Lew Rockwell Institute

In January 2024 Taiwan’s current President Lai Ching-te won the election against two other candidates. (Taiwan has no run off elections.)

His Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) though, which supports Taiwan’s independence from China, failed to get a majority in parliament. The opposition was thus, by controlling the budget, able to prevent Lai Ching-te from furthering a split from the Chinese homeland.

Like many recent election winners in so called democracies Lai Ching-te set out to manipulate the system to win powers the voters had been unwilling to concede to him. He organized a recall campaign against dozens of opposition lawmakers in the hope to gain a majority in parliament.

The New York Times reporting of it (archived) seemed to be in favor of this:

Voters in Taiwan face a critical decision on Saturday: whether to throw out 24 opposition lawmakers they elected just last year, in an extraordinary recall campaign that could put more power in the president’s hands but add to tensions with Beijing.

The vote threatens to flip the legislative balance in favor of President Lai Ching-te, who wants Taiwan to forge a future separate from China, against an opposition that favors closer ties with Beijing.
…
This weekend, two dozen Nationalist Party lawmakers face recall votes; an additional seven will next month.

To supporters, the “great recall” campaign reflects the vigor of Taiwan’s democracy, which emerged in the 1980s after decades of authoritarian rule under the Nationalist Party. Although a successful campaign would help Mr. Lai, many activists promoting the recalls say they are acting independently.

“We’re building a decentralized grass-roots movement,” said Molly Kuo, an organizer of one of the recall efforts in New Taipei. “We’re witnessing a deepening of democracy.”

A “decentralized grass-roots movement” that is running a well organized, millions of dollars campaign against parliament members of one specific party ???

Recall of a significant number of opposition lawmakers would make it much easier for Mr. Lai to push his agenda, which includes shifting Taiwan’s economy further from China. He could also appoint his preferred judges to Taiwan’s high court.

The recall votes were held today and the results are in. The voters did not fall for it.

In a rather pathetic attempt to cover the loss of its campaign the DDP party is urging everyone to not see the whole affair as what it is:

The defeat of a recall campaign against 24 KMT lawmakers should not be interpreted as the outcome of a struggle between political parties, the DPP argued Saturday.

Results showed all 24 legislators survived the vote, with anti-recall votes surpassing pro-recall in every election district, per the Central Election Commission.
…
Speaking to reporters Saturday evening, DPP Legislative Caucus Secretary-General Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) called on the public not to rush to conclusions.

The party’s secretary-general, Lin Yu-chang (林右昌), echoed her remarks, saying the recall votes had not been a fight between political parties, so the result should not be interpreted as a victory or a defeat for one party or another, the Liberty Times reported.

Sure.

As Arnaud Bertrand comments:

[This] couldn’t be more ironic coming from the same party that explicitly framed the entire campaign as exactly this: presenting themselves, the DPP, as heroically trying to “save Taiwan’s democracy” from the KMT, painting them as existential threats because of their pro-China bent. But now that they lost they suddenly want to pretend it was all just a non-partisan civic exercise.

The NYT report, written before the voting, noticed that this outcome would have consequences:

Widespread rejection of the recalls could hint at tepid support for Mr. Lai’s party ahead of local and presidential elections, experts say.

With his anti-China position Lai Ching-te is the U.S.’ preferred candidate. As he is now likely to lose the next presidential election Taiwan should watch out for some of the usual U.S. directed manipulations.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Taiwan’s Voters Reject Anti-Chinese Recall Plot appeared first on LewRockwell.

We have to decide whether the Epstein story is child rape or Mossad blackmail.  

If “child” is defined  as under the statutory age of female sexual consent, in the US depending on the state, a child is a female under 16 years of age, under 17 years of age, or under 18 years of age. In New York the age of female consent is 17.  In Hawaii it is 16. Hawaii has a “close-in-age” exception that allows 14 year olds to consent with those up to 21 years in age. In Hawaii the goal seems to be not to prevent underaged females from sexual intercourse but to prevent overaged males (over 21) from sex with females declared underaged for them but not for younger men. There is an element here of age discrimination.  In the Philippines the age of female consent is 12.  In Germany the requirement is for a female to be 14 years old in order for a sexual relationship with a male over 18 to be legal.

In Mexico the age of consent is 15.  In Russia it is 16.  It Japan it is 13 but is being raised to 16.  In England it is 16. In Italy and China the age of consent is 14.  In Denmark and Poland it is 15. In Saudi Arabia sex is only legal within marriage. The legal age for marriage for males is 18, for females 16. In the 1950s the age of consent in the state of Georgia was 14. In Delaware in the late 19th century it was 7, yes 7, not a typo.  During the 1880s the age of consent in many US states varied between 10 and 12.  Whatever the varying legislated age, if the information provided me is correct that some mothers have 12 year old daughters on birth control pills, the de facto age of female sexual consent in the US is 12.

Was Virginia Giuffre a child?  If she is American it depends on her state of residence.  If she is British, Australian or a New York resident,  she is not a child.  There was no child rape of Virginia Giuffre for which she collected three million pounds according to reports.

Normally we think of a child as before puberty. I don’t know if Epstein had such young kids as sex bait for his entrapment scheme.  If so, it would seem to involve kidnapping in addition to illegal underage sex.  Would the prominent Jewish billionaires, who Ryan Dawson (see this) says was Mossad’s way of directing funds to Epstein, put themselves at risk by being complicit in kidnapping and underage sex?

Why would they when there are volunteers attracted to influential men just as groupies are attracted to rock stars.

Young women are not what they formerly were.  It is a fact that many young women have porn sites on which they proudly demonstrate themselves in sexual activity that not long ago would have been regarded as depraved.  Some of them compete in having the largest number of sexual partners in a 24 hour time period. One has a goal of 1,000 sexual partners in 24 hours, which with no breaks for food, water, or toilet, comes to about 80 seconds per partner.  It has become a matter of pride to achieve sexual penetration by 1,000 strangers in 24 hours.  According to reports, young women in Internet chat brag about having had 150 sexual partners.  True or false, it shows they are not shamed by their behavior whether claimed or real.

What I have reported are facts, not a brief for pedophilia. Use the facts to decide whether the Epstein Saga is one of child sex-trafficking or one of a Mossad honey-trap for blackmail purposes to ensure US policy in the Middle East conforms to Israel’s.

Sex-trafficking of children in the US is far more extensive than Epstein’s operation.  Principally, the sex-trafficking of illegal alien children. Many were separated from their parents, and if reports are correct tens of thousands, or is it hundreds of thousands, of them have been “lost.”  US authorities don’t know where they are.  Another source was the seizure of children by Child Protective Services, many of whom allegedly ended up in child prostitution.  As far as I know, nothing has been done to find and to rescue these children.

As a final suggestion, consider whether the purpose of the hullabaloo over Epstein’s sex-trafficking is to focus attention off the Israeli spy operation that has succeeded in destroying an independent American Middle East policy and five Muslim countries regarded as obstacles to Greater Israel.

The post The Epstein Saga: What It Is Really About appeared first on LewRockwell.

Perhaps when we look back on the Epstein Affair, we’ll understand that it broke the back of Americans’ faith in their political and law enforcement institutions.

