Seeking Truth in a World of Propaganda. Links do not necessarily indicate agreement with stories or perspectives.
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” - Plato
This is the Moab.
Rudy Giuliani is bypassing our corrupt institutions and he is taking his case to YouTube!
This is the beginning of the end for Joe Biden, the DNC and the equally corrupt Mainstream Media.
Since our Department of Justice is so corrupt, private lawyers, like Judicial Watch and Rudy Giuliani are the only ones serving Federal justice in the USA.
Giuliani’s first bombshell: Ukrainian oligarch, Mykola Zlochevsky, who is the sole owner of the Ukrainian energy conglomerate, Burisma Holdings bought Joe Biden’s protection for somewhere between $5 million and $8 million, to help him keep his company, which he still owns plus over $5 billion, which he previously stole from the Ukrainian state, over $3 billion of which came from US foreign aid.
Zlochevsky had fled Ukraine after the US’ 2014 Maidan coup. Biden made it safe for him to return and to prevent the Ukrainian state from seizing his ill-gotten assets.
Giuliani has prima facie evidence of both the bribery and of the complex money-laundering operation that enabled all of the above. Part of it involved hiring Hunter Biden, who did absolutely nothing to receive millions of dollars.
The poor prosecutor, investigating all of this, Viktor Shokin, who Biden had fired almost didn’t survive an assassination attempt by mercury poisoning.
There’s a lot more. It’s truly incredible. I’ve set the inpoint of this video to the second half and transcribed it below.
Over the course of the next few weeks, Giuliani will be laying out his case against Joe Biden, the State Department and several Democrat legislators, with video testimony from members of the Ukrainian government.
These Ukrainian witnesses have been denied entrance into the US by the corrupt State Department and their testimonies have been studiously ignored by the FBI.
The criminal mainstream media will either attempt to ignore this or to ridicule it – and this will spell their end.
This is part one of Giuliani’s Opening Statement, laying out the basics of the case.
***
This episode and some of the ones that follow, many of them will be about presenting to you evidence that’s been kept from you deliberately about a very dangerous and corrupt…group of schemes that went on in Ukraine in 2016, much of it motivated by the desire to defeat Donald Trump and to elect Hillary Clinton.
It involves corruption of all kinds and it is complicated by the fact is that there’s been a deliberate effort to keep this information from you and to lie about it. These witnesses that I am going to discuss and present to you, as if it were a trial have all wanted to come to the United States and were blocked by the American Embassy, by the State Department, by the FBI, to some extent and even when they hired a lawyer to present it to the Justice Department and even though the lawyer made it clear that this involved intrusions – proven intrusions – in the 2016 Election, that it involved activity by the then-Vice President Biden, that was involved in the collusion, as well as corruption – even though these things were mentioned, the Justice Department did nothing to follow up on it.
It seemed that all they were interested in were the false allegations of “collusion by Russians”. And so you’ve been deprived of this evidence and I’ve been attacked as you know seems like monumentally for being the…messenger; for having had the, I think good fortune to develop this information, because something has to be done about it.
So, let me tell you how it began and then let me get to the opening statement. This all began in November of 2018. I was brought the information. The idea that I went looking for dirt on Joe Biden or that President Trump wanted me to look for dirt on Joe Biden it’s totally false and a part of the conspiracy to cover up the rather vast crimes of Democrats in the Ukraine.
This information was brought to me. If you want to call it “dirt”, the “dirt” was handed to me – and it wasn’t dirt – it was Probable Cause that a crime was committed. It was given to me by reliable sources.
All that I’m going to explain to you came from that. I began investigating it in a November of 2018, as a defense lawyer for the President of United States, who is also a close personal friend and someone that I felt was being – and I know was being – framed for a crime that he didn’t commit, because of the perversity of his opponents and their hatred, which seems has no limiting factor.
So, let me begin, as if this were a trial. I did many as a prosecutor…it won’t be quite like the opening statement of a tribunal. We’ll get as close to it as possible, so I make this understandable to you. The purpose of an opening statement is to give you a roadmap, so that over the next couple of weeks, as we present the testimony of these witnesses, much of it on videotape, you’ll be able to understand it and have it kind of linked together.
That’s how you prove complex and serious crimes…The charges here are…simple, the fact-pattern, somewhat complicated – but easy, once you unravel it.
We have, at a minimum two bribes. I know you’re a little surprised, because you all know about the one bribe, which is the one where Joe Biden tells Poroshenko that he must fire the prosecutor or he won’t get his $1 billion …loan guarantee. You don’t know about the other bribe and that’s going to come out, both a bit in the opening statement and then, with some pretty shocking testimony, that we’re going to present to you.
So, this involves two bribes, involving then-Vice President Joe Biden and it involves collusion on the part of the White House, on the part of some officials of the Democratic National Committee and the Embassy in Kiev.
In digging up dirt – wonder where they got that expression – digging up dirt on Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., the Trump Campaign, Paul Manafort explained to one of the witnesses by a member of the DNC, right in the middle of the election, you’ll hear his testimony as: “We’re gonna destroy the Trump campaign. We’re gonna get him off the ballot by September of 2016!”
