The “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Washington D.C. drew thousands of peaceful protesters in support of the common cause of opposing mask and vaccine mandates. Robert Kennedy Jr., founder and Chairman of Children’s Health Defense delivered a speech to the rally attendees was focused on Big Pharma, which has escaped accountability and demands for transparency despite their core responsibilities during the Covid pandemic. His words were so provocative they ignited a media firestorm.
“You cannot sue that company,” he reiterated. “They have a license…”
“These are criminal companies, by the way,” he proclaimed. “These are serial felons.”
“The four companies that make all four of our U.S. vaccines for the children’s program… have paid $35 billion in criminal penalties for hundreds of violations and damages in the last ten years,” he went on.
“These are the companies that gave us the opioid crisis,” he added. “That kills 56,000 children a year. More American kids every year than the Vietnam War killed in twenty years.”
“These are not good citizens,” he emphasized. “These are criminal enterprises.”
“And now you’re taking away any economic or legal incentive for them to behave?” he asked rhetorically. “What do you think they are going to do?”
“Do you think they’ve found Jesus, suddenly?” he went on. “And they’re going to take care of us and our children, they’re suddenly concerned with public health?”
“No,” he said.
“They took away due process rulemaking, they’ve taken away our right to be free of warrantless searches and seizures, this very intrusive track-and-trace surveillance, etcetera,” he went on.
“We are watching something now that I never believed that I would see in my lifetime,” RFK Jr. said. “I have read Orwell and Kafka and Aldous Huxley, this dystopian science fiction novels that someday the United States would be overtaken by fascism.”
“Fascism, incidentally, is defined… Mussolini defined it as the merger of state and corporate power,’” he added.
“And orchestrated by Tony Fauci,” he went on as the crowd booed loudly.
“What we’re seeing today is what I call ‘turnkey totalitarianism,’” he continued. “They are putting in place all of these technological mechanisms for control we’ve never seen before.”
“It’s been the ambition of every totalitarian state from the beginning of mankind to control every aspect of behavior, of conduct, of thought, and to obliterate dissent. None of them have been able to do it,” he added.
“They didn’t have the technological capacity,” he noted. “Even in Hitler’s Germany you could cross the Alps into Switzerland, you could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did. I visited in 1962 East Germany with my father. And met people who had climbed the wall and escaped. So, it was possible. Many died, surely. But it was possible.”
“Today, the mechanisms are being put in place,” he warned. “That will make it so that none of us can run, and none of us can hide.”
“Within five years, we are going to see 415,000 low orbit satellites,” he claimed. “Bill Gates and his 65,000 satellites alone will be able to look at every square inch of the planet 24 hours a day. They’re putting in 5G to harvest our data and control our behavior. Digital currency that will allow them to punish us from our distance and cut off our food supply. Vaccine passports.”
This part of the speech ignited a media firestorm. They pounced on RFK Jr.’s bit about satellite surveillance and issues with 5G, hardly fringe matters, to lambaste his speech and brandish him a “conspiracy theorist,” which essentially means it is beneath them to address his concerns.
Jake Tapper called him “an ignorant lying menace.” Adam Klasfield of Law Crime News weirdly commented, “The obscene Holocaust invocations and analogies, from RFK Jr. and others at this anti-vaccine rally, sound eerily similar to the rhetoric that appears in legal briefs for indicted Oath Keepers extremists.” Professor Peter Hotez, CNN’s resident vaccine fanatic, opined: “Since June 200,000 unvaccinated Americans lost their lives needlessly to COVID19, victims of antivaccine disinformation, aggression, dog whistles from extremists who compare vaccines to the Holocaust, or promote conspiracies about Bill Gates, Tony Fauci, Me, other US scientists.” Poor guy. It turns out the disinformation has been coming from his side all along.
Even if it is difficult to verify all of RFK Jr.’s claims, the epithet “conspiracy theorist” no longer has the power to unilaterally shut down conversation. It would be remiss not to point out there is no biggest perpetrator of “conspiracy theories” than the mainstream media, which lied for years about Russia collusion, just like it has lied the entire time about the Covid pandemic. We continue.
“You have a series of rights, as flawed as our government is, you can still go out and go to a bar, you can go to a sporting event, you can get on a bus or an airplane and you can travel, you have certain freedoms,” RFK Jr. went on. “You can get educated, etcetera.”
“The minute they hand you that vaccine passport, every right that you have is transformed into a privilege contingent upon your obedience to arbitrary government dictates,” he added.
“It will make you a slave!”
“What do we do?” he asked. “We resist.”
At the end of the day, this is about accountability. It is about accountability for the elected leaders and unelected public health officials who have seized upon a pandemic to wantonly violate every American’s unalienable rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to travel, and the right to bodily autonomy.
RFK Jr. has issued a rousing clarion call for all those who believe that the unlawful vaccine and mask mandates are simply “public health issues.” They are much more than that. They are about rights.
Nothing less than the future of Western civilization is on the line. There are dire implications if we fail to resist the authoritarian state’s escalating violations of human rights. No matter what its pretexts.
I have been feverishly writing lately on covid mandates and vaccine passports issues, and I’m sure most readers understand why – We are currently at the cusp of a great conflict against the powers that be; people who are exploiting the (mostly manufactured) covid crisis for unprecedented political and economic control. And when I say “manufactured”, I mean that there is no crisis, no need for mandates, no need for lockdowns and no need for vaccine passports.
We are dealing with a virus that around 99.7% of people will easily survive according to the medical establishment’s own studies and stats as well as numerous independent studies, yet, for some reason we are being bombarded with fear mongering from the media and from governments.
The Federal Reserve and other central banks burned trillions of dollars in stimulus measures and PPP loans to keep businesses from going completely bankrupt, and to keep jobless “non-essential” workers from starving during the initial shutdowns. But , we could have simply kept the economy going this entire time and paid a fraction of that cost helping the tiny minority of people that would actually suffer from the illness.
