offguardian--2020-07-16--The “Russian vaccine hack” is a 3-for-1 deal on propaganda

Apparently , that mean old Putin is stealing our magic vaccine to fight the “ deadly virus ” .
The Guardian , and all the other predictable voices , are currently reporting that Russian “ state sponsored hackers ” have been attempting to steal “ medical secrets ” from British pharmaceutical researchers .
At this stage they offer no substantiation , but it does serve as good teaching exercise in the techniques of modern propagandists .
First the lack of evidence .
Observe the Guardian article , note the complete absence of sources or references .
There ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no content there beyond the parroted words of UK government officials , whose honesty and/or competence is never interrogated .
Second , the lies by omission .
They don ’ t mention , for example , the Vault 7 revelations from Wikileaks that the CIA/Pentagon have developed technology to make one of their own cyber-attacks appear to come from anywhere in the world , Russia obviously included .
This is clearly vital information .
Third , the multitasking .
When you splash a huge red lie on your front pages , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve several agendas at once .
In fact , an unsupported statement which serves multiple state-backed narratives at the same time is one of the telltale signs of propaganda .
With this one completely unverified claim , the Guardian – or rather the people who tell the Guardian what to say – back up three narratives : • The further demonisation of an “ enemy ” .
Russia is portrayed as pursuing “ selfish interests with reckless behaviour ” , whilst we ( and our allies ) are “ getting on with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protecting global health.
” • Promoting the vaccine .
The vaccine is coming .
It will likely be mandatory , it will certainly have been insufficiently tested , if tested at all .
They need some pro-vaccine advertising , and nothing sells better than “ our vaccine is so good , people are trying to steal it ” .
• Most importantly – Enhancing the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is a unique global threat which puts us all in danger .
The unspoken assumption is that Russia needs to steal our research because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be afraid of it…despite it beingharmless to the vast majority of people .
Whether it ’ s the ( totally unsubstantiated ) allegation that Russia put bounties on NATO servicemen in Afghanistan , or the ( very predictable ) “ leak ” that “ Russian interference ” was backing Corbyn in the general election , it ’ s clear that any Globalist deal on the coronavirus is dead and buried , and it ’ s very much open season on Putin ’ s Russia again .
Nothing shows just how much the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deep State more than its coverage of anything Russia-related .
And nothing serves as a better exemplar of how modern propaganda works .

Apparently, that mean old Putin is stealing our magic vaccine to fight the “deadly virus”.
Kit Knightly
The Guardian, and all the other predictable voices, are currently reporting that Russian “state sponsored hackers” have been attempting to steal “medical secrets” from British pharmaceutical researchers.
At this stage they offer no substantiation, but it does serve as good teaching exercise in the techniques of modern propagandists.
First the lack of evidence. Observe the Guardian article, note the complete absence of sources or references. There’s not a link in sight. There’s no content there beyond the parroted words of UK government officials, whose honesty and/or competence is never interrogated.
Second, the lies by omission. They don’t mention, for example, the Vault 7 revelations from Wikileaks that the CIA/Pentagon have developed technology to make one of their own cyber-attacks appear to come from anywhere in the world, Russia obviously included. This is clearly vital information.
Third, the multitasking. When you splash a huge red lie on your front pages, it’s always best to make it serve several agendas at once. In fact, an unsupported statement which serves multiple state-backed narratives at the same time is one of the telltale signs of propaganda.
With this one completely unverified claim, the Guardian – or rather the people who tell the Guardian what to say – back up three narratives:
The further demonisation of an “enemy”. Russia is portrayed as pursuing “selfish interests with reckless behaviour”, whilst we (and our allies) are “getting on with the hard work of finding a vaccine and protecting global health.” Promoting the vaccine. The vaccine is coming. It will likely be mandatory, it will certainly have been insufficiently tested, if tested at all. They need some pro-vaccine advertising, and nothing sells better than “our vaccine is so good, people are trying to steal it”. Most importantly – Enhancing the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is a unique global threat which puts us all in danger. The unspoken assumption is that Russia needs to steal our research because the virus is so dangerous we all need to be afraid of it…despite it beingharmless to the vast majority of people.
Whether it’s the (totally unsubstantiated) allegation that Russia put bounties on NATO servicemen in Afghanistan, or the (very predictable) “leak” that “Russian interference” was backing Corbyn in the general election, it’s clear that any Globalist deal on the coronavirus is dead and buried, and it’s very much open season on Putin’s Russia again.
Nothing shows just how much the Guardian has become the voice of the Deep State more than its coverage of anything Russia-related. And nothing serves as a better exemplar of how modern propaganda works.


offguardian--2020-07-17--From Dodgy Dossiers to the Sacking of Whitlam: The British Empire Stands Exposed

In my last article , I reviewed the case of Gough Whitlam ’ s firing at the hands of the Queen ’ s Governor General Sir John Kerr during a dark day in November 1975 which mis-shaped the next 45 years of Australian history .
Today I would like to tackle another chapter of the story I used to believe as many do , in a story called “ the American Empire ” .
Over the last decade of research , that belief has changed a bit .
The more I looked at the top down levers of world influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history , the hand of British Intelligence just kept slapping me squarely in the face at nearly every turn .
Who controlled the dodgy Steele dossier that put Russiagate into motion and nearly overthrew President Trump ?
British Intelligence .
How about the intelligence used to justify the bombing of Iraq ?
That was British Intelligence too .
How about the Clash of Civilizations strategy used to blow up the middle east over decades ?
That just so happened to be British Intelligence ’ s own Sir Bernard Lewis .
How about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the 20th century ?
That is the British Roundtable Movement in America ( created as Britain ’ s Chatham House in America in 1921 ) .
Who did Kissinger brag that he briefed more than his own State Department at a May 10 , 1981 Chatham House seminar ?
The British Foreign Office [ 1 ] .
How about William Yandall Elliot who trained a generation of neocon strategists who took over American foreign policy after the murder of JFK ?
Well , he was a Rhodes Scholar and we know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the financial empire running the world drug trade ?
Well HSBC is the proven leading agency of that game and the British Caymen islands is the known center of world offshore drug money laundering .
Who ushered in the Cold War ?
Churchill .
Where did the nouveaux riche oligarchs go after Putin kicked them out of Russia ?
Back to their handlers in London .
What about the creation of ‘ too big to fail ’ banks that took over the world over the past decades ?
That was launched by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bang of 1986. Who created Saudi Arabia and the state of Israel in the 20th century ( as well as both nations ’ intelligence agencies ? )
The British .
What was the nature of the Deep State that Presidents Lincoln , Garfield , McKinley , Harding , FDR , and JFK combatted within their own nations ?
What the heck was the American Revolution all about in the first place ?
I could go on , but I think you get my point .
Franklin Roosevelt described his deep understanding of British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1943 : Where the British Empire certainly adapted to the unstoppable post-WWII demands for political independence among its colonies , it is vital to keep in mind that no empire willfully dissolves or “ gives its slaves freedom ” without a higher evil agenda in mind .
Freedom is fought for and not given by empires which never had a reason to seek humility or enlightenment required for freedom to be granted .
In the case of the post-war world , the deliverance of political freedom among colonies of the “ former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ounce of economic freedom to give that liberation any meaning .
Although it took a few years to iron out America ’ s anti-colonial impulses over the deaths of such figures as JFK , Malcolm X , MLK and RFK , eventually the rebellious republic was slowly converted into a dumb giant on behalf of the “ British brains ” controlling America ’ s Deep State from across the ocean .
The Case of Africa and the Crown Agents Take the case of Africa as a quick example : Over 70 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ materials , mining , and refining are run by companies based in Britain or Commonwealth nations like Canada , South Africa or Australia managed by an international infrastructure of managers called “ Crown Agents Ltd ” ( founded in 1833 as the administrative arm of the Empire and which still runs much of Africa ’ s health , and economic development policies to this day ) .
