Kidney Injury, Pfizer Jab

URGENT: A big New Zealand study reveals high rates of kidney injury after the Pfizer jab

1,800 more cases than expected followed the shots, one for every 2,200 completed vaccinations; the finding is more evidence that the jabs may cause cardiovascular damage.

ALEX BERENSONJAN 26
 
SAVE▷  LISTEN
 

Drawing on a national database of over four million people, researchers in New Zealand have found a strong association between Pfizer’s mRNA Covid shot and kidney injuries.

In the three weeks after a mRNA jab, the risk of acute kidney injury rose 60 percent, the researchers found. They reported almost 1,800 extra cases – the equivalent of over 100,000 extra cases of kidney injury in the United States.

The finding was posted as a “preprint” in The Lancet’s database on Friday, Jan. 20. It is the third signal from a large government-managed database linking the Pfizer’s mRNA shots to serious side effects in only the last six weeks.

(There’s nothing cute about kidney injuries! 2279+2370-1446-1425=A LOT. Or 1778, to be specific.)

SOURCE

(THE NEWS YOU NEED, THE SUBSCRIBE NOW BUTTON YOU DON’T)

Subscribed

The authors did not define “acute kidney injury,” a term that can cover anything from relatively benign changes on laboratory tests to a serious loss of renal function.

Still, the finding is yet another signal of the potential cardiovascular risks of the mRNAs. The kidneys essentially function as filters for the blood, and renal injuries often result from reduced blood flow to the kidneys.

The researchers also found elevated rates of heart inflammation, blood clots, and platelet damage in the weeks after one or both of the shots. In all, they found a statistical link between the Pfizer shot for four of the 12 conditions they examined.

The finding is particularly strong because the researchers did not have to depend on voluntary reporting. Instead, they compared New Zealand’s national health records to its national database of people over five who received the vaccine. Just over 4 million New Zealanders, including 95 percent of adults and teenagers, received the shots, providing a large pool to track.

The researchers then compared the number of “adverse events” they found to historical background rates. 

In addition, New Zealand had relatively low rates of Covid for most of the period during which people received the Pfizer jabs, so Covid itself cannot be blamed for the excess injuries.

Four of the five researchers on the paper work for the New Zealand government, which has avidly promoted the shots. It is probably only coincidence that they opened their discussion of the findings with the good news: “BNT162b2 vaccination was not found to be associated with the majority of the selected AESIs. [adverse events of special interest].”

Yes, the Pfizer jab was associated with only some of the possible side effects the researchers examined, not every single one.

Look on the bright side, people.

Doomsday Clock Moves Closer To Midnight

Note From Glenn Greenwald: The following is the full show transcript, for subscribers only, of a recent episode of our System Update program, broadcast live on Rumble on Tuesday, January 24, 2023. Going forward, every new transcript will be sent out by email and posted to our Locals page, where you’ll find the transcripts for previous shows. 


Watch System Update Episode #27 Here on Rumble.

Today we begin with a rather depressing, though obviously important fact. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists announced today that, due primarily to the war – the risk of escalation from the war in Ukraine – the world, our world, is closer than ever to nuclear annihilation. On a not-unrelated note, the U.S. government today announced that it once again is aggressively escalating its role in that war still further, this time by sending some of its most advanced tanks to Ukraine. Tanks that just months ago it vowed it would never send due to the unacceptable risk of escalation that it would bring. One would think – or I guess hope – that this would be alarming news. Let me repeat it. The world is closer than ever, according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, to global annihilation. But it doesn’t seem to be alarming. We keep plugging along, finding new ways to keep fueling the war in Ukraine in the exact ways the U.S. government vowed it never would do, seemingly blissfully blind or bizarrely indifferent to the obvious extreme risk it poses, such as nuclear annihilation. And for what? We’ll examine that question as well as a gamut of other issues on our mind today, a more fast-paced show than usual, designed to cover more topics.


Monologue:

The war in Ukraine turned 11 months old today. By all appearances, the end is nowhere in sight. You’d be forgiven for having forgotten this milestone, given that this war is barely talked about any longer – even though U.S. involvement has escalated and continues to escalate, virtually every month, and all signs point to further escalation with no end. In a bizarre paradox, the more dangerous this war becomes to all of us, the less debate there is on the wisdom of plunging further and further ahead. 

In essence, this is our new Afghanistan. Now, I know the immediate response is that it is true that we do not have military boots on the ground in Ukraine – though there most certainly are plenty of American boots from places like the CIA – but that is now often how the U.S. fights wars, including in Afghanistan: through proxy. Recall the vaunted Afghan security forces and the Free Syrian Army we kept hearing were doing the real fighting in order to vanquish the Taliban and Bashar al-Assad while the U.S. was merely pouring billions and billions of your dollars into fueling those wars and arming those factions? The Taliban, by the way, and Bashar al-Assad are still in power. 

What really matters to the bipartisan war class in Washington is not where boots are, but where our money goes. As long as they have an endless war that justifies endless weapons purchases and expanding U.S. Security State budgets in D.C., everyone in Washington is happy. When it comes to Ukraine, U.S. policy policymakers and key establishment figures from both parties, as usual, speak with one voice: we are in Ukraine for as long as it takes – 5 years, 15 years, 50 years. It doesn’t matter. And we’ll spend however much of your money it takes: the $100 billion already sent, $ 500 billion, $1 trillion or more. 

From the start, the U.S. involvement in this war has followed a very predictable pattern. First, Biden officials vow that they will never pass a certain limit of involvement – such as sending a particular weapon system or deploying any boots on the ground – because to do so would be too dangerous and too escalatory. And then, months later, sometimes just a couple of months later, after that vow was issued, the White House starts leaking to its favorite reporters that it is now prepared to do exactly that which they vowed they would not do just months earlier on the grounds that doing so would be too escalatory. 

There are too many examples of this pattern in just 11 months to do anything beyond offering you a couple of illustrative examples. So, let’s start. Back in March, when Ukrainian President Zelenskyy included on his always long and seemingly endless list of demands for more U.S. weapons and money, he wanted the transport to his country of U.S. Patriot defense missile systems. But U.S. officials back then categorically refused. As Defense One reported: 

Pentagon officials will not send the Advanced Patriot Air Defense System to Ukraine, saying Thursday that U.S. forces would need to enter Ukraine to operate it, which is a non-starter for the Biden administration. The decision comes one day after U.S. officials rejected a proposal from Poland to have the United States and NATO transfer Polish MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine. “There’s no discussion about putting a Patriot battery in Ukraine. In order to do that, you have to put U.S. troops with it to operate it”, a senior defense official said Thursday. “It is not a system that Ukrainians are familiar with and as we have made clear, there will be no U.S. troops fighting in Ukraine” (Defense One. March 10, 2022). 

A mere eight months later – last month – you’ll never guess what, the U.S. announced it was dispatching two Ukrainian battalions. That’s right: the very same Patriot defense systems, which they had months earlier, proclaimed to be a “non-starter”. The headline there tells you the story. “U.S. to Send Patriot System to Ukraine in New $1.85 Billion Package”. As The Hill explained: 

The United States, for the first time, will send a Patriot missile battery to Ukraine as part of a major $1.85 billion weapons package, the Pentagon revealed Wednesday. Until now, the United States has held off on sending the Patriot system to Ukraine over fears it could escalate the war. But the Biden administration has changed its position after weeks of deliberation over highly classified technology the weapons contain (The Hill. Dec. 21, 2022). 

In September, Zelenskyy was demanding – that is just in September, just four months ago – that both the U.S. and Germany send their most advanced tanks after he got the Patriot missile system. German officials were wary of avoiding direct military confrontation with Russia. Given how poorly that turned out for both of those countries and the world, the two last times that happened in the prior century, Germany refused Zelenskyy’s request, saying they would neither send their own tanks nor give permission to Poland to send German tanks to Ukraine unless and until the U.S. first sent its Abrams tanks to Ukraine. 

But one thing we have learned is that President Zelenskyy’s demands never stay rejected for very long. At first, U.S. officials, presumably eager to avoid provoking escalation and greater confrontation with the world’s largest nuclear power – something you would hope our government would be doing – refuse to send those tanks just like they refused at first to send the Patriot missiles. 

Look at this firm resolve captured by the Politico headline,  “ ‘These Are Not Rental Cars’: As Ukraine Pleads For Tanks, The West Calls Back.” 

Back then, U.S. officials were adamant that tanks would not be part of the stocking stuffers the U.S. had been showering on Kyiv. 

