Fake, woke & authoritarian: Why does Canada continue to take the insultingly insincere Justin Trudeau seriously?

 

Oct 9, 2021, RT.com

Eva Bartlett

Canada’s pointless prime minister is a vacuous, self-aggrandising, borderline despot incapable of even keeping up the pretence he cares a jot about the people unfortunate enough to be governed by the privileged charlatan.

Just weeks post federal elections, the muppet PM of Canada, Justin Trudeau, has given up all pretense of being a serious politician and instead returned to his norm of idiocy, offensive gaffs, scandals, and increasing the authoritarianism Canadians have endured the past 18+ months (but which Trudeau and other leaders have flouted). 

On September 30, the day of Canada’s newly-established National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, instead of himself abiding by the words of his (clearly-scripted and hollow) statement, Trudeau skipped off West to hit the waves and walk on the beach with his wife and kids. 

The statement included Trudeau inviting Canadians, “to reflect on the painful and lasting impacts of residential schools in Canada, and to honour survivors, their families, and their communities,” and, “to remember the many children who never returned home.”

This he did by ignoring requests of Indigenous communities to visit, instead opting for family fun time in Tofino, a holiday town on Vancouver Island. 

This is hardly surprising, given he is merely the face of the government of Canada, the same government which has paid lip service to caring about Indigenous peoples, but continues to allow many communities to boil contaminated water rather than solving the dangerous health issue.  

Trudeau’s choice to go surfing on the very day of the first year of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, was, in my opinion, him revealing how little he cares for the issues he feigns concern over. 

A week later, he donned his pretend-sincere face and uttered the empty words, “Travelling on the 30th was a mistake and I regret it.” 

Nah. He doesn’t regret it, he regrets getting caught. Or as a survivor of the genocidal ‘residential school’ system said, “this just shows us survivors that he doesn’t actually want to meet with us. He’s just hoping that we will just disappear into the sunset.” 

Last July I wrote of the sudden media attention regarding the horrific issue of the Canada-wide ‘residential schools’, where starvation, torture, and sexual, physical and mental abuse were rife. 

In a follow up article, I cited an interview I conducted with Roland Chrisjohn, a PhD-educated clinical psychologist and head of the Native Studies department at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick, who spoke of Canada’s long history of covering up the crimes against Indigenous children imprisoned in the ‘schools’. 

Trudeau’s latest failure to show any semblance of genuine remorse over these crimes was noted in the backlash on social media, including in response to his virtue-signalling tweet after the fact.

From crass to crazy 

More recently, Trudeau took to Twitter tweeting about “lighting candles to honour Indigenous women, girls,” and adding his own version of inclusivity, 2SLGBTQQIA, that left even the wokest confused, and many mocking his idiocy. 

The 2SL of that Trudeauism apparently referred to ‘Two-spirit’, or “a person who identifies as having both a masculine and a feminine spirit and is used by some Indigenous North Americans to describe their sexual identity.”

Although Team Trudeau thought they were ahead of the woke game, he instead, once again, looked like an idiot in a suit pretending to be a leader.  One whose Twitter settings should include parental guidance, for his own good.

Trudeau’s authoritarianism 

While the PM might garner a tad of sympathy from charitably-minded people who perhaps, mistakenly, think the guy has his heart in the right place but keeps mucking up with his idiotic gaffes, many Canadians are rightly pissed off by his, and Canada’s, authoritarian streak over the past two years.

Ontario has had one of the longest and most brutal lockdowns in the world – though the tyranny in Australia has superseded that of Ontario. 

Earlier this year, Canada decided to re-invent science and declare that natural immunity to Covid-19 isn’t acceptable, only the fast-tracked Big Pharma jabs, meaning that many Canadians, myself-included, cannot return to Canada.

In the leadup to the rushed election, Trudeau said unvaccinated citizens should be banned from planes, trains & buses, and called on the populace to shame and condemn the anti-vaxxers as a “danger.”

This week, Trudeau announced Canadians aged 12 and up will be forced to be jabbed in order to travel. 

And Trudeau’s government will tighten the noose further, implementing prison-state rules about travel by the end of November: only fully vaccinated Canadians can travel.  

This is unsurprising to those who have followed Canada’s not so subtle slide towards tyranny. Nor is it surprising after over a year of Covid-19-related psychological operations against the Canadian people, with the intent of “shaping and exploiting” information, discouraging civil disobedience, and boosting confidence in the government’s narratives on matters pandemic. 