Yes, that’s right, I’ll say it again and again because I STILL to this day see the media and misinformed covid cultists continually claim the death rate of covid is much higher. It is not. The median Infection Fatality rate of covid is ONLY 0.26%. This is a FACT. This is the science according the vast majority of medical studies out there on the IFR. Let me repeat: The entire world is being locked down and told we have to give up our inherent human liberties because 0.26% of the population might get more than sniffles and brain fog from a covid infection. Why?
This essay is a little different from what I usually write in that it is not so much an appeal to pure reason or pure science and more an appeal to principle. I have been asked by many readers lately if it is not better to argue against pandemic mandates based on ideals and principles rather than hammering away at the science. I think it’s important to do both, but let’s take a moment to consider the moral question and the moral question alone. To do that we must ask some simple questions:
Who has the right to control your medical decisions? Who is qualified to control your constitutional right to life, liberty and the right to seek out prosperity? Who should be given the power to tell you what you can say, where you can work, where you can buy, where you can sell, where you can walk, where you can travel, what you must believe in?
As I have noted in numerous articles with endless scientific facts and evidence, no one who wants to remain free from covid mandates or vaccine passports is putting anyone else at risk. Again, the median death rate for covid is 0.26% and neither the mandates, nor the masks, nor the vaccines have put a stop to covid infections. Interestingly, it has been the states with the harshest lockdowns and mask restrictions that had the highest rates of infection for the past 18 months. Even now, fully vaccinated people are getting covid by the thousands in “breakout cases”, and some of them have died. Infections and deaths dropped off in January long before the vaccines were widely manufactured. Only 5% of the US population was vaccinated with a single dose by February. The fact is, the vaccines have achieved nothing.
Even if I was among the 0.26% of people that are at risk of dying, I would NEVER demand that the other 99.7% of the population give up their freedoms and their children’s freedoms just so I might feel a little bit safer. That would be an act of selfish madness.
But lets say for a moment that we set aside all the science that supports the anti-mandate position. What if the death rate of the virus was much higher? What if we were dealing with Ebola or some other nasty pathogen? What if 1 out of 100 people were at risk? What if 1 out of 10 people were are risk? Would medical tyranny and mass lockdowns be acceptable then? The answer is no, they would not be.
Why? Honestly, it’s a matter of who is in power and who is implementing such mandates. Why should we have blind confidence in governments made up of corrupt elitists and globalists? Who are they to look out for our best interests? How are these people qualified to protect the public trust? They are not qualified and will never be.
Thus, it is left up to the individual to protect themselves how they see fit, but the establishment tells us we are not capable of doing this. Rather, we must defer to their “better judgment”. They are supposedly smarter than us all, and as “benevolent” technocrats only they have the knowledge and righteousness to determine the course of every living person’s future.
Globalists like Gideon Lichfield at MIT told us exactly what the plan was in March of 2020 in an article tiled ‘We’re Not Going Back To Normal’. They admit that the goal has always been to institute vaccine passport restrictions that will last for many years to come, if not forever. From the article:
“Ultimately, however, I predict that we’ll restore the ability to socialize safely by developing more sophisticated ways to identify who is a disease risk and who isn’t, and discriminating—legally—against those who are.
…one can imagine a world in which, to get on a flight, perhaps you’ll have to be signed up to a service that tracks your movements via your phone. The airline wouldn’t be able to see where you’d gone, but it would get an alert if you’d been close to known infected people or disease hot spots. There’d be similar requirements at the entrance to large venues, government buildings, or public transport hubs. There would be temperature scanners everywhere, and your workplace might demand you wear a monitor that tracks your temperature or other vital signs. Where nightclubs ask for proof of age, in future they might ask for proof of immunity—an identity card or some kind of digital verification via your phone, showing you’ve already recovered from or been vaccinated against the latest virus strains.”
As I have been warning they would do for the past year, multiple governments are keeping pandemic lockdowns and restrictions in place or they are bringing them back (in the case of the US), and it should be clear to everyone that this circular process of medical tyranny is not going to end. It is never meant to end. The goal of the establishment, of globalists and governments, is to keep the restrictions in place indefinitely.
The mainstream media has consistently attacked the claim that governments would enforce vaccine passports as conspiracy theory. Now they are openly admitting that the plan is to institute vaccine passports and they are vigorously defending it. They are discussing with avid fervor how they might be able to FORCE or compel each and every person to take the jab, even if they don’t want it and even if the jab serves no purpose.
I have my own suspicions of the jab and its true purpose and safety, but lets not forget that the jab is at the very least a stepping stone to the vaccine passports. The passports are the key to everything. Without the passports, medical tyranny cannot be established. Without the passports they have no leverage over the population to dictate the fundamental aspects of our lives. They NEED the passports in order to get their “Great Reset”. Without a “papers please” social credit system in place, their Reset will fall apart.
It is therefore imperative above all else that the vaccine passports are never allowed to take root. The program must be stopped and destroyed.
I am not a major “influencer” in conservative or liberty movement circles. I am not a big YouTube personality or a media Juggernaut. I have no big business backing or deep pockets to spur a national campaign. I’m not particularly fond of public speaking though I have learned to deal with it. I am just a writer with a love for the values of freedom, the values of reason and in many cases the values of faith that give humanity meaning. And, what I see is a deadly serious need; a need for an organized front line against the storm of dictatorship that is on our doorstep.
What I suggest is simple – A national campaign against the medical passports. Globalists, socialists and corporatists understand the concept of “pressure” and how to apply it to get what they want. I believe we must also learn how to wield pressure in the opposite direction. It is not enough to sit in our homes isolated from each other content in the knowledge that millions of other people feel the same way we do. We must also take action.