The tanks have shot to the top of Kiev’s wish list as Ukraine presses its gains in the eastern Donbas region amid the shocking Russian collapse this month. Their request took on new urgency this week after Vladimir Putin announced that he would mobilize 300,000 additional troops for the fight in Ukraine, a major escalation of the campaign. […] The more modern American-made M-1 Abrams and German-made Leopard tanks would add a powerful punch that could help Kyiv’s forces capture and hold more ground, compared to the old Soviet-era tanks they currently operate, say experts and Ukrainian advisers.

But top national security officials in both countries have hesitated to provide the tanks, in part due to the training and logistic challenges involved, according to U.S. officials, Ukrainian advisers, and congressional aides. The M-1s, for example, are a completely different system than the Soviet-era tanks Ukraine currently operates and require significant maintenance and logistical support. […] “It’s a pretty high hurdle to get Ukraine not only U.S.-made tanks but the parts to maintain them”, said one U.S. official, who, like others interviewed for the article”, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing conversations.  ‘You don’t want to give them something that’s going to break down and run out of gas and they can’t refuel them” (Politico. March 13, 2022). 

That was September – just four months ago. When it comes to U.S. largesse for Ukraine, that’s practically ten lifetimes ago. 

So here you have today – surprise! – the U.S. made a new announcement and they did it through a leak to the Wall Street Journal. The headline of that article reads, “U.S. Poised to Provide” – guess what? – “Abrams Tanks to Ukraine”. 

That article explained, 

The Biden administration is poised to send a significant number of Abrams and M-1 tanks to Ukraine, setting off a rift that threatened the unity of the alliance supporting Ukraine at a pivotal moment in the war, U.S. officials said. […] The move, which could be announced as soon as Wednesday, would be part of a broader diplomatic understanding with Germany, in which Berlin would agree to send a similar number of its own Leopard tanks and would approve the delivery of more of the German-made tanks by Poland and other nations. […] The shift in the U.S. position follows a January 17 call between President Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, in which Mr. Biden agreed to look into providing the Abrams tanks against the judgment of the Pentagon, which thought the tanks would be too difficult for Ukraine to field and maintain.

 So, what we have in just 11 months is an extraordinarily rapid and multipronged escalation of the involvement of our government in that war on the other side of the world. It first began with assurances that we would do nothing other than help Ukraine with occasional expenditures in order to let them have a fair fight with Russia. And each month, literally each month, brought greater and greater add-first expenditures, culminating in a $40 billion package in May – $40 billion on top of the $13.5 billion immediately allocated. And that number is now at $100 billion: a funding package supported by the establishment wings of both parties. Remember, in May, the $40 billion package received a yes vote from every single Democrat in Congress, while six or seven dozen Republicans in the House and the Senate voted no – but the majority of the GOP caucus was in agreement with everyone from the Squad, Nancy Pelosi to Joe Manchin and Kirsten, saying that Joe Biden’s war policy should be funded. And then, ever since, beyond the money being sent, we’re now escalating further the way in which we’re fueling this proxy war by sending increasingly sophisticated weapons. 

Whenever I talk about the war in Ukraine and the U.S.’s role in it – before I delve into any of the other issues – I believe the paramount question is always this one: in what conceivable way are American citizens benefited or having their lives improved or increasingly secured by escalating the U.S. role in the war in Ukraine? Or conversely, in what conceivable way would your life or the lives of most Americans be harmed by changes in the governance of various provinces in Eastern Ukraine? How would your life be affected if the citizens of the Donbas region decided, as Kosovo decided 20 years ago, that they preferred to be independent or be governed by Moscow rather than by Kyiv? Why would that matter to your life? Why is the U.S. government willing to provoke so much danger to the globe, so much risk of escalation, and a practically direct proxy war now with the world’s largest nuclear power? Over what? Over who rules various provinces in eastern Ukraine. How is it in your interest for the government to be spending so much of your money and spending so much of its own weapons supplies that the U.S. weapons supply itself is being depleted? 

When it came to the constant wars that the U.S. fought in the Middle East, as misguided and based on deceit as they were, as toxic and destructive as they were – the U.S. overthrowing Saddam Hussein, that led to chaos in that region, and that ultimately precipitated the rise of ISIS; or the war in Afghanistan that we fought for 20 years only to leave and have the Taliban walk right back in; or the civil war we helped fuel in Syria that destroyed that country and killed hundreds of thousands of people, only for Bashar al-Assad to remain more fixed in power than ever before, even though the U.S. still has a military presence there; or the bombing of Libya in order to replace Moammar Gadhafi,  even though President Obama began that war by promising regime change was not the end goal – at least when it came to those wars you never had to ask Americans what interest the United States has in the Middle East. Everyone knew what interest the United States had in the Middle East.

Everyone has always known why the U.S. is heavily involved in the Middle East, for better or for worse. The Middle East has oil, lots of it. All those countries I just named have lots of oil. Afghanistan doesn’t but there were other geostrategic reasons why the U.S. wanted to be positioned there, the same reason the Soviet Union fought there for a decade prior. But there’s a lot of oil in the Middle East. And so, it’s clear why the U.S. constantly is involved in changing governments, propping up governments, propping up the Saudi regime, the regime of General Sisi in Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, all of it. Everyone understands because there’s oil in the Middle East and the United States needs oil. 

Ukraine doesn’t have any oil. What’s in Ukraine that the United States needs? What interest does the United States have in Ukraine? That was President Obama’s argument for eight years, practically, when he was being attacked by the pro-war wing of the Republican Party – you’ll recall that horrific trio of John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham and now you have Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio and that whole crowd that is applauding Joe Biden’s words, very bipartisan. And when the pro-war wing – the establishment in the Republican Party and the establishment in the Democratic Party – was badgering and hectoring Obama to do more to confront Russia over Ukraine, to send lethal arms to Ukraine, Obama’s answer was: Why would I do that? Why would we go to war or risk war with Russia over Ukraine? Ukraine is not and never will be a vital interest to the United States. It has nothing the United States needs. But because it’s right on the most vulnerable part of Russia’s border, the part of Russia’s border that Germany twice used in the 20th century to invade, what happens in Ukraine is always and will always be a vital interest to Moscow.

That was President Obama’s argument. And that hasn’t changed. What has changed? What has made Ukraine such a vital interest to the United States that we’re now doing all of this, including provoking nuclear annihilation or the risk of it, the highest risk ever in order to determine who will rule various provinces in eastern Ukraine? How is that of any business in the United States? Ukraine has wheat. It’s always been called the breadbasket of Europe. But the United States has wheat. You’re not going to starve. You’re not going to be short of bread. If people in Donbas decide they want to be independent or want to be ruled by Moscow instead of by Kyiv, so what is the interest there? Every time I make that argument, every time I put that argument out in some place on television or in an article, or in social media, I constantly get back the same response. Bizarrely, including from people who proudly identify as followers of Donald Trump and as being part of the MAGA movement, although obviously lots of establishment Democrats and traditional establishment Republicans who are completely unified in support of this war, but sometimes even from people who identify as MAGA, which is the following: Well, if we’re not going to fuel the proxy war in Ukraine, who’s going to stop Russia from taking parts of Eastern Ukraine now? 

I remember the 2016 election. I worked through it. I lived through it. It wasn’t that long ago. It was only six years ago. And I paid particular attention to Donald Trump’s candidacy because it was so unusual. And the reason it was so unusual is that he ran against the foreign policy orthodoxy of both political parties. You have to remember that. His argument was we have to stop trying to interfere in other countries and police the world. That’s not the role of the United States. Why should it be? It’s time, he said, to put America first and not to go around changing the government of Syria and Libya or fighting over who rules Eastern Ukraine. Maybe Germany and France are close enough to Ukraine, as part of Europe, that they care enough. Maybe they have a vital interest in Ukraine.

I don’t think so, but maybe they do. Germany seems very unwilling, despite their much greater proximity to Ukraine to get involved in that war than the United States is, even though we’re thousands of miles away, on the other side of an ocean. But Ukraine isn’t in the American breadbasket. They’re the breadbasket of Europe. So maybe Germany and France, very wealthy countries whose citizens enjoy a lot of opportunities and privileges that American citizens lack, maybe they want to go and fund the war in Ukraine. That’s their prerogative. Although they don’t seem that eager because they know the United States well. And that was Donald Trump’s argument for years. And he didn’t just win the Republican primary and, I would submit, the general election, despite that argument, he won in large part because of it. Americans do not want to be the world’s policeman if you ask them. 

Here we have a poll from Rasmussen. It’s February 2013. But here is what Rasmussen said, 

Very few voters think the United States should take on the responsibility of ensuring peace and democracy in the world, a view that has changed a little over the years. A new Rasmussen Report national telephone survey finds that just 11% of voters think the United States should be the world’s policeman. Virtually unchanged from findings in 2011 and 2009: 72% disagree and 17% are not sure (Rasmussen Reports. Feb. 5, 2013). 

