Joe Biden is the most corrupt US president

This article shows how Joe Biden is really a DINO (Democrat In Name Only; read: charlatan) as opposed to a RINO (Republican In Name Only; charlatan) who can bridge the partisan divides and work with Republican senators to get big things done even though on domestic policies he has often been blocked by the Party of Republican billionaires whose members of Congress agree with Biden only on his foreign policies, since virtually all of America’s congresspeople are likewise neoconservatives (that being the billionaires’ foreign policy, on which they are all united).

Each of the Parties campaigns against the other Parties, each of which represents its respective mega-donors, all of whom together control the public (with the help of their ‘news’-media), so that the Government will never represent the public, but will instead represent some coalition of all of the billionaires — regardless of what the public needs. And this has even been repeatedly confirmed by scientific empirical studies in political science. So, this is the type of dictatorship that the U.S. Government actually is. The result is that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with their Government, regardless of which Party is in power.

It’s corrupt politicians, and it’s stupid voters who refuse to recognize the corruption of, and in, ‘our own side’ — not only the other’s. It’s not democracy, because it’s thoroughly corrupt, on all sides. Democracy is rejection of the corrupt system, and of corrupt candidates.

Biden has a long record of lying to voters, even about his own personal record, and winning ‘elections’ on that basis. Of course, the most-publicized example of this has been about Hunter Biden’s laptop and its contents, which revealed astounding evidences that the U.S. President has been receiving 10% kick-backs from international-corporate deals that are done with the participation of his son Hunter Biden, but which America’s Democratic Party ‘news’-media hide and allege (without any proof at all) are ‘Russian disinformation’.

Biden is the most corrupt president in U.S. history
By Eric Zuesse
June 13, 2024

It’s a fact that gets no attention from ‘historians’ and from America’s ‘news’-media, but a consistently established fact nonetheless. As always, for a recent example, the New York Times left it hidden, when they headlined on June 10th “How the Federal Election Commission Went From Deadlock to Deregulation”, as they mentioned only in passing, that “At the center of the shift [to allow unlimited corruption] is Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum, a Democrat who has repeatedly crossed the aisle to vote with her Republican colleagues since President Biden appointed her and she was confirmed by
the Senate in a 54-38 vote in 2022.” In other words: on the topic of corruption, Biden supports traditional Republican-Party views that have previously been pushed for by Republican politicians, who get a bigger proportion of their campaign-funding from the rich and their corporations than Democrats do.

On two issues, Joe Biden has, in fact throughout his career, followed through to implement Republican-Party views, instead of Democratic-Party views: the issues on which he does this are his pushing and leading (though only behind the scenes) for more legalized political corruption, and for legal protection of continuing racial segregation — and each of these two issues is a major ‘libertarian’ (for the super-rich) part of Republican-Party viewpoints (which might be called “hyper-capitalism” — and which the Democrtic Party has only in recent decades come to support also). Saint John Hunt, Roger... Best Price: $3.40 Buy New $5.99 (as of 05:30 UTC - Details)

On 25 October 2019, Lee Fang at The Intercept headlined “JOE BIDEN’S SUPER PAC IS BEING ORGANIZED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS FOR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, WEAPONS MAKERS, FINANCE”, and he reported that among the billionaires who were planning a PAC to support Joe Biden’s campaign was Bernard Schwartz. On that same day, I headlined “Biden Backer — Former Lockheed Leader — Convinces Biden to Sell-Out”, and I reported that the “Former Lockheed leader” who was leading this effort, was Schwartz, himself, formerly a Chairman of Lockheed Martin, the company that sells more to the U.S. Government than does any other — it’s by far (p. 8) the largest federal ‘defense’ (actually aggression) contractor.

In other words: if Biden does become re-elected the U.S. President, then he will be (as he has been) heavily in debt to the world’s biggest weapons-maker, a corporation whose profits are totally dependent upon selling to the U.S. Government and to its allied governments such as in NATO, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel. This is exactly the opposite of what America’s Founding Fathers urged subsequent generations of Americans to do. They were very wise. Joe Biden is not. But he’s cunning about how to serve his megadonors.

Only an uninformed person would expect such a President to be seeking Mid-East peace. Biden would instead be seeking the standard neoconservative’s objective, “Peace Through Strength” — in other words, fear-mongering the public against ‘America’s enemies’, and ‘love’-mongering for ‘America’s allies’ (such as NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.). That’s the opposite of what, for example, George Washington urged the American people to do.

Biden’s relying upon people such as Bernard Schwartz to place him into the White House is the worst possible form of selling himself out — selling-out to America’s “Military Industrial Complex” or “MIC.”

But the reason why such people as Schwartz want Biden to become and remain the President is that, consistently, Biden has been precisely such a war-monger or “neoconservative” as they are, have always been wanting — such as when Biden helped to lead Democrats in the U.S. Senate who backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That wasn’t a ‘mistake’ by him as he now claims — it was the way Joe Biden has always been. And, the former Chairman of Lockheed Martin knew that Biden still remains that way.

On 23 October 2019, Luke Darby at GQ magazine, had headlined “How Biden Helped Strip Bankruptcy Protection From Millions Just Before a Recession”. Joe Biden was the leading Democrat in Congress backing and pushing for the George W. Bush and Republican-backed ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill which passed, in the Senate, with 18 Senate Democrats for the ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill, while 25 Democrats were against it. All 55 Republicans were for it.

In the U.S. House, the Independent Bernie Sanders voted against. All 229 Republicans were for. 73 Democrats there were for, 125 were against. Biden led that minority of Democrats who helped to pass this Republican bill.

A lot of Biden supporters said that Biden was “a real Democrat” and that Sanders was no Democrat at all (since he’s an Independent who merely caucuses with the Senate’s Democrats). But Sanders voted like most Democrats did, and Biden voted like all Republicans did.

Back when the ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill first was first being drafted in 1999, the Washington Post headlined “Creditors’ Money Talks Louder in Bankruptcy Debate”  and reported that,

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a key Judiciary Committee member who hails from the home base of credit card issuers MBNA Corp. and First USA, opposes the liberal faction’s bill. “I’m not the senator from MBNA,” he said.

Luke Darby’s article noted that, MBNA hired Joe Biden’s son Hunter in 1996. Even after Hunter became a federal lobbyist in 2001, he stayed on at MBNA as a consultant at a fee of $100,000 per year, meaning he was pulling in a six-figure salary at the same time his father was pushing for the industry’s top priorities. Biden’s interests were so aligned with MBNA’s that in 1999 he was forced to defend himself by declaring, “I am not the senator from MBNA.”

Joe Biden has always expected voters to ignore his record and simply trust his promises because he’s a “regular Joe” like they are. He promises that he won’t keep promoting invasions of countries (such as Iraq) that never even so much as threatened the United States, and that he won’t keep supporting corporations that were his biggest financial backers. So, he said (and says), voters should just trust him to do the right thing. According to Open Secrets, headlining in 2008, ”The Money Behind Biden”, “His largest contributor over time has been credit card giant MBNA Corp.,” the credit-card issuer, “which, despite being acquired by Bank of America a few years ago, remains atop the list of Biden’s major contributors.” That company knew how to repay a debt, and they had a big debt, to him, to repay. In fact, while the ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill was being drawn up, during the 2000 political campaign-cycle, MBNA wasn’t merely Biden’s #1 donor, but its employees donated over twice as much to his campaign as did his #2 donor during that cycle, and he delivered the goods so well that they owed him now even more.

And, like Lee Fang said, it’s not only credit-card companies, but, “JOE BIDEN’S SUPER PAC IS BEING ORGANIZED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS FOR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, WEAPONS MAKERS, FINANCE”.

And Senator Biden was very grateful to all of them after he won the Democratic nomination. It would be as usual in American politics, one corrupt politician up against another corrupt politician, each of whom is trusted by the voters in his own Party. Truth, to them, makes no difference; but, in a land where truth makes no difference, does “democracy” even mean anything, other than an empty slogan, and ‘constitutional’ formalities?