We must send a message: WE WILL NOT COMPLY!
I’m not sure that any single person out there has the “clout” to drive this campaign alone, and it’s probably better that way. What is required is a mass movement united by principles, not a movement tangled together by a cult of personality.
The primary strategy of the covid cult has been to work with larger corporations to demand proof of vaccination (vaccine passports). We must let these companies know in no uncertain terms that we will cut off all consumer support for their businesses. We will not work for them and we will not give them a penny of our money. Instead, we will approach smaller local businesses, find out if they are a part of the ‘We Will Not Comply’ campaign, and if they are, then we will support them instead. It’s time to teach these corporations a lesson and put them out of commission by removing our money and our labor from their pockets.
The next strategy by the establishment has been to mandate vaccinations for government workers. Again, mass walkouts are the answer. Let them sweat by losing half of their workforce. And then maybe take them to court. Bury them in lawsuits while strangling their ability to operate.
Eventually, the Biden Administration is going to attempt federal level lockdowns and vaccine controls. It’s only a matter of time. This is where organization is vital. Counties and states with majority conservatives and liberty advocates must band together and once again say “We Will Not Comply”. If your state government is on board and defying Biden then that will be extra helpful, but do not make the mistake of assuming that state governments alone will protect you. You must be organized at a local level, with your community and local businesses ready to make a stand. This must start now, before it is too late.
Finally, if the covid cult decides to pursue direct force as an option, we must be ready to fight back. Without local organization at minimum, defending ourselves will be difficult or impossible. This means bringing back an old standby of the Founding Fathers: The militia.
There is a time for preparation and a time for taking risks. Without risk there can be no freedom. We are quickly approaching a time in which gamblers and true believers could decide the fate of the world for the next century. A grassroots and organic movement needs to be assembled to fight back against the rising tide of totalitarianism. Each of us can only do our own small part, but together, in concert, I believe we can stop medical tyranny and the Reset in its tracks and even reverse the damage done.
I believe we are living here now at this crossroads for a reason. I believe we are meant to be here; that we are being given a chance to be the right people in the right place at the right time. I believe that we can end this evil, but only if we dare to try. It begins with one simple step: Telling the world “We Will Not Comply!” And then, we must follow through on our promise.
Far from being a war against “white supremacy,” the Biden administration’s new “domestic terror” strategy clearly targets primarily those who oppose US government overreach and those who oppose capitalism and/or globalization.
In the latest sign that the US government’s War on Domestic Terror is growing in scope and scale, the White House on Tuesday revealed the nation’s first ever government-wide strategy for confronting domestic terrorism. While cloaked in language about stemming racially motivated violence, the strategy places those deemed “anti-government” or “anti-authority” on a par with racist extremists and charts out policies that could easily be abused to silence or even criminalize online criticism of the government.
Even more disturbing is the call to essentially fuse intelligence agencies, law enforcement, Silicon Valley, and “community” and “faith-based” organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, as well as unspecified foreign governments, as partners in this “war,” which the strategy makes clear will rely heavily on a pre-crime orientation focused largely on what is said on social media and encrypted platforms. Though the strategy claims that the government will “shield free speech and civil liberties” in implementing this policy, its contents reveal that it is poised to gut both.
Indeed, while framed publicly as chiefly targeting “right-wing white supremacists,” the strategy itself makes it clear that the government does not plan to focus on the Right but instead will pursue “domestic terrorists” in “an ideologically neutral, threat-driven manner,” as the law “makes no distinction based on political view—left, right or center.” It also states that a key goal of this strategic framework is to ensure “that there is simply no governmental tolerance . . . of violence as an acceptable mode of seeking political or social change,” regardless of a perpetrator’s political affiliation.
Considering that the main cheerleaders for the War on Domestic Terror exist mainly in establishment left circles, such individuals should rethink their support for this new policy given that the above statements could easily come to encompass Black Lives Matter–related protests, such as those that transpired last summer, depending on which political party is in power.
Once the new infrastructure is in place, it will remain there and will be open to the same abuses perpetrated by both political parties in the US during the lengthy War on Terror following September 11, 2001. The history of this new “domestic terror” policy, including its origins in the Trump administration, makes this clear.
It’s Never Been Easier to Be a “Terrorist”
In introducing the strategy, the Biden administration cites “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” as a key reason for the new policy and a main justification for the War on Domestic Terror in general. This was most recently demonstrated Tuesday in Attorney General Merrick Garland’s statement announcing this new strategy. However, the document itself puts “anti-government” or “anti-authority” “extremists” in the same category as violent white supremacists in terms of being a threat to the homeland. The strategy’s characterization of such individuals is unsettling.
For instance, those who “violently oppose” “all forms of capitalism” or “corporate globalization” are listed under this less-discussed category of “domestic terrorist.” This highlights how people on the left, many of whom have called for capitalism to be dismantled or replaced in the US in recent years, could easily be targeted in this new “war” that many self-proclaimed leftists are currently supporting. Similarly, “environmentally-motivated extremists,” a category in which groups such as Extinction Rebellion could easily fall, are also included.
In addition, the phrasing indicates that it could easily include as “terrorists” those who oppose the World Economic Forum’s vision for global “stakeholder capitalism,” as that form of “capitalism” involves corporations and their main “stakeholders” creating a new global economic and governance system. The WEF’s stakeholder capitalism thus involves both “capitalism” and “corporate globalization.”
The strategy also includes those who “take steps to violently resist government authority . . . based on perceived overreach.” This, of course, creates a dangerous situation in which the government could, purposely or otherwise, implement a policy that is an obvious overreach and/or blatantly unconstitutional and then label those who resist it “domestic terrorists” and deal with them as such—well before the overreach can be challenged in court.