We’re being told the Epstein Affair is old news, nothing to see here, move along–but I’m not so sure. It could be the opposite of old news, a watershed moment in American history.

Watershed moments can be sudden, dramatic events that we all experience as “nothing is the same after this,” or long-brewing crises that we only discern were watersheds when looking back.

The Epstein Affair may be the second type of watershed, only recognized in the rear view mirror. In his post Jeff Epstein, MAGA, and Monopolies, Matt Stoller made two noteworthy observations:

1. The MAGA movement–which includes many factions–attached great importance to the Epstein case as the most egregious manifestation of elite abuse of power. To have the files buried yet again only proves the powerful who would be exposed have yet again evaded being held accountable.

2. The scandal isn’t what’s been hidden, it’s that Epstein operated in plain sight.

Naomi Wolf’s essay, “The Network” in the Worlds of the Elites, reveals the enormous reach of Epstein’s recruitment of elites across the entirety of America’s power structure, what I’ve called since 2007 (see diagram below) Elites Maintaining and Extending Global Dominance.

This structure isn’t The Deep State, it’s far larger and just as entrenched, for it’s “the sum is greater than the parts” assembly of all of America’s elites and elite institutions of soft and hard power projection. (Soft power: cultural, institutionalized influence, non-military systems; hard power: military, diplomatic, financial.)

Epstein’s operation was an informal hub-and-spoke network of power elites ranging from politics to academia to science to media to Big Tech and beyond.

The French word engrenages comes to mind here: commonly translated as gearing, but more appropriately perhaps it also denotes being caught up in gearing that is irreversible due to the design and mechanics of the system, and then being caught up in an inescapable series of events.

In other words, Epstein’s hub-and-spoke network wasn’t an aberration, it was the optimization of the status quo system. This is the taboo that cannot be said out loud. Now everyone who is caught up in the gearing is also a participant in an inescapable series of events.

My summary of the Epstein Affair is: the elites aren’t above the law; there is no law. This is what’s being displayed in plain sight, but we recoil at recognizing it, for it means democracy and rule of law are both convenient fabrications deployed to maintain public compliance.

Recall Smith’s Neofeudalism Principle #1: If the citizenry cannot replace a kleptocratic authoritarian government and/or limit the power of the financial Aristocracy at the ballot box, the nation is a democracy in name only.

Read the Whole Article

The post Is the Epstein Affair a Watershed Moment? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Vigilant Fox just reported a live radio exchange between vaccine advocate, Peter Hotez, and a woman who called in to the studio to tell of her ordeal after receiving a COVID-19 mRNA booster.

Infamous vaccine pusher Dr. Peter Hotez recently had an uncomfortable moment during what started as a softball radio interview on Hello Houston.

Everything was going his way. The hosts praised Hotez for battling “disinformation” and hung on to his every word as if it were gospel.

But then, things went off the rails when a possibly vaccine-injured woman called into the show.

Carol, who says she keeps up with her boosters, asked Hotez over the phone why she suffered the “worst experience [she] ever had” just two days after her last COVID shot. . . . She described how she was so exhausted she was sleeping 16 hours a day, and had a “really bad cough with deep phlegm.”

At first, Hotez assumed she’d had a severe case of COVID. But to his shock, Carol told him she had NEVER had COVID.

Hotez scrambled for an explanation:

“So, what possibly could have happened is in between the time you got the booster and the immune response kicks in, you could have gotten some intercurrent viral infection, such as Covid or flu or a gazillion other things. So sometimes it’s hard to know what’s ascribed to a SIDE EFFECT of the vaccine versus some other intercurrent illness.”

Note that Hotez didn’t ask the woman if any diagnostic tests had been performed to ascertain if she had indeed suffered “an intercurrent illness” two days after receiving the booster shot. In an instant he dismissed the proposition that she’d suffered side effects—including the possibility that her severe fatigue and malaise were the expression of damage to her organs that could pose a serious threat to her health and life from now on.

Listening to the tape, it seems to me that her speech is halting, as if she is struggling to find and annunciate the words. Responding to her lack of swiftness and brevity, the idiot radio show host tells her pick up the pace.

Professor Hotez — who has been coddled by Baylor University and fawned over by the media for many years—seems incapable of thinking critically about his vaccine advocacy. His worldview consists largely of Articles of Faith.

I believe he deserves to called the Disheveled Defender of the Vaccine Faith — in Latin, Defensor Fidei Vaccinationis Inordinatus

Note that Hotez is merely the latest in a long line of Vaccine apostles going back to the Reverend Cotton Mather during the Boston smallpox outbreak of 1721. As we show in our new book, Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology, and Reality, Hotez’s lack of critical thinking has been a salient feature of the vaccine enterprise since its inception in the 18th century.

I am confident that those interested in medical, intellectual, and religious history will find the book fascinating. Please click on the icon below to review its description on Amazon and consider ordering a copy.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse – Focal Points.

The post Peter Hotez: Disheveled Defender of the Vaccine Faith appeared first on LewRockwell.

I occasionally gab about the world with friends and family. Recently, a friend and I were bitching about the rise of “fascism” in America. We soon realized we had different visions of what that meant. About what’s possible in a country like America.

America spans about 3.8 million square miles, with many different climates, economies, and ways of life. America’s size and spread-out population shape its politics in important ways. The country’s large area makes local issues and regional differences central to political life. This encourages local and state governments to respond to their own regions rather than to a unified national agenda. People in California often prioritize different things than people in Alabama or North Dakota. These differences make it hard to find national agreement, leading to gridlock or unsatisfying compromises.

My friend and I brainstormed what the country’s unique characteristics could mean for the rise of fascism in America. We took notes and turned it into the following Q&A:

Why does America’s size prevent popular uprisings and protests like seen in France and the UK?

France and the UK, while politically complex, are geographically smaller and more densely populated than the United States. This density makes it easier to organize large-scale protests or strikes that disrupt daily life and demand attention. In the U.S., long distances between major population centers, combined with state-by-state policy differences and local enforcement, make it harder to build unified movements. A protest in New York may feel completely disconnected from events in Texas or Oregon.

In addition, national media in the U.S. is fragmented, and local media dominates in many areas, which further splinters public awareness. This limits the ability of a single event or issue to spark a truly nationwide movement in the way it can in more compact and media-unified countries like France or the UK.

Why did the Civil War happen if uprising is so difficult?

The Civil War was exception. Southern states were united by one clear and urgent issue: the preservation of slavery. This issue wasn’t just political or moral. It was deeply tied to their economies, social structures, and identities. Having a single, overriding concern gave the Southern states a strong reason to act collectively. They saw the end of slavery as a direct economic threat, which made secession and war appear to them as rational steps.

Today’s political climate is deeply divided, but it lacks that same unifying issue on either side. Instead of one dominant concern, the country faces a wide range of cultural, economic, and ideological disagreements. Political polarization is real, but it’s scattered across many topics. Immigration, education, public health, guns, and more. These divisions often split not just regions but households and communities. That makes it harder to form large, coordinated blocs of action, whether for rebellion or reform. Unlike in the Civil War era, no single issue today binds one half of the country tightly enough to provoke a unified uprising.