Crown Agents was originally set up as a non-profit with the mandate to manage British Empire holdings in Asia and Africa and its charter recognizes it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
While it is “ close to the monarchy ” it is still outside governmental structures affording it the ability to get its hands dirtier than other “ official ” branches of government ( resulting in the occasional case of World Bank debarment as happened in 2011 ) .
In 1996 Crown Agents was privatized as ‘ Crown Agents for Overseas Government and Administration ’ where it became active in Central and Eastern Europe with its greatest focus on Ukraine ’ s economic , energy and health management .
The agency is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and acts as a giant holding company with one shareholder called the Crown Agents Foundation based in Southwark London .
A big part of Crown Agents ’ program is designed to embed Africa with “ green energy grids ” as part of the anti-BRI OSOWOG Plan ( surnamed “ Sun Never Sets Plan ” ) announced by Modi in 2018 .
As outlined in the 2016 report New Colonialism : Britain ’ s Scramble for African Energy and Mineral Resources : As we can see by this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looting operations of Africa , the spirit of Cecil Rhodes is alive and well .
This will take on an additional meaning as we look at another aspect of Rhodes ’ powerful legacy in the 20th century .
Although many falsely believe that Britain was replaced with an American Empire after WWII , the sad truth on closer inspection is that British assets embedded in America ’ s early deep state ( often Rhodes Scholars and Fabian Society assets tied to the Council on Foreign Relations/Chatham House of America ) were behind a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s vision for the post-colonial world .
These purges resulted in the dismantling of the OSS months after FDR died , and the formation of the CIA in 1947 as a new weapon to carry out coups , assassinations and subversions of leaders within America and abroad seeking economic independence from the British Empire .
This history was outlined brilliantly by Cynthia Chung in her paper Secret Wars , Forgotten Betrayals , Global Tyranny : Who is Really in Charge of the U.S. Military .
The Five Eyes grew out of these British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set out by Cecil Rhodes in his 7th Will calling for a new global British Empire and recapturing of the lost colony .
In his will , Rhodes asks : Later on in his will Rhodes stated : Among the four Anglo-Saxon members of the Five Eyes that have the Queen as the official head of state ( Britain , Canada , Australia and New Zealand ) , all feature irrational forms of government structured entirely around Deep State principles organized within two opposing forms of social organizing : democratic and oligarchical… with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because this peculiar self-contradictory form of government is so little understood today , and because its structure has made Britain ’ s globally extended empire so successful , a few words should be devoted to it now .
In the case of Westminster-modelled Parliamentary systems , Senates represent the House of Lords , while Houses of Commons ( for the Commoners ) represent the elected parts of government .
A prime minister selected by the governing party is assumed to be that nation ’ s leader , but unlike republican forms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopping there ” ( at least legally speaking ) , it is precisely there that the true sphere of power only begins to be felt .
Here parliamentary/quasi-democratic systems projected for public consumption find themselves enshrined within a much more shadowy and Byzantine world of Governor Generals ( acting as the heads of state ) who give Royal Assents to all acts and wielding the infinite prerogative powers of the Queen ( aka : the “ Fount of All Honors ” ) .
In the British Imperial system , hereditary power is seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all aspects of government , military , and economic- whereas in republican forms of government that authority is seen as deriving from the consent of the governed .
Where rights are “ granted by the sovereign ” within hereditary governments , republican forms of government recognize correctly that rights are fundamentally “ inalienable ” to humanity ( in principle though not always in practice as the troubled history of America can attest ) .
By being essentially the legal “ cause ” of all authority among every branch of the British official and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absurdity strikes which the empire would prefer plebs not think too seriously about : The queen and her heirs can not themselves be UNDER any law , since they “ cause ” the law .
This means that the queen , her heirs and anyone whom she delegates authority to literally have “ licenses to kill ” .
The queen can not be taken to court and she has no need of a passport or even a drivers ’ license… since these items are issued by her crown ’ s authority alone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she can not be held legally accountable for anything which the Crown has done to anyone or any nation of the world .
Although much effort goes into portraying the Crown ’ s prerogative powers as merely symbolic , they cover nearly every branch of governance and have occasionally been used… although those British spheres of influence where they most apply are usually so self-regulating that they require very little input from such external influence to keep them in line .
These powers were first revealed publicly in 2003 and in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prerogative Powers ’ , the Guardian noted that these powers include ( but are not limited to ) : When a 2009 bill was introduced into parliament proposing that these powers be limited , a Privy Council-led Justice Ministry review concluded that such limitations would ‘ ” dangerously weaken ” the state ’ s ability to respond to a crisis ’ and the bill was promptly killed .
Acting on Provincial levels , we find Lieutenant Governors who ( in Canada ) happen to be members of the Freemasonic Knights of St John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herself ) .
All figures operating with these authorities within this strange Byzantine world are themselves a part of , or beholden to figures sworn into the Queen ’ s Privy Council- putting their allegiance under the total authority of the Queen and her heirs , rather than the people or nation in which that subject serves and lives .
If this is hard to believe , then take the time to listen to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ’ s oath upon entering the Privy Council to get a visceral taste of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cabinet member , Prime Minister and opposition leader must take this oath if they are to be granted intelligence briefings from her majesty ’ s intelligence services . )
Take note that not even once does the welfare of the people or the nation arise in this oath .
Despite these un-natural power structures , history has shown that from time to time , good leaders have found themselves in executive positions of high office .
As rare as they are , such anomalies occurred in the cases of Canada ’ s Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Diefenbaker ( 1957-1963 ) , Quebec Premiers Paul Sauvé ( 1959 ) , Daniel Johnson Senior ( 1967-68 ) , and Australia ’ s Gough Whitlam ( 1972-1975 ) .
Yet when these anomalies arise and such figures trespass beyond their acceptable sphere of action into policy territories reserved only for the governing elite , then more often then not a Rhodes Scholar-run coup occurs ( Laurier 1911 [ 2 ] , Diefenbaker 1963 ) , an untimely death strikes ( Sauvé 1959 and Johnson 1968 ) or a sacking by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whitlam 1975 ) .
In all aforementioned cases , Democratic institutions that are premised around the concept that all citizens are made equal and free in the image of a creator are never long tolerated within the cage of a system of oligarchism premised upon the belief that only one person is sovereign and her/his word is absolute law for all slaves , and minions of the ruling bloodline .
As Gough Whitlam discovered in 1975 , the real British Empire is a nasty beast , and probably one which should have gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , until this moment , history has been tainted by more than a few disruptions of progressive leaders who sacrificed their comfort , careers , and often their lives to resist this stubborn parasite which would rather suck its host dry than admit that the system of organization upon which it is based is an abomination to natural law and morality .

Matthew Ehret
In my last article, I reviewed the case of Gough Whitlam’s firing at the hands of the Queen’s Governor General Sir John Kerr during a dark day in November 1975 which mis-shaped the next 45 years of Australian history.
Today I would like to tackle another chapter of the story
I used to believe as many do, in a story called “the American Empire”. Over the last decade of research, that belief has changed a bit. The more I looked at the top down levers of world influence shaping past and present events that altered history, the hand of British Intelligence just kept slapping me squarely in the face at nearly every turn.
Who controlled the dodgy Steele dossier that put Russiagate into motion and nearly overthrew President Trump? British Intelligence.
How about the intelligence used to justify the bombing of Iraq? That was British Intelligence too.
How about the Clash of Civilizations strategy used to blow up the middle east over decades? That just so happened to be British Intelligence’s own Sir Bernard Lewis.