That’s why Donald Trump was so successful in his 2016 very unconventional candidacy. Americans are sick of going to the polls and, no matter what ends up happening, or no matter who ends up winning, the same foreign policy of endless war continues. No matter what – including in countries in which the United States has no business. And he won in large part because of that, which is why it’s actually shocking to me to hear people self-identified as Trump supporters or members of the MAGA movement saying to me, “Well, if we don’t stop Russia from taking over Eastern Ukraine, who will?” Why is it the role of the United States? 

That question is of particular urgency because the United States and Russia are pretty unique countries in several important ways. To begin with, they have the two largest nuclear stockpiles on the planet that are capable of blowing up the world thousands of times over. They are the two countries that have, on at least two occasions, and I would say three or four, brought the world to the very brink of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War – on at least two occasions. If you want to be strict about it. I would suggest, again, three or four. The Cuban Missile Crisis being the one most obvious, where probably, more by luck than anything else, the U.S. and Russia avoided nuclear Armageddon. And these trigger systems that these weapons are run by are very archaic. There are still nuclear Cold War-era alert systems. And on top of that, far worse, Russiagate by design, made it all but impossible for the United States and Russia to even have communications any longer. You may remember that Michael Flynn was actually prosecuted, prosecuted for the crime of calling a Russian counterpart, Ambassador Kislyak, weeks before he was going to take over as national security adviser, something that, of course, you want a general appointed to be doing.

We did a video on the insanity of that prosecution called “The sham prosecution of Michael Flynn” that I encourage you to watch. Not only did they do that, but they essentially violated every longstanding liberal precept about justice and prosecutions in order to prosecute him. But it started because he called Russia to talk about the relationship between the United States and Russia under the new administration. Jeff Sessions was almost turned into a criminal because he had two conversations in passing with Russian officials that he forgot because it’s a very common thing for Americans and Russians to talk. That’s what people in Washington do. They made it almost criminal for the U.S. and Russia to have any communications. People were petrified – Americans were – to talk to Russians. And so, there is no longer any communication between these two countries. And now you have them buzzing by each other, fighting a proxy war on the border of Russia. And so, it shouldn’t take very much work to understand how dangerous the situation is. Over What? 

So, let’s look at just some of the escalations that the United States considered. First, we have this article from Politico, in March of 2022, at the very beginning of the war, where the U.S. actually actively debated whether they should put trainers and other intelligence officials on the ground in Ukraine. And they ultimately decided that they wouldn’t for fear of provoking Russia. But we’ve since learned that although there are no military boots on the ground, there are intelligence boots on the ground, military advisers, and people standing next to the Ukrainians, helping them do the targeting. The U.S. is much more involved in this war than just sending all of its money and all of its weapons. 

And as a result, here we have today the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which I began by referencing at the start of the show, announcing that they were moving their so-called Doomsday Clock, which they created 50 years ago or more during the Cold War. The idea is that midnight represents global annihilation, and however far away the U.S. or the planet is from midnight is how far away we are from the threat of global annihilation. And they today moved that clock to 90 seconds before midnight. And as you see there, they call it “a time of unprecedented danger.” And by unprecedented, what they mean is that in no moment in U.S. history, including during the Cold War, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles were pointed at the United States and the Soviet Union major cities, even as we were involved in wars all over the war world, did we get as close to the risk of annihilation as we are today. They just increased the clock to 90 seconds to midnight. It was 100 seconds. Which is by far the worst ranking that it’s been. 

Here you see from Reuters. The title is “Doomsday Clock Moves to 90 Seconds to Midnight as Nuclear Threat Arises”. The article says, 

Atomic scientists set the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than ever before on Tuesday, saying threats of nuclear war, disease, and climate volatility have been exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, putting human humanity at greater risk of annihilation. The Doomsday Clock, created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to illustrate how close humanity has come to the end of the world, moved its “time” in 2023 to 90 seconds to midnight, 10 seconds closer than it has been for the past three years. Midnight on this clock marks the theoretical point of annihilation. The clock’s hands are moved closer to or further away from a night based on scientists reading of an existential threat at a particular time. The new time reflects a world in which Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has revived fears of nuclear war. “Russia’s thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons remind the world that escalation of the conflict by accident, intention, or miscalculation is a terrible risk. The possibility that conflict could spin out of anyone’s control remains high”, Rachel Bronson, the Bulletin’s president and CEO told a news conference in Washington on Tuesday (Reuters. Jan. 24, 2023). 

In other words, it’s not that the United States and Russia want a nuclear war to happen. Obviously, no one does. The risk is that when you have a situation that’s so unpredictable but so dangerous, and especially with Moscow perceiving, rightly or wrongly, that a war right on the other side of the border in which all of the data was involved is existential and threatening to them, I think most countries would see it that way. The risk of nuclear war breaking out because of misperception or miscommunication is extremely high, especially given the lack of communication between the two countries, probably worse than at any time, even during the Cold War, as a result of Russiagate, which made it almost impossible for anyone in Washington to talk to Russians. 

Let’s watch the video of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that was unveiled this morning. Here you see the president of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explaining the rationale for moving the clock this close and what the war in Ukraine has to do with it. And you’ll hear some other voices as well. 

(Video 00:35:14)

Doomsday Clock Announcement: The members of the Science and Security Board moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward, largely, though not exclusively, because of the mounting dangers in the war in Ukraine. We move the clock forward the closest it has ever been to midnight. It is now 90 seconds to midnight. 

Rachel Bronson, Bulletin president and CEO: Russia’s thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons remind the world that escalation of the conflict by accident, intention or miscalculation is a terrible risk. The possibility that the conflict could spin out…

You heard what they just said. They said ‘we’re moving the clock 90 seconds to midnight primarily – though not exclusively but – primarily due to the risk of unintentional escalation in the war in Ukraine’. So, the question that I asked just a few minutes ago is, what possible justification is there for sending hundreds of billions of dollars and all of our weaponry over to Ukraine? How is that improving the lives of American citizens? Let me add now to that question. Why would you risk the potential survival of your children and of the planet, in a potential nuclear war? I understand that sometimes risking everything in a war is necessary as Nazis are marching through Western Europe and Eastern Europe, conquering all countries. You may think that that’s the perfect case. This is not that. This is a regional power, Russia. Their economy is smaller than Italy’s. They can’t even hold towns in Ukraine. They’re not going to conquer Eastern Europe and then Western Europe and then come to the United States. No one sane thinks that. So, what justifies this risk for the United States to fuel to the point that we’re closer now to global annihilation than ever before? 

Let’s continue with the president of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists explaining what the risk is.

Rachel Bronson, Bulletin president and CEO: Veiled threats to use nuclear weapons remind the world that escalation of the conflict by accident, intention or miscalculation is a terrible risk. The possibility that the conflicts spin out of anyone’s control remains high. 

Mary Robinson, Chair of Elders and former president of Ireland: Three years ago, in January 2020, like you, Rachel, I stood here when the hands of the clock moved to 100 seconds to midnight. I said at that time, ‘we are faced by a gathering storm of extinction-level consequences and time is running out. Little did I know then that the gathering storm of threats, which also include the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, the consequences of which we’re still facing today, and the illegal invasion of a sovereign state by a nuclear-armed permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. This, together with the acceleration of the climate crisis, explains why the clock has now been moved even closer to midnight. 

I don’t think it gets any clearer than that. The Bulletin of the Atomic Sciences is one of the few institutions that has retained a reasonable amount of prestige and authority. They tend not to play games with partisan politics. They’re pretty straightforward in their analysis. They’re obviously condemning the Russian invasion, putting the blame on Putin. But their more significant interest is in attempting to warn you of the dangers of this war that your government is fueling. Regardless of who’s at fault, that won’t matter, in the words of Condoleezza Rice, when there’s a mushroom cloud. 

Before we move onto the next topic, I just want to show you two videos of Lindsey Graham in Ukraine, because remember, I think it’s so important to note who is the greatest advocate of this war in DC. It’s not a particular wing of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. It’s the establishment wing of both parties. And two things in life are certain: death and taxes but there is a third thing, which is that wherever there is a war, you will find Lindsey Graham urging greater escalation. So, let’s look at him in Ukraine and hear what he has to say about what he wants more of in that war. 

(Video  00:39:28) 

Lindsey Graham: We’re not asking for a blank check. I’m not. I’m asking for military aid to accomplish the purpose of driving Russian invaders out of Ukraine. If Putin gets away with this, there goes Taiwan. If Putin’s success in Ukraine is not prosecuted under international law, everything we’ve said since World War II becomes a joke. He will continue beyond Ukraine. 