Although I believe that whoever the muppet leader of Canada is, the policies would largely be the same, the Trudeau brand is truly repugnant. 

Canadians are doomed with years more fake, woke and authoritarian non-leadership, with no imminent solution in sight other than mass civil disobedience. But sadly, the combination of idiotic and distracting identity politics and the media fear mongering will ensure that this does not happen.

RELATED:

–Canadians, if you aren’t furious at the politicians flagrantly flouting the Covid safety measures they imposed, you should be

–Media is FINALLY covering immense crimes against indigenous peoples in Canada that were known about DECADES ago. So why now?

–Residential schools are a stain on Canada’s history that won’t be erased simply by appointing an indigenous Governor Generalhttps://www.youtube.com/embed/fibNBUrtEeA?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent

-Ontario has had the longest lockdown in North America – which has been so successful it’s just gone into another one

–I’ll likely only see my family on a screen from now on, because I don’t want the Covid jab. What happened to ‘my body, my choice’?

–It’s utterly unacceptable that Canada’s military ran a secret psyops campaign to manipulate & control the public’s views on Covid

–The media’s addiction to Covid-19 ‘fear porn’ is perpetuating an ever-worsening cycle of societal damage across the world

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Ian Jenkins: “George Monbiot’s Far-Right Projection”

 October 8, 2021

image via Off Guardian

Absolutely brilliant article by Ian Jenkins, published at Off Guardian.

“George Monbiot is shocked.

But what has shocked George is not the rising tide of poverty and starvation in the world or the unprecedented transfer of wealth to a tiny number of oligarchs.

He is not shocked by the practical collapse of the rule of law or by the brutal actions of police officers in nations claiming to be liberal democracies.

It is possible that these things shock him as well, but if so, there is no sign of this in his recent article for the Guardian.

No. Monbiot is shocked by “leftwingers” being “lured” to the “far right” by “conspiracy theories” in the context of resistance to state measures in relation to Covid-19, including opposition to lockdowns, removal of basic civil rights, mass vaccination with experimental mRNA technology and the prospect of vaccine “passes” or even mandatory vaccination.

In employing these terms Monbiot’s article is a distillation of the familiar techniques used to attack dissenting voices on Covid during the past 18 months and for a considerably longer time on other issues such as climate change, Brexit and globalisation.

This form of attack –always in defence of dominant or mainstream narratives and the actions of governments and their corporate “partners” and always expressed in terms of “concern” – employs pejorative terms such as “far right”, “white supremacist” without defining them adequately or at all.

We are never asked to consider what we understand by the term “far right” or how the label “conspiracy theory” – itself a category with a fascinating back story and history for employment by state powers to attack critics and deflect legitimate questioning – is being used and no attempt is made to define where the line lies between legitimate questions and analysis and more fantastical or “extremist” explanations of events.

A detailed discussion of these terms goes beyond the remit of this response to Monbiot’s article – but it is worth noting that, as would be expected, they are not defined with any clarity by Monbiot.

[Eva’s note: This is precisely what this immoral shill did re matters Syria: Smeared those of us who took principled stances against the war on Syria, called us names “genocide deniers”, “conspiracy theorists”, etc…, and served the dominant narratives & their murderous agenda in Syria.]

However, regardless of what he means by these labels, his piece is so fundamentally based on logically fallacies and so scattergun in the way he employs them that it is sufficient to confront his claims on their own lack of coherence.

Monbiot opens his article with an anecdotal warning that acquaintances of his within the “countercultural movements where my sympathies lie” are “dropping like flies” from the deadly plague of Covid.

This opens of the question of how this assertion matches current data and whether Monbiot’s experience matches those of the public at large.

Whether this perception of sweeping pestilence is borne out by statistics or not, Monbiot states that this is not a general plague, visited randomly on all such acquaintances, but is one only affecting those with “anti-vax” beliefs.

These are the crazy folk advocating outlandish ideas like the benefits of “natural immunity” (which Monbiot places in scare quotes, presumably in case his readers might think that the human immune system was a real thing) or “denouncing vaccines and refusing to take the precautions that apply to lesser mortals”.

As a result of their sins against “the Science”, regardless of readily available statistics on the inefficacy of these “precautions”, some have been hospitalised Monbiot tells us – though where this is happening and due what underlying or operating causes is unclear.