Another telling addition to this group of potential “terrorists” is “any other individual or group who engages in violence—or incites imminent violence—in opposition to legislative, regulatory or other actions taken by the government.” Thus, if the government implements a policy that a large swath of the population finds abhorrent, such as launching a new, unpopular war abroad, those deemed to be “inciting” resistance to the action online could be considered domestic terrorists.
Such scenarios are not unrealistic, given the loose way in which the government and the media have defined things like “incitement” and even “violence” (e. g., “hate speech” is a form of violence) in the recent past. The situation is ripe for manipulation and abuse. To think the federal government (including the Biden administration and subsequent administrations) would not abuse such power reflects an ignorance of US political history, particularly when the main forces behind most terrorist incidents in the nation are actually US government institutions like the FBI (more FBI examples here, here, here, and here).
Furthermore, the original plans for the detention of American dissidents in the event of a national emergency, drawn up during the Reagan era as part of its “continuity of government” contingency, cited popular nonviolent opposition to US intervention in Latin America as a potential “emergency” that could trigger the activation of those plans. Many of those “continuity of government” protocols remain on the books today and can be triggered, depending on the whims of those in power. It is unlikely that this new domestic terror framework will be any different regarding nonviolent protest and demonstrations.
Yet another passage in this section of the strategy states that “domestic terrorists” can, “in some instances, connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation.” It adds that the proliferation of such “dangerous” information “on Internet-based communications platforms such as social media, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety.”
Thus, the presence of “conspiracy theories” and information deemed by the government to be “misinformation” online is itself framed as threatening public safety, a claim made more than once in this policy document. Given that a major “pillar” of the strategy involves eliminating online material that promotes “domestic terrorist” ideologies, it seems inevitable that such efforts will also “connect and intersect” with the censorship of “conspiracy theories” and narratives that the establishment finds inconvenient or threatening for any reason.
Pillars of Tyranny
The strategy notes in several places that this new domestic-terror policy will involve a variety of public-private partnerships in order to “build a community to address domestic terrorism that extends not only across the Federal Government but also to critical partners.” It adds, “That includes state, local, tribal and territorial governments, as well as foreign allies and partners, civil society, the technology sector, academic, and more.”
The mention of foreign allies and partners is important as it suggests a multinational approach to what is supposedly a US “domestic” issue and is yet another step toward a transnational security-state apparatus. A similar multinational approach was used to devastating effect during the CIA-developed Operation Condor, which was used to target and “disappear” domestic dissidents in South America in the 1970s and 1980s. The foreign allies mentioned in the Biden administration’s strategy are left unspecified, but it seems likely that such allies would include the rest of the Five Eyes alliance (the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and Israel, all of which already have well-established information-sharing agreements with the US for signals intelligence.
The new domestic-terror strategy has four main “pillars,” which can be summarized as (1) understanding and sharing domestic terrorism-related information, including with foreign governments and private tech companies; (2) preventing domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence; (3) disrupting and deterring domestic terrorism activity; and (4) confronting long-term contributors to domestic terrorism.
The first pillar involves the mass accumulation of data through new information-sharing partnerships and the deepening of existing ones. Much of this information sharing will involve increased data mining and analysis of statements made openly on the internet, particularly on social media, something already done by US intelligence contractors such as Palantir. While the gathering of such information has been ongoing for years, this policy allows even more to be shared and legally used to make cases against individuals deemed to have made threats or expressed “dangerous” opinions online.
Included in the first pillar is the need to increase engagement with financial institutions concerning the financing of “domestic terrorists.” US banks, such as Bank of America, have already gone quite far in this regard, leading to accusations that it has begun acting like an intelligence agency. Such claims were made after it was revealed that the BofA had passed to the government the private banking information of over two hundred people that the bank deemed as pointing to involvement in the events of January 6, 2021. It seems likely, given this passage in the strategy, that such behavior by banks will soon become the norm, rather than an outlier, in the United States.
The second pillar is ostensibly focused on preventing the online recruitment of domestic terrorists and online content that leads to the “mobilization of violence.” The strategy notes that this pillar “means reducing both supply and demand of recruitment materials by limiting widespread availability online and bolstering resilience to it by those who nonetheless encounter it.“ The strategy states that such government efforts in the past have a “mixed record,” but it goes on to claim that trampling on civil liberties will be avoided because the government is “consulting extensively” with unspecified “stakeholders” nationwide.
Regarding recruitment, the strategy states that “these activities are increasingly happening on Internet-based communications platforms, including social media, online gaming platforms, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, even as those products and services frequently offer other important benefits.” It adds that “the widespread availability of domestic terrorist recruitment material online is a national security threat whose front lines are overwhelmingly private-sector online platforms.”
The US government plans to provide “information to assist online platforms with their own initiatives to enforce their own terms of service that prohibits the use of their platforms for domestic terrorist activities” as well as to “facilitate more robust efforts outside the government to counter terrorists’ abuse of Internet-based communications platforms.”
Given the wider definition of “domestic terrorist” that now includes those who oppose capitalism and corporate globalization as well as those who resist government overreach, online content discussing these and other “anti-government” and “anti-authority” ideas could soon be treated in the same way as online Al Qaeda or ISIS propaganda. Efforts, however, are unlikely to remain focused on these topics. As Unlimited Hangoutreported last November, both UK intelligence and the US national-security state were developing plans to treat critical reporting on the COVID-19 vaccines as “extremist” propaganda.
Another key part of this pillar is the need to “increase digital literacy” among the American public, while censoring “harmful content” disseminated by “terrorists” as well as by “hostile foreign powers seeking to undermine American democracy.” The latter is a clear reference to the claim that critical reporting of US government policy, particularly its military and intelligence activities abroad, was the product of “Russian disinformation,” a now discredited claim that was used to heavily censor independent media. This new government strategy appears to promise more of this sort of thing.