Now, remember, the position I was in at the time that I heard that, I was [Trump’s] defense lawyer, defending him against false claims of Russian collusion and we were five to six months before Joe Biden announced for President of the United States.
So I had no thought of [Biden] as a presidential candidate. I don’t want to be demeaning but he didn’t look to me like he was physically capable of running to the office of President the United States. He did but by the time he did, I already gathered all this evidence for the purpose of defending my client – and I am outraged at the attacks on me, not on a personal basis – I’m pretty tough guy and I’ve been threatened with death by people a lot more dangerous than these idiots – but the reality is, I’m outraged that the vast majority of the media doesn’t realize – seems to ignore – that the reason this is being done is to intimidate me and my role as a lawyer.
That’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to kill the messenger, because they can’t deal with the message of this extensive Democratic corruption. Were the shoe on the other foot and I was talking about Republican corruption, they’d probably make me Man of the Year. That’s a double standard we have to deal with.
But Ladies and Gentlemen, People of America, here’s the evidence that was kept from you: It’s easy. I mean, it begins with a confession, an admission or a confession, however you want to describe it. Many of you have probably seen it. Some of you haven’t.
Let me first give you the definition of the crime of bribery: “Corruptly offering something of value, in exchange for official action.” That’s the definition under the United States Code. It’s pretty much the universal definition, including in the country of Ukraine.
So, now I’ll listen to the…tape and I will tell you the words to particularly focus on, because it’s in that one sentence – just one little sentence – that the crime of bribery is committed.
This is a statement by Joe Biden – the date is January 23rd, 2018 and I’m just going to read you one sentence by Joe Biden: “If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.”
“If the prosecutor is not fired,” is the official action; “You’re not getting the money,” the something of value that put at stake the crime of bribery.
All you need to add now is “corruptly” – and I’ll show you very simply how we do that. But now, to make sure that I’m right, you listen to that portion of the video.
(Plays clip of Joe Biden at the CFR, bragging about getting Ukrainian Prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired after threatening to withhold US aid to Ukrainian President Poroshenko).
Well, as you see, I quoted it correctly and it’s a lot more complete than that. It is this is not just a bribe; this could also be considered an extortion, because this was done by threat. This wasn’t like a business deal… “I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a ___, he got fired and they put in place someone who was solid.”
At the time, he sure was solid, because ultimately, the case on his son, the case on his son’s crooked boss, who stole $5 billion dollars – I said $5 billion – and his son’s corrupt company, Burisma just went away. He was able to come back to the Ukraine with his $5 billion intact, with his business intact, even though he was one of the better-known organized criminals in the Yanukovych government, leading a really good life, thanks to Joe Biden’s bribery of President Poroshenko…
You really just need this to convict him. He does it himself – and it’s worse – it’s worse, because in this, he never mentions that his son was under investigation by the very prosecutor who he wanted fired. That he leaves it out, in a way, by omission is a false exculpate or e-statement; meaning, it’s evidence of his guilt. It’s evidence that supplies that “corruptly” part of “corruptly offering something of value in exchange for official action”.
So, how do we go on beyond this, now? To prove it now, this is where it gets to [where] you call witnesses. So, we’ll call witnesses. And first witness that I’m going to call – and you’ll see his testimony live, all throughout the trial, we will play it – is the main witness; the man who was fired, Viktor Shokin.
Viktor Shokin was the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, which would make him equivalent to our Attorney General and really a little bit different. He clearly is the Chief Prosecutor, he handles all the the crimes in the Ukraine and Viktor Shokin was appointed to that job in 2015.
I have here various statements from him. I interviewed him by Skype on January 23rd, 2018. I emphasize the time, because that’s when the Mueller investigation was still going on and it is before Joe Biden was a Candidate for President of the United States and I never asked about Joe Biden, I was told about Joe Biden. I was shown that video clip that you saw and I was shocked.
I didn’t believe it, at first. Then, I listened to it again and I was with other people and I said, “This is about as clear a case of bribery as ever seen! And I can’t believe you got away with it…and then I said, “It’s gonna be really tough. They’re gonna do everything to protect this guy. He’s one of the, you know, ‘Anointed’, in the in the annals of the swamp media.
So, Viktor Shokin was appointed in 2015. The case against Burisma was already going on. What Viktor Shokin can describe and his other prosecutors is that Mykola Zlochevsky – these are, I know, difficult names but Mykola Zlochevsky owned a company called Burisma that was incorporated in Cyprus and he owned it at the same time that he was the Minister of the Ecology and other positions, under the President Yanukovych, who is the one that was very, very favorable to Russia.
We can take a short break and we’re gonna come right back and we’re gonna go right to the testimony of Shokin, or at least a brief description of it.
(Advertisement for Cigar Aficionado magazine)
So, we left off with Viktor Shokin and what he will contribute to the trial. Viktor Shokin will testify that he was investigating Burisma, attempting to get the money back that had been stolen by Mykola Zlochevsky, because when Zlochevsky was the Minister of the Ecology, he had granted mineral rights and oil rights to his own company, Burisma.
He made a huge amount of money while he was the Minister and he kept it all outside the country. He laundered it – a lot of it through BankPrivat.