Why have other large countries faced major civil conflict while the U.S. hasn’t?

Countries like Russia, the Soviet Union, and China have experienced serious internal conflicts, often because their governments were highly centralized. In Russia, central control after World War I led to a civil war and later regional uprisings. In the Soviet Union, tight control over diverse regions eventually caused unrest and collapse. In China, heavy-handed central rule has led to unrest in areas like Tibet and Xinjiang.

America has avoided this largely because of its decentralized structure. State and local governments have real power. Elections and courts give people ways to push back without turning to violence. This setup reduces the risk of civil conflict, even when tensions run high.

Still, decentralization has downsides. While it protects against sudden takeovers, it can let democratic norms fade slowly. Problems can grow in pockets, through local laws, policies, or political behavior, without triggering a broader response.

Given America’s decentralized nature of governance and broadly distributed population, is it possible we are currently sliding into authoritarianism?

Yes. I think it is already happening. Because power is spread out, no single moment feels like a breaking point. But we’re seeing steady shifts: voter suppression, political disinformation, legal decisions that weaken oversight, and increasing executive power. These changes are happening in ways that don’t always spark national outrage, especially when they’re unevenly distributed across states. The real question isn’t whether the slide is happening, it’s how far it will go and how quickly. Without a shared national response, there’s little friction slowing it down.

What could authoritarianism or fascism look like in America?

In the U.S., authoritarianism might not involve tanks in the streets or the sudden loss of elections. It would look more like gradual shifts. Media manipulation, reduced transparency, weakened courts, and fewer checks on political leaders.

What mitigates the risk of military force or overt police control from dominating public life is partly the country’s decentralized system. Local and state governments can resist federal overreach, and courts still offer legal recourse, at least in theory.

But recent trends show there are limits to this counterforce. Agencies like ICE have received massive funding and have operated detention centers that resemble prison camps. There have also been documented incidents of people being detained or removed from protests without clear legal process. These actions don’t match traditional images of authoritarian regimes, but they carry some of the same dynamics: fear, lack of accountability, and concentration of power.

Because Americans are spread out and not easily unified, there’s less chance of a large, sustained public response. That fragmentation may be allowing a quiet centralization of power. Instead of shock tactics, U.S. authoritarianism might grow through public complacency, limited accountability, and the slow normalization of actions that would once have been widely rejected.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Future Includes Mass Murder of Undesirables… appeared first on LewRockwell.

If it is not going to be enforced even now, regarding the extermination (genocide) to eliminate the Gazans (and there is zero indication that it will be), it is dead. If it will be enforced against anything else but not against that, then it will be so outrageously selective so that it reflects the sheer power of some imperialistic “higher power,” as to have no relationship whatsoever to any authentic justice, but ONLY to the ethic of psychopaths: “Might makes right.” But if might makes right, then what is law supposed to be about? Is it only about fulfilling the will of some fictitious “The Almighty” — a personification and idealization of power? So, whomever is powerless, such as the Gazans are now, and such as the people who were processed through Hitler’s concentration camps were then, “They have it coming to them” — they deserve it, because they are powerless against it? This is the new world, but it is really very ancient, and it shows that in social and political, and even economic affairs (after all, the Gazans were placed there because their land had been stolen from them by Zionists), humans have actually made no authentic progress at all.

On July 25th I headlined “Israel Now Admits to Exterminating Gazans. The Origin of this Genocide Goes Back to 2003.”

On July 23rd I headlined “HYPOCRISY ON STEROIDS, about the Gaza genocide”.

On July 12th I headlined “Israel’s Auschwitz for Palestinians: How It’s Being Carried Out Now”.

All of these are solidly documented news-reports about an ongoing event that is of immense historical significance, but no such reports get many page-views and reader-comments from the public. The public are far less interested in them than they are in ordinary news-events that are far less important and far less conclusive evidences that the world is descending deeper and deeper into the ideological victory of Adolf Hitler despite his loss in World War Two. And Israel, America, Germany, and UK, are at the forefront of what is now clearly Hitler’s ideological victory — the victory of racist-fascist-supremacist imperialism, or “nazism,” which is the common term for that ideology, Hitler’s ideology, and the Zionists’ ideology.

The most pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian countries — America and its European colonies — are so blind to the evilness of Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide against the residents of Gaza, and of its ongoing and accelerating land-thefts from the Palestinians in the West Bank, as to present the serious question of why these massive ongoing evils, which are of historic magnitude, are absent from their Governments’ official condemnations and (until recently) almost completely absent from these countries’ news-reports, even as-if these horrors weren’t being perpetrated by Israel with America’s weapons and satellite guidance and targeting, or weren’t even happening at all. There is a real blindness about the blindness, as if this tolerance of Israel’s (and America’s) genocide and land-theft against Palestinians simply were not so. But it is. What explains the blindness and the blindness about the blindness — the utter refusal — to acknowledge the evilness of Israel (and of the U.S. Government ever since Harry Truman created the state of Israel in 1948, even when the genocidal intent of Israel’s founders was already known both privately and publicly)?

Stupidity — believing the Israeli Government’s lies — is part of the answer. Especially the lie that to be anti-Israel is to be anti-Jew is obvious to everyone but idiots, because many Jews are anti-Israel — even some rabbis, both in America and in Israel, are against Israel — and this means that the equation between “Jew” and “Zionist” (supporter of Israel) is false. Only stupid people would believe it. Nonetheless, the Trump Administration and many throughout the world spout Israel’s lie that to be anti-Israel is to be anti-Jew (an “anti-Semite”); and, for example, prestigious American universities have expelled students for speaking publicly against Israel’s slaughter of Gazans — and the U.S. Government, despite the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment (which prohibits the Government’s suppressing public expressions of political opinions), has halted federal funds to universities that DON’T expel such students. The U.S. Government now blatantly violates the U.S. Constitution.

However, even many opponents of that lie falsify, by alleging that the Jewish religion does not support this ethnic cleansing and genocide. Here are a few examples from the Jewish religion’s alleged ‘holy texts’ or canonized Scriptures, specifically referring to what their ‘God’ wants, showing that this ‘God’ doesn’t merely want it but DEMANDS it:

Genesis 15:18-21

“On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham and said, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt [the Nile] to the great river, the Euphrates, including the lands of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amoriotes, the Caananites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.’”

Deuteronomy 7:1-2

“You must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance: the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Caananites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. You must put them all to death.”

Deuteronomy 7:16

“Destroy every nation that the Lord your God places in your power, and do not show them any mercy.”

Deuteronomy 20:16-18

“When you capture cities in the land he Lord your God is giving you, kill everyone. Completely destroy all the people: the Hittites, the Amorites, the Caananites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord has ordered you to do. Kill them so that they will not make you sin against the Lord by teaching you to do all the disgusting things they do in the worship of their gods.”