It is worth noting at this point that Monbiot is at pains throughout this article to locate himself as part of a “counterculture” or “alternative scene” while devoting the entire piece to repeating mainstream narratives and attacking those who oppose them.

Quite how a Brasenose-educated mainstream journalist (whose previous “activism” earned him a visiting fellowship at Oxford’s Green College at the behest of a former UK ambassador to the UN) qualifies as a figure on the “alternative scene” is a question that could quite legitimately be asked.

Not content to bemoan that his “countercultural” acquaintances are putting their own lives at risk – Monbiot then accuses them of “actively threatening the lives of others”.

This shifts these non-complying leftists from a state of recklessness regarding their own health and into the realm of criminal intent.

This is a technique that anyone who has been questioning the mainstream Covid narrative will be familiar with – having spent 18 months being accused of wanting to kill grannies and murder the vulnerable: even in the face of mounting evidence that it is the state that has been engaged in the culling of these groups and which has certainly been responsible for their immiseration.

The thought process for this imputation of homicidal intent runs like this: masks, lockdowns and vaccines prevent transmission, transmission equals disease and disease equals death.

There is, of course, ample scientific evidence to question each stage of this chain of causation [see here], but Monbiot merely asserts each causal step as unassailable truth sufficient to impute murderous intent to all who fail to comply with the edicts of the biosecurity state.

It could be said in response that it would be possible to lay similar accusation of “threatening the lives of others” against those, like Monbiot himself, who advance the ideology of “net zero” – which would likely result in innumerable deaths from starvation and exposure to cold – but that would be to adopt the tactics of one’s opponent and as Marcus Aurelius put it – “the best revenge is not to be like your enemy”.

Having attributed murderous intent on those holding “anti-vax beliefs” Monbiot now casts his net wider to bemoan the passage of “conspiracy theories travelling smoothly from right to left”, including the claims of “white supremacists”, which he states the misguided children of the left are repeating without knowing their origin.

Monbiot does not trouble himself to identify the nature of these white supremacist claims before moving swiftly on to decry the tragic situation in which:

hippies who once sought to build communities [are] sharing the memes of extreme individualism […] spreading QAnon lies and muttering about a conspiracy against Donald Trump

And bemoan that:

the old boundaries have broken down, and the most unlikely people have become susceptible to rightwing extremism”.

There is no attempt to define what is meant by “rightwing extremism” at this point, with Monbiot finding it sufficient to present anecdotal evidence of muttering QAnon hippies – a group I must confess to have never encountered in the ranks of those opposing the Covid agenda, where the QAnon psyop is more likely to be mocked than embraced.

The reader is left none the wiser as to what “extreme individualism” means either. Maybe these “hippies” are inventing their own personal languages or choosing to live as hermits?

But despite the absence of any concrete examples that might act as a warning to the unwary, Monbiot is still concerned that this is a sign of something going “badly wrong in parts of the alternative scene”.

In fact, Monbiot is merely employing the fallacy of composition – the logical fallacy so beloved of many on the modern so-called “left”, in which an entire, highly diverse, group of people advancing versions of a particular idea can be represented by the most extreme individuals also advancing that idea.

Presumably what we are to believe here is that if a Qanon placard, hastily scrawled in crayon by some fringe nutter, is sighted at a protest or if some misguided basement-dweller comments on a Facebook thread then all attending the protest or commenting on the thread are of one mind with these outliers.

Such shoddy thinking has been the mainstay of those employing agents provocateur to discredit movements and campaigns in the past.

It is at this point – perhaps inevitably given the general adherence to Godwin’s Law amongst his milieu – that Monbiot, in an attempt to tie the ideas of these misguided counter-culturalists to the “far-right”, embarks on a rather woolly, cherry-picking and historically inaccurate identification of an “overlap” between “new age” and “far-right” ideas – specifically with Nazi ideology.

There has long been an overlap between certain new age and far-right ideas. The Nazis embraced astrology, pagan festivals, organic farming, forest conservation, ecological education and nature worship.

Monbiot draws attention to the Nazis’ embrace of “pagan festivals, organic farming, forest conservation, ecological education and nature worship”. But then seemingly not quite sure where he is going with this line of thought, and perhaps perceiving the possibility that as a “green” activist himself he is in danger of associating himself with Nazi ideology, he quickly regroups and states that the Nazis also…

promoted homeopathy and “natural healing”, and tended to resist vaccination.