So we don’t know exactly how much he stole but people think it’s as much as $5 billion dollars. All of a sudden, there was the revolution and Yanukovych was thrown out and his entire mafia went with him. That’s what they’re called “Yanukovych’s mafia”.
Mykola Zlochevsky was one of the more prominent members of it. They all ran away. They all had been laundering money out of the country, getting ready for this day for quite some time, so they were in good shape, financially.
Yanukovych went to Russia and Zlochevsky to Switzerland and I believe, a couple of other places – with his $5 billion dollars. But he was very afraid that the new government, which was going to be, supposedly a “reform” government was going to take his business away from him – and they already began actions against him in the UK to take his money away from him.
And he needed protection. He needed someone that could deal with Poroshenko – have more power than Poroshenko – and be able to, if necessary, push Poroshenko into dropping the case, of course, for a sizable bribe. He wasn’t going to ask Poroshenko to do it for nothing.
He hired Biden for protection of his company, if the day would come that the Ukrainian government tried to take his company away and his money away, it was going to be Biden’s job to protect him.
That’s the second bribe.
That’s a bribe to the Vice President of the United States. Biden agreed and his son went to work for the company for ridiculous amounts of money.
Remember, his son had no experience in oil and gas. His son had a very spotty if not unsuccessful record in business. His son had been involved in several questionable other attempts to sell Joe Biden’s office when he was Senator.
The whole situation with the bank that he worked for was a scandal, never investigated. He also had a company that virtually went bankrupt and he suffers from drug addiction, seriously. Many situations of in and out of rehab one very prominent one, when he failed his drug test and was thrown out of the United States Navy, just a short while before he was put on the board of this crooked company.
So, a very unlikely choice. There’d be no reason to hire hunter Biden other than to buy Joe Biden. No reason and there are witnesses who can testify to that, so you will hear that during our trial.
Two bribes. First one is Zlochevsky buys Joe Biden’s protection, in case Poroshenko wants to take his business away, in case the Ukrainian government wants to take his business away.
And he pays him off, in part by paying somewhere between five and eight million dollars to his son’s company, which had no business purpose of any kind, other than as a bribe to Joe Biden.
There also are indications of other money going to Biden. There’s a $900,000 wire transfer. A coincidence, that he got fired in February-March of 2016, because on the second day of February 2016, they arrested the Burisma company.
Remember, all these Biden PACs say that the case was dormant? Well, right on the record, there’s an arrest of Burisma on February 2nd of 2016 – hardly a dormant case. I’ve got the files here. These are the files. They’re lying. They’re lying and the press is just accepting it.
It’s really, really a very serious matter, the way our press is so corrupt.
So, there is clear proof that Burisma was under investigation. I believe it’s February 2nd, February 3rd, the prosecutor’s office, really under the direction of Kostyantyn Kulyk, who was who was Viktor Shokin’s subordinate, basically raid Burisma, close the business down.
The day has now come for Joe Biden to do his part, because now, the government is coming after the company.
Combine that with another fact, that happens in the middle of February. And that is that the prosecutor, Shokin and Kulyk receive a notice from Latvia. Now, I’m just gonna read it to you, because this pretty much definitively puts the lie to these Democrats, who say there was “no investigation”.
This is a document from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Latvia and it is dated the 18th of February, 2016 and it says:
“According to publicly available information, Burisma Holding Limited and its Director, Hunter Biden are involved in corruption affair.
“The following transactions made to Burisma Holding Limited account in AS PrivatBank are known to the Latvian FIU,” their financial investigation unit. And what they describe is a transfer of $14.7 million dollars from Ukraine, Wirelogic Technology AS [registered in Belize], as a payment for loans.
It then goes to another company, Digitex Organization LLP [registered in the UK] and eventually it goes from Ukraine to Latvia, Latvia to Cyprus and there, it’s dispersed to people like Alan Apter, Aleksander Kwasnewski, members of the board of Bursima and two other people, Hunter Biden and his partner, Devon Archer.
The only difference is the amounts of money that are sent to Alan Apter and Alexander Kwasniewski are listed. The amount sent to Archer and Biden is not. From the records of their company, however you find that they received $3 million dollars.
This is an out-and-out money-laundering case.
So, in addition to bribery, this is what you would call a “smoking gun” for a prosecutor.
Right on paper, in more detail than I just described it. I mean, here’s – if you’d like to take a look, this is the document in English, just so you know it’s an authentic document. This is the document – or part of it – in Ukrainian, in which the money-laundering is demonstrated about four or five different ways.
There’s the chart of the money-laundering. This is all from the files of the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor that “wasn’t investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden” – except right in the file, on February 16th of 2016, they were investigating into Biden.
Liars. They’re liars. They’re really, really serial liars.
Just at that time, coincidentally, just at that time, when Shokin was in the middle of this, there are three telephone calls between the Vice President of United States and the President of Ukraine, Poroshenko – like February 5th, February 8th, February 16th – we’ll get the exact dates for you.
It doesn’t appear to be any other month where there are three phone calls between them – and it’s right in the middle of Burisma being raided and Hunter Biden’s name coming up as one of the principles in the money-laundering scheme.
So, it doesn’t take a lot to figure out what those conversations were about. Would be nice, if somebody had investigated this and gotten those conversations, wouldn’t it? Like the FBI or the Justice Department, since we have a prima facie case of bribery and got a prima facie case of money laundering – but I guess, if you’re a Democrat they don’t do things like that.