How about the CFR takeover over of American foreign policy during the 20th century? That is the British Roundtable Movement in America (created as Britain’s Chatham House in America in 1921).
Who did Kissinger brag that he briefed more than his own State Department at a May 10, 1981 Chatham House seminar? The British Foreign Office [1].
How about William Yandall Elliot who trained a generation of neocon strategists who took over American foreign policy after the murder of JFK? Well, he was a Rhodes Scholar and we know what they are zombified to do.
How about the financial empire running the world drug trade? Well HSBC is the proven leading agency of that game and the British Caymen islands is the known center of world offshore drug money laundering.
Who ushered in the Cold War? Churchill.
Where did the nouveaux riche oligarchs go after Putin kicked them out of Russia? Back to their handlers in London.
What about the creation of ‘too big to fail’ banks that took over the world over the past decades? That was launched by the City of London’s Big Bang of 1986.
Who created Saudi Arabia and the state of Israel in the 20th century (as well as both nations’ intelligence agencies?) The British.
What was the nature of the Deep State that Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR, and JFK combatted within their own nations?
What the heck was the American Revolution all about in the first place?
I could go on, but I think you get my point.
The Disrupted Post-WWII Potential
Franklin Roosevelt described his deep understanding of British operations in America, telling his son in 1943:
You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!” I was told… six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office…
Where the British Empire certainly adapted to the unstoppable post-WWII demands for political independence among its colonies, it is vital to keep in mind that no empire willfully dissolves or “gives its slaves freedom” without a higher evil agenda in mind. Freedom is fought for and not given by empires which never had a reason to seek humility or enlightenment required for freedom to be granted.
In the case of the post-war world, the deliverance of political freedom among colonies of the “former British Empire” was never accompanied by an ounce of economic freedom to give that liberation any meaning.
Although it took a few years to iron out America’s anti-colonial impulses over the deaths of such figures as JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK, eventually the rebellious republic was slowly converted into a dumb giant on behalf of the “British brains” controlling America’s Deep State from across the ocean.
The Case of Africa and the Crown Agents
Take the case of Africa as a quick example: Over 70% of the mineral control of African raw materials, mining, and refining are run by companies based in Britain or Commonwealth nations like Canada, South Africa or Australia managed by an international infrastructure of managers called “Crown Agents Ltd” (founded in 1833 as the administrative arm of the Empire and which still runs much of Africa’s health, and economic development policies to this day).
Crown Agents was originally set up as a non-profit with the mandate to manage British Empire holdings in Asia and Africa and its charter recognizes it as “an emanation of the Crown”.
While it is “close to the monarchy” it is still outside governmental structures affording it the ability to get its hands dirtier than other “official” branches of government (resulting in the occasional case of World Bank debarment as happened in 2011).
In 1996 Crown Agents was privatized as ‘Crown Agents for Overseas Government and Administration’ where it became active in Central and Eastern Europe with its greatest focus on Ukraine’s economic, energy and health management.
The agency is partnered with the World Bank, UN and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and acts as a giant holding company with one shareholder called the Crown Agents Foundation based in Southwark London.
A big part of Crown Agents’ program is designed to embed Africa with “green energy grids” as part of the anti-BRI OSOWOG Plan (surnamed “Sun Never Sets Plan”) announced by Modi in 2018.
As outlined in the 2016 report New Colonialism: Britain’s Scramble for African Energy and Mineral Resources:
101 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) — most of them British — have mining operations in 37 sub-Saharan African countries. They collectively control over $1 trillion worth of Africa’s most valuable resources. The UK government has used its power and influence to ensure that British mining companies have access to Africa’s raw materials. This was the case during the colonial period and is still the case today.
As we can see by this most summary overview of the modern imperial looting operations of Africa, the spirit of Cecil Rhodes is alive and well. This will take on an additional meaning as we look at another aspect of Rhodes’ powerful legacy in the 20th century.
The British Takeover of American Intelligence
Although many falsely believe that Britain was replaced with an American Empire after WWII, the sad truth on closer inspection is that British assets embedded in America’s early deep state (often Rhodes Scholars and Fabian Society assets tied to the Council on Foreign Relations/Chatham House of America) were behind a purge of leaders loyal to FDR’s vision for the post-colonial world.
These purges resulted in the dismantling of the OSS months after FDR died, and the formation of the CIA in 1947 as a new weapon to carry out coups, assassinations and subversions of leaders within America and abroad seeking economic independence from the British Empire. This history was outlined brilliantly by Cynthia Chung in her paper Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny: Who is Really in Charge of the U.S. Military.
The Five Eyes grew out of these British imperial operations which essentially followed the mandate set out by Cecil Rhodes in his 7th Will calling for a new global British Empire and recapturing of the lost colony. In his will, Rhodes asks:
Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, and for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire…”
Later on in his will Rhodes stated:
Let us form the same kind of society, a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his Country. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed.
Among the four Anglo-Saxon members of the Five Eyes that have the Queen as the official head of state (Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), all feature irrational forms of government structured entirely around Deep State principles organized within two opposing forms of social organizing: democratic and oligarchical… with the true seat of power being oligarchical.
Because this peculiar self-contradictory form of government is so little understood today, and because its structure has made Britain’s globally extended empire so successful, a few words should be devoted to it now.
A House Divided Against Itself…
In the case of Westminster-modelled Parliamentary systems, Senates represent the House of Lords, while Houses of Commons (for the Commoners) represent the elected parts of government.
A prime minister selected by the governing party is assumed to be that nation’s leader, but unlike republican forms of government, instead of the “buck stopping there” (at least legally speaking), it is precisely there that the true sphere of power only begins to be felt.
Here parliamentary/quasi-democratic systems projected for public consumption find themselves enshrined within a much more shadowy and Byzantine world of Governor Generals (acting as the heads of state) who give Royal Assents to all acts and wielding the infinite prerogative powers of the Queen (aka: the “Fount of All Honors”).
In the British Imperial system, hereditary power is seen as the source of all authority for all aspects of government, military, and economic- whereas in republican forms of government that authority is seen as deriving from the consent of the governed.
Where rights are “granted by the sovereign” within hereditary governments, republican forms of government recognize correctly that rights are fundamentally “inalienable” to humanity (in principle though not always in practice as the troubled history of America can attest).
By being essentially the legal “cause” of all authority among every branch of the British official and unofficial corridors of power, an obvious absurdity strikes which the empire would prefer plebs not think too seriously about: The queen and her heirs cannot themselves be UNDER any law, since they “cause” the law. This means that the queen, her heirs and anyone whom she delegates authority to literally have “licenses to kill”.
The queen cannot be taken to court and she has no need of a passport or even a drivers’ license… since these items are issued by her crown’s authority alone. Within the logic of British legal systems, she cannot be held legally accountable for anything which the Crown has done to anyone or any nation of the world.
Although much effort goes into portraying the Crown’s prerogative powers as merely symbolic, they cover nearly every branch of governance and have occasionally been used… although those British spheres of influence where they most apply are usually so self-regulating that they require very little input from such external influence to keep them in line.
These powers were first revealed publicly in 2003 and in an article titled ‘Mystery Lifted on the Prerogative Powers’, the Guardian noted that these powers include (but are not limited to):
Domestic Affair, the appointment and dismissal of ministers, the summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament, Royal assent to bills, the appointment and regulation of the civil service, the commissioning of officers in the armed forces, directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK (and other Commonwealth nations), appointment of Queen’s Counsel, Issue and withdrawal of passports, Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation), granting honours, creation of corporations by Charter, foreign Affairs, the making of treaties, declaration of war, deployment of armed forces overseas, recognition of foreign states, and accreditation and reception of diplomats.
When a 2009 bill was introduced into parliament proposing that these powers be limited, a Privy Council-led Justice Ministry review concluded that such limitations would ‘”dangerously weaken” the state’s ability to respond to a crisis’ and the bill was promptly killed.
Acting on Provincial levels, we find Lieutenant Governors who (in Canada) happen to be members of the Freemasonic Knights of St John of Jerusalem (patronized by the Queen herself).
All figures operating with these authorities within this strange Byzantine world are themselves a part of, or beholden to figures sworn into the Queen’s Privy Council- putting their allegiance under the total authority of the Queen and her heirs, rather than the people or nation in which that subject serves and lives.
If this is hard to believe, then take the time to listen to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s oath upon entering the Privy Council to get a visceral taste of this medieval policy in action (every cabinet member, Prime Minister and opposition leader must take this oath if they are to be granted intelligence briefings from her majesty’s intelligence services.)
Take note that not even once does the welfare of the people or the nation arise in this oath.
Standing Defiant Against Natural Law
Despite these un-natural power structures, history has shown that from time to time, good leaders have found themselves in executive positions of high office. As rare as they are, such anomalies occurred in the cases of Canada’s Prime Ministers Wilfrid Laurier (1896-1911) and John Diefenbaker (1957-1963), Quebec Premiers Paul Sauvé (1959), Daniel Johnson Senior (1967-68), and Australia’s Gough Whitlam (1972-1975).
Yet when these anomalies arise and such figures trespass beyond their acceptable sphere of action into policy territories reserved only for the governing elite, then more often then not a Rhodes Scholar-run coup occurs (Laurier 1911 [2], Diefenbaker 1963), an untimely death strikes (Sauvé 1959 and Johnson 1968) or a sacking by the Queen’s Governor General happens (Whitlam 1975).
In all aforementioned cases, Democratic institutions that are premised around the concept that all citizens are made equal and free in the image of a creator are never long tolerated within the cage of a system of oligarchism premised upon the belief that only one person is sovereign and her/his word is absolute law for all slaves, and minions of the ruling bloodline.
As Gough Whitlam discovered in 1975, the real British Empire is a nasty beast, and probably one which should have gone extinct a couple of centuries ago. Unfortunately, until this moment, history has been tainted by more than a few disruptions of progressive leaders who sacrificed their comfort, careers, and often their lives to resist this stubborn parasite which would rather suck its host dry than admit that the system of organization upon which it is based is an abomination to natural law and morality.
Originally published at Strategic Culture
Notes:- [1] Kissinger stated at that event: “The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic” [2] After his 1911 coup coordinated by the early members of the Round Table Movement, the Ontario Orange Men and forces around Quebec’s Henri Bourassa, Wilfrid Laurier lamented the loss of Canada’s sovereignty saying: Canada is now governed by a junta sitting at London, known as ‘The Round Table’, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, with Tories and Grits receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.”
[O.D. Skelton, The Life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, p. 510]


offguardian--2020-07-17--UK gov’t (finally) admits Covid statistics are inaccurate

The health secretary has apparently just realised something that ’ s been obvious to many of us for months The UK ’ s Health Secretary , Matt Hancock , has announced an “ urgent review ” of procedure for recording Covid19 deaths .
It turns out the British government may have been over-reporting deaths from Covid19 .
This follows the “ news ” that Public Health England ( PHE ) have been recording Covid19 as the cause of death for anyone who has ever tested positive for the virus .
This potentially includes people who were asymptomatic , people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who never had the disease at all but received a false positive from the incredibly unreliable PCR tests .
In short , as one government insider is quoted in the Evening Standard : Of course , none of this is news for people who have been paying attention – OffG and many others have been reporting this could be happening for months .
Essentially , when the changed rules for registering deaths were passed with the Coronavirus Bill back in March , the over-reporting of Covid deaths became almost inevitable .
Indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed for that purpose .
Since then anecdotal evidence has also been piling up .
It ’ s not unique to England either , countries all around the world are doing the same .
Globally , as we have reported , the Covid19 statistics are wide open to mistaken or dishonest reporting , and potentially total nonsense .
So , the question really isn ’ t whether or not the Covid death statistics are massively inaccurate – we know they almost certainly are .
The question is why the government and mainstream media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or half admit it , anyway .
There ’ s still no discussion of the “ clinical diagnosis ” of “ likely ” covid19 , or of the “ unlawful ” DNRs being forced on elderly or vulnerable people – all of whom would potentially be included in the inaccurate Covid stats .
Or of the potential financial incentives for hospitals based on diagnosis and treatment of the disease .
Now that the government are admitting , and the media are reporting , that the Covid death statistics are inaccurate , will they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were seemingly deliberately created ?
In a way , this perfectly fits with the peculiar trend of this pandemic , where on the one hand government officials have been perfectly open and honest about the danger – underlining , again and again , that the vast majority of people are in no danger – whilst on the other hand stoking hysteria and public panic that is totally at odds with the admitted reality .
Is this the beginning of a roll-back or climb down ?
Or just another phase in the global gaslighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become ?

The health secretary has apparently just realised something that’s been obvious to many of us for months
Kit Knightly
The UK’s Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, has announced an “urgent review” of procedure for recording Covid19 deaths.
It turns out the British government may have been over-reporting deaths from Covid19.
Who knew, right?
This follows the “news” that Public Health England (PHE) have been recording Covid19 as the cause of death for anyone who has ever tested positive for the virus.
PHE released a statement admitting as much:
This potentially includes people who were asymptomatic, people who had the disease and then recovered and people who never had the disease at all but received a false positive from the incredibly unreliable PCR tests.
In short, as one government insider is quoted in the Evening Standard:
It turns out you could have been tested positive in February, recovered, then hit by a bus in July and you’d be recorded as a covid death.”
Of course, none of this is news for people who have been paying attention – OffG and many others have been reporting this could be happening for months.
Essentially, when the changed rules for registering deaths were passed with the Coronavirus Bill back in March, the over-reporting of Covid deaths became almost inevitable. Indeed, the situation could almost have been designed for that purpose.
Since then anecdotal evidence has also been piling up.
It’s not unique to England either, countries all around the world are doing the same.
Globally, as we have reported, the Covid19 statistics are wide open to mistaken or dishonest reporting, and potentially total nonsense.
So, the question really isn’t whether or not the Covid death statistics are massively inaccurate – we know they almost certainly are. The question is why the government and mainstream media have suddenly decided to admit it.
Or half admit it, anyway.
There’s still no discussion of the “clinical diagnosis” of “likely” covid19, or of the “unlawful” DNRs being forced on elderly or vulnerable people – all of whom would potentially be included in the inaccurate Covid stats. Or of the potential financial incentives for hospitals based on diagnosis and treatment of the disease.
Now that the government are admitting, and the media are reporting, that the Covid death statistics are inaccurate, will they start to investigate why conditions for this were seemingly deliberately created?
I wouldn’t hold your breath.
In a way, this perfectly fits with the peculiar trend of this pandemic, where on the one hand government officials have been perfectly open and honest about the danger – underlining, again and again, that the vast majority of people are in no danger – whilst on the other hand stoking hysteria and public panic that is totally at odds with the admitted reality.
Is this the beginning of a roll-back or climb down? Or just another phase in the global gaslighting that the coronavirus “pandemic” has become?


offguardian--2020-07-18--Media Mask-Mania, or Covid19 Groupthink

Media Mask-Mania, or Covid19 Groupthink

I never thought I ’ d see the day when publicly wearing a muzzle would constitute a proof of virtue in the same country whose government , less than twenty years ago , rationalized the bloody invasion of Afghanistan as a way of saving women from veiling their faces .
But then , I never thought I ’ d hear American liberals proudly denounce supporters of the US Constitution as a “ death cult , ” nor that I ’ d actually start to find Donald Trump sounding almost reasonable .
But at least there ’ s one thing we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream ” news media , busily cheerleading for the death of freedom , will continue to gush with absurdities , self-contradictions and victim-shaming memes in their propaganda war to Keep America Gagged .
The Bill of Rights ( in case you haven ’ t noticed ) is history ; today , we demonstrate our patriotism by creeping around hiding our faces .
Dissenters need not apply .
If you think I ’ m exaggerating , I suspect you haven ’ t been paying attention .
Recently I had the poor judgment to turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hour , under the impression that I was going to learn something about the day ’ s news .
I could have saved myself the trouble .
During the hour in question , I learned nothing at all about the presidential election campaign ( now in its final months ) , nothing about the tens of millions of my fellow citizens whose jobs have been snatched away by government fiat , nothing about climate change , nuclear arms buildups , international refugees or growing worldwide poverty – nothing even about the intensification of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal regulation , although pollution kills an estimated 100,000 Americans every year .
No – for a solid hour , I heard the following : that COVID19 – in reality , at most , a moderately serious flu virus – is the worst medical threat the United States has ever faced ; that this “ deadly ” virus ( the word “ deadly ” was repeated obsessively , even though the disease is fatal in a tiny percentage of cases ) has been empowered by a conspiracy of Republican politicians serving the arch-demon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rapid decline in deaths attributable to the virus may have been faked , because the numbers aren ’ t what the “ experts ” want them to be ; and that a massive increase in COVID19 tests – primarily among people between 20 and 40 years of age who are subjected to swabbing because their employers demand it , not because they ’ re in any danger – can not possibly have anything to do with a rise in the number of reported infections , and that anyone who dares to suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But the real theme of the hour was masks , masks , masks : how to make them , how to wear them , their different types , who doesn ’ t seem to have enough of them , and why muffling our faces ( even though no such thing was ever demanded of us during dozens of past viral outbreaks ) is absolutely , positively good for us all .
I waited in vain for some mention of the fact that every single order requiring the wearing of muzzles in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that National Public Radio – which once prided itself on its legal affairs reporting – might have been expected to care about .
Nor did anyone mention that just a few months ago , the Center for Disease Control and Prevention was explicitly advising against a general mask-wearing regime , as was Anthony Fauci , the High Priest of COVID19 .
No , facts would only have complicated matters .
After all , we already knew what good little boys and girls were expected to do with those muzzles .
At the close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case anyone had missed the point , the reporter said cheerily , “ And when you go out – put on a mask.
” “ And drink milk with every meal , ” I half expected him to add , but I guess self-conscious condescension would have spoiled the effect .
In well over half a century , I can not remember a weather report that ended with a brisk piece of non-meteorological advice , let alone a patently silly one – after all , if these magical masks were to make any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been at the beginning of the outbreak , not on its heels .
Yet throughout March , while police-state fever prompted the suspension of democracy in some 40 states and most of the US population was being hustled into virtual house arrest , the pro-incarceration crowd ’ s loudest voices unanimously insisted that masks were of no practical value .
For anyone who has forgotten , Fauci told 60 Minutes that : That was how things stood when the epidemic was new and all stops were out .
And now ?
Contemplating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one can only imagine the US Navy ceremoniously issuing an air-raid warning at Pearl Harbor a hundred days or so after the Japanese attack had wiped out much of the fleet .
But you ’ ve got to hand it to the mask-maniacs .
No matter how many of their excuses for muzzling the population go the way of the Great Auk , they keep the new ones tumbling out so fast you can hardly keep track .
Here ’ s one peddled on July 14 in the Los Angeles Times : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really prevent infection , they may reduce the amount of the virus you breathe in – that is , just in case you happen to come across an infected person who somehow manages to breathe into your ( masked ) face from a very short distance and for an extended period .
( No one cited in the article bothers to discuss how often such a scenario is likely to occur . )
According to a Dr. Monica Gandhi : In other words , you ’ ll get COVID19 with or without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be milder if you muffle your face .
But wait a minute – even if “ this theory ” is correct ( note that it contradicts everything the propagandists have been telling us about masks for the last three months ) , wasn ’ t it always the case that the overwhelming majority of those who catch COVID19 have very mild symptoms , or no symptoms at all ?
So what ’ s the big advantage of the mask ?
The article is silent on that point – and Dr. Gandhi herself ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unproven .
But that doesn ’ t stop the Times from lambasting a few local California officials who have raised inconvenient questions about mandatory muzzling .
“ This anti-mask rhetoric is mind-blowing , dangerous , deadly and polarizing , ” the article quotes Dr. Peter Chin-Hong as responding .
Why ?
Because masks prevent infection ?
No .
Because they save lives ?
No .
Criticizing the muzzle mandate is “ deadly ” because – wait for it – because : Well , actually , there is such evidence ; Anthony Fauci admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the main problem with this retort is that it misses the point : people are being forced to mask their faces in public without any evidence that it ’ s dangerous not to .
Dr. Chin-Hong ’ s implicit confession that this is so knocks the stuffing out of the mandate – and the Times ’ rationale .
But to say so openly is “ dangerous , deadly [ there ’ s that favorite adjective again ] and polarizing.
” It ’ s no accident that the symbol of submission currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mouth .
The real message of the mask-maniacs is that we have no right to say what we think .
And speaking of “ polarizing , ” what about the personal viciousness to which mask-mania so frequently descends ?
I have lost track of the number of videos circulated by so-called news outlets that depict frustrated shoppers losing their cool over being forced to dress like mummies .
Apparently this is supposed to be cute – as in , “ Get a load of that stupid , Trump-supporting bitch having a public meltdown.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these people ; I share their exasperation , and I empathize with them over the invasion of their privacy .
As for the propagandists who peddle Schadenfreude in support of governors-turned-dictators – I indict them as heartless hypocrites , who claim to value our collective welfare and prove it by publicly humiliating their victims .
Would they take similar pleasure , I wonder , in mocking the reaction of a black shopper who ’ d just been called “ nigger ” ?
And it gets worse .
In the upside-down world of COVID19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection from victim-shaming .
Recently , American news organizations “ reported ” the death of an Ohio man who had the misfortune to die on July 4 of what they gleefully called “ complications of COVID-19.
” More than two months earlier , the victim had posted a comment on social media saying he wasn ’ t going to “ buy a mask.
” The articles – which even named the deceased ( a combat veteran ) – practically salivated over the fact that he had had the audacity to go to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have contracted the virus .
You see ?
screamed the reporters ’ moralizing subtext .
The maskless , self-indulgent right-wing bastard got what he deserved !
Just for the record , let me note that there are a number of things we don ’ t know .
We don ’ t know whether the poor man actually wore a mask or not .
( He wrote in late April that he didn ’ t intend to buy one , but that ’ s really not the same thing . )
We don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
We don ’ t know whether he could have been saved with better treatment ; it ’ s even possible he waited too long to seek medical help .
Given his youth and the apparently lightning pace of his descent into serious illness , his death from COVID19 is so highly unusual that its medical significance amounts to another thing we don ’ t know .
Most important , we don ’ t know whether wearing or not wearing a mask had anything at all to do with his death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a swimming pool , I doubt even the mask-maniacs would insist that he should have worn it in the water . )
What we do know is that he was targeted for savage personal attacks after he died , first on social media and now in the press .
“ [ P ] eople have come out of the woodworks , posting nasty , hateful comments about a man they knew nothing about , ” one of his friends has said .
“ Most of it crossed the line into harassment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken down nor was there ANY action taken , ” he added , while “ [ t ] hose that defended [ him ] faced consequences from Facebook in way of bans.
” Well , at least the pattern of the propaganda makes sense , in a way : slander the nonconformist and you can get away with murder ; defend him , you ’ re silenced .
Even the New York Times ’ resident faux progressive , Michelle Goldberg , has taken up the cry .
Another “ Trump fan , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become a “ macabre cliché ” by dying of a disease she blames him for contracting .
I wonder whether Ms. Goldberg would be smirking about a woman who was raped some two months after posting a comment to the effect that “ I ’ ll go wherever I want and dress however I like.
” My guess is that the analogy hasn ’ t occurred to her ; she knows her job , and it ’ s about propaganda , not consistency .
And the propaganda ’ s bottom line is as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about your personal liberties .
Forget about the democracy you thought you were living in .
The mask – the symbol of fear , of arbitrary rule , of the abolition of normal social life , of voiceless submission – isn ’ t going away any time soon .
Nor is the police state that sponsors it .
“ There ’ s going to be no summertime lull with a big wave in the fall , ” says Eric Toner , one of the boffins of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enterprise Institute that has been instrumental in promoting lockdowns from the start .
And how long before the cycle of incarceration really ends ?
“ [ S ] everal years , ” Toner says blandly , adding the sinister afterthought that people who resist being muzzled “ will get over it.… It ’ s just a question of how many people get sick and die before they get over it.
” Makes you feel kind of warm and protected , doesn ’ t it ?
Thank heaven people like Toner know our needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The media ubiquity of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security is another ominous feature of the current wave of propaganda .
Last October , the Center ran a coronavirus pandemic “ simulation ” in New York City – cosponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – for an assembly of powerful people in business and government , after which its members openly speculated about the possible need for “ censoring social media content ” on the theory that “ [ m ] isinformation and disinformation are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health emergency.
” These facts obviously bear on the organization ’ s motives and credibility , at the very least .
But you won ’ t hear them mentioned when the Center ’ s data are repeated as fact in mainstream media , nor when its members assure us that if we don ’ t wear masks for the next two years we ’ ll all drop dead .
Is it unreasonable to hope that reporters might want to explore why “ health security ” is presumed to entail censorship ?
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation in vaccine development has any influence on its partner organization ’ s bleak predictions for escaping the coronavirus without a new vaccine ?
Or whether , having insisted first on devastating lockdowns and now on worthless face masks , the Center will use its political leverage to demand mandatory vaccination when the time comes ?
Professor Lawrence Gostin is another worrisome presence in the media , including Michelle Goldberg ’ s recent sanctimonious outburst in the New York Times – where , pretending to describe the consequences of the virus , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : As I said , this is a chillingly accurate summary of the consequences of the mass incarceration foisted on us by more than 40 state governors , most of them Democrats , beginning in early March – when each one , with a unilateral declaration of a “ health emergency , ” seized quasi-dictatorial powers , shunted aside the Constitution and bankrupted the citizenry .
Those “ emergency ” powers have not been relinquished to this day .
But neither Goldberg nor her hero , Professor Gostin , offers a single word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and certainly not for the Democratic Party leadership that has backed this democracy-destroying , economy-wrecking madness at every step .
For them , everything is the exclusive fault of one man : Donald Trump .
Coming from Goldberg , that might be just another election-year screed against an incumbent the Times dislikes .
But what about Gostin ?
Well , although Goldberg never mentions it , Professor Gostin just happens to be the author of the model version of the Emergency Health Powers Act , the adoption of which in all fifty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) made possible the coup the governors pulled off by claiming “ emergencies ” several months ago .
It ’ s worth remembering that Gostin ’ s proposed bill was sharply criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union back in 2001 as “ replete with civil liberties problems ” and “ a throwback to a time before the legal system recognized basic protections for fairness.
” In fact , some of its specific objections to the EHPA deserve quoting at length , in light of where the Act ’ s reckless application has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to include basic checks and balances .
The Act would grant extraordinary emergency powers , but that kind of authority should never go unchecked .
Public health authorities make mistakes , and politicians abuse their powers…The lack of checks and balances could have serious consequences for individuals ’ freedom , privacy , and equality .
The Act lets a governor declare a state of emergency unilaterally and without judicial oversight , fails to provide modern due process procedures for quarantine and other emergency powers…and contains no checks on the power to order forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well beyond bioterrorism .
The act includes an overbroad definition of “ public health emergency ” …that clearly do [ es ] not justify quarantine , forced treatment , or any of the other broad emergency authorities that would be granted under the Act .
• It lacks privacy protections .
The Act requires the disclosure of massive amounts of personally identifiable health information to public health authorities , without requiring basic privacy protections and fair information practices… .
That not only threatens to violate individuals ’ medical privacy but undermines public trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not hard to see why Ms. Goldberg is reluctant to give us the accurate back story for her star witness .
The ACLU ’ s list of warnings about the potential abuses of the law Gostin drafted is a near-perfect précis of what has actually happened : unilateral declarations of an “ emergency , ” state by state , where none really existed ; the seizure by each governor of almost unlimited power to order quarantines and forced vaccinations ; the elimination of “ due process ” restrictions on mass confinement ; the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights .
I don ’ t intend to sing the praises of the ACLU , which – like so many other liberal institutions in the US – has been missing in action since the actual coup began last March .
But no one can deny the prescience of its critique .
And Goldberg knows her readers aren ’ t stupid : once they are aware of the role Gostin played in orchestrating the overthrow of their freedoms , they ’ re not likely to grant him the pied piper status Goldberg wants him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gostin ?
First , to “ prove ” – like Eric Toner in another context – that the COVID19 outbreak , the current excuse for the denial of our liberties , will last another two years ; amazingly , Goldberg claims this while insisting simultaneously that the same outbreak is practically over in New Zealand , Taiwan and Italy after just a few months .
But she also needs him to explain , albeit in somewhat indirect language , why democracy isn ’ t good for us .
According to Gostin , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity alone is almost useless unless you have a government that can unleash that capacity promptly and consistently.
” Obviously , we can ’ t do that if we have to bother with pesky constraints like representative government or the public will .
And from Gostin ’ s perspective , we ’ ve been dabbling in the utopianism of democracy for too long as it is : “ It ’ s going to take several years for us to be able to come out of all of the trauma that we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that suggests the real message Goldberg and the other propagandists are keen on peddling .
They didn ’ t do this to us .
It ’ s not that we ’ ve been lied to and illegally confined .
It ’ s not that our state executives have defied their oaths of office .
It ’ s not that their media mouthpieces have offered us one swindle after another : lockdowns , business closings , job losses , muzzling , scare-mongering , the destruction ( as Goldberg herself admits ) of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” – theater , cinema , public discussion , time shared with friends .
The problem is us .
We ’ ve been clinging to dreams of freedom – and that will cost us .
The lockdown-lovers are going to punish us for our wrongheaded attachment to notions of individual rights , and they will punish us still more for continuing recalcitrance .
But note this : they can only get away with it by selling us one more lie – namely , that what they ’ re doing to us is really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s control .
The coronavirus is just another flu .
The real disaster has been the work of human beings .
Resisting it must be , too .

Michael Lesher
I never thought I’d see the day when publicly wearing a muzzle would constitute a proof of virtue in the same country whose government, less than twenty years ago, rationalized the bloody invasion of Afghanistan as a way of saving women from veiling their faces.
But then, I never thought I’d hear American liberals proudly denounce supporters of the US Constitution as a “death cult,” nor that I’d actually start to find Donald Trump sounding almost reasonable.
But at least there’s one thing we can all be sure about: “mainstream” news media, busily cheerleading for the death of freedom, will continue to gush with absurdities, self-contradictions and victim-shaming memes in their propaganda war to Keep America Gagged. The Bill of Rights (in case you haven’t noticed) is history; today, we demonstrate our patriotism by creeping around hiding our faces. Dissenters need not apply.
If you think I’m exaggerating, I suspect you haven’t been paying attention. Recently I had the poor judgment to turn on National Public Radio for about an hour, under the impression that I was going to learn something about the day’s news.
I could have saved myself the trouble. During the hour in question, I learned nothing at all about the presidential election campaign (now in its final months), nothing about the tens of millions of my fellow citizens whose jobs have been snatched away by government fiat, nothing about climate change, nuclear arms buildups, international refugees or growing worldwide poverty – nothing even about the intensification of air and water pollution authorized by recent federal regulation, although pollution kills an estimated 100,000 Americans every year.
No – for a solid hour, I heard the following: that COVID19 – in reality, at most, a moderately serious flu virus – is the worst medical threat the United States has ever faced; that this “deadly” virus (the word “deadly” was repeated obsessively, even though the disease is fatal in a tiny percentage of cases) has been empowered by a conspiracy of Republican politicians serving the arch-demon Donald Trump; that recent data showing the rapid decline in deaths attributable to the virus may have been faked, because the numbers aren’t what the “experts” want them to be; and that a massive increase in COVID19 tests – primarily among people between 20 and 40 years of age who are subjected to swabbing because their employers demand it, not because they’re in any danger – cannot possibly have anything to do with a rise in the number of reported infections, and that anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is “putting lives at risk.”
But the real theme of the hour was masks, masks, masks: how to make them, how to wear them, their different types, who doesn’t seem to have enough of them, and why muffling our faces (even though no such thing was ever demanded of us during dozens of past viral outbreaks) is absolutely, positively good for us all.
I waited in vain for some mention of the fact that every single order requiring the wearing of muzzles in the US is probably unconstitutional, a matter that National Public Radio – which once prided itself on its legal affairs reporting – might have been expected to care about.
Nor did anyone mention that just a few months ago, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention was explicitly advising against a general mask-wearing regime, as was Anthony Fauci, the High Priest of COVID19.
No, facts would only have complicated matters. After all, we already knew what good little boys and girls were expected to do with those muzzles. At the close of each weather forecast, just in case anyone had missed the point, the reporter said cheerily, “And when you go out – put on a mask.” “And drink milk with every meal,” I half expected him to add, but I guess self-conscious condescension would have spoiled the effect.
Put on a mask.
In well over half a century, I cannot remember a weather report that ended with a brisk piece of non-meteorological advice, let alone a patently silly one – after all, if these magical masks were to make any difference, their greatest usefulness would have been at the beginning of the outbreak, not on its heels.
Yet throughout March, while police-state fever prompted the suspension of democracy in some 40 states and most of the US population was being hustled into virtual house arrest, the pro-incarceration crowd’s loudest voices unanimously insisted that masks were of no practical value.
For anyone who has forgotten, Fauci told 60 Minutes that:
[t]here’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think it is. And often there are unintended consequences – people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”
That was how things stood when the epidemic was new and all stops were out. And now? Contemplating the lockdown-lovers’ belated fetish for surgical gear, one can only imagine the US Navy ceremoniously issuing an air-raid warning at Pearl Harbor a hundred days or so after the Japanese attack had wiped out much of the fleet.
But you’ve got to hand it to the mask-maniacs. No matter how many of their excuses for muzzling the population go the way of the Great Auk, they keep the new ones tumbling out so fast you can hardly keep track.
Here’s one peddled on July 14 in the Los Angeles Times: even though the masks won’t really prevent infection, they may reduce the amount of the virus you breathe in – that is, just in case you happen to come across an infected person who somehow manages to breathe into your (masked) face from a very short distance and for an extended period. (No one cited in the article bothers to discuss how often such a scenario is likely to occur.) According to a Dr. Monica Gandhi:
[t]here is this theory that facial masking reduces…disease severity.”
In other words, you’ll get COVID19 with or without a mask, but the effects will probably be milder if you muffle your face.
But wait a minute – even if “this theory” is correct (note that it contradicts everything the propagandists have been telling us about masks for the last three months), wasn’t it always the case that the overwhelming majority of those who catch COVID19 have very mild symptoms, or no symptoms at all?
So what’s the big advantage of the mask? The article is silent on that point – and Dr. Gandhi herself ultimately admits that her “theory” remains unproven. But that doesn’t stop the Times from lambasting a few local California officials who have raised inconvenient questions about mandatory muzzling.
“This anti-mask rhetoric is mind-blowing, dangerous, deadly and polarizing,” the article quotes Dr. Peter Chin-Hong as responding. Why? Because masks prevent infection? No. Because they save lives? No. Criticizing the muzzle mandate is “deadly” because – wait for it – because:
[t]here is no evidence that [wearing a mask] is dangerous.”
Well, actually, there is such evidence; Anthony Fauci admitted as much to 60 Minutes in March.
But the main problem with this retort is that it misses the point: people are being forced to mask their faces in public without any evidence that it’s dangerous not to.
Dr. Chin-Hong’s implicit confession that this is so knocks the stuffing out of the mandate – and the Times’ rationale. But to say so openly is “dangerous, deadly [there’s that favorite adjective again] and polarizing.” It’s no accident that the symbol of submission currently in vogue is one that covers the mouth. The real message of the mask-maniacs is that we have no right to say what we think.
And speaking of “polarizing,” what about the personal viciousness to which mask-mania so frequently descends? I have lost track of the number of videos circulated by so-called news outlets that depict frustrated shoppers losing their cool over being forced to dress like mummies.
Apparently this is supposed to be cute – as in, “Get a load of that stupid, Trump-supporting bitch having a public meltdown.” Myself, I feel sorry for these people; I share their exasperation, and I empathize with them over the invasion of their privacy.
As for the propagandists who peddle Schadenfreude in support of governors-turned-dictators – I indict them as heartless hypocrites, who claim to value our collective welfare and prove it by publicly humiliating their victims. Would they take similar pleasure, I wonder, in mocking the reaction of a black shopper who’d just been called “nigger”?
And it gets worse. In the upside-down world of COVID19 media values, even death is no protection from victim-shaming. Recently, American news organizations “reported” the death of an Ohio man who had the misfortune to die on July 4 of what they gleefully called “complications of COVID-19.”
More than two months earlier, the victim had posted a comment on social media saying he wasn’t going to “buy a mask.” The articles – which even named the deceased (a combat veteran) – practically salivated over the fact that he had had the audacity to go to a swimming pool in mid-June, where he may have contracted the virus. You see? screamed the reporters’ moralizing subtext. The maskless, self-indulgent right-wing bastard got what he deserved!
Just for the record, let me note that there are a number of things we don’t know. We don’t know whether the poor man actually wore a mask or not. (He wrote in late April that he didn’t intend to buy one, but that’s really not the same thing.) We don’t know how he actually caught the virus. We don’t know whether he could have been saved with better treatment; it’s even possible he waited too long to seek medical help.
Given his youth and the apparently lightning pace of his descent into serious illness, his death from COVID19 is so highly unusual that its medical significance amounts to another thing we don’t know.
Most important, we don’t know whether wearing or not wearing a mask had anything at all to do with his death. (If he was infected while at a swimming pool, I doubt even the mask-maniacs would insist that he should have worn it in the water.)
What we do know is that he was targeted for savage personal attacks after he died, first on social media and now in the press.
“[P]eople have come out of the woodworks, posting nasty, hateful comments about a man they knew nothing about,” one of his friends has said. “Most of it crossed the line into harassment. When reported to Facebook, nothing was taken down nor was there ANY action taken,” he added, while “[t]hose that defended [him] faced consequences from Facebook in way of bans.”
Well, at least the pattern of the propaganda makes sense, in a way: slander the nonconformist and you can get away with murder; defend him, you’re silenced.
Even the New York Times’ resident faux progressive, Michelle Goldberg, has taken up the cry. Another “Trump fan,” she sniffed on July 14, has become a “macabre cliché” by dying of a disease she blames him for contracting.
I wonder whether Ms. Goldberg would be smirking about a woman who was raped some two months after posting a comment to the effect that “I’ll go wherever I want and dress however I like.” My guess is that the analogy hasn’t occurred to her; she knows her job, and it’s about propaganda, not consistency.
And the propaganda’s bottom line is as clear as it is grim. Forget about your personal liberties. Forget about the democracy you thought you were living in. The mask – the symbol of fear, of arbitrary rule, of the abolition of normal social life, of voiceless submission – isn’t going away any time soon.
Nor is the police state that sponsors it.
“There’s going to be no summertime lull with a big wave in the fall,” says Eric Toner, one of the boffins of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, a partner of the neoliberal American Enterprise Institute that has been instrumental in promoting lockdowns from the start.
It’s clear that we are having a significant resurgence of cases in the summer, and they’ll get bigger. And it’ll keep going until we lock things down again.”
And how long before the cycle of incarceration really ends? “[S]everal years,” Toner says blandly, adding the sinister afterthought that people who resist being muzzled “will get over it.… It’s just a question of how many people get sick and die before they get over it.”
Makes you feel kind of warm and protected, doesn’t it? Thank heaven people like Toner know our needs so much better than we do.
The media ubiquity of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security is another ominous feature of the current wave of propaganda.
Last October, the Center ran a coronavirus pandemic “simulation” in New York City – cosponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – for an assembly of powerful people in business and government, after which its members openly speculated about the possible need for “censoring social media content” on the theory that “[m]isinformation and disinformation are likely to be serious threats during a public health emergency.”
These facts obviously bear on the organization’s motives and credibility, at the very least. But you won’t hear them mentioned when the Center’s data are repeated as fact in mainstream media, nor when its members assure us that if we don’t wear masks for the next two years we’ll all drop dead.
Is it unreasonable to hope that reporters might want to explore why “health security” is presumed to entail censorship? Or whether the huge investment of the Gates Foundation in vaccine development has any influence on its partner organization’s bleak predictions for escaping the coronavirus without a new vaccine? Or whether, having insisted first on devastating lockdowns and now on worthless face masks, the Center will use its political leverage to demand mandatory vaccination when the time comes?
Professor Lawrence Gostin is another worrisome presence in the media, including Michelle Goldberg’s recent sanctimonious outburst in the New York Times – where, pretending to describe the consequences of the virus, she catalogs the devastation of the lockdowns instead:
[A] record 5.4 million people lost their health insurance between February and May. A generation of American kids will have their educations derailed, and many parents who don’t lose their jobs due to the economic crisis will see their careers ruined by the demands of child care
[…]
The psychological consequences alone will be incalculable. Even before the coronavirus, researchers spoke of loneliness as its own epidemic in America. A March article in the medical journal JAMA Psychiatry attributed 162,000 deaths a year to the fallout of social isolation. Now people are being told that they can socialize only under the most stringent conditions. Much of what makes life sweet is lost to us, not for days or weeks, but months or years.
As I said, this is a chillingly accurate summary of the consequences of the mass incarceration foisted on us by more than 40 state governors, most of them Democrats, beginning in early March – when each one, with a unilateral declaration of a “health emergency,” seized quasi-dictatorial powers, shunted aside the Constitution and bankrupted the citizenry. Those “emergency” powers have not been relinquished to this day.
But neither Goldberg nor her hero, Professor Gostin, offers a single word of criticism for any of those governors, and certainly not for the Democratic Party leadership that has backed this democracy-destroying, economy-wrecking madness at every step. For them, everything is the exclusive fault of one man: Donald Trump.
Coming from Goldberg, that might be just another election-year screed against an incumbent the Times dislikes. But what about Gostin? Well, although Goldberg never mentions it, Professor Gostin just happens to be the author of the model version of the Emergency Health Powers Act, the adoption of which in all fifty states (if in somewhat different versions) made possible the coup the governors pulled off by claiming “emergencies” several months ago.
It’s worth remembering that Gostin’s proposed bill was sharply criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union back in 2001 as “replete with civil liberties problems” and “a throwback to a time before the legal system recognized basic protections for fairness.”
In fact, some of its specific objections to the EHPA deserve quoting at length, in light of where the Act’s reckless application has brought us today:
It fails to include basic checks and balances. The Act would grant extraordinary emergency powers, but that kind of authority should never go unchecked. Public health authorities make mistakes, and politicians abuse their powers…The lack of checks and balances could have serious consequences for individuals’ freedom, privacy, and equality. The Act lets a governor declare a state of emergency unilaterally and without judicial oversight, fails to provide modern due process procedures for quarantine and other emergency powers…and contains no checks on the power to order forced treatment and vaccination. It goes well beyond bioterrorism. The act includes an overbroad definition of “public health emergency”…that clearly do[es] not justify quarantine, forced treatment, or any of the other broad emergency authorities that would be granted under the Act. It lacks privacy protections. The Act requires the disclosure of massive amounts of personally identifiable health information to public health authorities, without requiring basic privacy protections and fair information practices…. That not only threatens to violate individuals’ medical privacy but undermines public trust in government activities.
It’s not hard to see why Ms. Goldberg is reluctant to give us the accurate back story for her star witness. The ACLU’s list of warnings about the potential abuses of the law Gostin drafted is a near-perfect précis of what has actually happened: unilateral declarations of an “emergency,” state by state, where none really existed; the seizure by each governor of almost unlimited power to order quarantines and forced vaccinations; the elimination of “due process” restrictions on mass confinement; the dismantling of privacy protections along with basic rights.
I don’t intend to sing the praises of the ACLU, which – like so many other liberal institutions in the US – has been missing in action since the actual coup began last March. But no one can deny the prescience of its critique. And Goldberg knows her readers aren’t stupid: once they are aware of the role Gostin played in orchestrating the overthrow of their freedoms, they’re not likely to grant him the pied piper status Goldberg wants him to have.
Why does she cite Gostin? First, to “prove” – like Eric Toner in another context – that the COVID19 outbreak, the current excuse for the denial of our liberties, will last another two years; amazingly, Goldberg claims this while insisting simultaneously that the same outbreak is practically over in New Zealand, Taiwan and Italy after just a few months.
But she also needs him to explain, albeit in somewhat indirect language, why democracy isn’t good for us.
According to Gostin, the coronavirus has proved that “health system capacity alone is almost useless unless you have a government that can unleash that capacity promptly and consistently.” Obviously, we can’t do that if we have to bother with pesky constraints like representative government or the public will. And from Gostin’s perspective, we’ve been dabbling in the utopianism of democracy for too long as it is: “It’s going to take several years for us to be able to come out of all of the trauma that we’ve had,” he warns.
And I think that suggests the real message Goldberg and the other propagandists are keen on peddling. They didn’t do this to us. It’s not that we’ve been lied to and illegally confined. It’s not that our state executives have defied their oaths of office. It’s not that their media mouthpieces have offered us one swindle after another: lockdowns, business closings, job losses, muzzling, scare-mongering, the destruction (as Goldberg herself admits) of “much of what makes life sweet” – theater, cinema, public discussion, time shared with friends.
The problem is us. We’ve been clinging to dreams of freedom – and that will cost us. The lockdown-lovers are going to punish us for our wrongheaded attachment to notions of individual rights, and they will punish us still more for continuing recalcitrance. But note this: they can only get away with it by selling us one more lie – namely, that what they’re doing to us is really the work of a disease beyond anyone’s control.
“The coronavirus is a natural disaster,” Goldberg writes.
No, it isn’t.
The coronavirus is just another flu. The real disaster has been the work of human beings. Resisting it must be, too.