Israel’s Government takes such passages as ‘justifying’ what they do to Palestinians. And the vast majority of Israelis agree with that viewpoint. America’s Government says it doesn’t like what Israel is doing, but nonetheless continues to provide almost all of the weaponry and satellite intelligence in order to do it, and is therefore co-equal with Israel in doing this genocide, but (since America pretends to be not a theocratic nation [and our Constitution is entirely secular, so anything at all theocratic in the U.S. Government would actually be traitorous], and not even an aristocratic nation, but instead a democratic nation — though it now IS actually an aristocratic nation, a nation ruled by billionaires instead of by mere voters) America’s Government alleges that it isn’t participating in the genocide. That allegation by the U.S. Government, that it isn’t participating in this genocide, is clearly a lie.

Israel, therefore, does represent Judaism’s mythological god by its doing to the Gazans what it is doing to them (exterminating them), and also by doing to Palestinians in the West Bank what it is doing to them (ethnically cleansing them). Self-alleged Jews — including some rabbis — who say otherwise (that Judaism isn’t intrinsically racist and even genocidally so), are clearly lying about the Jewish religion, by saying that being a follower of the Jewish religion does NOT necessarily entail being a Zionist (a supporter of such biblical passages as I have just quoted). Though Zionism, as a political movement, started only with Theodor Herzl’s pamphlet The Jewish Nation in 1896, Zionism had been an intrinsic part of the Jewish faith ever since that faith’s Scripture, the Torah, which includes those passages, which — regarding these passages — Israel is now trying to finalize in both Gaza and the West Bank (and a bit beyond), which Scripture became Judaism’s Torah, or ultimate holy Scripture, at some time during the 6th-5th Century BC. (Which was long before Zionism as a political movement even existed.) Since that ancient time, every Jewish assembly place or synagogue has had a Torah, the religion’s ‘holy book’. It is the basis of the Jewish religion, and before that, Jews were simply tribes. But Zionism turned those evill Biblical passages into a political movement, and this happened starting in 1881, “in reaction to tsarist pogroms, formed the Ḥovevei Ẕiyyon (“Lovers of Zion”) to promote the settlement of Jewish farmers and artisans in Palestine.” Until those pogroms, which were instigated if not encouraged by the devoutly Christian Tsar Alexander III, there WAS no Zionism. This Jewish-nazi movement started in reaction to that Christian-nazi Tsar.

Judaism’s hatred of, and desire to destroy, the Palestinians, is as old as is the faith itself, though it did not become politically activated until Tsar Alexander III precipitated it. For this reason, I headlined on 14 August 2017, “Netanyahu’s Pro-Nazi Lie: ‘Hitler Wanted To Expel The Jews’”: Netanyahu blamed Palestinians — NOT Christians — for the Holocaust. He said this despite Hitler himself having been a Catholic, and that Church having held a solemn private (but attended by Bormann and Goebbels) Memorial Mass for him, on 6 May 1945, a week after his suicide. Hitler was born, lived, and died, as a Catholic. But the nazi Netanyahu blamed those Muslims — no Christian.

However, there is nothing unique about Judaism’s racism. Consider, for example, that the Christians, not just Hitler but all of the Nazi leaders, and the 94% of Germans in that time who called themselves “Christian,” WERE Christians. Why do Jewish nazis ignore this fact? Whereas many Jews want to exterminate Palestinians, many Christians have wanted to exterminate Jews. Many Christians cooperated with the Holocaust, and some of them were even proud to do so.

For example, as regards the Christian clergy, they very predominantly supported Hitler’s anti-Semitism, and they even provided to his Government the documentation as to whom was and therefore also whom was NOT a Christian — the basic data from which the Holocaust’s “Jews” would be selected for extermination — and they were proud to do it:

Eberhard Bethge, who had been a liberal Protestant cleric during the Third Reich, was interviewed in the last chapter of Augustin Hedberg’s 1992 FAITH UNDER FIRE and was asked what those years had been like. Bethge commented, “‘Bad blood’ was the great term. You had to have Aryan blood.” Hitler, in only his private statements, had defined “Aryan,” as pureblooded Christian. Bethge’s interviewer inquired, “So we know this Jewish poison [Jewish blood] had to be cleansed. How did they propose to do that?” Bethge replied, tellingly: “For instance, everybody in an office, in a village, in a city, in a province, in Berlin, had to prove that he had [only] Aryan ancestors. How could he do that? He could do it only if he wrote to church officers in the villages or in the cities and asked them to look in the old books of the church in which baptisms were recorded. So many pastors and church secretaries had to work for hours and hours, weeks and months to answer all these requests. ‘Please give me an excerpt out of the church files that proves my ancestors had been Christians.’ The church officers and the ministers, they didn’t care. They did that. They said, ‘How important we are now.’ I was an assistant curator in the winter of ’33. I had to sit all morning and look through the books and answer these letters.” It was therefore the Christian clergy themselves — people indoctrinated with John 8:44, and Matthew 27:25, and Matthew 23:31-36, and Luke 19:27, etc. — who were the proud implementers of the indispensable first step in the Nazis’ 12-year-long “racist” war against the Jews, by supplying the crucial raw data for segregating-out Jews. Bethge was even honest enough to admit, “We were anti-Semitic, and we thought this was Christian.” (Of course, they did, because it was, and they had absorbed this from Christianity’s Scripture.) The essential first step in the “final solution” was this identification of who was NOT an “Aryan,” who WAS “a Jew.” Hitler commanded this first step in the year he came into power, 1933, and the Christian clergy executed it with pride. And yet even today, so-called “historians” say that Hitler didn’t have execution of the Jews in mind from the very start, and that Hitler was no Christian, and so forth.

The Catholic-raised Hitler took very seriously such anti-Semitic New-Testament statements as, from ‘Jesus,’ John 8:44, Matthew 23:31-38, and Luke 19:27; and from Paul, 1 Thes. 2:14-16. (Hitler even said to his followers, on 18 December 1926, “The teachings of Christ have laid the foundations for the battle against the Jews as the enemy of Mankind; the work that Christ began, I shall finish.” Then, on 26 April 1933, he told the Pope’s representative, “I am doing what the Church has done for 1,500 years. I am simply finishing the job.”) All of that was Christian racism against Jews. Furthermore, virtually all of Germany’s Nazis were Christians — committed to the New Testament — and, in fact, that (an applicant’s purebred Christianity) was a requirement in order to join the Party, and ESPECIALLY in order to join the SS, as is documented in a 13,000-word masterpiece of an article by Coel Hellier, on “Nazi racial ideology was religious, creationist and opposed to Darwinism”, which can leave no intelligent reader to doubt that the Nazi Party was itself a Christian movement, which historical fact is covered-up by ‘journalists’ and ‘historians’ (but exposed and documented by the primary sources cited in that article — they’re all authentic).