But there are three telephone conversations and Shokin says that during that period of time, the President of Ukraine was coming to him, Shokin will testify and telling him he better go easy on the company and he better go easy on hunt to Biden because Joe Biden is giving him a lot of pressure.
The telephone calls kind of corroborate that; three of them within a week, week and a half. And then, on Shokin’s end of it, we find out the other side of what Joe Biden admitted on tape: demanding that Shokin be fired and it’s not, “You’re not getting your loan guarantee.”
Poroshenko comes to him and says, “I’ve got to ask you to resign, because if you don’t, we’re gonna lose our loan guarantee and you know, we’re pretty much on the brink of bankruptcy,” basically because of all the stealing of the prior administration and we will later find out, all of the stealing Poroshenko was doing, himself.
So, Shokin has to leave. There’s no doubt that he’s telling the truth. The idea that he’s corrupt or whatever else he is, all he does is corroborate what Biden says on tape! He could be corrupt as heck. I mean, a lot of corrupt people make very powerful, who make very powerful witnesses.
I mean, most of the really bad criminals I convicted there was a usually a corrupt person who turned or you know testified against him. However, this idea that he was so corrupt is also created. We have documents here showing his entire record. If he was corrupt he really hid it. He’s never was arrested, never was charged with corruption; never in all of his years of law practice had a complaint against him. If he was corrupt, he sure wasn’t good at it because I’ve met him. He’s not a rich man. Some of these people really have incredible wealth – billions, from their stealing. That’s not Shokin.
But in any event, he’s a corroborating witness to Joe Biden’s confession. He says, “Yeah, Biden was telling the truth. He got Poroshenko to fire me – and he got Poroshenko to fire me because I was investigating his son, I was investigating his patron, Zlochevsky and I was investigating the Burisma company and I had finally it kind of hit pay dirt with the money-laundering that I showed you.”
This testimony is then then backed-up by documents that I have, here. I also have here something of great concern and that is in September of this year, Mr. Shokin, after his affidavit was revealed publicly, in which he lays all of this out under oath – not like this whistleblower not wanting to come forward – this guy’s under oath, ready to testify that happened.
All of a sudden one night, he got very sick. He went to the hospital. According to the medical report, he almost died twice. He was taken from Ukraine, because of fear that this was a poisoning and he went to the same hospital that has saved other people that were subjected to Ukrainian and Russian poisoning. And the doctor is world-famous. It’s Dr. Korpan.
And I remember this from a prior incident in Ukraine, because the name of the clinic is the Rudolf Clinic, so you kind of remember Rudolf is not that common a name.
But we will present to you, in the course of the trial and when we get to his testimony, will present to you all the medical records from Austria, not Ukraine and I’d like you to look at this. It’s just very simple and we’ll go into detail on it – but primary diagnosis, that I think that says “mercury poisoning” that’s a translation from the German. I translated it myself using a iPhone app.
It says “mercury poisoning”. It then goes on to describe how much mercury was in a system. It’s about five times more than then you can possibly tolerate. They used denominations, like two is the top and he was at nine.
Dr. Korpan says there’s no other way this could have happened but by a poisoning. You couldn’t do this accidentally. So, there was an attempt to kill Shokin, which gives you an idea of how serious what we’re dealing with is.
This is a very, very serious matter. There are other witnesses, that we will discuss in our next episode, then we’ll go through the testimony of Andrey Telishenko, who has a great deal to say, because he was both a prosecutor and then later, he was the Number 3 or 4 person in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, during the Election and he will testify at great length as to how the Ukrainian Embassy, the Ukrainian officials conspired with the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign and he was directly asked to dig up all the dirt that he could on Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr.
He was asked to see if he could find evidence of a connection of Donald Trump to Russian organized crime, Ukrainian organized crime and he was told very intimately about a false piece of evidence that was created. That’s established by his testimony and it’s established by this text from a woman working for the DNC named Chalupa. Louise Miranda – another smoking gun – that corroborates the fact that she was feeding information from Ukrainians to a reporter, an American reporter named Michael Isikoff.
Isn’t this exactly what they were investigating Trump for? Using foreign information in an American campaign?
She brags about how successful she is and then she says another big thing is coming up, that “I’ve got to talk to you about.”
That’s gonna be the phony black ledger. We’re gonna prove that it’s phony and that it was created not so much to prosecute Manafort but in the words of Chalupa and in the words of another character, here, [Serhiy] Leshenko, who actually did the dirty deed of leaking it.
It was intended to destroy the Trump campaign, with a plan to execute it in August and September; a plan that Chalupa claims was discussed with an American member of Congress, who we will name as we move along.
And then, we’ll have several other witnesses that will show the length and the breadth of the corruption. We will produce a legal opinion, because there’s doubt as to whether these constituted violations of Ukrainian law. Mister Leshenko had changed his testimony on that actually three times. One reason might be because Leshenko is not a lawyer. It’s kind of the unusual, that Joe Biden would recommend a non-lawyer to be Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
The other reason might be that he was protecting his patron, Poroshenko, because what you’re gonna find out is there’s testimony that Poroshenko may have received – that’s the President of the Ukraine, Biden’s pal – that’s the guy that Biden intimidated but Poroshenko wasn’t gonna let Zlochevsky come back to Ukraine, keeping his $5 billion and getting his company without, as they say in The Godfather, “Wetting his beak.” It is well-known that Poroshenko took something out of almost every transaction in Ukraine.