At this point, Monbiot at least has the decency to point out that just because someone believes in natural medicine and ecology, they are not necessarily a Nazi, which is very good of him and is no doubt a comfort to many of his readers who would identify themselves as being part of the Green movement.

However, it is what Monbiot fails to say about the Nazis that is most telling.

After all, at the Nuremberg Trials, it was not homeopathic practitioners who stood trial for crimes against humanity, it was the allopathic doctors who had carried out medical experiments on the inmates of concentration camps.

And the Nuremberg Code did not set out prohibitions against “natural healing”, but rather against the administration of experimental pharmaceutical products to individuals without their informed consent.

Monbiot also fails to address the Nazi belief in population reduction as central to their views of ecology – especially the targeted removal of those deemed to be inferior and whose presence within the borders of the Third Reich was routinely represented as that of vectors of infection, an unclean influence endangering the health of the Good Germans.

It would not be difficult to find echoes of this Malthusian and eugenicist philosophy today – but Monbiot fails to do so.

It is quite a feat to take the example of the centralised totalitarian state of the Third Reich, obsessed as it was with racial purity, racial “hygiene” and conformity through the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination of all arms of the state around central narratives), and associate it with those who have concerns about matters such as individual rights, the Rule of Law and constitutionality.

Is Monbiot unaware that Nazi ideology was diametrically opposed to these values?

Monbiot also points to a process by which European fascists sought to reinvent themselves in the 1960s and 70s by entering the ecological movement to promote ideas such as ethnic separatism or indigenous autonomy. Though he again fails to explain where, and by whom, these ideas are being raised in the current situation.

Monbiot frames the anti-vaccine movement as:

a highly effective channel for the penetration of far-right ideas into leftwing countercultures”.

He then goes on to provide possibly the most bizarre non-example of this that could be imagined – even in a piece as poorly constructed and logically fragile as this – citing the invitation of “anti-vaxxer”, and well-known liberal, Robert F. Kennedy Jnr to the Trump Whitehouse as his example.

For several years, anti-vax has straddled the green left and the far right. Trump flirted with it, at one point inviting the anti-vaxxer Robert F Kennedy Jr to chair a “commission on vaccination safety and scientific integrity”.

One is left wondering at this point whether Monbiot even knows who RFK Jnr is – surely he does – and how on earth he thought this example would be the best one to present to a Guardianista audience (who still see Trump as the personification of right-wing evil), as evidence of right-wing “anti-vaxxers” influencing the left.

Monbiot’s article now dissolves into an ill-defined attack on ‘conspiracy theories’, which he claims are bolstered by Facebook directing vaccine hesitant people towards “far-right conspiracy” groups.

None of these alleged right-wing groups are named or their views described, with Monbiot being content, to:

• a) make a link, without evidence, between “wellness” movements and antisemitism
• b) mock the idea of bodily sovereignty (without defining or arguing this as a legal and/or ethical concept) and
• c) make a vague derogatory reference to beliefs in a “shadowy cabal … trying to deprive us of autonomy”.

Here Monbiot blurs the concept of some form of biological purity with the legal idea of bodily sovereignty, a piece of linguistic and conceptual legerdemain that he employs again later in his conclusion.

To be fair, in his talk of “shadowy cabals” Monbiot doesn’t mention pan-dimensional lizards or the Illuminati – but he may have just run out space to include these.

He is also not clear on where there leads people criticising high-profile globalist organisations such as the World Economic Forum – who far from being “shadowy” publish all of their plans on a glossy website and upload talks and panel discussions from their glitzy annual meetings at Davos.

Of the censorship of legitimate opinion on Facebook, which will be far more familiar to most than being steered to a neo-Nazi group, Monbiot makes no mention.

Monbiot then surrenders any pretence at argument and reminds the reader that they “should never discount the role of sheer bloody idiocy” amongst critics of the biosecurity state and brings up the “Pureblood” meme.

There’s a temptation to overthink this, and we should never discount the role of sheer bloody idiocy. Some anti-vaxxers are now calling themselves “purebloods”, a term that should send a chill through anyone even vaguely acquainted with 20th-century history.

If you are unfamiliar with this fringe social media phenomena, it is one in which the unvaccinated borrow a term from Harry Potter to distinguish themselves from those who have received an mRNA injection. This is, without doubt, a distasteful and counterproductive meme – though its origin is difficult to establish – and provides an open goal for Monbiot (and others) to link those opposing vaccine mandates with the racial pseudoscience of the Nazis.