In addition to this: On 21 October 1941, Hitler, in the privacy of his bunker, concluded a long tirade against Jews (as transcribed in his Table-Talk) by saying: “By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.” Hitler’s buddy, Himmler, stated, in a speech to top SS leaders, two years later, when the Holocaust was in full swing, on 4 October 1943, that this extermination was necessary for them to carry out, in order to have “exterminated a bacterium because we do not want in the end to be infected by the bacterium and die of it.” Hitler had stated, on various occasions, that the “Jewish infection” or “Jewish bacterium” or “blood-poisoning by Jews,” was transmitted to non-Jews in their “blood,” and so Jews must be entirely eradicated like plague-carrying rats — not only in Germany, but beyond. Hitler said, on 24 February 1943: “This fight will not end with the planned annihilation of the Aryan [which to him meant the descendants of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 — and the snake was, according to the NT, the father of the Jews] but with the extermination of the Jew [which to Hitler meant the descendants of the snake in Genesis 3] in Europe. Beyond this, thanks to this fight, our movement’s world of thought will become the common heritage of all people.” He meant “all people” — he aimed to eliminate all Jews — not merely in Germany, and for Germans, but everywhere. (Yet, still, there are Holocaust-deniers who say that the Holocaust is just ‘a Jewish hoax’, or that if it happened, Hitler didn’t know about it. Some people are stupid enough to reiterate such blatantly false tropes.) Or, as Hitler stated it in his last official words, his “Political Testament” right before his suicide: “Above all I charge the leaders of the nation and those under them to scrupulous observance of the laws of race and to merciless opposition to the universal poisoner of all peoples, international Jewry.” (His phrase “international Jewry” referred to Jews in all nations. He didn’t make any explicit reference here to exterminating them, because this statement from him was intended to be public — not merely private. He was explicit about it ONLY in his private statements, such as I have quoted.)

Furthermore, that 24 February 1943 quotation ISN’T from the flawed Trevor-Roper publication of the Table-Talk but instead from an authentic private speech that Hitler gave on that date, and the varying translations of which were discussed in an 8 March 1943 OSS Memorandum http://www7.bbk.ac.uk/thepursuitofthenazimind/FDR/DSCN2002.jpg by Walter Langer to William Donovan. The 1941 quotation from Hitler isn’t only in the original German version of the Table-Talk but was quoted in a book by Winston Churchill in 1948, four years before any translated version of the Table-Talks (Tischgesprache) (and this includes the one issued by Trevor-Roper) was published. The Himmler quotation is likewise accepted as authentic by historians.

Moreover, Horst von Maltitz perceptively observed in this regard in his excellent 1973 The Evolution of Hitler’s Germany (p. 171), that “railroad transport trains carrying Jews from the West to extermination camps in Poland were given priority over trains for urgently needed troops and war supplies. Moreover, skilled Jewish laborers, desperately needed in the munitions plants in occupied Poland, were carted off to extermination centers, in spite of strong objections by plant managers.” And, according to the Polish Ambassador, Jan Ciechanowski, in his 1947 Defeat in Victory (p. 179), he had personally handed U.S. President Roosevelt in the White House on 28 July 1943 a memo that, “The unprecedented destruction of the entire Jewish population is not motivated by Germany’s military requirements. Hitler and his subordinates aim at the total destruction of the Jews before the war ends and regardless of its outcome.”

And, as I pointed out in my 2000 WHY the Holocaust Happened: Its Religious Cause & Scholarly Cover-Up (see summary of it here), Hitler said that “Aryans” have remained unchanged since the time God first created Man (Adam and Eve). Thus, Mein Kampf asserted that the objective was “to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them.” Though during his later years Hitler was trying to adopt a scientific view, he failed, and Hitler even in his war bunker on the night of 25 January 1942, confided that Darwinian evolution does not apply to Man, who “has always been as he is now.” This was NOT an atheistic type of racism; it was SPECIFICALLY Biblical, a religious type of racism, despite all of the propaganda to the contrary (which has fooled almost all of the Hitler ‘experts’ ever since — though the evidence proves conclusively that the contrary is true).

Consequently, it will be good here to quote the most important New Testament origins of Hitler’s — and many other Christians’ — Holocaust:

John 8:44

“You are the children of your father, the Devil, and you want to follow your father’s desires. From the very beginning, he was a murderer, and has never been on the side of truth, becuse there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he is only doing what is natural to him, because he is a liar and the father of all lies.”

Matthew 23:31-38

“So, you actually admit that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets! Go on, then, and finish up what your ancestors started. You snakes and sons of snakes! How do you expect to escape being condemned to hell? And so I will tell you that I will send you prophets and wise men and teachers; you will kill some of them, crucify others, and whip others in the synagogues and chase them from town too town. As a result, the punishement for the murder of all innocent men will fall on you. … The punishment for all of these murders will fall on the people of this day!”

Luke: 19:27

“Now, as for all those enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king, bring them here, and kill them in my presence!” (This is told as the closing line of a parable.)

Paul 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

“You suffered the same persecutions from your own countrymen that they suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us. How displeasing they are to God! How hostile they are to everyone! They even tried to stop us from preaching to the Gentiles the message that would bring them salvation. In this way, they have completed the full total of the sins they have always committed. And now God’s anger has at last come down on them!”

To put those passages into their true historical context: Paul never met nor heard the living Jesus but wrote the earliest of all documents that came to be canonized in the year 393 by the Roman Catholic Church and later adopted by all other Christian churches; and his followers wrote the four canonical Gospel-accounts of ‘the words of Jesus’ but even in their time Jesus’s having been a rabbi who had preached Judaism (NOT Christianity) was so well known so that 3 out of the 4 canonized Gospel accounts of ‘Jesus’ mentioned specifically that his disciples sometimes addressed him simply as “rebbi” rabbi: Matthew 23:7, 23:8, 26:25, 26:49; Mark 9:5, 11:21, 14:45; and John 1:38, 1:49, 3:2, 3:26, 4:31, 6:25, 9:2, and 11:8. They could not deny it, because to have tried to would have been too obviously false and thus Paul’s new religion would have been recognized for what it actually was, not as they wanted it to become — they were evangelists for Paul’s religion, which they believed to be true because Paul told them that it was.

As I documented in my 2012 CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS, Paul created Christianity in the year 49 or 50 in order to get back at Jesus’s brother James who was heading the former Jesus-created sect of Jews and finally decided that the by-then thousands of uncircumcised (or Gentile) men in Paul’s congregations would either be circumcised in accord with Genesis 17:14 or else be expelled from the sect. That is the reason why Christianity is anti-Jewish (anti-Semitic): James finally decided to enforce Genesis 17:14 (in that age when no such things as anesthetics nor antibiotics existed — and circumcision was therefore almost always perpetrated upon only infants, who didn’t volunteer for it and whose screams adults didn’t take seriously).

“Historians” have not been doing their job, for the truth. That’s why the general public cannot separate propaganda from history — the latter is just an extension of the former. Compare this account of the origin off how the Nazis managed to identify who was “a Jew” and who was not, that was given in a traditional history book on that topic, Edwin Black’s 2001 IBM AND THE HOLOCAUST. Christianity’s role is ignored.

So: Zionists such as Netanyahu can’t blame Christianity for the Holocaust; they need Christian believers to blame Palestinians instead — people who had nothing to do with it — this was instead a Christian operation. The historical truth and context behind the 7 October 2023 event needs to be, and has effectively been, hidden from the publics in America, and in its European colonies.

There is a Big Lie, and, this time, it comes not from Germany’s racist-fascist-imperialist-supremacist (or ideologically nazi) Nazi Party and all the rest of Christendom, but instead from Judaism’s own racist-fascist-imperialist-supremacist Zionists and all the rest of Judaism.