Here, there’s a dispute about exactly how much – it could range up as high as $100 million dollars – it sounds strange to you and me but that’s what was happening in the Yanukovych administration and, according to witnesses that we’ll call, things were much worse under Poroshenko.
And the corruption in Ukraine became much worse during the Obama administration because Americans started to participate in the corruption at a much higher level.
And one last thing that I find very, very disturbing and I think my client would find this very disturbing, this is an accounting chamber decision. This was an independent accounting group in Ukraine it’s dated December 19, 2017, kind of toward the end of the Obama administration and it finds that there are 440 projects of international technical assistance given by other countries to Ukraine, with a total cost of over $5.2 billion, in which there doesn’t appear to be either documentation any evidence of work done – any, any support to justify the money.
The vast majority of this money came from the United States and the police in Ukraine began an investigation, really to kind of answer what they thought was gonna be the Obama administration coming down really hard on them for wasting so much money.
Instead, we will hear testimony that representatives at our Embassy working for Ambassador, first I think it’s [Geoffrey] Pyatt and then [Marie] Yovanovich, they told them not to go forward with the investigation. You know, “We’re friends and this doesn’t really matter, and $5.2 billion – maybe $3.5, $4 billion being our own money – it doesn’t matter if they were wasting it.”
But you know why? The witnesses will tell you what the reason is. That the basic problem, here for at least $3 billion of that $5.2, is that when America was giving aid to Ukraine it was doing it through what are called non-governmental organizations [NGOs], not directly to Ukraine. A lot of that money never showed up in the Department of Ecology or the Prosecutor General’s office.
A lot of its kind of stuck with the NGO. There’s a common theme in all of these NGOs, by the way, as they will testify. They call them “Children of Soros”. One of the main ones is AntAC, which had its own investigation that was corruptly dismissed by Yovanovich but all of them are extremely Left-Wing. There’ll be testimony to that effect and documentary proof and this has still never been explained.
We’re talking about billions of dollars in American aid that’s unaccounted for, went to Soros as NGO, NGOs like Soros’, extremely Left-Wing. Some of them, not even in Ukraine. There’s one here that involved Italy getting $4 million to straighten out corruption!
It was intended before the Prosecutor General’s Office and it was given to a NGO in Italy. And then you wonder why, when they fire Shokin, they can get people from Italy and England and Germany and it all say that he’s corrupt? They were all people from the NGOs that were being paid-off!
This is a vast crime. This is probably – obviously gonna be the biggest scandal, so far of this century. Let’s hope there’s none greater. It makes Teapot Dome look cheap, when we get finished with the amounts of money and there’s a lot more to it.
And in the next episode, we’ll finish the outline. You’ve got most of it and then we’ll get right to the testimony and you’ll get to see some of these witnesses on camera for yourself, to see that we have something called proof, which Democrats do not have against the President and never had.
We have something else on our side, that makes it easy to accept all the attacks on me, my reputation, my family and the threats. You know what we have on our side? Truth.
I’ve spend a lot of my career fighting corruption. I’ve done many, many difficult corruption cases and some of them, I’ve done when nobody thought the case could be proved or could ever be done, like the Commission of the Mafia, Wall Street, using the racketeering laws in ways that never been used before, sending two Nazis back to what they deserved, with one case being terribly controversial.
People ask me, “How can you take it all?” The criticism and all. Because when I go to bed at night, I know that I’m doing what I wanted to do, from the day I became a lawyer. I’m serving justice.
I know it sounds corny but this is corruption. This is corruption at a very, very high level. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Democrat or a Republican. It was an American Vice President that sold out his office and he sold out the integrity of the United States of America.
We are a joke in Ukraine. We go there and we say, “You should stop the corruption.” And every time Joe Biden went there, they laughed at him. “You’re telling us to stop the corruption and you’re pulling millions out of here?”
We have got to fix this. It’s a matter of National Security, it’s a matter of having a solid relationship and creating a solid situation in a country that’s enormously important to us. But if we’re gonna send them $100 million dollars in aid and only $20 million is gonna get to where it’s supposed to go, maybe you can see why the President was concerned.
And because the Democrats are the major beneficiaries of this corruption, maybe you can see why they’re doing this phony impeachment. Because boy, this is phony as you-know-what; based on hearsay and nonsense.
This is based on evidence and you’re gonna hear it all over the next couple weeks.
Thank you very much.
by Jon Rappoport
January 29, 2020
(To join our email list, click here.)
In my ongoing series of articles (archive here), I’ve already established at least a dozen reasons for rejecting the coronavirus story. In particular, demanding that we believe the coronavirus is responsible for an epidemic is absurd.
In this article, I’m going to cover another angle.
In contemporary history, the officials most guilty of spreading disinformation about epidemics work for major public health agencies—two, in particular. The World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). For the moment, let’s focus on the CDC.