On 27 November 2007, C-Span showed a Joe Biden Town Hall. A brief clip from that was posted online as “User Clip: Joe Biden 2007, Money in Politics”, and here’s my transcription from what I consider to be the most revealing (about Biden’s values) part of it:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4817532/user-clip-joe-biden-2007-money-politics&start=3322

“User Clip: Joe Biden 2007, Money in Politics”

27 November 2007, Iowa Town Hall

(0:40-) People who accept money [from lobbyists] aren’t bad people. But it’s human nature. You go out and bundle $250,000 for me, all legal, and then you call me after I am elected, and say “I would like to come and talk about something.” You didn’t buy me, but it’s human nature, you helped me. I’m going to say, “Sure, come on in.” … What it does mean, it means that the front of the line is always filled by people whose pockets are filled, people who are special interests. Most of you are no part of any special interest.

He went on there to promise that if elected President he will change that, by campaigning constantly (AFTER winning the Presidency — not BEFORE) against the corrupt system which had made him President. He thinks that his audience will believe in the tooth-fairy, if only he tells them that the tooth-fairy exists and that he’s it. The deceptive irrelevant line from all of the corrupt candidates is the same: “I’m the most electable one!” But corrupt people constantly lie, and nobody is actually certain whom the “most electable” one is; but that’s really not even the question here. What the Democratic primaries are actually about isn’t about beating Trump. He’s not even a candidate in the Democratic primaries. They’re not about ‘beating Donald Trump’, but instead about whom the person will be that’s going to be running against Trump in the general election. The primaries won’t be selecting the next President. They will only narrow the field of contenders, to two. Which two? That’s the question here.

Furthermore: the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) design and run the primaries, and don’t at all represent their voters but instead their mega-donors, who contribute over half of their campaigns’ funding and also control their ‘news’-media so as to put on the show that will fool the voters to think that if they choose between a candidate who represents one group of billionaires, against another candidate who represents a different group of billionaires, then that constitutes a “democracy” — but it doesn’t. Each of the Parties is a closed self-appointing club of members each of whom represents a group of billionaires, and the show that the club puts on for its voters is only to fool them, and all of the winners will follow-through only on the promises to their megadonors, not to their mere voters. (This fact has even been proven empirically by massive quantitative data.) They call that “democracy.” They lie.

As the People’s Party (which seeks a real revolution for democracy in America) reported on 28 September 2023,An incumbent president has never lost a party primary [no matter how bad the incumbent happens to be]. In 2017, the DNC stated in court that its presidential primaries are a charade and that it picks the nominees. It stated that, as a private corporation, it is under no obligation to be impartial or follow its own rules. The court upheld this argument.

Furthermore, the DNC and the Biden campaign are essentially the same entity. Biden appointed DNC Chair Jamie Harrison, who is shutting down debates and rearranging the primary schedule according to Biden’s wishes. In February, the entire DNC unanimously endorsed Biden. The president’s campaign dictates the rules of the primary and can change them at will. At the convention, the party can even choose a nominee who didn’t run in the primary, as it did in 1968. This means that even if Biden dropped out, the DNC would still install someone like Gavin Newsom.

The Biden campaign is also the biggest donor to the DNC. Donations to the Biden Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee with the DNC, financially sustain the party. It brings in hundreds of millions of dollars from big donors that flow to the DNC, all fifty state party organizations, and their vast array of staff, consulting firms, and vendors. The entire party ecosystem and everyone who profits from it would collapse if the party nominated Kennedy. This is why the party rigged the election against Bernie twice and why it will never choose RFK Jr. The party would rather lose with an establishment candidate who keeps the corporate money flowing than win with a populist.

Each of the Parties campaigns against the other Parties, each of which represents its respective mega-donors, all of whom together control the public (with the help of their ‘news’-media), so that the Government will never represent the public, but will instead represent some coalition of all of the billionaires — regardless of what the public needs. And this has even been repeatedly confirmed by scientific empirical studies in political science. So, this is the type of dictatorship that the U.S. Government actually is.

The result is that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with their Government, regardless of which Party is in power. On 4 October 2023, Gallup headlined “Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%”, and reported “Sixty-three percent of U.S. adults currently agree with the statement that the Republican and Democratic parties do ‘such a poor job’ of representing the American people that ‘a third major party is needed.’” (Gallup said nothing there about the people whom the U.S. Government does represent: its billionaires.)

Of course, lots of Democrats think that any Democrat will be better than Trump. And lots of Republicans believe that Trump is better than any Democrat. There is a sucker born every second; and, so, people believe this way, and their Party thus ends up having lousy individuals carrying its banner, such as both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were in 2016. Both Parties deserved to lose, but that (a Hobson’s choice) isn’t a democracy. It’s corrupt politicians, and it’s stupid voters who refuse to recognize the corruption of, and in, ‘our own side’ — not only the other’s. It’s not democracy, because it’s thoroughly corrupt, on all sides. Democracy is rejection of the corrupt system, and of corrupt candidates. It’s demanding better than that. It’s not only the donors — the mega-donors (the people who really are seeking special personal favors and NOT good government) — who are corrupt, and who always do “buy” politicians, such as Joe Biden (and Donald Trump). It’s also stupid voters, who make things bad for everyone except the corrupt and the corrupters. No actual democracy consists of the corrupt and the corrupters. That’s just a fact which all of the resolutely stupid voters ignore because they’re so attached to their chosen tooth-fairies, which all of the mainstream ‘news’-media (which are controlled by billionaires) feed to them. (Even many non-mainstream media are also controlled by billionaires; and, so, neither the Government nor its press is trustworthy in such a corrupt country.)

On 22 January 2020, the Washington Post headlined a 6,000-word article about the day in politics “The Daily 202: Joe Biden talks Ukraine, but not impeachment, in Iowa”, and reported that “The centerpiece of Biden’s pitch is that he can bridge the partisan divides and work with Republican senators to get big things done.” It was actually true: Biden was clearly aiming to become the ‘Democratic’ President who could be ‘bipartisan’ with congressional Republicans, and sign into law legislation that until his occupancy of the White House had been only decades-long Republican and billionaires’ dreams, but under a Biden Presidency would now become his proud “bipartisan achievements.” He could turn out to be the most effective Republican (but of the Democrat-in-name-only, hyper-hypocritical, type of) President ever — a truly bipartisan-fascist President. It would be a fitting culmination to his career. And it has been. He never dealt with an American coup, or sanction, or invasion, that he didn’t support — and each of them was bipartisan, even though on domestic policies he has often been blocked by the Party of Republican billionaires, whose members of Congress agree with Biden only on his foreign policies, since virtually all of America’s congresspeople are likewise neoconservatives (that being the billionaires’ foreign policy, on which they are all united).

And Biden has a long record of lying to voters, even about his own personal record, and winning ‘elections’ on that basis. Of course, the most-publicized example of this has been about Hunter Biden’s laptop and its contents, which revealed astounding evidences that the U.S. President has been receiving 10% kick-backs from international-corporate deals that are done with the participation of his son Hunter Biden, but which America’s Democratic Party ‘news’-media hide and allege (without any proof at all) are ‘Russian disinformation’. On 21 July 2023, I headlined about this “The Significance of the Congressional Probes into FBI-Biden Corruption”, but even the Republican Senators and Representatives who have done impressive investigations into this have failed to gain any support for prosecution of the President on bribery and conspiracy charges, and treason — all of which charges are supported by the massive evidence — in order to bring these federal crimes to a jury trial, because only a few of the Republican billionaires support that, because exposing it to a broad segment of the public would bring the entire corrupt house-of-cards crashing down — and much of their fortunes with it. Instead, the U.S. Government hides it from the public and has prosecuted — and, on 11 June 2024 convicted — only Hunter Biden and not his father, and for his illegal possession of a gun, not for the far-more-important briberies, whose evidence is on Hunter Bden’s laptop, the same laptop that contained massive evidence also of those bribery-kickback conspiracy operations but which still aren’t being heard in any court.

Although Warren Harding has been considered by historians to have been the most corrupt of America’s Presidents, his corruptness has been dwarfed by Biden’s. Furthermore, even Clinton’s, Bush’s, Obama’s, and Trump’s, have been strong competitors (though not nearly as strong as Biden’s) for that title.

After all: even in most of the “Third World” countries, very few of the heads-of-state have nearly as much evidence against them of bribery, conspiracy, and treason, as America’s President Biden does.