You see him standing there flanked by two Democratic Party senators. Remember, we’re always told Republicans, and Democrats can’t agree on anything, put them in the room together and they go at each other’s throats. They couldn’t be more in agreement. All of Washington is behind this policy. These are the same people you saw there, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, from Connecticut, as well as Senator Whitehouse, from Rhode Island. These people could not be more in agreement on this. This is the same group that is behind every war in Washington ever since wars began being fought with a posture of endless war. 

Let’s look at one more video from Lindsey Graham when he traipsed over to Ukraine. 

(Video 00:40:44)

Lindsey Graham: I like the structural path we’re on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person. 

That has been the plan of the U.S. from the beginning. It is not to protect Ukraine. It is to sacrifice Ukraine and the Ukrainian people at the altar of the real U.S. goal, which is to weaken Russia. For reasons that I genuinely do not understand. That was Donald Trump’s argument. Why are we so interested in weakening Russia? Why do we see Russia as an enemy? We’re working collaboratively with Russia in Syria to fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda. Their enemies are our enemies. That was Donald Trump’s argument: we can work with Russia in multiple ways. That was President Obama’s argument as well. He worked with Russia to negotiate the deal on Iran, which, whether you like it or not, put the U.S. and the Russians on the same side. He also worked with Russia in Syria to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. This is a contrived rivalry.

There’s no reason to regard this regional power as an American enemy, let alone one that is worth risking a nuclear war over. Even if, like most people, you think the primary blame at the war lay with Vladimir Putin, even though the U.S. has been in Ukraine, very active for the last eight years or so. Just leave aside the question of blame. The question should always be, whenever it comes to our government doing anything, what benefit is there to the American people? The only American people benefiting from this are the ones who work in the U.S. Security State and are receiving far more budgetary authority and powers than ever before, as well as the senior executives and officials of Raytheon and Boeing, and Northrop Grumman, who are going to get enormous bonuses as a result of finding a new war market now that Afghanistan ended. Six months after the war in Afghanistan was over, they found this new one. 

That’s the war in Ukraine. And I thought it was incredible that I intended to talk about that escalation today, only for this afternoon in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to move that rather significant clock 10 seconds forward and warn that quite an unprecedented point. 

Source : Glen Greenwald’s Rumble Show

BOMBSHELL: New Project Veritas video hits it out of the park!!! Watch now!

Pfizer exec admits they are engineering viruses so they can have the vaccine ready when their virus becomes the dominant strain. Pfizer makes a lot of money and America loses.

Steve Kirsch

Finally, an honest Pfizer executive admits to Project Veritas what the game plan is:

Watch the entire video. It’s worth it. EVERYONE should watch this video.

I’ll post an updated link after YouTube censors this one. It is a violation of YouTube’s terms of service to post any video that makes Pfizer look bad, so I’m sure it will be removed.

Mainstream media will never cover this video.

Expect everyone in the mainstream medical community to keep their mouths shut and say nothing. Expect complete silence.

Twitter spaces discussion

Join Robert Malone, me, and others at 6 pm PST on Twitter spaces to discuss this (which is right now!)

Robert W Malone, MD @RWMaloneMD

Please join this critical twitter spaces event tonight. I have seen the material and video that will come out from Veritas and it is explosive!

Project Veritas @Project_Veritas

🚨ANNOUNCEMENT🚨 @RWMaloneMD will be joining us at 9pm to discuss incredible undercover video of a @pfizer exec revealing shocking new vaccine research and development plans https://t.co/IB7RoMJMge8:33 PM ∙ Jan 25, 20233,563Likes1,506Retweets

In the video, the Pfizer executive warns the interview to NOT TELL ANYONE.

So please do not hit that share button. It’s important to keep this secret 😉

Who Is Watching The World Health Organization?


by Dr Travis Noakes (adapted from his Twitter thread)

Who is watching the World Health Organization? ‘Post-truth’ moments beyond infodemic research, an opinion piece by Dr Travis Noakes, Dr David Bell and Prof. Tim Noakes, raises several constructive criticisms of the World Health Organization’s infodemic research agenda.

“The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a public research agenda to address infodemics. In these, ‘an overflow of information of varying quality surges across digital and physical environments’. The WHO’s expert panel has raised concerns that this can result in negative health behaviours and erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. In sponsoring this agenda, the WHO positioned itself as a custodian that can flag illegitimate narratives (misinformation), the spread of which can potentially result in societal harm. Such ‘post-truth’ moments are rife within the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency response. It provides an opportunity for researchers to analyse divisions in knowledge labour, which can help explain when ‘post-truth’ moments arrive …”

A major concern is that this agenda lacks earnest discussion on where health authorities’ own choices and guidelines contribute to ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and even ‘malinformation’.  Rushed guidance based on weak evidence from international health organisations can perpetuate rather than ameliorate negative health and other societal outcomes. Furthermore, if health authorities’ choices are not up for review, there is a danger that a hidden goal of WHO’s infodemic research (or related disinfodemic funders’ infodemiology research), could be to direct attention away from the multiple failures of authorities in fighting pandemics with inappropriate measures.

In a recent paper, The regime of ‘post-truth’: COVID-19 and the politics of knowledge, Kwok and colleagues describe how the global health crisis of Covid-19 presents fertile ground for exploring the complex division of knowledge labour in a ‘post-truth’ era. They illustrate this by describing Covid-19 knowledge production at a university.

Our paper focuses on the relationships between health communication, public health policy, and recommended medical interventions. We address divisions of knowledge labour for: (1) the infodemic/disinfodemic research agenda; (2) mRNA vaccine research; and (3) personal health responsibility. We argue for exploring intra- and interrelationships between influential knowledge development fields, in particular, the vaccine manufacturing pharmaceutical companies that drive and promote mRNA knowledge production.

Within the three divisions of knowledge labour listed above, we identify key inter-group contradictions between the interests of agencies and their contrasting goals. It is useful to consider such conflicts in relation to potential gaps in WHO’s infodemic research agenda:

  1. The infodemic/disinfodemic research agenda: A key contradiction is that infodemic scholars who benefit from health authority funding may face difficulties questioning their ‘scientific’ guidance. We flag how WHO’s advice for managing Covid-19 departed markedly from a 2019 review of evidence they themselves had commissioned.
  2. mRNA vaccine research: This division features very different contradictions. Notably, the pivotal role that pharmaceutical companies play in generating vaccine discourse is massively conflicted. Conflict arises in pursuing costly research on mRNA vaccines because whether the company producing these therapies will ultimately benefit financially from the future sales of these therapies depends on published efficacy and safety results from their own research.
    Knowledge labour for mRNA vaccine development should not be considered separately from that of  Covid-19 in Higher Education or the infodemic research agenda. Multinational pharmaceutical companies direct the research agenda in academia as well as medical research discourse via the lucrative grants they distribute. Research organisations that  depend on external funding to cover budget shortfalls will be more susceptible to the influence of these funders.
  3. Personal responsibility for health: We spotlight overwhelming evidence for the importance of personal responsibility. During the Covid-19 pandemic, this discourse seemed largely ignored by Higher Educationand government. Contradictions in this division of knowledge labour in a pandemic explain such neglect.
    Personal responsibility is not a commercial enterprise that generates large profits, some of which may be donated to Higher Education research. Research into effective, low-cost interventions seems to be at odds with the economic interests of both grant recipients and Big Pharma donors. Replacing costly treatments with low-cost alternatives would not only greatly diminish the profitability of existing funders, but also reduce the pool of new ones, plus the size of future donations.

It is important to reflect on how else the scientific enterprise in Higher Education lends itself to being an arena for misinformation. New information in Science that refutes the existing dogma is not  accepted immediately. Therefore a period exists during which new ideas will be considered ‘misinformation’, especially by those with an agenda to suppress their acceptance.

Thus, from the perspective of orthodoxy, views that support new paradigms represent unverified knowledge, and potentially ‘misinformation’. Any international health organisation that wishes to be an evaluator must have the scientific expertise to manage this ongoing ‘paradox’, or irresolvable contradiction. Organisations such as WHO may theoretically be able to convene such knowledge, but their dependency on funding from conflicted parties would normally render them ineligible to perform such a task.

This paper alerts researchers to a broad range of ‘post-truth’ moments, and flags the danger of relying on global health authorities to be the sole custodians of who is allowed to define what comprises an information disorder. This is particularly salient where powerful agents can collaborate across divisions of knowledge labour for the purpose of establishing an institutional oligarchy. Such hegemonic collaboration can suppress alternative viewpoints that contest and query the interests of powerful agents.