The Agency has quite a track record of lying about viruses. Therefore, trusting them to say anything about an epidemic caused by a virus now would be on the order of driving a car out on the road when you know it has no brakes.
Here is an astonishingly egregious example of what I mean. The CDC pushes the flu vaccine as if the continued existence of planet Earth depends on it. Their conventional idea is: the flu virus must be prevented from causing disease; our best protection is the flu vaccine; it prepares the body to defeat that virus when it comes along for real.
This highly debatable point of view presupposes, of course, that the flu is, in fact, caused by the flu virus. Well, sure. Obviously.
But suppose something is very wrong and twisted about that supposition?
Enter Peter Doshi, PhD. He asks: how many people diagnosed with the flu really have the flu?
Writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), he reveals a monstrosity:
Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.
This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.
So they don’t have the flu.
Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.
The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.
The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.
Here’s the exact quote from Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):
“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.
“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”
Because most diagnosed cases of the flu (84 percent) aren’t the flu.
So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.
When you boil it down, the CDC is lying about viruses. They’re saying the flu virus is THERE, in the bodies of people who are diagnosed with the flu, when for the overwhelming percentage of such people, the flu virus ISN’T there.
So why would you believe them now, when they talk about the Chinese coronavirus as the cause of a so-called epidemic?
In order to push vaccines, they’ll say and do anything.
Even a used car salesman, operating out of a lot that looks like a hurricane blew through it, sells you some kind of broken down car. At the CDC, they’re selling viruses that aren’t there at all.
(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Submitted by P2
“The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”!
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
John Swinton, 1880
The Internet, among other things, is a compendium of human nature; an emergent portrait of everything that we are. Discussion forums in particular, most especially Reddit, are an endless encyclopedia encompassing all of humanity’s creativity, kindness, brutality, eccentricity, and boredom. Reddit can occasionally inspire, and the right corners of the site can teach you a lot, but it often demonstrates what kind of person you don’t want to be – or what kind of person you might have been, had different circumstances intervened.
Some of the people who feature in these latter Reddit realms – featured mostly in subreddits like Tales From Retail, JUSTNOMIL, and various threads about buffets, debt, consumerism, and other ersatz Americana – merely exhibit poor tendencies compounded by poverty or force of habit. Some of the anecdotes are amusing: there is the miserly old woman who spends half a tank of gas driving around to find a payphone that only charges 25 cents. Some sit on the line between humor and desperation, like the poor renter and compulsive shopper who searches the house for unopened items to return every time rent comes due.
There are plenty of stories of antisocial entitlement: callous manager after callous manager, extreme couponers who hold up a grocery line for 20 minutes and verbally abuse the clerk when an expired coupon doesn’t scan. Or on the more extreme end, the visiting mother-in-law who surreptitiously throws out 200 pounds of hunted elk meat – a year’s supply for the family – because her recently adopted veganism doesn’t allow her to stay in a house with meat.
And then there are cases that involve senility, mental illness, or evil. There are, for example, the parents who take their kids to the buffet and force them to eat until they vomit, and then force them to eat some more, in order to “get their money’s worth.” Or the grandmother who kills her granddaughter because she thinks her parents are lying about a food allergy.
And, of course, there are countless eccentrics: some amusing, some dangerous, and some, lonely and sad, just staying alive. These are just a smattering of the people you’ll read about out there, and the broader conditions in which their miseries play out. They pop up unexpectedly in threads that should be lighthearted, and of course they are often the main characters.
One can laugh at all this, dismiss the most extreme and offensive stories as the Internet era’s tall tales. Many probably are. There is no way to verify them, and many are eventually deleted or redacted. It is impossible to link to every story or vet it; hundreds of similar stories are out there on the web right now. The examples above are a small handful of what I came across in a few hours of disquieting reading. It is emotionally difficult, but otherwise very easy, to find reams of similar content on your own.
To be sure, some of these postings are simply one-offs, particularly those centering around toxic family relationships. But many, especially involving things like debt and finances, hoarding, eating disorders, and similar social dysfunctions, may point at something bigger. What you are doing is driving down the information superhighway into the places where today’s other half lives. You used to have to walk to the poor side of town or buy a copy of a tawdry magazine. Now you can call up American misery on demand.
Much of what you’ll find evinces an unsettling, macabre mix of seemingly malformed consciences, mental illness, social alienation, and quasi-addictions. It’s a window into the underbelly of the American psyche, where a kind of antisocial, atomizing, soul-distorting individualism is so deeply embedded that it sometimes feels like the foundation on which everything is built.
For example, the relationship between buffets and eating disorders, or big-box stores and hoarding, cannot be neatly explained, but the line can probably be neatly plotted. Such things are probabilistic, not deterministic. Doctors cannot take any given woman and determine whether exposure to airbrushed, pencil-thin models will cause her to develop anorexia. But we know that in a society suffused with such airbrushed models, some number of women in the aggregate will indeed develop anorexia. A population suffused with endless cheap stuff, endless overly processed food, and a dearth of economic security and healthcare – including mental healthcare – will likewise probably develop quite an array of social maladies.