What, then, are the options for Americans, in the upcoming November 5th Presidential election? To vote on the basis of any of the Parties’ thoroughly rigged-by-the-rich political show would be stupid, but another fact is that around 63% of Americans do want an alternative to it. The only independent candidate who has any chance to actually win the election is RFK Jr.; and all of the others have none at all but are purely “spoiler” candidates (to throw the win to either the Republican or the Democrat, like Nader in 2000 threw it to Bush). Back in the year 2000, there was a real and large difference between Bush and Gore; but since then, that hasn’t really been so in the Presidential contests: the differences have been only theatrical. This clearly is the case between Trump vs. Biden. However bad one of those two is, the other is at least nearly as bad; and neither of them has had better than a poor record during his four-year term; so, the question is: Do those approximately 63% of Americans who reject both Parties find such a choice acceptable? What are their options?

Either they could vote for Kennedy, who really would be a change, or else they would vote for either the Democrat or the Republican. If they vote for either Trump or Biden, they don’t REALLY reject both of the Parties. Any such person was then merely engaging in theater to answer Gallup’s question there in that way. But any of them who was SERIOUS about it, would be voting for Kennedy, simply BECAUSE there exists no clear evidence that he would be a rotten President, as all have been during recent decades, going back at least to the time of JFK who was assassinated in 1963.

To any of my fellow-Americans who still are concerned not to vote for a candidate who might possibly (like Nader did in 2000) throw the ‘election’ one way or the other (as opposed to being an authentic possibility to win the U.S. Presidency), I ask: Would you prefer a violent revolution in this country? Have you even thought about that possibility? Because things are heading in that direction. Would you really prefer the change to happen violently? I wouldn’t. I therefore thank RFK Jr. for giving me, at long last, a possible alternative to that outcome.

- - -
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

FDA is a front organisation only; no technicians, no equipment, no testing

FDA is a front organisation: There are no technicians in the buildings, no equipment and no sample testing occurs
By Rhoda Wilson on June 12, 2024

Katherine Watt has been corresponding with a reader who is researching the history of US public health and regulatory agencies.  Records before 1973 are difficult to locate.  However, what has become clear is that the origins of these agencies are not what they make them out to be.

Why are they lying about their origins?  Because, Watt says, “they have maintained a bunch of empty office buildings that serve only as mailing addresses … There are no technicians in the buildings, there’s no equipment and no sample testing occurs.”

Katherine Watt is a mom, Catholic, and paralegal from Pennsylvania, USA. On her Substack page ‘Bailiwick News’ she documents how, since at least World War II, US Congress has been waging war on the people by passing legislation which makes it easier and easier for them to be destroyed – legally – by the pharmaceutical industry.

One of Watt’s Substack readers is researching the pre-1972 statutory and regulatory history of some of the USA’s public health agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) and the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

The reason why 1972 is relevant is that in that year the regulation of biological products transferred from the NIH Division of Biologics Standards to the FDA Bureau of Biologics.  “In 1973, FDA published a consolidated set of biological product manufacturing non-regulations in the Federal Register,” Watt explained.

“Administrative rule-making by FDA since 1973 is relatively easy to locate,” she said.  However, “administrative rule-making by NIH prior to 1973 is more difficult to locate.”

Commenting on Watt’s article below, Dr. Mike Yeadon said:

    It looks like deception may have been going on a very long time before “covid vaccines” were a thing.

    If Katherine Watt is right, there are entire administrative processes that exist only on paper, but there are no staff overseeing the technical aspects implied. Effectively, no practical regulation of vaccines (safety, efficacy and quality) has ever existed.

    Nothing would surprise me anymore. After all, as I have said repeatedly, there are in the “covid-19 vaccines” numerous, independent, unnecessary and (to those with relevant expertise) obvious toxicity risks, none of which have been evaluated (because they’re intentional, they’re there by design).
    Dr. Mike Yeadon on Telegram, 11 June 2024

Below we have republished excerpts from Watt’s article that are relevant to Dr. Yeadon’s comment above.  Watt’s article briefly describes the research her reader has undertaken and Watt’s response to one of her reader’s questions.

On FDA Buildings as Virtual Mailboxes to Project the Public Illusion of Biological Product Manufacturing Regulation
By Katherine Watt

One of the questions the reader is trying to answer has to do with whether biological regulation authority was ever statutorily established by [the US] Congress, for NIH and its precursor organisations, going back to the late 1800s.

Modern-day NIH and FDA officials present historical accounts of how the biological product and vaccine manufacturing regulatory systems began and developed.

But from her research so far, the reader has concluded that their origin-story claims are not supported by the text of the statutes they cite.

During an email exchange recently, she raised the question “Why are they lying” about their statutory and/or administrative origins?

I sent her a reply with my hypothesis about why NIH and FDA lie about their origins and evolution.

Watt’s Reply

The “why they are lying” question is one that I’ve been mulling for a few months.

My hypothesis is that they have maintained a bunch of empty office buildings that serve only as mailing addresses (virtual mailboxes), without having any actual technical staff, laboratory equipment, or application and sample processing procedures.

They do that so that they can have fake forms for vaccine manufacturers to fill out. These included both the establishment license application, ELA, and product license application, PLA, from 1973 to the mid-1990s.

The ELA + PLA application process became, in the mid-1990s, the biologics license application, or BLA, by eliminating even the ostensible/fake requirement for establishment inspections and licensing, and by breaking up the “responsible head” at the factories, into multiple responsible people, so that no one would be responsible.

The factory employees, who are also just a handful of paper pushers with no scientific knowledge or responsibility, in a building whose equipment just makes immunotoxic junk and puts it in vials and slaps labels on it, filled out the application forms and mailed them to the FDA addresses (Bureau of Biologics in 1973, all its NIH predecessors and FDA successors, Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research – CBER now).

The application forms arrived at that address where another one or two paper pushers put them in a filing cabinet and then shredded them a few years later.

Since the advent of electronic filing systems, the application and licensing forms have been filed, transferred and stored electronically, and deleted at regular intervals.

There are no technicians in the buildings, there’s no equipment and no sample testing occurs.

It’s all a front: statutes, regulations, procedures, application forms, buildings, addresses, offices, labs, approved applications and licenses sent by the FDA back to the factories, everything.

A handful of people at pharma companies know it.

A handful of people at the FDA know it.

And everyone else just assumes that a different, specialised department with specialised staff, equipment and procedures is handling it somewhere in the factory, and somewhere within the FDA.

You can read Watt’s full article HERE which is the ninth in a series of articles on “FDA non-regulation of non-medicines, including vaccines, more accurately understood as intentionally immunotoxic poisons.”

Comments:

UK’s MHRA chief till recently was June Raine who makes no secret of the fact that MHRA is an enabler for Big Pharma, not a Regulator!!!!!! In other words it has left its role of gamekeeper and gone over to the side of the poachers !
Debi Evans of UK Column has been keeping a close eye on Madame Rain’s activities, attending MhRA’s and generally putting the heat under her. I strongly recommend you looking at Debi Evans’ stuff, it’s excellent. June Raine has doubtless gone off to enjoy her reward for her betrayal of the Britis public’s health.

This should tell everyone all they need to know about food and drug approval and regulation. It is a scam. That tells me that all safety claims should be called into question.

FDA is a cog in the pay-to-play supply of products and all part of the corporate monopoly. It has no liability for pushing unsafe and dangerous products so it is a front organisation to pretend to people that some product is safe.

I am British, I am a tea drinker, have been all my life. Upon arriving in the US I start making my cups of tea. Over an extended period of time the cups of tea started to make me feel ill. So I started to experiment, bottled water instead of osmosis filtered, inspected the sugar how can you change sugar a chemical maybe? US tea is garbage I only drink PG Tips or some other brand I know. Only ever use 2% milk that is all.

The extended life milk supermarkets are pushing … I switched that out and used 2% organic only milk and all the issues went away. Contacted the FDA, they just FOB you off that all milk is the same … then why was I able to solve the problem if everything is the same. At that point I knew the FDA lie and if they lie about milk they probably lie about everything else.

Want another FDA scam? Importing electronics parts into the USA came in through DHL. I got a massive import tax ….
But in the breakdown of the import tax total was a $40 fee for the FDA.
F@cking priceless I do not eat or consume electronics but they get a cut.

Does not surprise me at all.
ONE other thing I think about, besides others, is that the treasonous FDA calls many substances GRAS=generally recognized as safe. Therefore, GRAS substances can be added to food products without their testing them, and the FDA allows manufacturers to police their own ingredents as okay. I actually want to know what is in my food. I want to know if there is extra water, or salt, vinegar, etcetera added..