It is concerning how many Media Studies researchers ignore such potential abuses of power, while supporting the censorship of dissenters based on unproven ‘harms’. Embedded researchers seem to ignore the fact that endorsements of products of multinational pharmaceutical companies by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and WHO is a particularly troubling development. It marks a ‘new normal’ of institutional capture by industry, sponsoring regulators who become their ‘lobbyists’. This is in contrast with the silo efforts of external influence in the past; for example, by lobbyists working for Big Tobacco or Big Food who spun embedded scientific research touting the ‘benefits’ of smoking and processed foods. At the same time, evidence of harm was attacked as ‘junk science’.

At least with cigarettes and ultra-processed foods, many individuals have the choice to buy or avoid paying for these products. In stark contrast, the tax-paying public has no option to avoid the steep costs of mRNA vaccines. Public taxes pay for these treatments, while less expensive and potentially more effective interventions are ignored or suppressed. Paying for vaccines takes funding away from interventions that would address wider and more pressing global health needs, in particular, poverty, malaria, tuberculosis and type two diabetes mellitus.

In summary, challenges to the scientific propaganda of authorities who are captured by industry should not automatically be (mis-)characterised as low quality or harmful information. Rather, the digital voices of responsible dissenters can be valuable in protecting scientific integrity and public health and should not be censored, as has been the case with both Prof. Noakes and Nick Hudson.

Our article resulted from collaboration between The Noakes Foundationand PANDA.

Source: The PANDA website

The National Citizens Inquiry —Almost There—And Then—??

I was a strong  supporter of the National Citizens Inquiry.

As a matter of fact , with others , I was in the front line suggesting such  a measure.

On the steps of the BC Legislative on May 28, 2022 I issued what I called my Magna Carta —-specific measures that I thought were necessary to re establish our democracy and national integrity. The very first item in that manifesto was:

‘An Independent Public National Inquiry to Examine whether Government  (Federal, Provincial and Territorial) mandates and lockdowns were necessary and constitutional.  People in Government and their agencies who are found guilty of breaking the law after due process MUST be brought to Justice.

Such an Inquiry CANNOT be led by any of the Governments of Canada who are the major subjects of the Inquiry.  Instead, a Citizens Group MUST be formed for that purpose.   And these Governments and their agencies MUST open their books and release to the inquiry and the public all necessary relevant information concerning their actions during the pandemic.’

Many orgaizations got involved and lo and behold such an Inquiry organization came into being and is up and running . On its website in the introduction section the following is stated:

‘ Citizen-Led Accountability When Governments Stayed Silent… ‘

And then goes on to say 

‘Over the past few months, hundreds of Canadians from coast-to-coast began focusing their efforts in the development of a collaborative, transparent, and truly independent national inquiry. Their efforts led to the National Citizens’ Inquiry, a completely citizen-led and citizen-funded initiative through Citizens Inquiry Canada, a newly created not-for-profit organization.’

I was a member of the support committee organizing its formation. 

I resigned from the Committee because my vocal anti government positions could be construed that the Inquiry was not truly neutral and independent having someone like me as part of it.  Other committee members concurred or did not oppose my resignation. 

While a part of the Committee I had expressed some views about the soft approach on accountability in the wording of the  mandate and made concrete suggestions to strengthen that aspect. Hence,  I had some concerns.

Nevertheless, I continued to support NCI and said so publicly on this blog . 

NCI has proceeded to organize and tens of thousands have written to the NCI indicating their moral support.

It is my clear understanding in talking to hundreds involved in the freedom movement that they supported NCI largely because it was independent of Governments. That given what had happened since early 2020 Governments were not to be trusted given the manner and nature of various government initiated mandates and lockdowns . 

Recently one of the leaders of NCI the Honourable Preston Manning has accepted a paid position ( $250,000 ) with the Alberta Government to lead that Province’s own ‘covid ‘ inquiry while still maintaining involvement with NCI. 

I have written to NCI expressing my concerns that such involvement with a Canadian Government by one of the leaders of NCI puts in jeopardy one of the principles that is the bedrock of NCI’s existence—independence and non governmental involvement as articulated not only by me but in the ideas outlined on NCI’s own website. 

NCI has responded that they have made changes to ensure there is no conflict in Mr. Manning’s dealings with the Alberta Inquiry and the National Inquiry . In other words Mr.Manning still being  involved with NCI is acceptable.

In my involvement in Government and business over decades I have come to realize even more than I had earlier the absolute necessity of integrity in all matters to ensure and safeguard a working democracy. I even remember it said to me by more than one citizen that there was only one thing wrong with me and that was I was too honest. A compliment indeed. But there is this festering , nasty idea that there are levels of honesty in public and business life. 

And often it is not what is or was written but the natural exchange between parties too closely aligned but serving  separate masters where real or perceived conflict arises. And when financial gain is involved that further complicates the situation. 

The reason why this Country and most of the world is in crisis is because its leaders have lost their moral authority to lead . Double standards, ethical and conflict of interest violations abound and misrepresentation and misinformation and partial science are sold as fact. Recently another Federal Minister is found breaking the ethics law joining the Prime Minister and Former Finance Minister Morneau.  Conservative Party leaders use party funds for personal use. Health professionals have been fired for expressing their views and the esteemed intellectual Jordan Peterson is having to fight to keep his professional designation. 

All the more reason that a Citizen led independent inquiry’s behaviour must be utterly beyond reproach in its own operation and functioning when looking at Government policies and programs which negatively impacted citizens all the way to death , injury, psychological distress, loss of employment and family disruption and separation .

Lord Hewart, Lord Chef Justice of England in 1924 said : “

Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done

The present structure of NCI in my view presents a perceived conflict of interest . This is tricky business and to provide the opportunity to Governments to criticize us for that which we criticize them surely undermines our credibility. 

The National Citizens Inquiry’s independence is at stake . The organization would do well to heed the advice ( as I have done) of the Lord ChiefJustice almost one hundred years ago.

Honourable A. Brian Peckford 

“What Fools These Mortals Be” (In Vietnam And Ukraine)

And looming nuclear doomsday

Francis Christian

My readers may recall that when Puck exclaims in Shakespeare’s least reverent play: “what fools these mortals be,” the complete and utter chaos he has unleashed threatens to destroy love, hope, joy and everything that makes life meaningful.

We are even more fools in our time if we do not see the almost exact replay of the folly and tragedy of Vietnam, in the folly and tragedy of Ukraine. In the midsummer’s night of Shakespeare’s play, the chaos and mayhem of misplaced love and altered reality were reversed by a simple squeeze of love potion upon the eyes of a sleeping lover. No such reversal may be possible with Ukraine and unless we act quickly and decisively in favour of peace, the neo-con dream of domination will turn into a nuclear winter for us all.

The gulf of Tonkin “encounter” which was used to justify massive American involvement in Vietnam, simply did not happen. It was made up. Russian aggression against a supposedly “democratic” Ukraine also did not happen. It too was made up. Instead, the levers of the Ukraine war are being operated across the Atlantic, by the neo-cons in Washington DC, to whom the expending of human life in pursuit of their own goals is no different in principle, from the goals of the covid criminal enterprise.

Whether or not the global population of human beings is being regarded by the covid criminal enterprise as expendable objects in the pursuit of their corporate goals, there is no doubt whatsoever, that the neo-cons who control the Biden administration regard Eastern Europeans and Russians as expendable fodder and that they want to fight the Russians “to the last Ukrainian.”

At the start of the Vietnam war, Americans were convinced by a lying government and a compliant media that they were defending a vague notion of “democracy” by carpet bombing a largely rural population with gigantic B-52 bombers and defoliating Vietnamese forests with chemical toxins (“agent Orange”). The neo-cons of the Ukraine war and the media they control have also (thus far) convinced the majority of the Western population that Mr. Zelensky is the Jeffersonian symbol of democracy that merits “defending” in Ukraine and that Mr. Putin is no different than the devil himself! Indeed, after his recent, bizarre address to the U.S. Congress, Mr. Zelensky now has carte-blanche not only to ban all opposition partiesjail political opponentsban the Orthodox Church and torture and kill Russian prisoners of war – but also to present Western nations with demands for several blank cheques to cheerfully fund all these already accomplished democratic actions and many more he may have in store!

Powerful and rich Western nations (including France and Germany) saw the writing on the wall in the 1960s and refused to sign up to America’s war in Vietnam. With the balance of power and wealth now shifting to other nations, China, India and most African, South American and Asian nations want nothing to do with America’s suicidal war in Ukraine. 