When we call things like alcoholism, eating disorders, and hoarding “diseases,” we mean that they are matters of physiology, not of free-will choice. We do not mean that, like genetically-induced cancers, they arise in a vacuum (though in some cases, they can.) They are in some sense social diseases. Most obviously, despair can trigger addiction to alcohol or drugs. There is evidence that the sizing of clothing, and the pressures exerted by the fashion industry, can trigger eating disorders. It is hard to believe that the availability of endless calories and endless stuff does not in some people trigger obesity and hoarding as our lizard brains, finely tuned by evolution for scarcity, clash with the surfeits of modernity.
This is not to excuse behavior that does in fact follow from poor choices or habits. Illness aside, to be influenced is not to be programmed, and it would be wrong to surrender what agency we do have to the idea that, because human responses can be plotted like those of lab rats, that humans therefore harbor no greater willpower.
Yet we increasingly understand that many people are latently ill – latent alcoholics, anorexics, hoarders, compulsive gamblers. A society that goes out of its way to trigger these tendencies is not kind or just. A society that pretends they are merely bad choices, and that whatever follows from them is deserved, is positively cruel. A sole focus on personal responsibility demands herculean effort against long odds, and is indeed a kind of complacent bravado. Any of us might bear the seeds of an illness waiting to be triggered or inflamed; any of us have the capacity to do evil. In Christian terms, we pray that we do not undergo the test. In policy terms, we do not run the test. Yet contemporary American culture is a great big testing ground, testing the bounds of greed and willpower and the ability of individuals and families not to crack under soul-crushing stress and deleterious incentives, many of which we euphemize as “economic growth.”
A lot of what you read in these subreddits isn’t very different from the vignettes in Chris Arnade’s “Dignity.” It is rather eye-opening for someone like me, who grew up securely in the New Jersey exurbs and who now owns a home in Northern Virginia, to read about the sorts of things that go on in the lives of people with a little less money or security. For every character who inspires you not to be like him, there is more than one who fosters empathy. If everyone deserves the exact situation he is in, then there is no need for social policy at all. This, of course, is the low-grade magic trick that constitutes much of American socio-political thinking.
In the end, the overarching question of how to divide the blame between individuals and the system might be besides the point. The Right will argue that too much social policy amounts to rewarding and incentivizing problematic behavior. The Left will counter that food, housing, healthcare, and a modicum of stability and security should not be rewards for people who manage to prove their virtue while drowning. Both perspectives are in some measure correct, but as the social ills pile up, understanding their metaphysics seems less and less urgent.
News and political chatter in the last few years have begun to notice things like the uptick in deaths of despair and the geographically uneven nature of the post-2008 recovery. But nothing captures the diverse, granular texture of American misery, the sheer wreckage of human life, like a sampling of Reddit. It’s an exhausting exercise that should really inspire anger at the degeneration of the American way of life. But most of all, perhaps, it should inspire a deep and terrified humility. A Reddit thread, but for the grace of God, go us all.
--
This article has been republished with permission from The American Conservative.
[Image Credit: Pixabay]
A persistent American lawyer has uncovered the undeniable fact that the FBI has been continuously lying, including giving false testimony in court, in response to Freedom of Information requests for its records on Seth Rich. The FBI has previously given affidavits that it has no records regarding Seth Rich.
A Freedom of Information request to the FBI which did not mention Seth Rich, but asked for all email correspondence between FBI Head of Counterterrorism Peter Strzok, who headed the investigation into the DNC leaks and Wikileaks, and FBI attorney Lisa Page, has revealed two pages of emails which do not merely mention Seth Rich but have “Seth Rich” as their heading. The emails were provided in, to say the least, heavily redacted form.
Before I analyse these particular emails, I should make plain that they are not the major point. The major point is that the FBI claimed it had no records mentioning Seth Rich, and these have come to light in response to a different FOIA request that was not about him. What other falsely denied documents does the FBI hold about Rich, that were not fortuitously picked up by a search for correspondence between two named individuals?
To look at the documents themselves, they have to be read from the bottom up, and they consist of a series of emails between members of the Washington Field Office of the FBI (WF in the telegrams) into which Strzok was copied in, and which he ultimately forwarded on to the lawyer Lisa Page.
The opening email, at the bottom, dated 8 October 2016 at 10.32am, four months after the murder of Seth Rich, is from the media handling department of the Washington Field Office. It references Wikileaks’ offer of a reward for information on the murder of Seth Rich, and that Assange seemed to imply Rich was the source of the DNC leaks. The media handlers are asking the operations side of the FBI field office for any information on the case. The unredacted part of the reply fits with the official narrative. The redacted individual officer is “not aware of any specific involvement” by the FBI in the Seth Rich case. But his next sentence is completely redacted. Why?
Even more strange is the deletion after “Adding…..”. I first thought this might mean a new copy addressee is being brought in, but the third email that arrives shortly thereafter states “Adding….. for real”. This would not fit a name. If the phrase is akin to “adding fuel to the fire” then the reply could be “adding fuel for real” – but why would that have to be redacted? It makes no sense.
We now apparently have three people. The third email from bottom is a reply to the second, and is by somebody with a longer name than the first. And it drops the intriguing comment “stupid Samsung”. So something in the deletions has referenced technology – very likely, a mobile phone or laptop, in reference to Seth Rich.