Here is a blurb from the FDA website. Notice that if it was approved before 1958, when things were much more basic and unknown, when our testing and technology was much less sophisticated, when fewer food additives and chemicals were used, its’ overwhelmingly believed to be okay!.
Do I trust the FDA (or other government agencies? Nope….The FDA had a direct hand in approving/accepting GMO’s, glyphosate, and more nasties.
The Substances Added to Food inventory includes the following types of ingredients regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA):

Food additives and color additives that are listed in FDA regulations (21 CFR Parts 172, 173 and Parts 73, 74 respectively), and flavoring substances evaluated by FEMA* and JECFA*.
    Generally Recognized as Safe (“GRAS”) substances that are listed in FDA regulations (21 CFR Parts 182 and 184).
    Substances approved for specific uses in foods prior to September 6, 1958, known as prior-sanctioned substances (21 CFR Part 181)

Articles:
https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/gras-hidden-ingredients-in-your-food/
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/04/ewg-analysis-almost-all-new-food-chemicals-greenlighted-industry-not-fda
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fda-loophole-allows-possi_b_9182800

Dr Naomi Wolf's statement on UK media censor Ofcom

Dr. Naomi Wolf’s statement to the Royal Courts of Justice in Mark Steyn v. Ofcom
By Rhoda Wilson on June 12, 2024

Yesterday, Mark Steyn took the UK’s media regulator state censor Ofcom to court.

The Royal Courts of Justice heard the case of Steyn v. Ofcom, which centres on Ofcom having penalised former GB News presenter Mark Steyn for having Dr. Naomi Wolf on his show and allowing her to tell Britain about reproductive damage reported in the Pfizer documents.

In October 2022, Dr. Wolf appeared on GB News’ Mark Steyn Show.  Ofcom said it received 422 complaints that alleged Dr. Wolf’s comments were “dangerous” and included misinformation that went unopposed.  In May 2023, Ofcom concluded its investigation and said it was particularly concerned by Dr. Wolf’s “significant and alarming claim” that mass murder was taking place through vaccinations, which she repeated three times without significant inclusion of challenge or context.

You can watch the offending clip from the Mark Steyn Show below.
https://rumble.com/v2nx14i-dr.-naomi-wolf-and-mark-steyn-ofcom-offending-clip.html

If you are unable to watch the video above on Rumble you can watch the interview on BitChute, which includes a second interview of Dr. Wolf on the Mark Steyn Show.

Further reading: Mark Steyn and Dr. Naomi Wolf have Become Targets of Ofcom Censorship, The Exposé, 16 October 2022

“Even the BBC is now acknowledging covid-19 injection damage as is the New York Times. Our findings have brought Pfizer to pre-2016 revenue levels and forced the most powerful institutions in the world, from major media outlets to Britain’s media regulator body, to be held accountable for lying and harming people,” Naomi Wolf and Amy Kelly wrote in a Substack article last month.

After leaving GB News, Steyn began his own media outlet called Steyn Online.  Before the hearing yesterday, Steyn wrote:

    As you know, last year my first and second Statements of Claim against the UK media censor Ofcom were accepted for judicial review by the High Court of England. The hearing was supposed to be held in March, but Ofcom were washing their hair that month so it was postponed for a few weeks – until today.

    I seriously doubt any members of the press will be in attendance. Certainly, GB News (despite being named as an “interested party”) will not be. But my friend Naomi Wolf, likewise convicted by Ofcom with no right to defend herself, will be there. (Ofcom in the Dock, Mark Steyn, 11 June 2024)

Yesterday, Dr. Wolfe published her response to Ofcom.

Statement of Dr. Naomi Wolf to the Royal Courts of Justice, London, United Kingdom

Dear Mrs Justice Farbey

I am here today because Ofcom, the media watchdog agency, concluded that my presentation of information from scientific reports about the Pfizer injection, on Mark Steyn’s TV show in October 2022, caused “harm.” Ofcom also referred to me in public documents as a “conspiracy theorist,” using that discrediting characterisation of my work, as part of its decision to penalise Steyn for airing the show in which I brought forth the evidence I did.

I wish to describe to the court please the nature of the evidence I presented on GB News. I then wish to describe my credentials, and lastly, I wish to make some points about the history of censorship.

The material I described to Mark Steyn is not my work. I am a non-fiction writer and journalist. I am not a medical doctor or a scientist. The material I presented is from scientific reports compiled by 3,250 highly credentialled doctors and scientists, the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis research team (see addendum), that convened from 2021 to the present, to read through and issue reports based upon the 450,000 internal documents released under court order due to a successful lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration by US attorney Aaron Siri. These are internal
Pfizer documents submitted to the FDA for the purpose of securing the Emergency Use Authorisation that allowed for the rollout in the US of an experimental injection that bypassed normal trials. They are primary internal documents produced by Pfizer-BioNTech, that date from November 2020 to February 2021 and that record the 43,000 plus adverse events and more than 1,220 deaths recorded by Pfizer in those three months.

The documents go into detail about serious side effects and explain their mechanisms; the Pfizer documents contain internal reports on stroke, liver damage, kidney damage, many forms of blood clotting and blood damage (including the thrombotic thrombocytopenia that recently triggered the withdrawal of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK in 2024; we broke that story in 2022); many neurological events including dementias, epilepsies and Guillain-Barre syndromes, and serious respiratory issues.

The documents include a section in which 80 per cent of the pregnant women lost their babies and another section in which two babies’ deaths in utero were due to “maternal exposure” to the vaccine, in Pfizer’s words. There is a great deal of information in the Pfizer documents, including charts, showing damage to women’s menstrual cycles, including serious damage such as haemorrhaging, passing tissue and bleeding every day. There is documentation of lipid nano-particles (the fatty casing for the mRNA) accumulating in the ovaries of women — more with each injection. There is documentation of damage to babies from nursing from vaccinated mothers and of one baby who died of multi-organ system failure after ingesting a vaccinated mom’s breast milk. The Pfizer documents contain a warning to vaccinated
men not to have intercourse with women of child-bearing age. These are just some of the findings that our doctors and scientists summarized in their now 104 reports.

Ofcom seeks to portray this material as “harmful.” But can findings be “harmful” if they are true? I am a reporter and I base my opinion on facts.

The reports’ accuracy is not in doubt. They have been published on hundreds of news outlets globally for nearly three years, and we have received no lawyer’s letter from Pfizer of any kind, let alone stating that anything in them is incorrect.

The Reports were published in book format: ‘The WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports’, hardcover, PDF and eBook. This book was a Top Ten Amazon Bestseller, including selling in the UK. One of the reports was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. A second volume of these reports, to whose citation Ofcom still objects, is being published in September 2024 by a major US imprint, Simon and Schuster: ‘The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity’. The book is currently for sale on Amazon UK.

My team and I have presented these findings, at the following bodies’ request, to EU Parliamentarians such as MEP Christine Anderson; to MEPs in The Netherlands; to the staffs of US Congressman Tom Massie and US Senator Ron Johnson; to Wyoming State Senators Tim Salazar and Bo Biteman; to the Australian Parliament, twice;  to MP Andrew Bridgen of the UK Parliament, and to scores of professional gatherings of physicians and hospital administrators, as well as at universities. Our Volunteers presented the material I shared on Mr. Steyn’s show to the Brazilian Parliament and will
soon present it to the Government of South Korea. Our findings are being syndicated and republished by Israeli, British and Dutch news sites.

The evidence I presented on Mr. Steyn’s show is also summarised in a book of mine titled ‘Facing the Beast’, which has been published in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands and was a bestseller in Europe as well as in the US.

In short, all over the world, including in Britain, this same work for which Ofcom has penalised Mark Steyn and attacked me reputationally, has been published and is widely recognised and honoured, including by many governing bodies. So not only is Ofcom out of alignment with other governments in free societies around the world, but it is also pushing back to suppress material that many UK citizens already know to be both factual and important.