It also notes that “digital literacy” education for a domestic audience is being developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Such a policy would have previously violated US law until the Obama administration worked with Congress to repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, thus lifting the ban on the government directing propaganda at domestic audiences.
The third pillar of the strategy seeks to increase the number of federal prosecutors investigating and trying domestic-terror cases. Their numbers are likely to jump as the definition of “domestic terrorist” is expanded. It also seeks to explore whether “legislative reforms could meaningfully and materially increase our ability to protect Americans from acts of domestic terrorism while simultaneously guarding against potential abuse of overreach.” In contrast to past public statements on police reform by those in the Biden administration, the strategy calls to “empower” state and local law enforcement to tackle domestic terrorism, including with increased access to “intelligence” on citizens deemed dangerous or subversive for any number of reasons.
To that effect, the strategy states the following (p. 24):“The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Department of Homeland Security, with support from the National Counterterrorism Center [part of the intelligence community], are incorporating an increased focus on domestic terrorism into current intelligence products and leveraging current mechanisms of information and intelligence sharing to improve the sharing of domestic terrorism-related content and indicators with non-Federal partners. These agencies are also improving the usability of their existing information-sharing platforms, including through the development of mobile applications designed to provide a broader reach to non-Federal law enforcement partners, while simultaneously refining that support based on partner feedback.”
Such an intelligence tool could easily be, for example, Palantir, which is already used by the intelligence agencies, the DHS, and several US police departments for “predictive policing,” that is, pre-crime actions. Notably, Palantir has long included a “subversive” label for individuals included on government and law enforcement databases, a parallel with the controversial and highly secretive Main Core database of US dissidents.
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the “pre-crime” element of the new domestic terror strategy explicit on Tuesday when he said in a statement that DHS would continue “developing key partnerships with local stakeholders through the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) to identify potential threats and prevent terrorism.” CP3, which replaced DHS’ Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention this past May, officially “supports communities across the United States to prevent individuals from radicalizing to violence and intervene when individuals have already radicalized to violence.”
The fourth pillar of the strategy is by far the most opaque and cryptic, while also the most far-reaching. It aims to address the sources that cause “terrorists” to mobilize “towards violence.” This requires “tackling racism in America,” a lofty goal for an administration headed by the man who controversially eulogized Congress’ most ardent segregationist and who was a key architect of the 1994 crime bill. As well, it provides for “early intervention and appropriate care for those who pose a danger to themselves or others.”
In regard to the latter proposal, the Trump administration, in a bid to “stop mass shootings before they occur,” considered a proposal to create a “health DARPA” or “HARPA” that would monitor the online communications of everyday Americans for “neuropsychiatric” warning signs that someone might be “mobilizing towards violence.” While the Trump administration did not create HARPA or adopt this policy, the Biden administration has recently announced plans to do so.
Finally, the strategy indicates that this fourth pillar is part of a “broader priority”: “enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.” In other words, fostering trust in government while simultaneously censoring “polarizing” voices who distrust or criticize the government is a key policy goal behind the Biden administration’s new domestic-terror strategy.
Calling Their Shots?
While this is a new strategy, its origins lie in the Trump administration. In October 2019, Trump’s attorney general William Barr formally announced in a memorandum that a new “national disruption and early engagement program” aimed at detecting those “mobilizing towards violence” before they commit any crime would launch in the coming months. That program, known as DEEP (Disruption and Early Engagement Program), is now active and has involved the Department of Justice, the FBI, and “private sector partners” since its creation.
Barr’s announcement of DEEP followed his unsettling “prediction” in July 2019 that “a major incident may occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues.” Not long after that speech, a spate of mass shootings occurred, including the El Paso Walmart shooting, which killed twenty-three and about which many questions remain unanswered regarding the FBI’s apparent foreknowledge of the event. After these events took place in 2019, Trump called for the creation of a government backdoor into encryption and the very pre-crime system that Barr announced shortly thereafter in October 2019. The Biden administration, in publishing this strategy, is merely finishing what Barr started.
Indeed, a “prediction” like Barr’s in 2019 was offered by the DHS’ Elizabeth Neumann during a Congressional hearing in late February 2020. That hearing was largely ignored by the media as it coincided with an international rise of concern regarding COVID-19. At the hearing, Neumann, who previously coordinated the development of the government’s post-9/11 terrorism information sharing strategies and policies and worked closely with the intelligence community, gave the following warning about an imminent “domestic terror” event in the United States:“And every counterterrorism professional I speak to in the federal government and overseas feels like we are at the doorstep of another 9/11, maybe not something that catastrophic in terms of the visual or the numbers, but that we can see it building and we don’t quite know how to stop it.”
This “another 9/11” emerged on January 6, 2021, as the events of that day in the Capitol were quickly labeled as such by both the media and prominent politicians, while also inspiring calls from the White House and the Democrats for a “9/11-style commission” to investigate the incident. This event, of course, figures prominently in the justification for the new domestic-terror strategy, despite the considerable video and other evidence that shows that Capitol law enforcement, and potentially the FBI, were directly involved in facilitating the breach of the Capitol. In addition, when one considers that the QAnon movement, which had a clear role in the events of January 6, was itself likely a government-orchestratedpsyop, the government hand in creating this situation seems clear.
It goes without saying that the official reasons offered for these militaristic “domestic terror” policies, which the US has already implemented abroad—causing much more terror than it has prevented—does not justify the creation of a massive new national-security infrastructure that aims to criminalize and censor online speech. Yet the admission that this new strategy, as part of a broader effort to “enhance faith in government,” combines domestic propaganda campaigns with the censorship and pursuit of those who distrust government heralds the end of even the illusion of democracy in the United States.
Today, October 24, 2020, there are many rallies around the world. Activists in these countries are joining in a common voice: Argentina; Bolivia; Peru; Uruguay; Italy; Germany; Poland; Belgium; Netherlands; United Kingdom; Ireland; Sweden; Denmark; France; and Austria. Citizens of all countries are paying an enormous price for the epidemic.