Ironically here Monbiot states that one cannot expect people this stupid to “detect the echo of the Nuremberg laws”, while being completely blind himself to the other striking contemporary echoes of these discriminatory laws.

It is clear that the current parallels with the Nuremberg Laws do not proceed from those using the “Pureblood” label, who do not seem in any way interested in discriminating against the vaccinated or in excluding them from normal participation in society or from accessing basic services.

In addition, though quick to raise the spectre of the Nuremberg Laws, it is worth observing that Monbiot appears have no interest whatsoever in the Nuremberg Code.

It is in the next section of his article that Monbiot comes closest to touching on something approaching truth, as he describes, without explicitly stating it to be the case, the breakdown in the relevance of a left/right divide experienced by so many over the past 18 months.

I believe this synthesis of left-alternative and rightwing cultures has been accelerated by despondency, confusion and betrayal […] there has been an almost perfect language swap. Parties that once belonged on the left talk about security and stability while those on the right talk of liberation and revolt.

He accurately describes the disillusionment of many who would have considered themselves to be on the ‘left’ as they watched “left-ish” political parties become acquiescent or even supportive of corporate power, while a libertarian right has arisen which rails against excessive corporate control, resulting in what he describes as a “perfect language swap” in which “parties that once belonged on the left talk about security and stability while those on the right talk of liberation and revolt”.

Putting aside the complete lack of evidence for this in the actions and language of the Conservative Party that governs his own country – there is still some truth to what Monbiot says here. In the past 18 months the most unquestioning and aggressive support for Covid policy has been found on the left, a position Monbiot proves as eager to defend as any other member of the “Lockdown Left” – as they have come to be known by many disappointed and outraged people of the left (myself included).

Monbiot then seeks to utilise necessity, the “tyrants plea” as Milton put it, to override the objections that some on the left may have to the criminal record of Big Pharma or their potential revulsion at the “coercive political control” of the responses to Covid.

Mass vaccination is “needed” and lockdown and other measures are “required to prevent Covid-19 spreading” – though ample data points to none of this being the case.

He then extends this free pass to tyranny to the fight against “climate breakdown” and the “collapse of biodiversity”, which he tells his reader have made “powerful agreements struck by governments” necessary – something which he admits can be hard to swallow for a left, particularly an environmental left, resistant to such power plays and instead focused on the “local and the homespun”.

Doubtless such cottage industry approaches to the environment do exist, but there is also a multi-billion dollar oligarch-funded environmental lobbying and PR industry which promotes the case for heavy-handed and society-changing ‘climate action’, and which has brought to the attention of the world such pre-fabricated prophets of doom as Greta Thunberg and funded astroturf movements such as Extinction Rebellion.

Notably Monbiot makes no mention of this whatsoever.

Feeling that he has made his case – though in fact no case has been made at all – Monbiot now arrives at his solutions, which he finds in the “hippie principle” of “balance”. (Though quite where this principle is expressed and who the particular “hippies” are Monbiot does not trouble himself to relate).

Monbiot is careful not to lose his “left” audience at this point, and emphasises that this “hippie principle” is not the ”compromised, submissive doctrine that calls itself centrism” as this leads to “extreme outcomes” such as the “Iraq war, endless economic growth and ecological disaster”.

Instead, he proposes the “balance between competing values in which true radicalism is to be found”.

Remarkably he locates this “balance” in “reason and warmth, empiricism and empathy, liberty and consideration” having demonstrated scant evidence of any of these values throughout the rest of his article.

Presumably it’s this ‘reason, warmth etc ‘ that leads to outcomes such as curtailment of civil liberties, mandatory vaccination and depopulation through pursuit of utopian goals such as zero carbon.

But it is Monbiot’s penultimate paragraph that contains his most dangerous piece of (un)reasoning. We might seek “simplicity” he regretfully opines, like some modern-day Mrs Merdle, but…

the human body, human society and the natural world are phenomenally complex and cannot be easily understood.”

All things which may be true, but which do not imply that we should not seek to understand them.

The conclusion that Monbiot draws from this is chilling:

Life is messy. Bodily and spiritual sovereignty are illusions.

The consequences of this statement cannot be overstressed. If bodily sovereignty is an illusion, where does the bar exist to the intervention of the state or any other coercive force on the individual?

There would, for instance, be no bar to rape, or to forced abortion, sterilisation or any other surgical or medical intervention on the human body.

After all, where there is no sovereignty there can be no consent.

It is to defend the idea of “bodily sovereignty” that the Nuremberg Code was drafted, and it was the discarding of this fundamental ethical concept that gave license to the experiments of Mengele.

Yet Monbiot does not pursue this idea to its logical conclusion, content to dismiss its potentially horrific consequences with a shallow and unsubstantiated statement: “there is no pure essence; we are all mudbloods”.

Here Monbiot, as he does earlier in his article, possibly wilfully, appears to confuse some biological idea of bodily purity (or absence of contamination), to which he attributes connotations of racial purity, with the legal/human rights notion of bodily sovereignty. What he means by “spiritual purity” is, again, anyone’s guess.

Monbiot concludes with a nakedly hypocritical recipe for “enlightenment” as coming from…

long and determined engagement with other people’s findings and other people’s ideas”.

Having displayed absolutely no interest in engaging in any such activities himself. “Self-realisation” he tells us, “requires constant self-questioning” – though he clearly deals in unchallengeable absolutes – and that

true freedom emerges from respect for others”.

Ignoring the inverse case that true tyranny comes from demonising, misrepresenting and disrespecting other people and their views, or by lotting together diverse individuals and ideas under ill-deserved labels such as “far-right” or “conspiracy theorist”.

It is hard to overstress how dangerous the ideas in Monbiot’s article are – a fact made worse by their seeming ubiquity in current mainstream publications and by the casual way they are introduced in relation to a range of issues to discredit legitimate questioning of dominant narratives.

The true danger we face comes not from those on the left being “seduced” by the ideas of the “far right” – a phenomena for which little evidence seems to exist. But rather that anyone would be seduced by the faux-left and superficially “spiritual” and “equitable” concepts offered by Monbiot and others.

Ideas which, when their ill-evidenced assumptions, spurious reasoning and hypocrisy are exposed, potentially light a path to horrendous destinations.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The Gibraltar Massacre

 APRIL 17, 2021BY GILAD ATZMON

By Gilad Atzmon

Gibraltar currently has the world’s worst Covid-19 death rate per capita (2791 per million at time of publication). The disaster started on December 12, when an unprecedented surge in cases was witnessed (see graph below). Until that point in time, like in other European countries, Covid cases had been in constant decline for a while. In Gibraltar, numbers of cases had been dropping for almost a month since November 13.  

What people do not know is that just a few days before Gibraltar morphed into a Covid killing zone, 273 Spanish key healthcare workers involved with Gibraltar’s elderly and vulnerable populations were reportedly inoculated with the Pfizer vaccine.

 

Gibraltar Bay radio reported on 7 December 2020, that “More than 9,200 Spanish nationals cross the Gibraltar border to work. Vaccination plans are still being drawn up, but around 273 workers working in care agencies looking after the elderly could become the first Spanish nationals to receive the Pfizer vaccine.“

The Spanish El Pais quotes Antonio Sánchez, a Spanish national and carer for two children with autism at a youth care centre who knew that he would be the amongst the first to receive the vaccine. “I am one of the first. The subcontractor company that I work for has told us that it’s very likely that they will begin vaccinating us next week [the week starting December 7].”

On 8 December elperiodico.com announced that  “the Spanish workers in the health and care sector in Gibraltar will be the first in the country to be vaccinated from Tuesday (8 December)  against coronavirus, under the Gibraltar Government vaccination program.”

Until now we have looked at Israel as the ultimate testing ground for the Pfizer experiment. As I have been reporting since the beginning of January, the outcome of the Israel/Pfizer experiment has been pretty devastating. Israel’s Covid deaths doubled in just 2 months of vaccinations. Cases of newborn Covid grew by 1600%, hospitalisations doubled and so on. 

In Britain we saw a similar surge in Covid deaths soon after the vaccination campaign was launched. In nearly every country that used the Pfizer vaccine around that time amongst other vaccines, the British mutant was blamed for the rise in cases and consequent deaths. Considering that air traffic almost ground to a halt by late December, it was already hard then to understand how the British mutant managed to spread so vastly. How, for instance, did it make Aliya to Israel to become the dominant Covid strain? How did it make it to Gibraltar, where it also became the dominant strain by late December? One possible and unfortunately obvious answer is that, unlike people, vaccines did travel in the air and all around the world.   

I do understand that the British and Israeli governments are reluctant to investigate the obvious correlation between vaccinations, cases, deaths and possibly the British mutant’s spread. An investigation into those questions may reveal that some facts related to the British mutant were known in advance.  For instance, we learned that the British mutant was identified in the UK as early as September. One may wonder, weren’t our British scientists alarmed by the possibility that the new variant may be related to vaccine trials that were taking place in the kingdom since the late summer?

Examining the most conservative Covid data available to us through the WHO and other international institutions, it is easy to study the close correlation between vaccination, cases, deaths and the spread of specific mutants (British, Brazilian, South African etc.):

In the graphs below you can easily notice that cases and deaths start to rise exponentially in shocking proximity to the launch of vaccine mass distribution campaigns.

 Yet, far more interesting is to try to understand the close relationship between vaccination and the so called ‘defeat of the virus.’ We should ask accordingly, how many people would be inoculated in a given society before we start to see a drop in Covid cases? I examined this question using the most conservative and widely circulated statistics:

Looking at Israel reveals that 30.6% of the population was rapidly vaccinated back in December before we saw a drop in cases. This intense action clearly resulted in Israel doubling its number of deaths and its health system nearly collapsing.

The case of the United Arab Emirates is almost identical. The rapid vaccination campaign was followed by an immediate surge in cases and deaths, it then took 31% of the population being vaccinated to see the first drop in numbers. 

In the UK, which was inefficient in its early mass vaccination campaign, the situation is much better. In Britain it took just 15% of the population being partly vaccinated (1 dose instead of 2) to see a clear sharp drop in cases. Despite that, the numbers of Covid death during mass vaccination surged by about 50%. We are talking about tens of thousands of people who perished.

I was therefore shocked to find already in early March that in Portugal it took just 3% of the population to be vaccinated mass vaccination to defeat Covid and see the numbers drop! 

This can be explained. If the presumably vaccine-induced mutant is twice as infectious than its ancestor and it is distributed initially through the medical system by means of shots rather than social contact, then making 3% of the population into super-spreaders may be enough to infect an entire society with a resistant mutant.

 In the cases I reviewed above, many people died and only an investigation of a criminal nature could indicate what level of consciousness, negligence or clumsiness were involved in the considerations and decisions behind mass vaccination in those relevant countries. What did our decision makers know in advance about the vaccine and possible mutants that it may induce? What have they realised along the campaign? What were the considerations and who exactly took the decisions?

Yet, the situation isn’t totally bleak as it also reasonable to assume that the unvaccinated who survived the British mutant probably bought themselves the best possible natural resilience to Covid-19 and its future mutants, something that we can’t say, unfortunately, about the vaccinated: Pfizer’s CEO admitted yesterday that the vaccinated are “likely” to be inoculated again within the next 6-12 month. Their immune systems are now dependent on Pharma’s constant supply of mRNA substances. 

 But the story of carnage in Gibraltar may provide us with a final validation of the above musings.

 33, 000 Brits live in Gibraltar. The official vaccination of the Colony didn’t start until the January 10, yet the reported Pfizer vaccinations of just 273 key health workers (less than 1% of the population) from 7 December,  if true, was enough to start a huge surge of Covid cases followed by an unprecedented spike in deaths.  Like in Israel, the UK, the UAE and many other countries, Covid vaccination was followed by a sharp rise in Covid cases.  Shockingly, the numbers of Covid cases in Gibraltar  started to drop on January 7, three days before Gibraltar started to vaccinate its entire British population.

 

 One may challenge my reading of the Gibraltar situation and wonder, ‘if the vaccines induce mutants, as you say, why didn’t the number of cases rise once vast vaccination was launched?’ A possible answer is that by January 7, 3 days before the launch of the mass vaccination campaign, Gibraltar already enjoyed strong herd immunity. Enough members of the British territory were exposed to the mutant, those who survived were immune. If I am correct here, then less than 1% of the population being vaccinated was enough to infect the entire colony with the British mutant and to buy it total herd Immunity.

I often ask myself why me, a jazz saxophonist, has to deliver analysis validated by mainstream conservative statistics and data.  Isn’t it the role of academics, health experts, the media, virologists, epidemiologists, the opposition party and the ‘Left’?