As a result of this material, as well as other research, judicial decisions are turning against the manufacturers of this injection and against those governing bodies that suppress people’s right to information about it. Two state Attorneys General, of Missouri and Louisiana, sued the White House for violating the First Amendment in pressuring social media companies to smear and censor critics of the vaccine. This lawsuit showed that the origin of the attacks on my reputation, which Ofcom echoed, started with the US White House unlawfully targeting a tweet of mine about the risk to women from
injections. This lawsuit has been successful to date and the US Supreme Court is deciding the case. A California court just ruled that lawsuits against vaccine mandates could proceed.

Last month, the AstraZeneca vaccine was suspended worldwide, including in the UK.

Can all these thoughtful senior government leaders, these parliaments, these judges and courts, these publishers and news outlets outside of Britain, be wrong, and Ofcom alone be right?

Is there a risk that the rest of the world will base common sense reasoning on the important information in our reports, and the UK, whose information stream is held hostage by Ofcom, will be isolated from life-saving information?

Now let me go please to my own CV. Ofcom told the world that I was a “conspiracy theorist”. By doing so, the agency immeasurably damaged my career and reputation.

I am a Yale graduate, a Rhodes Scholar, and was twice a graduate student at Oxford University. I earned a DPhil from Oxford in 2015, in English Literature. I have written eleven non-fiction books, nine of them international bestsellers. I wrote a book, ‘The Beauty Myth’, that is credited with being a key part of the “Third Wave” of feminism, including in Britain. I advised President Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign and was an advisor to VP Al Gore’s campaign for presidency of the US.

I have been published in every major Western European and North American news outlet, including having been a columnist for The Guardian, The Sunday Times of London, and Project Syndicate. My books have been published by major US and UK publishers, including Random House, Simon and Schuster, Chatto and Windus, Penguin, Vintage and Virago Press. I have appeared many times on most major network and radio shows in Britain and North America, from CNN to MSNBC to CBS, NBC and ABC in the US, to BBC, Channel 4, “Women’s Hour”, ITV and countless regional shows. I have published opinion pieces and features for decades internationally – from The Washington Post to Time to The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and in the UK, in The Guardian, The Sunday Times, as mentioned above, in Marxism Today, Oxford Magazine, the Daily Mail, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, The Express, and Metro.co.uk. I have been asked to lecture worldwide, from Penn to Northwestern to Tufts; I have lectured at New College, Oxford University and to undergraduates of the English Faculty at Oxford, and at St Catherine’s College, Oxford University. I lectured repeatedly at Rhodes House, with a leadership program I designed to train the Rhodes Scholars as public intellectuals. I lectured at the University of Chester, and, in the US, I was a Fellow at Barnard College and a professor at SUNY. I had a Rothermere American Institute Fellowship at Oxford University. My Oxford  DPhil re-explored a lost hero of British LGBTQ history, John Addington Symonds. It became a bestselling book, ‘Outrages’, which was a Blackwell’s selection. I brought my work to many UK literary festivals, including the Edinburgh and Hay Book Festivals.

I built a successful civic tech company, DailyClout, which makes US legislation transparent to all and socially sharable.

It would take chutzpah, as my grandmother would say, for Ofcom to seek to smear a CV such as mine, as I was one of the most respected female intellectuals in Europe and America, pre-2021/2022. However, Ofcom did, and their megaphone was much bigger than mine. While I was unable to face them to defend myself, Ofcom brought the power of government amplification to bear down against my reputation in Britain and worldwide. As a result, I have lost the devoted and robust following of readers and publishers I had in Britain and other countries, lost investor funds in my company, and lost any
possibility to speak to my former audiences or publish in my former UK outlets. The damage to my reputation is incalculable. And Ofcom’s vague smear against me is false. I am not a ”conspiracy theorist” but a reporter and non-fiction writer recognised around the world for decades for my fact-based journalism and non-fiction – though indeed under attack since 2021, when I reported on harms to women from mRNA injections; harms that many peer-reviewed studies have now confirmed.

Lastly, I wish to speak about censorship. My DPhil and the book based on it traced the history of censorship law in Britain and America. What I learned from that research, is that there is ultimately no such thing as censorship because the truth always surfaces eventually. In other words, censorship by the state simply does not work.

The UK used to be the home of free speech. It had some of the most robust debates in the world, until the mid-19th century, and a long history of relatively strong press freedom. That changed in 1857, with the Obscene Publications Act.

With the Comstock Laws in the US almost two decades later, the idea of sweeping state censorship was entrenched in democracies where it had not been before.

Since 1857 to the present, many subjects have been targeted by UK and US censors. In Britain, content about same-sex relationships was unlawful to publish. So was sexually suggestive material of any kind. Then medical information about birth control became targeted by legal punishments. In 1877, Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh were tried for the crime of publishing a decades-old pamphlet on birth control. A great deal of what is now considered classical British and American literature has been censored by the State: from D H Lawrence’s ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’, to ‘The Well of Loneliness’ by Radclyffe Hall; from James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’to George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’.

My point is that censoring pamphlets on birth control did not stop birth control information from becoming known over time. Censoring discussion on gay men and lesbians did not stop homosexual or lesbian relationships from taking place or eventually from being discussed. Censoring ‘Animal Farm’stopped no one eventually from reading and valuing ‘Animal Farm’.

What you decide in this courtroom will be a decision for history. And history changes. The truisms that were accepted about the mRNA vaccines in 2022 are already out of date in 2024. Eventually, everyone will know that Mark Steyn was right to let me share sober data about risks from an experimental injection, a version of which has already this year been pulled from the UK market. Please decide with this question in mind: will Britain remain a free nation in which people can absorb different points of view, and decide for themselves? Or will they be subject to a nanny agency, whose brief is so wide in “chilling” open debate and serious reporting, that the censors of 1857 could scarcely have foreseen the sweep of its powers?

Britain’s greatest writers, such as John Milton, always argued for free speech. ‘The Aeropagitica’, Milton’s 1644 defence of freedom of speech, was controversial when it was published. But it saw the light of day. With Ofcom chilling ideas before they can even emerge into the light of public consideration, will Britain have John Miltons in the future? Or a James Joyce, or a Radclyffe Hall, or an Orwell? Can such writers and journalists survive now in Britain with Ofcom keeping watch? (We are fighting the same fight for free speech in America too.)

Martin Luther King Jr. argued that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. The arc of a moral media is long as well, but I wager it bends toward truth.

Please may this Court consider how gravely the people of Britain – the birthplace and earliest home of free speech and a free press — deserve free expression, as do the people of mine; so that we can make informed decisions for ourselves, as adults; and so that we can have living cultures at all.

Thank you for the chance to make this statement.

Sincerely,
Dr Naomi Wolf, CEO, DailyClout

[Dr. Wolf’s statement as published on her Substack is followed by an Addendum which describes the
WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Group leadership credentials and key appearances, and a sample of the WarRoom/DailyClout research volunteers’ professional experience and education.  You can see these lists at the bottom of her Substack article HERE https://behindthefdacurtain.substack.com/p/dr-naomi-wolf-responds-to-uk-media]

Mis-Disinformation is to justify censorship...

All the talk about misinformation is to justify censorship
By Rhoda Wilson on February 7, 2024

In recent years, there has been an upsurge of concern about online misinformation and disinformation, with efforts to thwart it. In many cases, claims about false information serve to justify censorship. To better understand what’s going on, it’s useful to examine assumptions underlying the anti-misinformation enterprise.

The following is extracted from the article ‘Misinformation or Public Debate?’ written by Brian Martin and published by Propaganda in Focus.  You can read the full article HERE.

For the purposes here, there’s no need to delve into the differences between misinformation and disinformation, between being wrong sincerely versus intentionally. There’s enough research on self-deception to question whether intent can be reliably determined.

For decades, there have been fierce public controversies over health-related issues, including nuclear war, smoking, nuclear power, pesticides, fluoridation and genetically modified organisms.

In every one of these debates, partisans have claimed their opponents were wrong, misguided, biased or concealing the truth. However, the language of misinformation was not deployed. What today is called misinformation would, years ago, just be called being wrong and being wrong was seldom treated as a justification for censorship.

In 2019, the World Health Organisation listed “vaccine hesitancy” as one of the top ten threats to global health. Vaccine hesitancy refers to “the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines.”

Here, for consideration, are five assumptions that seem to underlie much of the concern about alleged covid vaccine misinformation and disinformation.

•     Misinformation warrants censorship.
•     Authorities decide what counts as misinformation.
•     Value judgements underlying the authorities’ position are not questioned.
•     False claims that serve powerful groups are ignored.
•     Censorship is an appropriate response to misinformation.