Even before the commencement of hostilities in Ukraine, the weapons manufacturers were licking their lips and anticipating huge profits. The Vietnam war was no different – and in every American war since, the merchants of death have made billions of dollars literally off the blood of the people. Three months into the Ukraine war, the profits of the weapons industry were already skyrocketing, but now, the industry is having its best ever years (of making tools that kill people).

The “domino theory” was used to justify the killing of millions of Vietnamese people and tens of thousands of American troops in the Vietnam war. It went like this – if North Vietnam’s Viet Cong were not defeated, Vietnam would invade and take over neighbouring South-East Asian countries and countries beyond South-East Asia. As it happened, after the victory of the Viet-Cong and the chaotic retreat of American troops (aka Afghanistan), Vietnam temporarily invaded only one country, Cambodia, to rid the country of the murderous Khmer Rouge regime. The domino theory was another lie.

The clowns in Washington DC are using the same “domino” playbook in Ukraine, and it is (thus far) working! We are told the nonsensical lie that Putin has designs for neighbouring European countries – and for Germany and England as well! 

In the Vietnam era, the media lied together with the American administration – it was a deadly tango of deception, with the “we are winning” slogan making a mockery of facts on the ground. It was only after the “most trusted man in America” Walter Cronkite declared dramatically on prime-time TV that, “we are mired in a stalemate” and that he saw peace talks as the only way out of the the quagmire, that the spell of the lying media over the American people was broken. 

The media’s lies in the Iraq war continued a decades old American tradition of concentrating media control in a very few hands and using corrupt political lobbying to advance the aims of the arms industry. The same incompetent people (the neo-cons) who lied their way (without consequence) through the Iraq war are now lying at a furious pace and with ever more ridiculous claims that “the Ukrainians are winning.” 

The truth is quite the opposite of course and Ukraine is not winning. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Ukranians and Russians have been killed or seriously wounded in the killing fields of Ukraine. From their comfortable bunkers in Washington, the neo-cons are literally bleeding Ukraine to death and causing unimaginable suffering to Ukrainian and Russian families. It is a form of demonic human sacrifice.

Russia has always had the battlefield advantage and has continued to decimate the numerous Ukrainian battlefield assets delivered by NATO (American) countries. A massive Russian offensive is poised to be unleashed in early 2023 that will be much more devastating to the Ukrainians (and Americans) than the Tet Offensive in Vietnam or the Taliban offensive in 2021. The American neo-cons and the Ukrainian oligarchs continue to prosecute a war in which there are billions of dollars to be made for themselves and in which their own families will never participate. 

The difference now with Vietnam or Iraq of course, is that Russia possesses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and the most advanced means to deliver them. The neo-cons not only discount the possibility of defeat (aka Vietnam and Afghanistan) but have also reportedly leaned upon the puppet Biden administration to commit to first use of nuclear weapons against Russia! All this, whilst Russian nuclear submarines lurk in a posture of nuclear readiness and whilst Russian nuclear missiles can devastate American cities in a matter of minutes (and vice versa). 

Without taking sides in the present, tragic war, we can all work for peace. 

When historians write the history of the covid tyranny that consumed the world during the last 3 years and continues to exert its long shadows into the present era, Joe Rogan’s interview with Dr. Peter McCullough will be seen as a watershed moment that opened wide the floodgates of truth and made the population aware of a bio-medical totalitarianism that had hitherto exerted a deadly spell over them. 

May I appeal to Mr. Rogan to host a similar Cronkite moment for truth and peace for Ukraine, for the Ukrainian and Russian people, for humanity, for us all. 

Walter Cronkite’s courageous broadcast shook the American people out of the delusion that American was winning the Vietnam war. But Joe Rogan’s intervention can literally stop the hands of the nuclear doomsday clock. 

Mr. Rogan will then join the distinguished, immortal ranks of those who have risked all to make peace. “Blessed are the peacemakers” Jesus said in the Sermon on the mount – “for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Dr. Christian was fired by the Saskatchewan Government because of his covid pandemic views and writes on sub stack.

 Peterson Against The Spirit Of Totalitarianism

BROWNSTONE » BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE ARTICLES » JORDAN PETERSON AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF TOTALITARIANISM

Jordan Peterson Against the Spirit of Totalitarianism

BY THORSTEINN SIGLAUGSSON  JANUARY 23, 2023   PSYCHOLOGY   15 MINUTE READ

SHARE | PRINT | EMAIL

The article below was originally written for our Icelandic website at my request. The author knows Peterson well and has brought him over here twice for lecturing, with great success. 

Gunnlaugur Jónsson is the founder and CEO of the Reykjavik Fintech Cluster. He is one of the founders of a startup called Veriate, whose mission is to transform discussions on the internet. His book on the banking system, personal responsibility and freedom, Ábyrgðarkver (The Little Book on Responsibility), was published in Iceland in 2012. He invited Dr. Jordan Peterson to deliver lectures in Reykjavik in June 2018 and June 2022.

 * * * * * 

I first became aware of Jordan Peterson over six years ago, when he publicly protested legislation designed to force people to use and memorize other people’s made-up personal pronouns. I didn’t get to know him personally then, but I followed what he posted online. Although his protest was important, it was not the most remarkable thing about him. His lectures in psychology had been available on YouTube for years and they were a treasure trove of musings, wisdom and knowledge.

He taught two courses at the University of Toronto, one on the psychology of personality and the other on meaning, purpose, archetypes and myths. He thus explained how stories that have been with humanity for hundreds or thousands of years relate to the knowledge of modern psychology and even the structure of the brain. I found this fascinating and useful stuff, as did so many others.

So, I soon had the idea to introduce him to my fellow Icelanders and invite him to the country to give a lecture. However, I decided to wait a bit and watch him more closely. I watched many of his videos to convince myself that he was not deficient in any area, because many smart people have blind spots. I also convinced myself that he would not fall into the traps that are often set for intelligent people in order to cancel them and make them irrelevant in the media.

Thank You, Cathy Newman

I then finally got in touch with him at a time when relatively few people were aware of him, although his following had begun to grow. He was not too famous to be contacted. I wanted to invite him to Iceland in the summer, so I booked him almost a year in advance. It turned out to be a great decision for another reason because, in the meantime, he became very famous. The most important thing was probably an interview on the TV station Channel 4 in the UK, in which Cathy Newman attempted to lead him into one trap after another by putting words in his mouth.

I think it’s safe to say that almost everyone else would have fallen into one of these traps, because it is tempting in a conversation to accept at least something the interviewer says, in order to build a connection and understanding. He withstood it all, which was almost superhuman, especially given the pressure of being interviewed on television in front of millions of people. Channel 4 posted the video online, and it went viral, now having 42 million views.

It is interesting that Cathy Newman and Channel 4 should have posted the video on YouTube like this, as it puts her in a very bad light. Apparently, she and the station were completely oblivious to this fact. Almost everyone watching saw this differently. This was all very fortunate, both because it confirmed what I thought I had understood before – that Jordan Peterson was hard to cancel – and because it catapulted him to the status of being the most famous and important thinker in the world. So, thank you, Cathy Newman.

Happy Visit to Iceland

When it became known in Iceland that Dr. Peterson was on his way to Reykjavik, many of his ideological opponents started paying attention and attacking him. I had recruited a group of people to help with the lecture, and in addition, a small community of Icelanders who knew what he was about had formed on Facebook. The group tackled all such attacks firmly. If anything, this helped bring more attention to the lectures. Two lectures in Harpa were sold out and about half a percent of the population attended. The lectures were both excellent and almost a million people have now watched the first one in two videos on YouTube. They were both based on his book, 12 Rules for Life, which was published in Icelandic when he arrived in the country. I am very grateful to all the good people that helped, and this trip was especially memorable for Jordan and his family, so he gave the team special thanks in his next book, Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of this enterprise was getting to know Dr. Peterson and his family personally. We traveled around the country and met some Icelanders who could tell him something he didn’t know. He learned about our culture, ancient literature, and the wonders of Icelandic nature. He pointed out something to me that I had never properly realized, that Iceland was unique because you couldn’t hear insects in the summer. Icelandic stillness is one of a kind. He stayed with family members in my parents’ house in the South of Iceland, and on the way there, podcaster and photographer Snorri Björnsson took a marvelous photo, which is perhaps the most striking photo ever taken of Dr. Peterson and has since been widely used in promotional material. On one side of the picture, there is lava, symbolic of chaos, which he speaks about frequently, and on the other side, there is a pasture, symbolic of order. He himself stands on the road in between, because that is the road one should take.

Photo: Jordan Peterson between chaos and order on a road in the South of Iceland. Photo by Snorri Björnsson.