They have not only lost their loved ones, but their freedoms, their livelihood, their joy. Children and youth are suffering due to this crisis too. Without their friends and social activities, mental health problems in our young is at an all-time high. People around the world are demanding to be spared from the devastating consequences of the epidemic.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of Children’s Health Defense, provides an inspirational message for freedom and hope to activists around the world.
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense
Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.
Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.
In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.
South African newspapers complained, ‘We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.’
In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO saying, “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” A month later, Gates said in a Ted Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population”. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade. Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.
A 2017 study (Morgenson et. al. 2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it prevents. DTP-vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of children who had not yet received the vaccine. WHO has refused to recall the lethal vaccine which it forces upon tens of millions of African children annually.
Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation only spends about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas. They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.
In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children.
Editor’s Note: Indigenous nations are still seeking respect for the sovereignty of their lands stolen by military occupation and Treaties the United States did not honor. Here’s another action re: DAPL pipeline.
Cannon Ball, ND – This morning, at approximately 8am central, water protectors took back unceded territory affirmed in the 1851 Treaty of Ft. Laramie as sovereign land under the control of the Oceti Sakowin, erecting a frontline camp of several structures and tipis on Dakota Access property, just east of ND state highway 1806. This new established camp is 2.5 miles north of the Cannon Ball River, directly on the proposed path of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). This site is directly across the road from where DAPL security dogs attacked water protectors on September 3rd.
To ensure the protection of this new camp from overtly militarized law enforcement, water protectors have established three road blockades:
North of the Frontline Camp, on Highway 1806
South of the Cannon Ball River, on Highway 1806
And Immediately west of Highway 1806, on county road 134
Police have discharged weapons, using rubber bullets to shoot down drones being used to document the police activity and actions.
This frontline camp is located on the final three 3 miles of the proposed pipeline route, before it connects with the drill pad that will take the pipeline beneath the Missouri River. Active construction of the Dakota Access pipeline is 2 miles west of this frontline camp. Oceti Sakowin water protectors continue an on-going pledge to halt active construction as frequently as possible.
Mekasi Camp-Horinek, an Oceti Sakowin camp coordinator states, “Today, the Oceti Sakowin has enacted eminent domain on DAPL lands, claiming 1851 treaty rights. This is unceded land. Highway 1806 as of this point is blockaded. We will be occupying this land and staying here until this pipeline is permanently stopped. We need bodies and we need people who are trained in non-violent direct action. We are still staying non-violent and we are still staying peaceful.”
Joye Braun, Indigenous Environmental Network organizer states, “We have never ceded this land. If DAPL can go through and claim eminent domain on landowners and Native peoples on their own land, then we as sovereign nations can then declare eminent domain on our own aboriginal homeland. We are here to protect the burial sites here. Highway 1806 has become the no surrender line.”
Ladonna Bravebull Allard, Sacred Stone Camp, “We stand for the water, we stand on our treaties, we stand for unci maka- we stand and face the storm.”
Editor’s Note: When stupid people take to the streets and cause reckless destruction everybody pays the price. Don’t let these radical fools destroy well-being for the rest of us because they’re angry, because they don’t like something, because they are do-nothing complainers. It’s everybody’s responsibility to cool down the flames of discontent and find meaningful ways to solve social, economic and political problems without resorting to violence. Martin Luther King would be ashamed of such violence!
If you’re been following the news, you might have seen reports about civil unrest in Chile– the worst in decades.
I lived in Chile for more than seven years before moving to Puerto Rico; I still have business interests there, along with hundreds of employees (both foreign and local), many of whom I’ve been speaking to over the last few days.
First things first, Chile is ordinarily a quiet, stable, peaceful country.
The last time Chile went to war was 140 years ago back in 1879. They even skipped both world wars.
And while there are occasional protests, Chile is quite tame by Latin American standards.
It’s also the most modern and advanced nation in the region– this is not a destitute, impoverished country.
Chile has thriving industries and a large middle class that’s in better shape than just about anywhere else in the region.
But just like every other country in the world, there are countless imperfections.
Inflation has eaten away at the purchasing power of workers’ incomes, and a lot of people are struggling to make ends meet.
The proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back was a 3% increase in metro fares.
It’s nothing. But it was enough to make thousands of people become completely unglued, resulting in riots, looting, arson, and all-out mayhem.
Let’s talk about some of the key lessons from this:
1) It can happen anywhere.
It’s not just Chile. Looking around the world right now we can see major demonstrations and even violence in places like Hong Kong, Spain, Haiti, Lebanon, etc.
The ‘yellow vest’ movement in France in late 2018/early 2019 brought hundreds of thousands of people out into the streets to torch cars and destroy property, all apparently in protest of rising fuel prices.
Political tensions, social tensions, economic tensions… they exist everywhere, in rich countries and poor countries alike.
People everywhere are tightly wound, and it doesn’t take much for them to become unhinged. If you think this can’t happen where you live, think again.
2) It can happen faster than anyone realizes.
The weather in central Chile is one of the great benefits of living there; it’s warm, sunny, and dry… southern California climate.
And this past Friday was a particularly beautiful day. By lunchtime, people were out in the parks enjoying the weather. It was calm, peaceful, and joyful.
Within a matter of hours the city had turned into a war zone. Hours.
One of my team members told me on the phone yesterday, “If you had said on Friday afternoon that Santiago would be in chaos by nightfall, I would have laughed… And then it happened.”
3) It only takes a few idiots.
There are roughly 18 million people living in Chile. And there may even be a few million people nationwide who are deeply frustrated about the rising cost of living.
But only a few thousand have been stupid enough to cause such chaos and devastation; they’ve destroyed dozens of metro stations, buses, and even lit office buildings and grocery stores on fire.