Regarding assumption #4, it’s worth noting that the intelligence agencies in many governments are well-versed in disinformation operations. Media coverage might mention foreign disinformation, but not disinformation by their own governments. Consider also the conclusion by eminent scientist John Ioannidis that most published research findings are false. How often are wrong research findings labelled misinformation?

Using the five assumptions above, censorship would be justified in a wide range of controversial issues, such as nuclear war, smoking, pesticides, and climate change. In practice, though, this has not occurred, at least not systematically. The movement against nuclear weapons, which was especially prominent in the 1980s, was not systematically censored in the West. Nor were peace campaigners condemned for promoting “nuclear weapons hesitancy.”

The historical experience concerning such issues suggests that much of the current alarm being drummed up about misinformation and disinformation is a way of justifying censorship and discrediting genuine disagreement about policies.

The Latent Fascism of Today’s Anti-Fascists

The Latent Fascism of Today’s Anti-Fascists

by Aaron Kheriaty via the Brownstone Institute

The Simone Weil Center
May 12, 2024

    "Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison." -Simone Weil

The terms “fascist” and “fascism” are continuously bandied about today. But those who use these words most seem to understand them least, such that many of today’s self-styled anti-fascists paradoxically take on the central features of fascism to an extraordinary degree.

We can see contemporary fascist tendencies manifesting on both ends of the political spectrum — not only among white supremacists but also in the character types described by Eugene Rivers as “trust fund Becky with the good hair revolutionary communist” or “white boy Carl the anarchist from the Upper East Side who is a junior at Sarah Lawrence.”

Fascism is obviously worth opposing, but to be truly anti-fascist requires an understanding of how this ideology manifests in history and what the word actually designates. Already by the end of World War II, George Orwell noted that the term “fascist” was used so indiscriminately that it had become degraded to the level of a swearword synonymous with “bully.”

Contrary to popular belief, fascism does not represent counterrevolutionary or reactionary opposition to progressive ideas in the name of tradition. Many thinkers advanced this mistaken interpretation during the postwar period, including, among others, Umberto Eco’s list of “Ur-Fascist” features published in the New York Review of Books in 1995, Theodore Adorno’s concept of the “authoritarian personality” described in his influential 1950 book of that title, Wilhelm Reich (1946) and Eric Fromm’s (1973) psychoanalytic interpretations of repressive systems, and Antonio Gramsci’s (1929) widely accepted myth that fascism was a counterrevolutionary movement of the “petit bourgeois.”

The common mistake of all these interpretations involves generalizing the idea of fascism to include any movement that is either authoritarian or inclined to defend the past. This interpretation stems from an axiological faith (that is precisely the right word) in the value of modernity in the wake of the French Revolution.

Modernity is taken to be an inevitable and irreversible process of secularization and human progress, in which the question of transcendence — whether broadly Platonic or Christian — has entirely vanished, and in which novelty is synonymous with positivity. Progress rests upon the ongoing expansion of technology and individual autonomy. Everything, including knowledge, becomes a tool to pursue affluence, comfort, and well-being.

According to this faith in modernity, to be good is to embrace the progressive direction of history; to be evil is to resist it. Since fascism is clearly evil, it cannot be a development of modernity itself but must be “reactionary.” On this view fascism includes all those who fear worldly progress, have a psychological need for a strong social order to protect them, venerate and idealize a past historical moment, and so endow a leader with immense power to instantiate this.

“According to this interpretation,” Augusto Del Noce wrote, “Fascism is a sin against the progressive movement of history;” indeed, “every sin boils down to a sin against the direction of history.”

This characterization of fascism is almost entirely mistaken and misses its central features. Giovanni Gentile, the Italian “philosopher of fascism” and Benito Mussolini’s ghostwriter, penned an early book on the philosophy of Karl Marx. Gentile attempted to extract from Marxism the dialectic core of revolutionary socialism while rejecting Marxist materialism. As the authentic interpreter of Marxist thought, Lenin naturally rejected this heretical move, reaffirming the unbreakable unity between radical materialism and revolutionary action.

Like Gentile, Mussolini himself spoke of “what is alive and what is dead in Marx” in his speech on May 1, 1911. He affirmed Marx’s core revolutionary doctrine — the liberation of man through the replacement of religion by politics — even while he rejected Marxist utopianism, which was the aspect of Marxism that made it a kind of secular religion. In fascism, the revolutionary spirit separated from materialism becomes a mystique of action for its own sake.

Scholars of fascism have noted both a “mysterious proximity and distance between Mussolini and Lenin.” In the 1920s Mussolini was constantly glancing in the rearview mirror at Lenin as a rival revolutionary in a kind of mimetic dance. In his will to dominate, Mussolini spontaneously identified himself with the Fatherland and with his own people; however, there was no trace in this of any tradition that he affirmed and defended.

In its origins and aims fascism is thus not so much a reactionary-traditionalist phenomenon, but a secondary and degenerative development of Marxist revolutionary thought. It represents a stage in the modern process of political secularization that started with Lenin. This claim may occasion controversy, but a philosophical and historical examination of fascism reveals it to be accurate.

We easily miss these features if we focus exclusively on the obvious political opposition between fascism and communism during the Spanish Civil War and World War II. The fact that their philosophies share common genealogical roots and revolutionary ideals means neither that Lenin was a fascist (he was not) nor that fascism and communism are the same thing (they are not and fought to the death to prove it). Keep in mind, however, that an enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Fascism understands itself to be a revolutionary and progressive manifestation of power. As in communism, fascism replaces traditional religious principles with a secular religion in which the future — rather than an idealized past or meta-historical ideals — becomes an idol. Politics replaces religion in the quest to liberate humankind. Contrary to popular characterizations, fascism makes no attempt to preserve a heritage of traditional values against the advance of progress (one only has to look at fascist architecture for confirmation of this). Instead, it proceeds as the unfolding in history of a wholly novel and unprecedented power.

Nazism was not so much an extreme form of fascism but the mirror image inversion of communism (the revolution in reverse). It added to fascism’s features its own origin myth, which necessarily had to reach back to pre-history. Its odious blood-and-soil socialist nationalism inverted Marxist universalism, but likewise resulted in the most extreme expression of colonialism. As with fascism and communism, Nazism was always ahistorical and entirely uninterested in preserving anything meaningful from the past.

Rather than looking back to history or to trans-historical values, fascism strains forward and advances by means of a “creative destruction” that feels entitled to overturn everything standing in its way. Action for its own sake takes on a particular aura and mystique. The fascist unflinchingly appropriates and commandeers various sources of energy — whether human, cultural, religious, or technical — to remake and transform reality. As this ideology presses its advance, it makes no attempt to conform to any higher truth or moral order. Reality is simply that which must be overcome.

Like the postwar interpreters of fascism mentioned above, many today mistakenly believe that fascism is grounded in strong metaphysical truth claims — that fascist authoritarian personalities somehow believe they possess a monopoly on the truth. On the contrary, as Mussolini himself explained with absolute clarity, fascism is entirely grounded in relativism:

    If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and for those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.

The horrors of World War II were misdiagnosed by the postwar intellectuals’ mistaken interpretation of fascism and Nazism: these ideologies, and the bloodbath they unleashed, represented not the failure of the European tradition but the crisis of modernity — the outcome of the age of secularization.

What are the ethical consequences of fascism? Once value is attributed to pure action, other people cease to be ends in themselves and become mere instruments, or obstacles, to the fascist political program. The logic of the fascist’s “creative” activism leads him to deny other people’s personhood and individuality, to reduce persons to mere objects. Once individuals are instrumentalized, it no longer makes sense to speak of moral duties towards them. Others are either useful and deployed or they are useless and discarded.

This accounts for the extraordinary narcissism and solipsism characteristic of fascist leaders and functionaries: anyone who embraces this ideology acts as though he is the only person who really exists. The fascist lacks any sense of the purpose of law, or any reverence for a binding moral order. He embraces instead his own raw will to power: laws and other social institutions are mere tools deployed in the service of this power. Because the fascist’s action requires no ultimate end, and conforms to no transcendent ethical norm or spiritual authority, various tactics can be embraced or discarded at whim — propaganda, violence, coercion, desecration, erasure, etc.