Jordan Peterson is very genuine. He is the same in interviews as he is in person. I think that partly explains his popularity. People find him to be sincere and truthful. That style fits in very well with today’s video and podcast culture, where content is often not edited so that viewers are allowed to hear and see the interviewees as they are.

This is how he speaks to people, true and sincere. In his lectures and books he has given good advice, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or millions of people, are now indebted to him. He has six million followers on YouTube, the size of a nation. He fills huge conference halls with his lectures. When he is seen on the streets, people come up to him and thank him for improving their lives and, in some cases, transforming them for the better.

A True Opponent of Totalitarianism

Jordan Peterson examines human history from a psychological perspective. He doesn’t fall into the trap of viewing history only from the perspective of the good guys – the heroes and the victims. He puts himself in the shoes of the evildoers. He wants to understand, and does understand, how people can commit atrocities. How do you find your inner Nazi? And how do you get him under control? 

Most people would have participated in the atrocities of their time, had they been put in that position – or at least sat by and allowed them to happen. One needs to be aware of what Carl Gustav Jung called the shadow, the unconscious side of the psyche that does not want the best and is even in conflict with the conscious self. Dr. Peterson, like Jung, believes that understanding this is important. There is a greater risk of falling into the traps of the shadow if one is not aware of them. Dr. Peterson sees people falling into these traps these days, and he’s not alone in doing so.

He talks about people being ideologically possessed. Ideas have people, rather than people having ideas. People learn some simple ideology that they apply to the world, without exception, without regard to reality, without being open, without understanding. With that ideology, they have put themselves on a pedestal. They consider themselves the good people – either the victims or the heroes who are going to save the victims. Those who do not agree are often the villains who have to be disposed of – ostracized, fined and even jailed.

Of course, not everyone involved in such an ideologically possessed movement is as advanced. Many sit by and perhaps participate a little in their ignorance. Some people take advantage of the movement to promote themselves. Amoral pretend heroes.

One root of such movements is what Dr. Peterson calls the spirit of Cain. In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain was bitter towards the world and towards God. That led him to the murder of Abel. Dr. Peterson says that what he is fighting is the spirit of Cain. See an excerpt from this interview with Lex Fridman. He tries to fight with humility for the truth, tries to criticize himself when it is appropriate, unlike Cain. And the humility makes him hard to cancel. Then he shows firmness when it matters. He does not enjoy the fight. One can see that clearly. He only considers the fight necessary, because he sees that surrendering is worse than the suffering of the fight.

The worst crimes in living memory all have the characteristics of the perpetrators painting their victims as evildoers. This was true of the Hutus against the Tutsis, the Nazis against the Jews, and the Communists against anyone who opposed their ideology. First, you must show that you are a victim – then you can kill.

This spirit of totalitarianism includes a strong enmity towards those who disagree. Those who disagree are accused of hate speech. But hate speech is rarely recognized as such when it matters. Racist comments were not called hate speech until after millions had been killed. When the dominant forces and majority use hate speech, it seems impossible to draw attention to it or stop it. Now, people who disagree with the ideologically possessed are called deniers, conspiracy theorists, tin foil hatters, white men, racists, and anti-vaxxers. Such speech is not considered hate speech, even if it has been shown by opinion polls that people who have received a vaccine against Covid often have a dislike, probably disgust, of unvaccinated people, and this has manifested in governments’ harsh measures against the unvaccinated. 

Maybe the word “anti-vaxxer” will be considered hate speech at some point in the future, when it no longer matters. The term “hate speech” is used as a weapon of the strong against the weak because the strong get to define it. Thus, the lie behind the use of words is revealed: the fight against so-called hate speech usually does not protect the weak, but creates a basis for the strong to use new hate words against the weak and those who are to be weakened. The fight against hate and extremism must be based on free expression. If you are going to stifle speech, it is likely that you have become the extremist.

The spirit of totalitarianism involves a great certainty and a complete lack of intellectual humility. Based on this certainty, the possessed believe they can take away people’s freedom to live their lives as they choose and then take away their freedom of speech. They go so far that it becomes difficult for them to admit they were wrong. They try to cover their contradictions and errors by loudly denouncing those who point out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Jordan Peterson suggested a few years ago that we may be seeing how totalitarianism based on the archetype of the devouring mother might manifest itself. Now, there is a name for this ideology: wokism. Wokism is obsessed with identity politics (as if everything is about gender, sexuality, and race). There is a strong correlation between wokism and extremism in the response to the Covid pandemic, as wokism can be seen as the extremism of someone who puts themselves on a pedestal as a protector.

The Land of the Nice Fell to Extremism

Dr. Peterson is from Canada, which is a wonderful country and much like my country, Iceland. Canadians are known for being nice. I have traveled quite a bit around the country and done business with Canadians, who are truly polite and nice. Canadian culture is much more similar to my country’s than American culture is. In the United States, there is more arrogance, superficiality, and even harshness. In Canada, I have found there is more consideration, sincerity, and tenderness in business. I don’t want to oversimplify, but this is what I have generally found.

But the land of the nice seems to be a good breeding ground for the extremism of overprotection. Perhaps many of the nice ones have an unconscious Jungian shadow. Since Justin Trudeau took over as Prime Minister of Canada, the spirit of wokism has reigned in the country. Some see Trudeau as a savior, while others see him as a superficial populist. Perhaps his election is just a symptom of the wokism that had begun to take over earlier.

Dr. Peterson became famous when he protested laws that could be interpreted, probably rightly, as forcing people to use made-up third-person pronouns like ze, xe, tey, ve, etc. about people who required it. Therefore, choosing one of the third-person pronouns in the language is rejected: he, she, or it, although by their nature, they can stand for anything and anyone if one is not looking for ways to play the victim and control other people. The silliness behind this is of course obvious to most Icelanders, as there is a strong awareness here that the gender of words does not necessarily correspond to the gender of people; cop is feminine (lögga) and nurse is masculine (hjúkrunarfræðingur), regardless of the gender of the person. There are also more words than personal pronouns in Icelandic that take different forms based on gender, e.g. adjectives. 

If you are going to invent new genders for personal pronouns, you can invent new genders for adjectives in the same way, and then inflect them in four cases. If people were to be forced to use such words, they would be forced to learn thousands of word forms. This is simpler in English, because it is largely gender-neutral, outside of words like the third-person pronouns. The English-speaking wokist idea is that people can simply make up their own personal pronouns to describe their gender identity. It should be obvious that it is unacceptable to force people to use such new words. The language must evolve freely.

These laws have roots in the authoritarian mindset. It is not enough for the wokist that a certain group is given the freedom to define themselves by some new gender and be left alone; others must be forced to accept that gender and adjust their use of words. This authoritarian approach reveals the true mindset behind what appears on the surface to be a loving action.

If this were not true, Jordan Peterson would not have become so well-known for this affair. He was protested with great fervor and accused of being the worst kind of person. However, people who looked into it saw the truth that he was the moderate one, an advocate of freedom. People flocked to his lectures because of this, and his fame rose.

Since this happened, he has been subjected to many cancellation attempts. I used falsehoods from many of them to introduce him when he came on stage to lecture in Reykjavik. He has withstood these attacks and the wokists’ efforts have backfired in many ways. More and more people not only see through them but also have the courage to speak their minds.

Photo: Jordan Peterson walked gleefully on stage after the writer of this article introduced him on stage using the media’s falsehoods. Photo by Haraldur Guðjónsson.

Attack on Dr. Peterson’s License to Practice as a Clinical Psychologist

Jordan Peterson has been attacked at the University of Toronto, where he was a professor, but recently the College of Psychologists of Ontario, the governing body for psychologists, has ruled that he should undergo education in the use of social media or lose his license to practice as a clinical psychologist. Dr. Peterson talks about the importance of standing your ground – totalitarianism thrives on indulgence and complicity, among other things. He will not undergo reeducation. 

He no longer works as a clinical psychologist, because his fame made it difficult for him to show clients the critical attention needed. But he is not going to let extremists take away his license. Dr. Peterson has taught people to stand their ground, heroically, and never surrender to the lie. Once again, he must show that determination himself.

These actions against Dr. Peterson are being carried out based on his comments in public, from Joe Rogan’s talk show to Twitter. There are thirteen complaints, one of which is based on a 3-hour interview with Joe Rogan in its entirety, without specifying in detail what his offense consists of. Some of the issues concern tweets on Twitter about the government’s actions due to Covid, including a retweet of the opposition leader’s tweet against mandatory masks! Also a tweet expressing his objection to the idea of taking children away from people who protested vaccine mandates! These are crimes in the opinion of the wokists who have gained power in many places. You can learn about the matter in this video, where he is interviewed by his daughter, Mikhaila.

