed wire fences and crossing the dangerous Rio Grande River.
That hardly means we’re helpless to stop the flow. This year, for the first time, US Border Control is encountering more migrants from outside Latin America than from within it. That means people are flying from Africa to Latin America and entering through Mexico.
Is this part of a plan by Democratic leaders to expand the voting rolls? Some Republicans say so. And in California, some progressive politicians want to give undocumented immigrants the right to vote. They already provide official California state driver’s licenses and IDs.
But if that was the plan, it’s turning the nation against them
The migrants are overwhelming not just the state of Texas but also New York, whose Democratic leaders, both Mayor Eric Adams and Governor Kathy Hochul, say bluntly that the city is filled up.
“The national government has turned its back on New York City,” said Adams in April. “This is impacting our schools, public safety, our ability to take care of those who were already in shelters. This is impacting the entire city.” Hochul is now proposing eliminating New York’s “right to shelter” law.
Maybe the progressive Democrats who run Chicago, Illinois, have more room — or compassion?
Not quite. “Let me state this clearly,” said Chicago’s progressive new Mayor. “The city of Chicago cannot go on welcoming new arrivals safely and capably without significant support and immigration policy changes.”
What, then, is to be done?
The Biden administration doesn’t even bother offering an answer. Democrats can only say what must not be done. We must not build a wall. We must not deport. Anyone. We must instead find jobs for the millions of mostly unskilled and uneducated immigrants to the US who, critics say, will drive down working-class wages and tax already over-stressed housing, educational, and health systems.
Just a few weeks ago, New York’s Governor Hochul tried to stay above the battle between New York City Mayor Adams and the Biden White House. That all changed late last month when Hochul took off the kid gloves. “We’ve managed thus far without substantive support from Washington,” she said in what her aides billed as a major speech.
In the end, nobody will be able to measure how much of the crisis is driven by Biden and how much of it is from the collapse of civilization within the African and Latin American nations themselves.
What’s clear is that if we don’t fix this, it won’t be just the border that’s fallen.
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone