Bulletin N° 1012
“Full Metal Jacket”
In this much acclaimed 1987 anti-war film produced in the UK and USA, and directed by Stanley Kubrick, a pragmatic U.S. Marine observes the dehumanizing effects the U.S.-Vietnam War has on his fellow recruits from their brutal boot camp training to the bloody street fighting in Hue.
The film features Adam Baldwin, Arliss Howard, Dorian Harewood, Ed O'Ross, John Terry, Kevyn Major Howard, Matthew Modine, R. Lee Ermey, and Vincent D'Onofrio
Subject: Whence monopoly capitalism, the ‘commercial impulse,’ the psy-ops, and the Experimental Vaccinations (EUA) in ‘Operation Warp Speed.'
Grenoble, December 3, 2021
Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
Barrington Moore Jr.’s early book, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the making of the Modern World (1966) is a comparative history that seeks to map the historical routes by which western nations became modern industrial societies. The first part of this book, “Revolutionary Origins of Capitalist Democracy” describes historic events in three countries: England, France and the United States. Part Two, “Three Routes to the Modern World in Asia,” analyses the origins of “the communist variant” in China, followed by a study of “Asian Fascism” in Japan, and “the price of peaceful change” in India. Finally, the author offers theoretical interpretations of these different experiencesm explaining the formation of democracies and dictatorships.
In the first chapter of this 1966 study, Moore examines “England and the contributions of violence to gradualism;” the four sections of this chapter combine to explain the emergence of "democracy" in the first full-blown capitalist nation, and the cruel violence that this birth entailed.
Moore introduces this part of his study with the following problematic:
As one begins the story of the transition from the preindustrial to the modern world by examining the history of the first country to make the leap, one question comes to mind almost automatically. Why did the process of industrialization in England culminate in the establishment of a relatively free society?(p.3)
1. Aristocratic Impulses behind the Transition to Capitalism in the Countryside.
In this first part, Moore concludes his discussion of the role of the aristocracy at this conjuncture of England’s early modern history with the following evaluation:
During the Eleven Years’ Tyranny [1629-1640], when Charles I ruled through Strafford and Laud without a Parliament, the attempt to apply benevolence may have been more vigorous. Such royal courts as the Star Chamber and the Court of Requests gave the peasant what protection he did obtain against eviction through enclosures.
At the same time the crown was not above lining its own pockets be fines in the attempt to enforce those policies. A vigorous enforcement was in any case beyond its reach. Unlike the French monarchy, the English crown had not been able to build up an effective administrative and legal machinery of its own that could force its will upon the countryside. Those who kept order in the countryside were generally members of the gentry, the very ones against whom the crown’s protective policies were directed. Thus the chief consequence of the crown’s policy was to antagonize those who upheld the right to do what one liked – and thought socially beneficial – with one’s own property. Royal policy tended to weld commercially minded elements in town and countryside, united by many other bonds as well, into a coherent opposition by the crown. In the agrarian sector, Stuart agrarian policy was definitely a failure and helped to precipitate the Civil War, a conflict ‘between individual rights and royal authority, conceived of as resting in the last resort, on a religious sanction.’ By this point it should be reasonably clear whose individual rights were at stake and that they were certainly not those of the mass of the peasantry, still the overwhelming bulk of England’s population.(pp.13-14)
2. Agrarian Aspects of the Civil War.
Here, the author emphasizes the “commercial impulse” that existed among landed upper classes and to a lesser extent among the yeomen, as part of the main force in opposition to the King the guardians of the old order.
To perceive the magnitude of the Civil War’s accomplishments it is necessary to step back from the details and glance forward and backward. The proclaimed principle of capitalist society is that the unrestricted use of private property for personal enrichment necessarily produces through the mechanism of the market steadily increasing wealth and welfare for society as a whole. In England this spirit eventually triumphed by ‘legal’ and ‘peaceful’ methods, which, however, may have caused more real violence and suffering than the Civil War itself, during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries on the land as much as in the towns. While the original impulse toward capitalism may have come from the towns far back in the Middle Ages, it proceeded on the land as strongly as in the cities, receiving a perpetual draft from the towns that caused the flames devouring the old order to spread though the countryside. Both the capitalist principle and that of parliamentary democracy are directly antithetical to the ones they superseded and in large measure overcame during the Civil War: divinely supported authority in politics, and production for use rather than for individual profit in economics. Without the triumph of these principles in the seventeenth century it is hard to imagine how English society could have modernized peacefully – to the extent that it actually was peaceful – during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.(pp.20-21)
3. Enclosures and the Destruction of the Peasantry.
In this third part of this historical examination of England, Moore looks at violence and the different roles it has played in English history.
Revolutionary violence may contribute as much as peaceful reform to the establishment of a relatively free society and indeed was in England the prelude to a more peaceful transformation. But not all historically significant violence takes the form of revolution. A great deal may occur within the framework of legality, even a legality that is well along the road to Western constitutional democracy. Such were the enclosures that followed the Civil War and continued through the early Victorian era.(p.20)
Looking back over the enclosure movement as a whole and taking account of the results of modern research, it still seems plain enough that, together with the rise of industry, the enclosures greatly strengthened the larger landlords and broke the back of the English peasantry, eliminating them as a factor from British political life. From the standpoint of the issues discussed her, that is, after all, the decisive point. Furthermore, for the ‘surplus’ peasant it made little difference whether the pull from the towns or factories was more important that the push out of his rural world. In either case he was caught in the end between alternatives that meant degradation and suffering, compared with the traditional life of the village community. That the violence and coercion which produced these results took place over a long space of time, that it took place mainly within a framework of law and order and helped ultimately to establish democracy on a firmer footing, must not blind us to the fact that it was massive violence exercised by the upper classes against the lower.(pp.28-29)
4. Aristocratic Rule for Triumphant Capitalism.
In this final section of chapter one, analyzing the evolution of English capitalism from the 17th century, Moore returns to the theme of the “commercial impulse” that was uniquely evident among the landed aristocracy of England from the beginning of the Stuart Monarchy.
The nineteenth century itself was the age of peaceful transformation when parliamentary democracy established itself firmly and broadened down from precedent to precedent. Before examining what part agrarian changes played in this process, it is well to pause briefly and consider in what ways the violence of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries – the first open and revolutionary, the second more concealed and legal but nonetheless violent for that- prepared the way for peaceful transition in the nineteenth. To break the connection between the two is to falsify history. To assert that the connection was somehow necessary and inevitable is to justify the present by the past with an argument that is impossible to prove. All that the social historian can do is point to a contingent connection among changes in the structure of society.
Perhaps the most important legacy of the violent past was the strengthening of Parliament at the expense of the king. The fact that Parliament existed meant that there was a flexible institution which constituted both an arena into which new social elements could be drawn as their demands arose and an institutional mechanism for settling peacefully conflicts of interest among these groups. If Parliament emerged from the Civil War mainly as an instrument of a commercially minded landed upper class, it was not just that and, as experience was to show, it could become a great deal more. The fact that this class had developed an economic base which had brought it into violent opposition to the crown before the Civil War had a great deal to do with the strengthening of Parliament. . . . The strong commercial tone in the life of the landed upper classes, both gentry and titled nobility, also meant that there was no very solid phalanx of aristocratic opposition to the advance of industry itself. Despite a good many expressions of contrary sentiment from their own members it is fair to say that the most influential sector of the landed upper classes acted as a political advance guard for commercial and industrial capitalism. This they continued to do in new ways during the nineteenth century.
The other main consequence was the destruction of the peasantry. Brutal and heartless though the conclusion appears, there are strong grounds for holding that this contribution to peaceful democratic change may have been just as important as the strengthening of Parliament. It meant that modernization could proceed in England without the huge reservoir of conservative and reactionary forces that existed at certain points in Germany and Japan, not to mention India. And it also of course meant that the possibility of peasant revolutions in the Russian and Chinese manner were taken off the historical agenda.(pp.29-30)
This commercial impulse among the English aristocracy continued to thrive in context of modern capitalist expansion.
There was some tendency toward the adoption of aristocratic traits by the commercial and industrial elite in England. All accounts of England prior to 1914, and to some extent even beyond that date, give the strong impression that rolling green acres and a county house were indispensable to political and social eminence. But from about the 1870s onward, landed estates became more and more symbols of status rather than the foundations of political power.
Partly because the end of the American Civil War and the rise of the steamship started to make American grain available” in Europe, an agricultural depression set in at this time, which seriously commenced to erode the economic base of the landed upper strata. Roughly the same thing happened in Germany, and once again it is instructive to view England against the German background. There the Junkers were able to use the state in the effort to preserve their position and also to form a united agricultural front with the peasant proprietors in the rest of Germany. At no point did Germany go through an experience comparable to the abolition of the Corn Laws. Instead, leading sectors of industry entered the marriage of iron and rye (fully consummated in the tariff of 1902), gaining as their part of the bargain a program of naval construction. The whole coalition of Junker, peasant, and industrial interests around a program of imperialism and reaction had disastrous results for German democracy. In England of the late nineteenth century, the combination failed to put in an appearance. Imperialist policies in England already had a long history behind them. They were an alternative, perhaps even an adjunct to free trade policies, rather than an altogether new social phenomenon arising out of advanced capitalism. In regard to agricultural problems, the Conservative governments of 1874-1879 took only small palliative measures, the Liberals from 1880 onward either let matters take their course or actively attack agrarian interests. By and large agriculture was allowed to shift for itself, that is, to commit decorous suicide with the help of a few rhetorical tears. This could scarcely have been allowed to happen except for the fact that by this time the English upper strata had largely ceased to be agrarian. The economic base had shifted to industry and trade. Disraeli and his successors showed that, with some reforms, a popular basis for conservatism could be maintained and sustained within a democratic context. There were still struggles to come, as in Lloyd George’s attack on titled landowners in his budget of 1909 and the constitutional crisis that grew out of it. But by this time, despite the furor, the agrarian problem and the question of the power of the landed aristocracy had receded into the background to give way to new questions, centering on ways to incorporate the industrial worker into the democratic consensus.(pp.37-39)
Moore concludes this chapter with an observation on how the massive violence of early class warfare in England contributed eventually, by the 19th century, to the gradual evolution of institutions that accommodated the shifting interests of new political alliances.
As one looks back over the nineteenth century, what factors stand out as responsible for England’s progress toward democracy? Those inherited from a violent past have already been mentioned: a relatively strong and independent Parliament, a commercial and industrial interest with its own economic base, no serious peasant problem. Other factors are specific to the nineteenth century itself. Governing in the context of rapidly growing industrial capitalism, the landed upper classes absorbed new elements into their ranks at the same time that they competed with them for popular support – or at the very least avoided serious defeat by well-timed concessions. This policy was necessary in the absence of any strong apparatus of repression. It was possible because the economic position of the governing classes eroded slowly and in a way that allowed them to shift from one economic base to another with only a minimum of difficulty. Finally, policies that were necessary as well as possible became facts because influential leaders saw and handled problems accurately enough and in time. There is no need to deny the historical significance of moderate and intelligent statesmen. But it is necessary to perceive the situation within which they worked, one created in large measure by men who were also intelligent but scarcely moderate.(p.39)
The 21 + items below offer interpretations and analyses of events from the Anglophone world that together form a Gestalt which might liberate us from further confusion and point to our mutual dependence on one another in this time of extreme flux, greater class divisions, and growing inequalities.
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professeur honoraire de l'Université
Ancien Directeur des Researches
Université de Paris-Nanterre
Director of The Center for the Advanced Study
of American Institutions and Social Movements
The University of California-San Diego
The Ministry of Propaganda Then and Now: Youtube Censorship
“Covid-19 Medical Misinformation Policy”
The Great Narrative And The Metaverse, Part 2:
Will The Metaverse End Human Freedom?
by Derrick Broze
The "Great Reset" or the "Great Pretext" … for Dystopia
by Diana Johnstone
“There’s Something Rotten in Denmark”: Frank Olson and the Macabre
Fate of a CIA Whistleblower in the Early Cold War
by Jeremy Kuzmarov
John F. Kennedy: His Life and Public Assassination
by Edward Curtin
Did the CIA kill JFK? Oliver Stone on his explosive new film
with Anya Parampil
Chris Hedges and Glenn Greenwald on the Second War on Terror
Kenyan Families Say U.S. Government Fueling “War on Terror”
Disappearances and Killings, Demand Records
The Delusional Commitment to the Doctrine of “Full Spectrum
Dominance” is leading the U.S. and the World to Disaster
by Ajamu Baraka
What Is France Hiding in the Sahel?
by Clinton Nzala
Prestigious Weaponry Expert Censored After Demonstrating that a
Deadly Poison Gas Attack - Blamed on the Syrian Government - Was
Really a False-Flag Operation by U.S.-Funded Terrorists
by Jeremy Kuzmarov
DoD In Botswana Before Omicron, Variant Cardiac Cover Up
& Evidence Shows Omicron NOT More Dangerous
by Ryan Cristián
Video: Digital Tyranny and the Rockefeller-Gates WHO "Vaxx
-Certificate Passport": Towards a World War III Scenario
by Peter Koenig
Germany: Chief Medical Doctor of a Major Hospital Thomas Jendges
“Falls” from the Roof of the Hospital
by Peter Koenig
Where the Rome-Paris Axis Is Taking Us
by Manlio Dinucci
Rising Up Against COVID Inoculations and the Health Pass
by Stewart Brennan
Hapless Biden Administration Is Weimar Republic on Way to U.S.
by Finian Cunningham
Congress ‘Asleep at the Switch’ as Biden Continues Trump-Era Ploy
to Privatize Medicare
by Jake Johnson
Nurses unions around the world mobilize against Big Pharma
by Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla
Lancet Letter Demolishes Vaccination
by Igor Chudov
It reports that “vaccination does not even slow down the pandemic.”
An amazing Lancet article “The epidemiological relevance of the COVID-19-vaccinated population is increasing” was just published.
The largest significance is that the article WAS ALLOWED TO BE PUBLISHED BY LANCET. This means that the tide of scientists being scared by government/globalists/Big Pharma funding is turning, and the truth is coming out at the highest levels of science such as the Lancet.
The article is great, but the things it is saying are a regular subject of our discussion.
In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated).
12 of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts (39%) arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases.
Peak viral load did not differ by vaccination status or variant type
In Germany, the rate of symptomatic COVID-19 cases among the fully vaccinated (“breakthrough infections”) is reported weekly since 21. July 2021 and was 16.9% at that time among patients of 60 years and older []. This proportion is increasing week by week and was 58.9% on 27.
In Israel a nosocomial outbreak was reported involving 16 healthcare workers, 23 exposed patients and two family members. The source was a fully vaccinated COVID-19 patient. The vaccination rate was 96.2% among all exposed individuals (151 healthcare workers and 97 patients). Fourteen fully vaccinated patients became severely ill or died, the two unvaccinated patients developed mild disease
US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifiesfour of the top five counties with the highest percentage of fully vaccinated population (99.9–84.3%) as “high” transmission counties
A similar situation was described for the UK. Between week 39 and 42, a total of 100.160 COVID-19 cases were reported among citizens of 60 years or older. 89.821 occurred among the fully vaccinated (89.7%), 3.395 among the unvaccinated (3.4%) [].
This reinforces my opinion that the Covid Cult is coming apart at the seams and the failure of “Covid vaccines” is no longer a secret.
The key to any sort of narrative revolution of information warfare is NOT to convince your crazy Fauci-worshipping neighbor. The point of it is to convince decision makers and opinions makers that they are holding onto untenable positions.
Please spread this article, or the Lancet article with your own comments, as widely as possible. It will make it increasingly impossible to ignore.
People who profess how ”they believe in science” usually least understand science and can only understand Dr Leana Wen from China-sponsored CNN or Dr Fauci, so doubtfully they can even understand the text of the Lancet article. Please explain the meaning of this article to them. Tell them “the biggest medical science magazine just published an article saying vaccines are trash and do not even slow down the pandemic”.
If they show any interest, tell them that hundreds of thousands of terrified people are desperately seeking to get “un-vaccinated”. Ask them why do they want increasingly frequent boosters.
Justin Hart @justin_hart
HAHAHAHAHAHA! We told you. Boosters in the UK will now move from 6 months to 3 months.
November 29th 2021
2,713 Retweets5,987 Likes
If you liked this post from Igor’s Newsletter, why not share it?
© 2021 Igor Chudov Unsubscribe
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Why It’s So Hard to Tax Billionaires
by Christopher Orlet
The Jeffrey Epstein Cover Up: Pedophilia, Lies,
and Ghislaine Maxwell
by Nick Bryant
Maxwell Trial: Testimony Of "Lolita Express" Pilot Continues Today
by Tyler Durden
The Case for a Central Bank Digital Currency
by Ellen Brown
Why Inflation Is A Runaway Freight Train
by Charles Hugh Smith
Will Twitter Become An Ocean Of Suck?
by Matt Taibbi
Jack Dorsey, the extend-o-bearded CEO who co-founded Twitter and whose fame grew with that of his increasingly powerful platform during the Trump years, resigned yesterday. His departure is the latest plot point in a long-developing Internet tragicomedy, which has seen what was supposed to be a historically democratizing technological tool transformed into a dystopian force for censorship and control.
Israel / Palestine - This Needs To Be Heard
Clarity on the subject of Palestine, from Holocaust survivor Dr. Gabor Maté (on my podcast Under The Skin) is the most beautiful and powerful testimony on this subject I’ve ever heard.
World Misses Israeli Media's Hebrew-Language
Incitement Against Palestinians
by Miko Peled
Banning of Palestinian NGOs: How Israel Tries to Silence
Human Rights Defenders
by by Ramzy Baroud and Romana Rubio
The “Seam Zone”: Israeli Officials Are Barring
Thousands of Palestinian Farmers from Their Land
by Jessica Buxbaum
The New Palestinian Movement
that Has Both Israel and the PA on Edge
by Masar Badil
The Science Is Clear: Higher COVID “Vaccine” Coverage Equals
Higher Excess Mortality
by Ethan Huff
31,014 Deaths 2,890,600 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European
Database of Adverse Reactions as Young,
Previously Healthy People Continue to Die
From: CJ Hopkins
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 6:27 PM
Subject: Seasons Greetings from New Normal Germany!
So, I had a little disagreement with Jillian C. York, Director for International Freedom of Expression of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Berlin and several of her many hacker-type Twitter followers yesterday, and today … well, it appears NortonLifeLock has blocked the Consent Factory blog and slapped a big, red “dangerous webpage” warning label on it.
Seasons Greetings from New Normal Germany!
So, I had a little disagreement with Jillian C. York, Director for International Freedom of Expression of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Berlin and several of her many hacker-type Twitter followers yesterday, and today … well, it appears NortonLifeLock has blocked the Consent Factory blog and slapped a big, red “dangerous webpage” warning label on it. (You may not see it wherever you live, and you certainly won’t if you’re not using Norton, but quite a lot of people do use Norton, so that’s kind of a problem for an author like me.)
Now, I’m sure this is (a) just a total coincidence, because I know that no one at EFF, nor any of the hacker types that piled in on my Twitter feed after Jillian singled me out for a Twitter mobbing, would stoop so low as to engage in this type of scumbag behavior (i.e., getting the Consent Factory blog flagged as “dangerous” website), and (b) probably just an innocent mistake on the part of the NortonLifeLock Corporation, which of course would never knowingly engage in any type of malicious, defamatory action that would damage an author’s reputation and livelihood (like, for example, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 4101).
In any event, while I’m waiting for NortonLifeLock to get this “mistake” cleared up, let me give you an update on the atmosphere here in New Normal Berlin, where “the Unvaccinated” (and other political dissidents who refuse to conform to the new official ideology) are effectively banned from human society (i.e., restaurants, cafes, cultural events, stores, etc., even public transport), so we are pretty much under house arrest. OK, we’re still allowed to shop for groceries, as long as we wear our medical-looking masks, and we’re allowed to go out and walk around in the cold and the rain for as long as we can stand it, so we’re technically not prisoners or anything. But it’s not exactly … you know, festive.
You’re wondering what the German on that shop window says, aren’t you? It says, “UNVACCINATED UNWELCOME!” It’s a familiar message here in Germany. Some of you might remember it from the 1930s, although it referred to a different group of people back then …
Of course, it is totally inappropriate, and wrong, and very, very bad (and, technically, a crime here in New Normal Germany) to compare New Normal Germany to Nazi Germany. I’m not doing that. I would never dream of doing that. Such comparisons, apart from being illegal, are empirically (i.e., according to “Science”) inaccurate.
Just because New Normal Germany projects a giant “VACCINATION = FREEDOM” message on an enormous TV tower or two …
… and hate-drunk New Normal German fascists are going around spray-painting “GAS THE UNVACCINATED” in big red letters on the walls of courtyards …
… and New Normal goon squads are raiding restaurants, bars, and even barber shops, “checking papers” and otherwise hunting “the Unvaccinated” …
… that doesn’t mean that “conspiracy theorists” like me are allowed to compare one form of totalitarianism to another form of totalitarianism or point out the similarities and differences between two forms of totalitarianism, or anything inappropriate like that.
I am, however, allowed to post tweets like this …
My name is CJ Hopkins. I live in Berlin, Germany. I am banned from restaurants, bars, stores, cultural events, travel, public transport, etc. I'm not allowed to protest and my writing is censored. All because I won't comply with the new official ideology. How are you doing?
OK, but just because I’m allowed to post such tweets, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, given the fascistic atmosphere here, currently. In fact, it prompted a lot of New Normals to spew mockery and insults at me in the replies, including, notably, Jillian C. York, Director for International Freedom of Expression of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Berlin, who, tweeting on behalf of the entire city, informed me that I am unwelcome in Berlin, and then proceeded to stalk me all day on Twitter.
Also, being the Director for International Freedom of Expression of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Berlin, and having 68,000 or so followers on Twitter, Jillian caused a number of tech-community types and … well, hackers, to pile in and spew their hate-drunk ridicule and insults at me, and just generally regard me as an evil, life-threatening, disinformation-spreading, “unvaccinated” person with a blog.
And so, here I am today, sending this out on Substack, because the Consent Factory blog is allegedly a “dangerous webpage,” at least as far as NortonLifeLock users are concerned.
But, again, I’m sure I’m just being paranoid, and this is just a coincidence … like all those heart attacks and strokes, and the arrival of the dreaded OMICRON variant, and the Facebook censorship I and many, many others have experienced, and the “warning” that Twitter applies to every article published by OffGuardian …
… all the other coincidences that seem to be happening these days.
Anyway, sorry to bother you will all my personal drama, which probably has nothing to do with you, or the “news” and “verified,” “reliable” information you are allowed to read by unaccountable global corporations, which, after all, are not “censoring” anyone, technically, and which certainly have no reason to try to shape and police your worldview, or anything nefarious like that.
holiday shopping … and all best from sunny New Normal Berlin,
“Big Pharma Hunts Down Dissenting Doctors”
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
“The Great Conspiracy Debate on Grand Theft World” – with James Corbett, Richard Grove, Tony Myers, Tim Pool and Luke Rudkowski
with James Corbett
Dr. Mike Yeadon Archives: “7 COVID LIES”
by Dr. Mike Yeadon
Dr. Yeadon takes apart the cluster of Big Lies deployed against the whole wide world, to "keep us safe" Mark Crispin Miller.
Using the Climate Crisis: Whitney Webb Discusses
Global Elites’ Takeover of Nature
by Mnar Adley
Is the Saintly World Wildlife Fund Really a Stalking Horse in the
Global South Colluding with Transnational Corporate Interests?
by Michael Molitch-Hou
The Covid-19 Pandemic Does Not Exist
by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
There is much confusion and disinformation regarding the nature of the so-called Covid-19 “pandemic”.
The definition of a pandemic is rarely mentioned by the governments and the corporate media.
What confirms the existence of a pandemic is not only the number of people affected by Covid-19, but also reliable evidence of a disease outbreak which is spreading over a wide geographic area “including multiple countries or continents”
“A pandemic is an epidemic that becomes very widespread and affects a whole region, a continent, or the world” (Nature)
The above definition does not in any way describe the alleged spread of SARS-CoV-2.
The Next Threat: DNA Exploitation
by James Corbett
Symptoms of the Omicron Variant Used
to Cover Up Effects of COVID Vaccines
by Alberta Nationals
New Variant Hysteria Comes from Same Institution
that Popularized Lockdowns and Previous COVID Scares
by Jordan Schachtel
The New African Virus Mutation: Right on Time;
A Kindergarten Covert Op for the Ignorant
by Jon Rappoport
Video: #Yes, It's a "Killer Vaccine":
with Michel Chossudovsky
White America's Latest Fear Mongering Code Language:
CRT and Wokeness
by Thad Baltimore
Organizing Against Racism and Class Oppression
with Danny Haiphong and Margaret Kimberley
BAR Book Forum: Caroline H. Yang’s Book,
“The Peculiar Afterlife of Slavery”
by Roberto Sirvent
Revolutionary Front Seizes Haiti’s Largest Fuel Terminal
as US Weighs Military Intervention
by Dan Cohen
“Sandinistas Won a Landslide Victory Not Through Fraud But Because
They Uplifted Nicaragua’s Poor and Defeated Intervention Efforts Including
the 2018 U.S. Backed Coup Attempt”
by Yader Lanuza
From: News from Underground
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 1:38 AM
Subject: Daily digest for email@example.com
1) German doctor murdered, brutally, a few days after showing that the "vaccines" are full of tiny "razor blades" (i..e., graphene hydroxide) - Mark Crispin Miller (29 Nov 2021 12:51 EST)
2) "The Left's COVID failure" - Mark Crispin Miller (29 Nov 2021 13:03 EST)
3) South African doctor who discovered "Omicron" says there's nothing to worry about - Mark Crispin Miller (29 Nov 2021 15:13 EST)
4) Dems deplored those rushed "vaccines" until it was THEIR turn to lie about them - Mark Crispin Miller (29 Nov 2021 16:39 EST)
(***)Russians urged to "vaccinate" their cats.
5) CORRECT LINK to Dr. Noack's heartbroken partner reporting his brutal murder - Mark Crispin Miller (29 Nov 2021 16:43 EST)
6) Stop that program NOW! Jabs "dramatically increase" the risk of cardiac inflammation, finds top cardiological journal - Mark Crispin Miller (29 Nov 2021 16:56 EST)
7) "This is the largest experiment performed on human beings in the history of the world": Dr. Robert Malone gives a brilliant interview - Mark Crispin Miller (29 Nov 2021 17:02 EST)
doctor murdered, brutally, a few days after showing that the "vaccines"
are full of tiny "razor blades" (i..e., graphene hydroxide) by Mark Crispin Miller (29 Nov 2021 12:51 EST)
Reply to list
On Dr. Andreas Nock's discovery (which, among other things, could explain why athletes in particular are keeling over during exercise):
Dr. Nock's heartbroken partner breaks the awful news of his (apparent) assassination:
Although they go too easy on the left, this is a thoughtful indictment.
UNHERD, NOVEMBER 23,2021
Throughout the various phases of the global pandemic, people’s preferences in terms of epidemiological strategies have tended to overlap closely with their political orientation. Ever since Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro expressed doubts as to the wisdom of a lockdown strategy in March 2020, liberals and those on the Left of the Western political spectrum, including most socialists, have fallen over themselves to adhere in public to the lockdown strategy of pandemic mitigation — and lately to the logic of vaccine passports. Now as countries across Europe experiment with tighter restrictions of the unvaccinated, Left-wing commentators — usually so vocal in the defence of minorities suffering from discrimination — are notable for their silence.
As writers who have always positioned ourselves on the Left, we are disturbed at this turn of events. Is there really no progressive criticism to be made about the quarantining of healthy individuals, when the latest research suggests there is a vanishingly small difference in terms of transmission between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated? The Left’s response to Covid now appears as part of a broader crisis in Left-wing politics and thought — one which has been going on for three decades at least. So it’s important to identify the process through which this has taken shape.
In the first phase of the pandemic — the lockdowns phase — it was those leaning towards the cultural and economic right who were more likely to emphasise the social, economic and psychological damage resulting from lockdowns. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s initial lockdown scepticism made this position untenable for most of those leaning towards the cultural and economic Left. Social media algorithms then further fuelled this polarisation. Very quickly, therefore, Western leftists embraced lockdown, seen as a “pro-life” and “pro-collective” choice — a policy that, in theory, championed public health or the collective right to health. Meanwhile any criticism of the lockdowns was excoriated as a “right-wing”, “pro-economy” and “pro-individual” approach, accused of prioritising “profit” and “business as usual” over people’s lives.
In sum, decades of political polarisation instantly politicised a public health issue, without allowing any discussion as to what a coherent Left response would be. At the same time, the Left’s position distanced it from any kind of working-class base, since low-income workers were the most severely affected by the socio-economic impacts of continued lockdown policies, and were also those most likely to be out working while the laptop class benefitted from Zoom. These same political fault lines emerged during the vaccine roll-out, and now during the Covid passports phase. Resistance associates with the Right, while those on the mainstream Left are generally supportive of both measures. Opposition is demonised as a confused mixture of anti-science irrationalism and individualistic libertarianism.
But why has the mainstream Left ended up supporting practically all Covid measures? How did such a simplistic view of the relationship between health and the economy emerge, one which makes a mockery of decades of (Left-leaning) social science research showing just how closely wealth and health outcomes are connected? Why did the Left ignore the massive increase in inequalities, the attack on the poor, on poor countries, on women and children, the cruel treatment of the elderly, and the huge increase in wealth for the richest individuals and corporations resulting from these policies? How, in relation to the development and roll-out of vaccines, did the Left end up ridiculing the very notion that, given the money at stake, and when BioNTech, Moderna and Pfizer currently make between them over US$1,000 per second from the Covid vaccines, there might be motivations from the vaccine manufacturers other than “the public good” at play? And how is it possible that the Left, often on the receiving end of state repression, today seems oblivious to the worrying ethical and political implications of Covid passports?
While the Cold War coincided with the era of decolonisation and the rise of a global anti-racist politics, the end of the Cold War – alongside the symbolic triumph of decolonisation politics with the end of apartheid – ushered in an existential crisis for Left-wing politics. The rise of neoliberal economic hegemony, globalisation, and corporate trans-nationalism, have all undermined the Left’s historic view of the state as an engine of redistribution. Combined with this is the realisation that, as the Brazilian theorist Roberto Mangabeira Unger has argued, the Left has always prospered most at times of great crisis — the Russian Revolution benefited from the World War One, and welfare capitalism from the aftermath of the World War Two. This history may partly explain the Left’s positioning today: amplifying the crisis and prolonging it through never-ending restrictions may be seen by some as a way to rebuild Left politics after decades of existential crisis.
The Left’s flawed understanding of the nature of neoliberalism may also have affected its response to the crisis. Most people on the Left believe that neoliberalism has involved a “retreat” or “hollowing out” of the state in favour of the market. Thus, they interpreted government activism throughout the pandemic as a welcome “return of the state”, one potentially capable, in their view, of eventually reversing neoliberalism’s allegedly anti-statist project. The problem with this argument, even accepting its dubious logic, is that neoliberalism hasn’t entailed a withering away of the state. On the contrary, the size of the state as a percentage of GDP has continued to rise throughout the neoliberal era.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Neoliberalism relies on extensive state intervention just as much as “Keynesianism” did, except that the state now intervenes almost exclusively to further the interests of big capital – to police the working classes, bail out large banks and firms that would otherwise go bankrupt, etc. Indeed, in many ways, capital today is more dependent on the state than ever. As Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan note: “[A]s capitalism develops, governments and large corporations become increasingly intertwined. … The capitalist mode of power and the dominant-capital coalitions that rule it do not require small governments. In fact, in many respects, they need larger ones”. Neoliberalism today is more akin to a form of state-monopoly capitalism – or corporatocracy – than the kind of small-state free-market capitalism that it often claims to be. This helps explain why it has produced increasingly powerful, interventionist, and even authoritarian state apparatuses.
This in itself makes the Left’s cheering at a non-existent “return of the state” embarrassingly naïve. And the worst part is that it has made this mistake before. Even in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, many on the Left hailed large government deficits as “the return of Keynes” – when, in fact, those measures had very little to do with Keynes, who counselled the use of government spending to reach full employment, and instead were aimed at bolstering the culprits of the crisis, the big banks. They were also followed by an unprecedented attack on welfare systems and workers’ rights across Europe.
Something similar is happening today, as state contracts for Covid tests, PPE, vaccines, and now vaccine passport technologies are parcelled out to transnational corporations (often through shady deals that reek of cronyism). Meanwhile, citizens are having their lives and livelihoods upended by “the new normal”. That the Left seems completely oblivious to this is particularly puzzling. After all, the idea that governments tend to exploit crises to further entrench the neoliberal agenda has been a staple of much recent Left-wing literature. Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval, for example, have argued that under neoliberalism, crisis has become a “method of government”. More famously, in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein explored the idea of “disaster capitalism”. Her central thesis is that in moments of public fear and disorientation it is easier to re-engineer societies: dramatic changes to the existing economic order, which would normally be politically impossible, are imposed in rapid-fire succession before the public has had time to understand what is happening.
There’s a similar dynamic at play today. Take, for example, the high-tech surveillance measures, digital IDs, crackdown on public demonstrations and fast-tracking of laws introduced by governments to combat the coronavirus outbreak. If recent history is anything to go by, governments will surely find a way to make many of the emergency rules permanent – just as they did with much post-9/11 anti-terrorist legislation. As Edward Snowden noted: “When we see emergency measures passed, particularly today, they tend to be sticky. The emergency tends to be expanded”. This confirms, too, the ideas on the “state of exception” posited by the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, who has nonetheless been vilified by the mainstream Left for his anti-lockdown position.
Ultimately, any form of government action should be judged for what it actually stands for. We support government intervention if it serves to further the rights of workers and minorities, to create full employment, to provide crucial public services, to rein in corporate power, to correct the dysfunctionalities of markets, to take control of crucial industries in the public interest. But in the past 18 months we have witnessed the exact opposite: an unparalleled strengthening of transnational corporate behemoths and their oligarchs at the expense of workers and local businesses. A report last month based on Forbes data showed that America’s billionaires alone have seen their wealth increase by US$2 trillion during the pandemic.
Another Left-wing fantasy that has been shuttered by reality is the notion that the pandemic would usher in a new sense of collective spirit, capable of overcoming decades of neoliberal individualism. On the contrary, the pandemic has fractured societies even more – between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, between those who can reap the benefits of smart working and those who can’t. Moreover, a demos made up of traumatised individuals, torn apart from their loved ones, made to fear one another as a potential vectors of disease, terrified of physical contact – is hardly a good breeding ground for collective solidarity.
But perhaps the Left’s response can be better understood in individual rather than collective terms. Classic psychoanalytic theory has posited a clear connection between pleasure and authority: the experience of great pleasure (satiating the pleasure principle) can often be followed by a desire for renewed authority and control manifested by the ego or “reality principle”. This can indeed produce a subverted form of pleasure. The last two decades of globalisation have seen a huge expansion of the “pleasure of experience”, as shared by the increasingly transnational global liberal class – many of whom, somewhat curiously in historical terms, identified themselves as on the Left (and indeed increasingly usurped this position from the traditional working-class constituencies of the Left). This mass increase in pleasure and experience among the liberal class went with a growing secularism and lack of any recognised moral constraint or authority. From the perspective of psychoanalysis, the support from this class for “Covid measures” is quite readily explained in these terms: as the desired appearance of a coterie of restrictive and authoritarian measures which can be imposed to curtail pleasure, within the strictures of a moral code which steps in where one had previously been lacking.
Another factor explaining the Left’s embrace of “Covid measures” is its blind faith in “science”. This has its roots in the Left’s traditional faith in rationalism. However, one thing is believing in the undeniable virtues of the scientific method – another is being completely oblivious to the way those in power exploit “science” to further their agenda. Being able to appeal to “hard scientific data” to justify one’s policy choices is an incredibly powerful tool in the hands of governments – it is, in fact, the essence of technocracy. However, this means carefully selecting the “science” that is supportive of your agenda – and aggressively marginalising any alternative views, regardless of their scientific value.
This has been happening for years in the realm of economics. Is it really that hard to believe that such a corporate capture is happening today with regard to medical science? Not according to John P. Ioannidis, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University. Ioannidis made headlines in early 2021 when he published, with some colleagues of his, a paper claiming that there was no practical difference in epidemiological terms between countries that had locked down and those that hadn’t. The backlash against the paper – and against Ioannidis in particular – was fierce, especially among his fellow scientists.
This explains his recent scathing denunciation of his own profession. In an article entitled “How the Pandemic Is Changing the Norms of Science”, Ioannidis notes that most people – especially on the Left — seem to think that science operates based on “the Mertonian norms of communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism”. But, alas, that is not how the scientific community actually operates, Ioannidis explains. With the pandemic, conflicts of corporate interest exploded – and yet talking about them became anathema. He continues: “Consultants who made millions of dollars from corporate and government consultation were given prestigious positions, power, and public praise, while unconflicted scientists who worked pro bono but dared to question dominant narratives were smeared as being conflicted. Organized skepticism was seen as a threat to public health. There was a clash between two schools of thought, authoritarian public health versus science – and science lost”.
Ultimately, the Left’s blatant disregard and mockery of people’s legitimate concerns (over lockdowns, vaccines or Covid passports) is shameful. Not only are these concerns rooted in actual hardship but they also stem from an understandable distrust of governments and institutions that have been undeniably captured by corporate interests. Anyone who favours a truly progressive-interventionist state, as we do, needs to address these concerns – not dismiss them.
But where the Left’s response has been found most wanting is on the world stage, in terms of the relationship of Covid restrictions to deepening poverty in the Global South. Has it really nothing to say about the enormous increase in child marriage, the collapse in schooling, and the destruction of formal employment in Nigeria, where the State Statistics agency suggests 20% of people lost their jobs during the lockdowns? What about the reality that the country with the highest Covid mortality figures and excess death rate for 2020 was Peru – which had one of the world’s strictest lockdowns? On all this, it has been virtually silent. This position must be considered in relation to the pre-eminence of nationalist politics on the world stage: the electoral failure of Left internationalists such as Jeremy Corbyn meant that broader global issues had little traction when considering a broader Western Left response to Covid-19.
It is worth mentioning that there have been outliers on the Left – radical-left and socialist movements that have come out against the prevailing management of the pandemic. These include Black Lives Matter in New York, Left Lockdown Sceptics in the UK, the Chilean urban left, Wu Ming in Italy and not least the Social Democrat-Green alliance which currently governs Sweden. But the full spectrum of Left opinion was ignored, partly due to the small number of Left-wing media outlets, but also due to the marginalisation of dissenting opinions first and foremost by the mainstream Left.
Mainly, though, this has been a historic failure from the Left, which will have disastrous consequences. Any form of popular dissent is likely to be hegemonized once again by the (extreme) Right, poleaxing any chance the Left has of winning round the voters it needs to overturn Right-wing hegemony. Meanwhile, the Left holds on to a technocracy of experts severely undermined by what is proving to be a catastrophic handling of the pandemic in terms of social progressivism. As any kind of viable electable Left fades into the past, the discussion and dissent at the heart of any true democratic process is likely to fade with it.
African doctor who discovered "Omicron" says there's nothing to worry
about by Mark Crispin Miller (29 Nov 2021 15:13 EST)
Reply to list
UPDATE: South African Doctor Who Discovered “Omicron” Variant Says There’s Nothing to Worry About – Only Mild Symptoms (VIDEO)
Dr Angelique Coetzee, the South African doctor who first spotted the new Covid variant Omicron, appeared on the BBC this weekend.
Dr. Coetzee says the patients seen so far have had “extremely mild symptoms” – but more time is needed before we know the seriousness of the disease for vulnerable people.
Click on the link for the rest.
So this is how it ends
So this is how it ends
Leave our furry friends alone
If you had “insane Russian scientist says inject all the cats” on your 2021 Bingo Card, congratulations:
They’ve gone too far
According to the expert, pets can be a source of coronavirus infection for their owners.
“There is evidence that cats can be sick with SARS-CoV. Dogs are sensitive to a certain extent,” Butenko clarified, adding that weasels can also get sick, and there is also evidence that predatory animals (leopards, lions and tigers) have become infected from people in zoos. The virologist noted that cats are the only animals that need to be vaccinated in an urban setting.
The doctor believes that if you do not vaccinate the animal, you need to carefully monitor so that it does not show symptoms of coronavirus infection.
Didn’t The Simpsons predict this?
Anyway, let’s see what they’re saying on the Russian Message Boards:
Why do Russian people hate science?
If you liked this post from Edward Slavsquat, why not share it?
© 2021 Edward Slavsquat
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
4) Dems deplored those
rushed "vaccines" until it was THEIR turn to lie about them by Mark Crispin Miller (29 Nov 2021 16:39 EST)
Reply to list
GOP propaganda though it is, it makes an inarguable point about the Democrats' outrageous double standard vis-a-vis the "safety and effectiveness" of those "vaccines":
LINK to Dr. Noack's heartbroken partner reporting his
brutal murder by Mark Crispin Miller (29 Nov 2021 16:43 EST)
Reply to list
Dr. Vernon Coleman on the findings, which MUST put an IMMEDIATE stop to the "vaccination" program:
Abstract of the article in Circulation:
Christine Marr, LMFT
Dr. Robert Malone: “This is the Largest Experiment Performed on Human Beings in the History of the World.”
by Veronika Kyrylenko November 9, 2021
From: The Real News Network
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021
Subject: WHO, South Africa urge nations to lift ‘naive’ Omicron travel bans
Plus Hungarian teachers’ unions join forces, Amazon’s hunt for public contracts generates backlash, Berlin’s ‘new economy’ workers fight exploitation and more
Mike Whitney Archives
From: Reclaim The Net
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2021 8:47 PM
Subject: Israel is using counter-terrorism phone surveillance to track coronavirus