If there was any doubt that Canada has fallen prey to extremism, this case should dispel it. First, totalitarian measures are taken against the citizens of the country, then citizens who protest are attacked, bank accounts are frozen and threats are made to take their children, and then the psychologist Jordan Peterson, who happens to be an expert on this kind of extremism, is not allowed to comment on what is happening. All opposition must be suppressed.

Freedom of expression is the ultimate test of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism begins in the psyche of the extremists. Then it appears in the willingness to take away people’s freedoms. It appears in contradictions and untruths. But the opposition to free speech is what ultimately exposes totalitarianism beyond any doubt.

Now let’s see if Canada falls deeper into totalitarianism or if Jordan Peterson’s fight turns out to be the stone that strikes Goliath in the forehead.

Gunnlaugur Jónsson

This article was originally published on Krossgötur in Icelandic. It has been edited slightly for international readers.

Author

  • Thorsteinn SiglaugssonThorsteinn SiglaugssonThorsteinn Siglaugsson is an Icelandic consultant, entrepreneur and writer and contributes regularly to The Daily Sceptic as well as various Icelandic publications. He holds a BA degree in philosophy and an MBA from INSEAD. Thorsteinn is a certified expert in the Theory of Constraints and author of From Symptoms to Causes – Applying the Logical Thinking Process to an Everyday Problem.READ MORE  

GATHERING TO HONOR THE DEPARTED

Mark Oshinskie

Having lived and played indoor and outdoor basketball in urban areas, I liked it when, just before taking the first warm-up shot, some kid would say, “This one’s for all the brothers who couldn’t be here today.”

We all live for a limited time and occasionally it’s good to stop and remember those who came before us, either specifically or generally. Just because people are gone doesn’t mean that what they said or did doesn’t matter anymore; some of their words or actions inevitably live on. Dedicating play time, or other time, to the memory of others also reminds us to play or to live in a way that shows appreciation for the opportunity to still do so. 

On Saturday, we celebrated the life of my mother, who died two weeks ago. Even though she died at 94—after having “survived Covid” a year ago—and most of her contemporaries are gone or are unable to travel, about 80 people showed up. One missing person was her 100 year-old friend who “has Covid” and wants to die soon but almost certainly won’t. 

Unvaxxed, I hugged, kissed, shook hands with and/or spoke at close range with nearly everyone at the memorial service. We also shared a catered lunch buffet in a loud, congested narthex. As far as I know, no one sanitized their hands. Many had crossed state lines. Only one wore a mask. It was a Coronamaniacs’ nightmare. But I loved it. 

In addition to spending up close and personal time with my own family, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews, I met some unrelated people whom my mother had known from her church. Everyone said nice, believable things about her; as they spoke, some had tears in their eyes. I saw, once again, what one always sees at such end-of-life gatherings, namely how one life affects so many others. It was uplifting. 

After the service and long lunch, fifteen of the core family went back to my parents’ condo and, for seven more hours, told stories about back-in-the-day, looked at old photos and talked about life. It felt like family; quintessentially so. It was awesome.

I thought of all of the families who, during the Scamdemic, were denied the opportunity to gather this way to celebrate the lives of others. The bans/restrictions on gatherings were especially brutal to those whose loved ones, unlike my mother, died unexpectedly. Instead of being comforted by others, those who were closest to the recently deceased had many fewer people around to help to absorb the shock.

I also recalled the tens of thousands forced, by state hospital “emergency” rules, to unnecessarily die alone. In so doing, I considered those who wanted to accompany their loved ones at such an important time but were forbidden to do so. The bans and restrictions on such gatherings were cruel political theater. 

Near the end of the memorial service, I eulogized my Mom by saying only the words that follow:

Sometimes Mom gave instruction or advice. 

She taught me how to tie my shoes and cook Cream of Rice. 

She taught me how to swim, she showed me how to dance 

She told me not to wear striped shirts with plaid plants. 

…and I thought I was looking really sharp that morning.

I’m done rhyming. I was going to rap this whole tribute but I couldn’t convince my brother, Danny, to be my beat boxer.

Mom taught me all of that stuff and much more. Because she was a stay-at-home mother, we spent a lot of time together, especially when we lived in that little ranch house on Acorn St. I have many specific memories of her. 

But today, I’ll only talk about one memory of something that happened many times: 

When I was around three and four and five, Mom would read me books at bedtime.

This one (the 30 page, illustrated kids’ Golden Book, Toby Tyler, published in 1960) was my favorite. I’ve read a lot of books since then, many of them classics. But for sheer pathos, this one stacks up with any of them: 

It’s about an orphan who lives with his aunt and uncle, gets in trouble and runs away with the circus.

But it’s also about: responsibility, making mistakes, desperation, having dreams, how hard it can be to be a kid, taking chances, friendship, conquering fears, misfortune, trying to make some fun, perseverance, the dignity of work, redemption and going home. 

It’s a small, but very dense, book. And no, I won’t lend you my copy.

When I later learned more about Mom’s childhood—she was also an orphan raised by aunts and uncles—I thought many of the book’s themes must have resonated with her, too.

When Mom finished reading this book to me, she would tap me on the head with it.

I loved that. It made me laugh.

Then we’d kneel down together and pray.

And I’d crawl into bed. And she’d tuck me in.

She made me feel cared about. 

And that was more important than what she told me about plaid pants.

____

People told me they appreciated this tribute. More importantly, to me, was that what I said was true and not known to many, and that my mother—like many other people—deserved for this and other stories and tributes to be spoken, face-to-face by and to people who loved her. Further, withholding positive messages disserves people; humans need some inspiration. 

The time we shared during Saturday’s gatherings was essential; it was life-affirming and family-affirming. For us and for other families and friends, these gatherings are, and were, far more worthwhile than was imaginarily “mitigating” some wildly exaggerated public health threat. If soldiers crawl across battlefields under extreme fire to try to drag back a wounded, or killed, comrade, why did the government pretend, in the face of a virus that did not threaten anyone who was basically healthy, that we couldn’t share the same space as the people closest to us when we needed them most? Please don’t say “But we didn’t know.” 

The mean-spirited bans or restrictions on such gatherings were—in addition to many other measures such as lockdowns, school closures, mask and vaxx mandates—reasons that I can’t ever forget or forgive those who implemented or supported the Covid overreaction. 

And I won’t say good things about them after they’re gone.

Support Dispatches from a Scamdemic

By Mark Oshinskie  ·  Launched a year ago

Real life stories about Coronamania

JUSTICE CENTRE HAS SUCCESS

Lockdown charges against Ontario pastor dropped

POSTED ON: JANUARY 19, 2023

BRANTFORD, ONTARIO- The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that charges against an Ontario pastor have been dropped on January 16, 2023.  Pastor R. was charged under the Reopening Ontario Act.  He was alleged to have exceeded the ten-person gathering limit for his drive-in church service during the stay-at-home orders in April 2021.

In April 2021, the Ontario government-imposed restrictions on gatherings in response to Covid-19 cases.  The restrictions made exceptions for drive-in religious services.  Pastor R. led his congregation in drive-in services during this period.

On April 28, 2021, police came to Pastor R.’s home during an online Bible study session to serve him with a ticket for $880 for allegedly violating the Reopening Ontario Act by holding a drive-in service on the previous Sunday. Pastor R. informed the officers that the regulations made exceptions for drive-in services. The officers disagreed that Pastor R.’s church had the right to hold a drive-in service.

Pastor R. complied with all Covid-19 restrictions. He ensured that the church adhered to social distancing, hand sanitizing, masking and capacity restrictions. Pastor R. continued to comply with the regulations and implemented public health guidelines while conducting drive-in services.

It took 18 months before Pastor R. was even offered a date for pre-trial negotiations, and no disclosure had been received at that point. Counsel for Pastor R., provided by the Justice Centre, argued that 18 months just to get to a pre-trial was an unreasonable delay.

The Crown withdrew all charges on January 16, 2023.

Pastor. R has been a pastor for the past 20 years.  He serves the community through various charitable works, such as running soup kitchens, feeding the homeless, organizing programs to help people overcome addiction, and providing at risk youths with a safe space to build a community.

“We are pleased that the Crown prosecutor has withdrawn the charges against Pastor R.” says lawyer Henna Parmar. “Canada is extremely diverse and is home to many different religious groups. Canadians’ religious freedom should be honoured and protected, even during times of crisis.” “Section 11(b) of the Charterprotects accused against unreasonable delay. 18 months without any disclosure, and without a date for trial, is exactly the type of delay that the Supreme Court of Canada was trying to prevent in the case of R v. Jordan.”