And what about Islam’s equivalent? That is the jihadists, the fundamentalist Arab Sunni (U.S. propaganda lies that it’s instead fundamentalist Iranian Shiite) movement that includes both al-Qaeda and ISIS and whose former leader in Iraq and Syria, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, Donald Trump made a deal with on May 14th for Syria to become a U.S. colony, now that this former al-Qaeda and then ISIS leader, whom both Obama and Biden, and also Trump, had protected ever since 2012, finally succeeded (with U.S.-supplied weapons and training) at overthrowing Syria’s secular President Bashar al-Assad, and started the ethnic cleansing in Syria against Shiite Muslims and Christians there (that isn’t being reported in the U.S. empire).

So, in what way was the victory of the Allies in WW2 an ideological victory? Although both Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and Joseph Stalin were passionately AGAINST imperialism, both Winston Churchill and Harry Truman were FOR it, and it was THEY (Churchill and Truman) who ended up generating the world we have today, as being Cecil Rhodes’s 1877-conceived joint Anglo-American-Zionist global empire, which in WW2 had — with Stalin — defeated Hitler’s intended global empire of an “Aryan,” 100% pure-bred Christian and entirely Jew-free world, Hitler’s “Paradise” (as he called it) being ruled by the 100% pure-bred descendants of, as Hitler read the Bible, Adam and Eve, and with NO surviving descendants of the snake or Satan, which, in the New Testament (John 8:44, Matt. 23:31-38, etc.), Jews are (as Hitler viewed them). All three of the Big Three WW2 Allies, working together, won WW2, against the fascist Axis powers, but then, Harry Truman became America’s President, and he and Churchill, working together, intentionally created the Cold War by reversing the post-WW2 plan that FDR had had, of working together with Stalin under an FDR-designed anti-imperialist United Nations. Stalin would have cooperated with FDR, but he could not cooperate with Churchill and Truman. Stalin was anti-imperialist like FDR had been; and, so, we have had, after WW2, a continuation of the prior world-order, of contesting empires — exactly what FDR had so carefully planned to AVOID. The ideological victory thus went to the racist-fascist-supremacist-imperialists: Churchill and Truman. They — those two fascists — took up Hitler’s goal of defeating Russia. FDR would have isolated Churchill (would have decisivelly ended the British Empire), not Stalin. The way that Truman started the Cold War was by telling Stalin that the U.S. Government must share authority with the Soviet Goverment over the lands that Stalin’s forces had freed from Hitler’s control. Stalin said no. Truman and Churchill thus (in accord with the Rhodes-conceived, but Churchill-named, “Special Relationship”) took up Hitler’s goal of ultimately conquering Russia. And America and its colonies (‘allies’) have continued this war, the Cold War, right up to the present.

Hitler had had no idea that the Christian faith and its New Testament were actually products of Paul and his followers, and that Paul in the year 49 or 50 turned against Jesus’s brother James who now headed the Jesus sect of Jews, and that Paul broke away from that sect to create his own new religion, which rejected the circumcision commandment which James in that year finally ordered Paul to impose upon his Gentile congregations. Hitler believed that the Bible was instead the “Monumental History of Mankind” — fact, no fiction — and tried to understand it as being 100% true. So, he absorbed both the racism of the Old Testament and the Jew-hatred of the New Testament, and this is the reason why he said on 21 October 1941 that “Jesus was not a Jew.” And, as I mentioned, he said on 18 December 1926, “The teachings of Christ have laid the foundatioons for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind; the work that Christ began, I shall finish.” Then, on 26 April 1933, he told the Pope’s representative, “I am doing what the Church has done for 1,500 years. I am simply finishing the job.”

It is, by now, undeniable that the Zionists, who are racist-fascist-supremacist-imperialist Jews, are the Jewish equivalents of Hitler’s Christian nazis — Jewish nazis to eliminate Palestinians, just as were the Christian nazis to eliminate Jews.

Churchill was likewise a nazi, but neither of Hitler’s type, nor of the Zionists’ type, but he intensely supported the Zionists’ cause, because his political career was financed largely by extremely wealthy Jews, and not only by extremely wealthy Christians. For example, the Jewish banker and financier, Sir Henry Edouard Strakosch, who had wealth from South African gold mines, paid off Churchill’s huge debts in 1938 and 1940. Furthermore, Churchill had been a protégé of Cecil Rhodes, and after Rhodes’s death in 1902 was the most effective of all of his protégés at actually achieving the “Special Relationship” that Rhodes had first proposed in 1877 — Rhodes’ goal of retrieving the U.S. for the UK. (Soon, the UK became subordinate in the relationship.) Allegedly, Rhodes — who built up an enormous fortune in South African gold and diamond mines — was financially backed by Lord Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, and the allegation is actually true; the details were actually provided in John Flint’s 1974 biography, Cecil Rhodes, starting on page 86: then, on pages 92 and 93 is quoted from Rhodes’s 1888 will, “I leave … the balance of my property to Lord Rothschild.” And, then, “the world’s greatest financier was instructed, somewhat brusuely and sketchily, to use the money to establish the beloved society of the Imperiall elect.” Flint also notes that “Rothschild’s name appeared in Rhodes’s subsequent wills, and it is probable that his influence helped later to transform the mad scheme for a secret society into that which set up the Rhodes Scholarships.” As I pointed out at that last link, Churchill and General Eisenhower persuaded Truman to start the Cold War, on 25 July 1945. Eisenhower’s argument especially impressed Truman.

Truman, likewise, started the nation of Israel on 14 May 1948, and the reasons he gave for it were Biblical. He was a total fool, easily manipulated by exploiting his prejudices (in that case, his agreement with Hitler that the Bible is the monumental history of mankind — though Truman focused on the Old, and Hitler on the New, Testament).

Churchill was retired from politics when Truman created Israel, but Churchill had worked previously for this objective. However, his motivation for it was more directly racist (the type of racism that Rhodes himself had had) than Truman’s. Here is how Churchill had expressed it:

In a 12 March 1937 testimony before the Peel Commission on Palestine, Churchill revealed the racist and “white supremacist” basis of his support for the Zionist project (the testimony was only [first] published in 1982 — in Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill Companion Volume 5, Part 3: The Coming of War, 1936-1939, 1982, p. 616). He said there:

“I do not agree that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” [Churchill requested that this statement by him not be published in the Peel Commission’s official eport, and it was not.] It is shown here.

So, that’s the historical background for the current death of international law. Because Truman fundamentally reversed FDR’s anti-imperialist plan for the U.N. (and ‘historians’ never said so), we now have reached the utter failure of the WW2 Allies’ ‘victory’, and need to reconstruct the U.N. on the basis of the plan for it that the U.N.’s inventor had been intending it to be.

If some of this is news to you, all of it is solidly documented history. Based on the actuall documentation, none of this is really news. You can decide for yourself what the actual history here is, and I have linked through to the sources so as to facilitate your checking out anything here that you question. There is more of real history in this 5,000-word article than in a typical 500-page history-book.

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post International Law Is Now Completely Dead appeared first on LewRockwell.