Although fascists fancy themselves creative, their actions can only destroy. Taboos are torn down indiscriminately and at will. Symbols rich with meaning — moral, historical, religious, cultural — are ripped from their context and weaponized. The past is nothing but an ideological tool or cipher: one can rummage around in history for useful images or slogans to deploy in service of expansive power; but wherever it is not useful for this purpose, history is discarded, defaced, toppled, or simply ignored as though it never existed.

What are fascism’s stated ideals — what is it supposedly for? By design, this is never made entirely clear, except to say that novelty for its own sake assumes a positive value. If anything is held sacred it is violence. As in Marxism, the word “revolution” takes on an almost magical, mystical significance. But as I explained in Part II of this series, the ideology of total revolution only ends up strengthening the present order and the stronghold of the elites, by burning away those residual elements of tradition that make possible a moral critique of this order.

The result is nihilism. Fascism celebrates an optimistic (but empty) cult of victory through force. In a reactionary backlash, neo-fascist “anti-fascists” mirror this spirit by a pessimistic passion for the defeated. In both cases, the same spirit of negation prevails.

With this description in mind, we can understand why the word “fascism” logically boomerangs back on many of today’s self-styled anti-fascists. The practical upshot for our culture wars is not merely that the cure might be worse than the disease, but that the most radical “cure” in this case just is the disease. The danger is that a thinly veiled fascism — marching mendaciously under an anti-fascist banner — will overtake and absorb legitimate attempts to cure our ills, including ethically valid attempts to cure the cancer of racism or address other societal injustices.

The same faith in modernity that led to mistaken interpretations of fascism after World War II also forces contemporary history and politics into unhelpful categories. If we question this axiological faith in the idea of modernity, we can establish a clearer view of 20th-century ideologies and their current manifestations. This entails neither automatically identifying the modernist or progressive view as anti-fascist, nor equating all forms of traditionalism (at least potentially) with fascism.

In fact, the distinction between traditionalists (if I must use this unsatisfying term) and progressives is apparent in the different ways they oppose fascism. By tradition I don’t mean reverence for a static repository of fixed forms or a desire to return to an idealized period of the past; rather, I refer to the etymological meaning of that which we “hand on” (tradere) and thereby make new. A culture that has nothing of value to bequeath is a culture that has already perished. This understanding of tradition leads to a critique of modernity’s premise of inevitable progress — a groundless myth we should discard precisely to avoid repeating the horrors of the 20th century.

This critique of modernity, and the rejection of ethics as “the direction of history,” leads to other insights regarding our present crisis. Rather than the standard left-right, liberal-conservative, progressive-reactionary categories of interpretation, we can see instead that the real political divide today is between perfectists and anti-perfectists. The former believe in the possibility of complete liberation of humanity through politics, whereas the latter regard this as a perennial error grounded in a denial of inherent human limitations. The acceptance of such limitations is elegantly expressed in Solzhenitsyn’s insight that the line between good and evil passes first neither through classes, nor nations, nor political parties, but right through the center of every human heart.

We are all aware of the horrifying consequences that follow when fascism slides, as it readily does, into totalitarianism. But consider that the defining feature of all totalitarianisms is not concentration camps or secret police or constant surveillance — though these are all bad enough. The common feature, as Del Noce pointed out, is the denial of the universality of reason. With this denial, all truth claims are interpreted as historically or materially determined, and thus, as ideology. This leads to the assertion that there is no rationality as such — only bourgeois reason and proletariat reason, or Jewish reason and Aryan reason, or black reason and white reason, or progressive reason and reactionary reason, and so forth.

One’s rational arguments are then taken to be mere mystifications or justifications and are summarily dismissed: “You think such-and-such only because you are [fill in the blank with various markers of identity, class, nationality, race, political persuasion, etc.].” This marks the death of dialogue and reasoned debate. It also accounts for the literally “loopy” closed-loop epistemology of contemporary social justice advocates of the critical theory school: anyone who denies being a [fill-in-the-blank epithet] only further confirms that the label applies, so one’s only option is to accept the label. Heads-I-win; tails-you-lose.

In such a society there can be no shared deliberation rooted in our participation in a higher Logos (word, reason, plan, order) that transcends each individual. As happened historically with all forms of fascism, culture — the realm of ideas and shared ideals — is absorbed into politics, and politics becomes total war. From within this framework, one can no longer admit any conception of legitimate authority, in the enriching etymological sense of “to make grow,” where we also derive the word “author.” All authority is instead conflated with power, and power is nothing but brute force.

Since persuasion through shared reasoning and deliberation is pointless, lying becomes the norm. Language is not capable of revealing truth, which compels assent without negating our freedom. Instead, words are mere symbols to be manipulated. A fascist does not attempt to persuade his interlocutor, he merely overpowers him — using words when these serve to silence the enemy or deploying other means when words will not do the trick.

This is always how things begin, and as the internal logic unfolds, the rest of the totalitarian apparatus inevitably follows. Once we grasp fascism’s deep roots and central features, one essential consequence becomes clear. Anti-fascist efforts can succeed only by starting from the premise of a universal shared rationality. Authentic anti-fascism will therefore always seek to employ nonviolent means of persuasion, appealing to evidence and to the conscience of one’s interlocutor. The problem is not just that other methods of opposing fascism will be pragmatically ineffective, but that they will unwittingly but inevitably come to resemble the enemy they claim to oppose.

We can look to Simone Weil as an authentic and exemplary anti-fascist figure. Weil always wanted to be on the side of the oppressed. She lived this conviction with exceptional single-mindedness and purity. As she relentlessly pursued the idea of justice inscribed in the human heart, she passed through a revolutionary phase, followed by a gnostic phase, before she finally rediscovered the Platonic tradition — the perennial philosophy of our shared participation in the Logos — with its universal criterion of truth and the primacy of the good. She arrived here precisely through her anti-fascist commitments, which entailed a rebellion against every delusional deification of man. Weil emerged from the modern world and its contradictions the way a prisoner emerges from Plato’s cave.

After volunteering to fight with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, Weil broke with the illusory anti-fascism of Marxist revolutionary thought. Recognizing that, in the end, “evil produces only evil and good produces only good,” and “the future is made of the same stuff as the present,” she discovered a more enduring anti-fascist position. This led her to call the destruction of the past “perhaps the greatest of all crimes.”

In her last book, written a few months before she died in 1943, Weil elaborated on the limits of both fascist vitalism and Marxist materialism: “Either we must perceive at work in the universe, alongside force, a principle of a different kind, or else we must recognize force as being the unique and sovereign ruler over human relations also.”

Weil was thoroughly secular prior to her philosophical conversion and her subsequent mystical experiences: her rediscovery of classical philosophy occurred not through any sort of traditionalism, but by living the ethical question of justice with full intellectual honesty and total personal commitment. In pursuing this question to the end, she came to see that human self-redemption — fascism’s ideal — is actually an idol. Those who want to be truly anti-fascist would do well to explore Weil’s writings. I will give her the last word, which contains the seeds of the way out of our crisis. In one of her last essays, she offers us not a counsel of facile optimism, but a beautiful thought about our unconquerable receptivity to grace:

    At the bottom of the heart of every human being, from earliest infancy until the tomb, there is something that goes on indomitably expecting, in the teeth of all experience of crimes committed, suffered, and witnessed, that good and not evil will be done to him. It is this above all that is sacred in every human being.

- - -
Aaron Kheriaty, Senior Brownstone Institute Counselor, is a Scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, DC. He is a former Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine School of Medicine, where he was the director of Medical Ethics.

EU Transformed into a War Party

EU Transformed into a War Party

Hungarian PM Orban unveils Background of Fico’s Murder Attempt

By Fabio G. C. Carisio
May 17, 2024

By Carlo Domenico Cristofori

“Everyone was shocked and shaken” by the attempted murder of Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico.

“When it happens, it is always unexpected, but the fact that the level of violence in Europe is increasing does not surprise anyone,” said Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in an interview with Radio Kossuth.

    “Europe’s position has now radically changed,” he added, recalling the terrorist attacks in Europe and the Russian war in Ukraine, which, in his opinion, has transformed the EU into a “war party,”Orban noted.

Slovak interior minister: “Fico shooter protested suspension of Ukraine military aid”

The man who critically injured Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico on Wednesday was a fierce critic of the latter’s decision to stop arms shipments to Ukraine, Interior Minister Matuss Sutaj Estok has said, according to RT.