Innocent people have died. And almost everyone else has had their lives heavily disrupted.
They can’t get to work. Schools are closed. Grocery store lines are crazy. There’s a curfew. Tanks are in the streets.
Most people are rational and peaceful. They might be angry about certain issues, but they know that torching property and killing innocents won’t solve anything.
Only a trivial fraction of a percent of the population are acting like cowards– the ones who steal a bunch of flat-screen televisions from the neighborhood electronics store before setting it on fire.
And they’re selfish and delusional enough to believe in their own righteousness– that their actions are justified as payback because of some economic injustice.
Yeah. Because nothing proves your moral superiority more than looting flat-screen TVs.
4) They often think Socialism is the answer.
Human beings seem hardwired to think that they can solve any economic injustice with Socialism.
More often than not, people don’t even think through the issues. They feel symptoms– difficulty making ends meet, difficulty getting ahead in life, etc. and they get angry.
And that’s where the analysis stops. There is no analysis actually. It’s just anger.
A rational person thinks things through– why is my cost of living increasing? Why aren’t I getting ahead? What’s the root cause of these problems? How can I fix it?
Again, Chile isn’t perfect. Not by a long shot.
But think about the 18-year old kid taking selfie videos while lighting a grocery store on fire because he’s angry… angry that his education was sub-par, angry that he can’t find a good paying job.
And he’s partially right. Public education in Chile is pretty bad, and he doesn’t have the skills for a high-paying career.
But I wonder how many books he’s read this year? How many free online courses has he taken? What has he done to solve his own problem?
Instead of torching buildings, he could have been at home watching countless videos on YouTube learning how to code in Python. For free.
And in developing real, marketable skills, he would become much more valuable and able to command a substantial wage and work remotely for prospective clients and employers worldwide.
But the Socialist mentality is not about solving your own problems.
Socialism means that you don’t have to lift a finger (except to light a match).
You just have to throw a temper tantrum until someone else solves your problems… even if you can’t even define your problem or present a reasonable solution.
I don’t want to make light of the issues; there are several problems that protesters have bought up which I agree with. But neither Socialism nor burning buildings ever solved any problems.
It may take time, but Chile is undoubtedly going to recover from this nightmare and move on. The ‘sane’ population (i.e. the vast majority) is already fighting back and defending their neighborhoods.
Editor’s Note: The New York Times (and likely their biggest Big Pharma advertisers) are heralding a strongly-held opinion that choice regarding vaccines should not be an option for parents who may have good reason to believe their children are at risk. The almost completely unregulated vaccine industry is in denial regarding the potentially dangerous side effects, chronic illnesses that can result and in too many cases they’d rather not count – death. Not once in this well-written, one-sided article did the views, opinions or reasoning of the anti-vaccine crowd get acknowledged. This is but one of numerous op-ed articles the New York Times has recently published.
As families face back-to-school medical requirements this month, the country feels the impact of a vaccine resistance movement decades in the making. The question is often whispered, the questioners sheepish. But increasingly, parents at the Central Park playground where Dr. Elizabeth A. Comen takes her young children have been asking her: “Do you vaccinate your kids?”
As millions of families face back-to-school medical requirements and forms this month, the contentiousness surrounding vaccines is heating up again, with possibly even more fervor.
Though the situation may seem improbable to some, anti-vaccine sentiment has been building for decades, a byproduct of an internet humming with rumor and misinformation; the backlash against Big Pharma; an infatuation with celebrities that gives special credence to the anti-immunization statements from actors like Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey and Alicia Silverstone, the rapper Kevin Gates and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And now, the Trump administration’s anti-science rhetoric.
The constituents who make up the so-called vaccine resistant come from disparate groups, and include anti-government libertarians, apostles of the all-natural and parents who believe that doctors should not dictate medical decisions about children. Labeling resisters with one dismissive stereotype would be wrongheaded.
Seven states reported rates for the M.M.R. vaccine that were far lower for kindergartners, including Kansas at 89.1 percent; New Hampshire, 92.4 percent; the District of Columbia, 81.3 percent. (The highest is West Virginia at 98.4 percent.)
Public health experts say that patients and many doctors may not appreciate the severity of diseases that immunizations have thwarted, like polio, which can affect the spinal cord and brain — because they probably have not seen cases.
“Vaccines are a victim of their own success,” said Dr. Offit, a co-inventor of a vaccine for rotavirus, which can cause severe diarrhea in young children. “We have largely eliminated the memory of many diseases.”
The growth of vaccine doubt in America coincides with several competing forces and attitudes.
Since the early 2000s, as the number of required childhood vaccines was increasing, a generation of parents was becoming hypervigilant about their children and, through social media, patting each other on the backs for doing so. In their view, parents who permitted vaccination were gullible toadies of status quo medicine.
In 2011, Dana Fuqua, of Aurora, Colo., pregnant with her first child, felt that irresistible pull of groupthink parenting.
She had just moved to the area, so she reached out to mothers’ groups on Facebook. Colorado, with a kindergarten vaccination compliance rate of 88.7 percent, has a rambunctious vaccine-resistant movement. Ms. Fuqua’s new friends urged her to have a drug-free birth, use cloth diapers and never to let a drop of formula pass her baby’s lips. Vaccines, it followed, were anathema.
The women intimidated her. They had advanced degrees; she had only a bachelor of science and a nursing background.
“I didn’t argue with them,” Ms. Fuqua said. “I was so desperate for their support that I compromised by delaying the vaccine schedule, so I wouldn’t get kicked out of the group.”
But when her second child was born prematurely, susceptible to illness, the group’s approval was not as important as her baby’s safety. Her position, she said, shifted from, “‘I can’t hang out with you if you had a vaccine because you could be shedding a virus’” — a common, false belief among the vaccine resistant — to, “ ‘If you haven’t had a vaccine, I will not associate with you.’”