The more I study science, the more I come to see how often fundamental facts end up being changed so that a profitable industry can be created. In the case of heart disease, I very much believe that is the case and in this publication, I’ve tried to expose the erroneous information that predominates our understanding of this subject (e.g., previously I’ve discussed why our model of how the heart pumps blood in the body is incorrect, the forgotten Russian research that shows the heart intelligently controls how blood moves within the body, and how blood pressure management is filled with erroneous premises that exist to perpetually sell medications).

Within cardiology, I believe one of the most damaging falsehoods is that cholesterol causes heart disease and that taking statins (or their newer lucrative equivalents), which lower cholesterol, are the key to preventing heart disease. This is because, in addition to those “facts” being incorrect, statins are also some of the most dangerous and widely used pharmaceutical drugs on the market.

Cholesterol and Heart Disease

Frequently, when an industry harms many people, it will create a scapegoat to get out of trouble. Once this happens, a variety of other sectors that also benefit from that scapegoat existing will jump on the bandwagon. Before long, a false belief that harms society becomes an unquestionable dogma that becomes very difficult to overturn because many corrupt parties have a vested interest in maintaining the lie.

For example, various easily addressable factors (which often exist in the first place because they benefit an industry) are responsible for the chronic diseases we face in society and our vulnerability to infectious diseases (e.g., the obese and diabetics were much more likely to catch COVID-19). However, by saying all diseases result from insufficient vaccination, it gets all those destructive industries off the hook and creates a huge market for selling vaccines and treatments for these illnesses. Thus, since there are so many vested interests behind the vaccine paradigm, it is very difficult to overturn—despite the fact there’s no evidence vaccines ended the era of infectious disease but the existing evidence does show they are responsible for the massive epidemic of chronic disease that is sweeping our country.

In the 1960s and 1970s, a debate emerged over what caused heart disease. On one side, John Yudkin effectively argued that the sugar being added to our food by the processed food industry was the chief culprit. On the other side, Ancel Keys (who attacked Yudkin’s work) argued that it was due to saturated fat and cholesterol.

Note: a case can also be made that the mass adoption of vegetable oils lead to this increase in heart disease. Likewise, some believe the advent of water chlorination was responsible for this increase.

Ancel Keys won, Yudkin’s work was largely dismissed, and Keys became nutritional dogma. A large part of Key’s victory was based on his study of seven countries (Italy, Greece, Former Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Finland, America, and Japan), which showed that as saturated fat consumption increased, heart disease increased in a linear fashion.

However, what many don’t know (as this study is still frequently cited) is that this result was simply a product of the countries Keys chose (e.g., one author illustrated that if Finland, Israel, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, France, and Sweden had been chosen, the opposite would have been found).

Fortunately, it gradually became recognized that Ancel Keys did not accurately report the data he used to substantiate his arguments. For example, recently an unpublished 56 month randomized study of 9,423 adults living in state mental hospitals or a nursing home (which made it possible to rigidly control their diets) that Keys was the lead investigator of was unearthed. This study (inconveniently) found that replacing half of the animal (saturated) fats they ate with vegetable oil (e.g., corn oil) lowered their cholesterol, and that for every 30 points it dropped, their risk of death increased by 22 percent (which roughly translates to each 1% drop in cholesterol raising the risk of death by 1%)—so as you can imagine, it was never published.

Note: the author who unearthed that study also discovered another (unpublished) study from the 1970s of 458 Australians, which found that replacing some of their saturated fat with vegetable oils increased their risk of dying by 17.6%

Likewise, recently, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world published internal sugar industry documents. They showed the sugar industry had used bribes to make scientists place the blame for heart disease on fat so Yudkin’s work would not threaten the sugar industry. In turn, it is now generally accepted that Yudkin was right, but nonetheless, our medical guidelines are still largely based on Key’s work.

However, despite a significant amount of data that now shows lowering cholesterol is not associated with a reduction in heart disease (e.g., this study, this study, this study, this review, this review, and this review) the need to lower cholesterol is still a dogma within cardiology. For example, how many of you have heard of this 1986 study which was published in the Lancet which concluded:

During 10 years of follow-up from Dec 1, 1986, to Oct 1, 1996, a total of 642 participants died. Each 1 mmol/L increase in total cholesterol corresponded to a 15% decrease in mortality (risk ratio 0–85 [95% Cl 0·79–0·91]).

Note: when people are diabetic (which leads to the liver having to process too much sugar) the liver will convert to fat and then create more cholesterol to transport some of that fat. In these instances, many argue the actual issue is an excess of sugar rather than elevated cholesterol levels it causes.

Statin Marketing

One of the consistent patterns I’ve observed within medicine is that once a drug is identified that can “beneficially” change a number, medical practice guidelines will gradually shift to prioritizing treating that number and before long, rationals will be created that require more and more of the population to be subject to that regimen. For example, consider what happened with blood pressure:

Because of this, blood pressure levels were enforced that are much more likely to harm than help the elderly (and likewise to create many debilitating side effects along the way).

In the case of statins, prior to their discovery, it was difficult to reliably lower cholesterol, but once they hit the market, research rapidly emerged stating that cholesterol was more and more dangerous, that lower and lower blood cholesterol levels were needed, and, hence that more and more people needed to be on statins.

As you would expect, similar increases also occurred within the USA. For example, in 2008-2009, 12% of Americans over 40 reported taking a statin, whereas in 2018-2019, that had increased to 35% of Americans.

Given how much these drugs are used, it then raises a simple question—how much benefit do they produce?

As it turns out, this is a remarkably difficult question to answer as the published studies use a variety of confusing metrics to obfuscate their data (which means that the published statin trials almost certainly inflate the benefits of statin therapy), and more importantly, virtually all of the data on statin therapy is kept by a private research collaboration which consistently publishes glowing reviews of statins (and attacks anyone who claims otherwise) but simultaneously refuses to release their data to outside researchers, which has led to those researchers attempting to get this missing data from the drug regulators.
Note: as you might have guessed, that collaboration takes a lot of money from the pharmaceutical industry.

Nonetheless, when independent researchers looked at the published trials (which almost certainly inflated the benefit of statin therapy) they found that taking a statin daily for approximately 5 years resulted in you living, on average, 3-4 days longer. Sadder still, large trials have found this minuscule “benefit” is only seen in men. In short, most of the benefit from statins is from creative ways to rearrange data and causes of death, not any actual benefit.

Note: this is very similar to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine trial which professed to be “95% effective” against COVID-19, but in reality only created a 0.8% reduction in minor symptoms of COVID (e.g., a sore throat) and a 0.037% reduction in severe symptoms of COVID (with “severe” never being defined by Pfizer). This in turn meant that you needed to vaccinate 119 people to prevent a minor (inconsequential) case of COVID-19, and 2711 to prevent a “severe” case of COVID-19.

Furthermore, a clinical trial whistleblower later revealed that these figures were greatly inflated as many individuals in the vaccine group who developed COVID-19 like symptoms were never tested for COVID-19. Likewise, these benefits were fleeting as it was shown the “efficacy” of vaccines rapidly waned (disappearing a few months after vaccination). Worse still at six months of follow-up in both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s trials, more vaccinated than unvaccinated individuals died, and similarly a peer-reviewed reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s trial data showed that one was more likely to suffer a severe adverse event from the vaccine than a hospitalization from COVID-19.