Gibraltar, like Israel, was a unique testing ground and the outcome is devastating but conclusive. But the most tormenting news is that we, the people, are betrayed in broad daylight by a united league that has drifted very far away from the Athenian ethos of science, pluralism and ethics. For me, this is certainly the scariest lesson from this so-called pandemic.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The Israeli People Committee’s April Report on the lethal impact of vaccinations

 APRIL 21, 2021 BY GILAD ATZMON

by Gilad Atzmon

The Israeli People Committee (IPC), a civilian body made of leading Israeli health experts, has published its April report into the Pfizer vaccine’s side effects.* The findings are catastrophic on every possible level.

Their verdict is that “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.”  The report is long and detailed. I will outline just some of the most devastating findings presented in the report.

“We received 288 death reports in proximity to vaccination (90% up to 10 days after the vaccination), 64% of those were men.” Yet the report states, “according to data provided by the Ministry of Health, only 45 deaths in Israel were vaccine related.” If the numbers above are sincere then Israel, which claimed to conduct a world experiment, failed to genuinely report on its experiment’s results. We often hear about blood clots caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine. For instance, we learned this morning about 300 cases of blood clots in of Europe. However, if the IPC’s findings are genuine, then in Israel alone the Pfizer vaccine may be associated with more deaths than AstraZeneca’s in the whole of Europe.   

“According to Central Bureau of Statistics data during January-February 2021, at the peak of the Israeli mass vaccination campaign, there was a 22% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared with the previous year. In fact, January-February 2021 have been the deadliest months in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates compared to corresponding months in the last 10 years.”

The IPC finds that “amongst the 20-29 age group the increase in overall mortality has been most dramatic. In this age group, we detect an increase of 32% in overall mortality in comparison with previous year.”

“Statistical analysis of information from the Central Bureau of Statistics, combined with information from the Ministry of Health, leads to the conclusion that the mortality rate amongst the vaccinated is estimated at about 1: 5000 (1: 13000 at ages 20-49, 1: 6000 at ages 50-69, 1: 1600 at ages 70+). According to this estimate, it is possible to estimate the number of deaths in Israel in proximity of the vaccine, as of today, at about 1000-1100 people.”

Again, if this statistical analysis is correct then the numbers reported by the Israeli health authorities are misleading by more than 22-fold.

Those who follow my writing are aware of my work on the undeniable correlation between vaccination, Covid-19 cases, deaths and the spread of mutant strains. The IPC confirms my observation, providing more crucial information regarding age groups. “There is a high correlation between the number of people vaccinated per day and the number of deaths per day, in the range of up to 10 days, in all age groups. Ages 20-49 – a range of 9 days from the date of vaccination to mortality, ages 50-69 – 5 days from the date of vaccination to mortality, ages 70 and up – 3 days from the date of vaccination to mortality.”

The IPC also reveals that the “the risk of mortality after the second vaccine is higher than the risk of mortality after the first vaccine.”

 But death isn’t the only risk to do with vaccination. The IPC reveals that “as of the date of publication of the report, 2066 reports of side effects have accumulated in the Civil Investigation Committee and the data continue to come in. These reports indicate damage to almost every system in the human body.…Our analysis found a relatively high rate of heart-related injuries, 26% of all cardiac events occurred in young people up to the age of 40, with the most common diagnosis in these cases being Myositis or Pericarditis. Also, a high rate of massive vaginal bleeding, neurological damage, and damage to the skeletal and skin systems has been observed. It should be noted that a significant number of reports of side effects are related, directly or indirectly, to Hypercoagulability (infarction),  Myocardial infarction, stroke, miscarriages, impaired blood flow to the limbs, pulmonary embolism.”  

In Israel, the government is desperate to vaccinate children. The IPC stresses that such a move can be disastrous.  “In light of the extent and severity of side effects, we would like to express the committee’s position that vaccinating children may also lead to side effects in them, as observed in adults, including the death of completely healthy children. Since the coronavirus does not endanger children at all, the committee believes that the Israeli government’s intention to vaccinate the children endangers their lives, health and their future development.”

The IPC stresses that “there has never been a vaccine that has affected so many people! The American VARES system presents 2204 mortality reports of vaccinated people in the United States in the first quarter of 2021, a figure that reflects an increase of thousands of percent from the annual average, which stood at 108 reports per year.”

I should mention that there has been very little coverage of the IPC’s work in the Israeli press. Those health experts are engaged in brave work, knowing that their license to work in the medical profession and livelihoods are at severe risk.  

To read the report in Hebrew click here

Donate

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!