She had both children fully vaccinated.
There have been anti-vaccination movements at least since 1796, when Edward Jenner invented the smallpox vaccine. But many experts say that the current one can be traced to 1982, when NBC aired a documentary, “DPT: Vaccine Roulette,” that took up a controversy percolating in England: a purported tie between the vaccine for pertussis — a potentially fatal disease that can cause lung problems — and seizures in young children.
Doctors sharply criticized the show as dangerously inaccurate. But fear spread. Anti-vaccination groups formed. Many companies stopped making vaccines, which were considered loss-leaders and not worth the corporate headache.
Then, in 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, published a Lancet study (since discredited and withdrawn), associating the M.M.R. vaccine with autism.
Faced with risking autism or measles, some parents thought the answer was obvious. Most had never seen measles, mumps or rubella because vaccines had nearly eliminated them. But they believed they knew autism.
And most people are notoriously poor at assessing risk, say experts in medical decision-making.
People are flummoxed by numerical risk. “We pay more attention to numerators, such as ‘16 adverse events,’ than we do to denominators, such as ‘per million vaccine doses,’ ” Dr. Buttenheim said.
A concept called “ambiguity aversion” is also involved, she added. “Parents would like to be told that vaccines are 100 percent safe,” she said. “But that’s not a standard we hold any medical treatment to.”
Nowhere is that reinforcement more clamorous than on social media, Dr. Limaye added. “You may only see your pediatrician a few times a year but you can spend all day on the internet,” she said.
People tend to believe an individual’s anecdotal narrative over abstract numbers. By 2007, when Ms. McCarthy, the actress, insisted that vaccines caused her son’s autism, thousands found her to be more persuasive than data showing otherwise. A nascent movement took hold.
At the same time that these powerful attacks on vaccine confidence were underway, a constellation of trends was emerging.
The definition of a good parent was becoming fraught with the responsibility for overseeing every aspect of a child’s life.
“As we adopted a culture of individualistic parenting, public health became a hard sell,” Dr. Reich said.
The primary reason for healthy people to get the flu shot is to protect those with compromised immune systems, like infants and older adults, from getting sick. But altruism isn’t a great motivator for parents, Dr. Buttenheim said. “They are much more concerned about protecting their own child at all costs,” she said.
Contrast that attitude with the collective good will of the 1950s, say medical sociologists, when American parents who had seen President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s wheelchair as a debilitating symbol of polio patriotically sought to vaccinate their children to help eradicate the disease worldwide.
By 2014, studies showed that parental confidence in authorities like the C.D.C. and in pediatricians was dropping, especially around vaccines. Mistrust of Big Pharma was even more pronounced.
As parenting became rife with orthodoxy, the Marcus Welby model of the paternalistic doctor retreated. Patients asserted autonomy, brandishing internet printouts at doctors. Shared decision-making became the model of doctor-patient engagement.
Pediatricians offered to stagger vaccine schedules. Some were even flexible about vaccinations altogether.
In 2011, shortly after Emma Wagner had given birth in Savannah, Ga., a pediatrician on the ward examined the baby. “He asked me if I was interested in the hepatitis B vaccine,” she said of an inoculation typically done at birth.
She was apprehensive.
He replied, “‘That’s fine, because your 2-day-old daughter isn’t a prostitute and isn’t using I.V. drugs, so hep B isn’t at the top of my worries.’”
Ms. Wagner said she “swallowed the anti-vax Kool-Aid. I was motivated by fear. I thought, ‘Until I know for certain that these are safe, I won’t do it.’ The pediatrician said, ‘I will support your decision and in a few years we’ll talk about exemptions for school.’”
She has since become a staunch supporter of immunization.
Libertarianism also courses through vaccine hesitation, with parents who assert that government should not be able to tell them what to put in their bodies — a position often marketed as “the right to choose.”
“Having the government order them to do something reinforces conspiracy theories,” said Daniel Salmon, director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins. “And people perceive their risk to be higher when it’s not voluntary.”
In reality, he said, one’s risk of harm is greater while driving to an airport than it is being on the airplane itself. But driving is voluntary and gives the illusion of control. People fear flying because they cannot control the plane. By extension, many childhood vaccines are not voluntary, which rattles those who prefer to believe they can control their health.
With so many different but deeply held convictions, public health experts struggle to design vaccine-positive campaigns.
“We ask parents in the first two years of their child’s life to protect them against 14 diseases, that most people don’t see, using fluids they don’t understand,” Dr. Offit said. “It’s time for us to stand back and explain ourselves better.”
Jailed WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange shows clear signs of degrading and inhumane treatment which only adds to his deteriorating health, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer told RT.
Assange has “all the symptoms typical for a person who has been exposed to prolonged psychological torture,” Melzer told RT’s Afshin Rattansi. This adds to the toll of his deteriorating physical state caused by a lack of adequate medical care for several years, he said.
Melzer said he was judging from two decades of experience in working with POWs and political prisoners, and only after applying “scientific” UN methods to assess Assange’s condition. But the journalist’s case still “shocked” him.
An individual has been isolated and singled out by several democratic states, and persecuted systematically… to the point of breaking him.
Earlier this month, a UK court sentenced the WikiLeaks co-founder to nearly a year in jail for skipping bail in 2012. The courts are now deciding whether to extradite Assange to the US where he is wanted for 17 charges under the Espionage Act. He can end up serving up to 175 years in prison if proven guilty.
Also in May, Sweden reopened an investigation into the allegations of rape by Assange, which he denies. The probe was originally dropped in 2017.
WikiLeaks warned that the journalist’s health had “significantly deteriorated” during the seven years he spent living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and continued to worsen after he was evicted in April and placed in a British prison. According to WikiLeaks, he was recently moved to the prison’s “hospital wing.”