In circumstances like these where an unsafe and ineffective but highly lucrative drug must be sold, the next step is typically to pay everyone off to promote it. For example, to quote Chapter 7 of Doctoring Data:

The National Cholesterol Education Programme (NCEP) has been tasked by the National Institutes of Health to develop guidelines [everyone uses] for treating cholesterol levels. Excluding the chair (who was by law prohibited from having financial conflicts of interest), the other 8 members on average were on the payroll of 6 statin manufacturers.

In 2004, NCEP reviewed 5 large statin trials and recommended: “Aggressive LDL lowering for high-risk patients [primary prevention] with lifestyle changes and statins.”

In 2005 a Canadian division of the Cochrane Collaboration [who were not paid off] reviewed 5 large statin trials (3 were the same as NCEP’s, while the other 2 had also reached a positive conclusion for statin therapy). That assessment instead concluded: “Statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials.”

Note: the primary reason no cure for COVID-19 was ever found was that the guideline panel for COVID-19 treatments was handpicked by Fauci, comprised of academics taking money from Remdesivir’s manufacturers. Not surprisingly, the panel always voted against recommending any of the non-patentable treatments for COVID-19, regardless of how much evidence there was for them.

Likewise, the American College of Cardiology made a calculator to determine your risk of developing a heart attack or stroke in the next ten years based on your age, blood pressure, cholesterol level, and smoking status. In turn, I’ve lost track of how many doctors I saw proudly punch their patient’s numbers into it and then inform them that they were at high risk of a stroke or heart attack and urgently needed to start a statin. Given that almost everyone ended up being “high risk” I was not surprised to learn that in 2016, Kaiser completed an extensive study which determined this calculator overestimated the rate of these events by 600%. Sadly, that has not at all deterred the use of this calculator (e.g., medical students are still tested on it for their board examinations).

Note: one of the most unfair things about statins is that the healthcare system decided they are “essential” for your health, so doctors who don’t push them are financially penalized, and likewise patients who don’t take them are as well (e.g., through life insurance premiums).

So, despite the overwhelming evidence against their use, many physicians believe so deeply in the “profound” benefits of statins that they do things like periodically advocating for statins to be added to the drinking water supply.

Read the Whole Article

The post What They Don’t Tell Us About Heart Disease appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

The Gateway Pundit

The post Trump Calls on Kamala Harris To Be Prosecuted appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Lew,

“Party in the C.I.A.,” a song that cleverly exposes the brutal activities of the Agency, is being performed now on stages throughout the U.S. by Weird Al Yankovic on his Bigger and Weirder concert tour. Weird Al is known for his song parodies, using the melodies of hit songs (after getting permission from the original songwriters) and changing the lyrics. Here is the official video that now has 50 million views, followed by the lyrics: 

I moved out to Langley recently
with a plain and simple dream
Want to infiltrate some third world place (Whoa)
and topple their regime
those men in black with their matching suitcases
where everything’s on a need to know basis
agents got that swagger
everyone’s so cloak and dagger
I’m feeling nervous but I’m really kinda wishing
for an undercover mission
that’s when the red alert came on the radio
and I put my ear piece on
got my dark sunglasses on
and I had my weapon drawn

So I get my handcuffs
my cyanide pills
my classified dossier
tapping the phones like yeah
shredding the files like yeah
I memorized all the enemy spies I gotta neutralize today
yeah it’s a party in the CIA
yeah it’s a party in the CIA

I’ve done a couple of crazy things that have almost gotten me dismissed
like terminate some head of state who wasn’t even on my list
burn that microfilm, buddy, will you?
I’d tell you why but then I’d have to kill you
you need a quickie confession?
We’ll start a water boarding session

no hurry on that South American dictator
I’ll assassinate him later
that’s when he walked right in my laser sights
and my silencer was on
and my silencer was on
and another target’s gone

yeah we got our black ops all over the world
from Kazakhstan to Bombay
paying the bribes like yeah
plugging the leaks like yeah
interrogating the scum of the earth
we’ll break ’em by the break of day
yeah it’s a party in the CIA
yeah it’s a party in the CIA

Need a country destabilized (stabilized)?
Look no further we’re your guys (we’re your guys)
We’ve got snazzy suits and ties (suits and ties)
and a better dental plan than the FBI’s

better put your hands up and get in the van
Or else you’ll get blown away (Blown away!)
staging a coup like yeah
brainwashing moles like yeah
we only torture the folks we don’t like
You’re probably gonna be OK (You’re gonna be OK!)
yeah it’s a party in the CIA
yeah it’s a party in the CIA

The post Party in the C.I.A. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah. 

Cremieux Recueil

The post Go Ahead And Have Kids appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The Gateway Pundit

The post Feds reveal dozens of organ donors may not have been dead when ‘procurement’ processes started! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

greekreporter.com

www.oann.com

The post Catholic and Orthodox Leaders Unite in Condemnation of Gaza Church Bombing appeared first on LewRockwell.

Brian Dunaway wrote:

Aside from the more specific American Christian peculiarities of thought orbiting this Zionist-induced example, I am reminded me how much American Christians, though far from all, are idolaters for the ravenous beast they worship. One might make a list of the destruction by the United States (and their flaccid minion states) of several nation states, even in the early start to this century alone, whose policies had promoted the relative peace and calm of peoples living together practicing Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. It seems the goal of the United States is to annihilate the sanctity of every foreign Christian.

The gospels, Acts, epistles, and early writings of the ante-Nicene church were replete with encouragement to offer protection, support, and hope to Christian brethren in other communities, regardless of national borders. The American ecclesia more often than not seems to do the opposite – encouraging the beast to consume every space where Christians might find solace.

Many look the other way when presented with evidence of ethnic cleansing or other heinous crimes against faraway and unfamiliar peoples, but might they show at least empathy for their very own brethren in Christ?

Surely ignorance abounds, with the state’s near-infinite resources of power for propaganda, though willful ignorance becomes more and more difficult to accomplish when grave sins are shamelessly committed in broad daylight and in living color. Why is the American Christian default setting for trust more often than not set to The State (Satan), and not The Almighty?

The post American Christian Idolatry appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The Telegraph

The post The mask of Davos Man has slipped. The elites will do anything to discredit Brexit appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

The Gateway Pundit 

The post Wall Street Journal Releases Birthday Letter from Bill Clinton to Jeffrey Epstein appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

The Gateway Pundit

The post Joe Biden Gets $10 Million Advance To Write a Book No One Is Going To Read appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

The Gateway Pundit

The post Peter Hotez PANICS After Heavily-Vaxxed Caller Reveals “Worst Experience Ever” Post-Booster appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

The government wants us all in their tax prison. “No freedom for you!”

The post Government is Coming for VanLifers appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

The post Ivanka SECRETS REVEALED as Trump PAST HAUNTS HIM appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

The post Banned on Youtube: Will the COVID Criminals EVER Face Justice? appeared first on LewRockwell.