    Fico was shot at point-blank range several times on Wednesday as he greeted supporters in the small town of Handlova. The assailant was immediately arrested and the prime minister was rushed to a hospital in serious condition. Local authorities said earlier that there was a “clear political motivation” behind the attack.

Media reports identified the attacker as Juraj Cintula, 71, said to be the founder of the Slovak Association of Writers and a supporter of the opposition Progressive Slovakia party.

On Tuesday, Sutaj Estok confirmed earlier media reports that “the perpetrator is charged with the premeditated crime of attempted murder” and stressed that this was “a politically motivated act.”

According to the minister, the suspect closely followed domestic and international events, and protested against several government policies, including the closure of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, and the suspension of military aid to Ukraine. Fico, a critic of the Western stance on the Ukraine conflict, campaigned on a promise to cut arms deliveries to Kiev, which he proceeded to do after taking over as prime minister after the election last autumn’

“He stated these reasons why he disagrees with the government policy and why he decided to assassinate the Prime Minister,” Sutaj Estok said, describing the attacker as “the so-called lonely wolf” not linked to any groups.

    He noted that the suspect’s actions were in part accelerated by the recent victory of Peter Pellegrini, an ally of Fico, in the presidential election. The term of the current president, Zuzana Caputova, described as having pro-Western leanings, expires next month. Both Pellegrini and Caputova have denounced the attack, describing it as a threat to democracy.

EU Big Brother is Watching News of Fico Assassination Attempt

According to a report this morning in BNN Bloomberg:

    The European Commission said it’s “actively monitoring” the spread of fake news about Wednesday’s shooting Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and warned it can slap Big Tech platforms with fines for failing to tackle disinformation.

The regulator “is equipped with wide-ranging investigatory and supervisory powers, including the power to impose sanctions and remedies,” it said in an emailed statement.

Violations could be punished under the European Union’s tough new Digital Services Act, which forces online platforms to put into place measures to tackle illegal content and disinformation, uphold user rights, and protect user’s health and wellbeing.

«In other words, the European Commission has already decided the orthodox narrative of this crime—even before a full and transparent investigation has been performed—and will censor any theory or narrative of the crime that diverges from the orthodoxy» Courageous Discourse commented…
Orban: “Slovakia’s Fico between life and death, it is loss for Slovakia, Hungary”

The Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico, who was shot earlier, is currently between life and death, and this is a horrible loss not only for Slovakia, but for Hungary, as well, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said.

He pointed out that he and his Slovak counterpart adhered to similar views on many international issues, including in regards to the conflict in Ukraine.

    “We pray for the Prime Minister of Slovakia, we are concerned about him and, of course, we wish him to recover and get back to work as soon as possible. Right now, Robert Fico fights for his life, he is between life and death,” Orban said as reported by TASS Russian News Agency.

“However,” the prime minister continued, “if we look at this situation from a political standpoint, it is a horrible loss for Hungary, because, even if the prime minister of Slovakia recovers, he would not be able to work for several months.”

Orban believes that the upcoming months will be extremely important for the future of Europe in due to the upcoming European Parliament elections and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Fico was shot on May 15 in the city of Handlova in the western part of Slovakia. The Prime Minister sustained gunshot wounds to the chest, to the abdomen and to an extremity; he underwent surgery, he is in serious condition, but the medics believe that the threat to life has passed.

The attacker has been detained. According to the Slovak media, the assailant, writer Juraj Cintula, has been detained and charged with an attempted assassination of the prime minister over political motives.

US-EU interfere in India’s 2024 Lok Sabha elections

Mis-Dis information attacks, using so-called journalists (actually disguised CIA-MI6 operatives), are carried out to interfere in the election process of all non-Western countries...

Washington And Brussels Spent Millions to Interfere In India’s 2024 Lok Sabha Elections
Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher
07.06.2024

A new report has exposed Western efforts to interfere in India’s 2024 Lok Sabha Elections (19 April to 1 June), with particular focus put on the Henry Luce Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, and the French Indologist and political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot for their roles in peddling a “particular narrative.”

In a report titled ‘The Invisible Hands: Foreign Interference in Indian Elections 2024,’ DisInfo Lab  found that the Indian elections experienced massive interference from China and Israel but that “the most significant remains obscure – The Western interference: From EU to the US.”

    “Unfortunately, as millions of Indians were deciding their future, a section of the global media and academia was planning a sinister plot to influence their decisions through an orchestrated and well-funded plan,” the 85-page report states, adding that even Indian “conduits” were possibly part of this plan.

The report highlighted that unjustified criticism of Indian institutions and the country’s human rights record under Prime Minister Narendra Modi “peaked” in the six months before the election.

    “These elections saw the most intrusive foreign reporting – overwhelmingly negative and obviously brazen. Tropes from the ‘Western media’ heavily laced with hyper adjectives and double standards forcing a meta narrative into the bloodstream of [the] internet. Like they were in a competitive mud-slinging tournament,” the report said with an attached image of BBC, Reuters and other Western media headlines that included: “AI and deepfakes blur reality in India elections,” “Modi’s party accused of demonising Muslims in video,” “The End of Secular India,” and “How an Indian state became a testing ground for Hindu nationalism.”

Disinfo Lab also highlighted that Western media attacks were not limited to the Anglosphere, with criticism of India particularly evident in the French daily Le Monde.

    “While analysing the buzz around Indian elections, it was also observed that Jaffrelot had also been the key source of most of these articles from other Western media and a segment of Indian media platforms especially targeting the Indian elections,” according to the research organisation, which went on to explain how the French Indologist had previously been caught out spreading fake news related to “caste census.”

    “In 2021, Christophe Jaffrelot published a research report on the need for a caste census in India, and subsequently wrote articles in Indian media. And surprisingly, in a country of 1.4 billion, he single-handedly managed to put this topic into public discourse, which was also helped by election season. This was a remarkable feat by any academician,” Disinfo Lab said.

The report reveals that Jaffrelot was one of the many academics and think tanks funded by the US-based Henry Luce Foundation (HLF), established by TIME Magazine founder Henry Luce, who was part of the CIA’s project Mocking Bird, which used the media and journalists, including TIME, for its covert ops.

One of the projects that Jaffrelot received funding for was “Muslims in a Time of Hindu Majoritarianism.” This was to the tune of $385,000 from HLF. The HLF, staffed by many ex-US government officials and think tankers with known connections to the US establishment, also funded the project ‘The Hindu Right and India’s Religious Diplomacy’ at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs.

HLF also provided a $120,000 sponsorship to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, under which it wrote such articles as ‘Hindu Nationalism: From Ethnic Identity to Authoritarian Repression,’ ‘Religion, Citizenship, and Belonging in India,’ ‘Religion-as-Ethnicity and the Emerging Hindu Vote in India’ and others.

In fact, according to Disinfo Lab, HLF supported Human Rights Watch with $300,000 for a project to document religious violence in Asia, specifically in Myanmar, Indonesia, and India. HLF also funded anti-BJP academics in the US, including California-based activist Angana P. Chatterji and Audrey Truschke, an academic at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (SUNY).

The DisInfo LAb article mentions the role of billionaire George Soros and his charity OSF in spreading negative views about India and Modi. Jaffrelot was not the only recipient of vast sums of money from Soros, with the foundation of Canadian-Indian activist Ricken Patel, the Namati Foundation, receiving millions from OSF between 2016 and 2022, which helped fund several anti-India projects.

The report notes that in 2023, Patel began chairing a ‘Friends of Democracy’ group whose stated goal was to “fight against the ruling party” to save India. Co-chaired by Soros’ son Jonathan Soros, the Friends of Democracy spread “propaganda” on topics such as Russian oil purchases by India, with views closely resembling those of the US government.

“And how does ‘Friends of Democracy’ save India? By carrying out propaganda against India buying Russian oil. If you have any confusion about what narrative has to be, Patel Bhai has sorted this out for us,” the report states.

And this is where the crux of the issue is. Although the West welcomes a rising India as a counterweight to China, there is also frustration that Modi follows an agenda that prioritises Indian interests, such as the mass purchase of cheap Russian energy. So long as Modi continues pursuing agendas and policies that put India’s interests first instead of the West’s, it can be expected that disinformation campaigns will not only continue but escalate.