If he was saying “my television has stopped working. Stupid Samsung” why would that be redacted?
(UPDATE: the first comments below gives a good possibility on the Samsung reference).
The fourth email, at 1pm on Wednesday August 10, 2016, is much the most interesting. It is ostensibly also from the Washington Field Office, but it is from somebody using a different classified email system with a very different time and date format than the others. It is apparently from somebody more senior, as the reply to it is “will do”. And every single word of this instruction has been blanked. The final email, saying that “I squashed this with …..”, is from a new person again, with the shortest name. That phrase may only have meant I denied this to a journalist, or it may have been reporting an operational command given.
As the final act in this drama, Strzok then sent the whole thread on to the lawyer, which is why we now have it. Why?
It is perfectly possible to fill in the blanks with a conversation that completely fits the official narrative. The deletions could say this was a waste of time and the FBI was not looking at the Rich case. But in that case, the FBI would have been delighted to publish it unredacted. (The small numbers in the right hand margins supposedly detail the exception to the FOIA under which deletion was made. In almost every case they are one or other category of invasion of privacy).
And if it just all said “Assange is talking nonsense. Seth Rich is nothing to do with the FBI” then why would that have to be sent on by Strzok to the FBI lawyer?
It is of course fortunate that Strzok did forward this one email thread on to the lawyer, because that is the only reason we have seen it, as a result of an FOI(A) request for the correspondence between those two.
Finally, and perhaps this is the most important point, the FBI was at this time supposed to be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who had then been murdered. Surely in any legitimate investigation, the investigators would have been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility, rather than treat it as a media issue?
We are asked to believe that not one of these emails says “well if the publisher of the emails says Seth Rich was the source, we had better check that out, especially as he was murdered with no sign of a suspect”. If the FBI really did not look at that, why on earth not? If the FBI genuinely, as they claim, did not even look at the murder of Seth Rich, that would surely be the most damning fact of all and reveal their “investigation” was entirely agenda driven from the start.
In June 2016 a vast cache of the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. On 10 July 2016 an employee from the location of the leak was murdered without obvious motive, in an alleged street robbery in which nothing at all was stolen. Not to investigate the possibility of a link between the two incidents would be grossly negligent. It is worth adding that, contrary to a propaganda barrage, Bloomingdale where Rich was murdered is a very pleasant area of Washington DC and by no means a murder hotspot. It is also worth noting that not only is there no suspect in Seth Rich’s murder, there has never been any semblance of a serious effort to find the killer. Washington police appear perfectly happy simply to write this case off.
I anticipate two responses to this article in terms of irrelevant and illogical whataboutery:
Firstly, it is very often the case that family members are extremely resistant to the notion that the murder of a relative may have wider political implications. This is perfectly natural. The appalling grief of losing a loved one to murder is extraordinary; to reject the cognitive dissonance of having your political worldview shattered at the same time is very natural. In the case of David Kelly, of Seth Rich, and of Wille Macrae, we see families reacting with emotional hostility to the notion that the death raises wider questions. Occasionally the motive may be still more mixed, with the prior relationship between the family and the deceased subject to other strains (I am not referencing the Rich case here).
You do occasionally get particularly stout hearted family who take the opposite tack and are prepared to take on the authorities in the search for justice, of which Commander Robert Green, son of Hilda Murrell, is a worthy example.
(As an interesting aside, I just checked his name in the Wikipedia article on Hilda, which I discovered describes Tam Dalyell “hounding” Margaret Thatcher over the Belgrano and the fact that ship was steaming away from the Falklands when destroyed with massive loss of life as a “second conspiracy theory”, the first of course being the murder of Hilda Murrell. Wikipedia really has become a cesspool.)
We have powerful cultural taboos that reinforce the notion that if the family do not want the question of the death of their loved one disturbed, nobody else should bring it up. Seth Rich’s parents, David Kelly’s wife, Willie Macrae’s brother have all been deployed by the media and the powers behind them to this effect, among many other examples. This is an emotionally powerful but logically weak method of restricting enquiry.
Secondly, I do not know and I deliberately have not inquired what are the views on other subjects of either Mr Ty Clevenger, who brought his evidence and blog to my attention, or Judicial Watch, who made the FOIA request that revealed these documents. I am interested in the evidence presented both that the FBI lied, and in the documents themselves. Those who obtained the documents may, for all I know, be dedicated otter baiters or believe in stealing ice cream from children. I am referencing the evidence they have obtained in this particular case, not endorsing – or condemning – anything else in their lives or work. I really have had enough of illogical detraction by association as a way of avoiding logical argument by an absurd extension of ad hominem argument to third parties.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
| Recurring Donations |
| 2 Pounds : £2.00 GBP – monthly5 Pounds : £5.00 GBP – monthly10 Pounds : £10.00 GBP – monthly12 Pounds : £12.00 GBP – monthly15 Pounds : £15.00 GBP – monthly20 Pounds : £20.00 GBP – monthly30 Pounds : £30.00 GBP – monthly50 Pounds : £50.00 GBP – monthly70 Pounds : £70.00 GBP – monthly100 Pounds : £100.00 GBP – monthly |
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
The post The FBI Has Been Lying About Seth Rich appeared first on Craig Murray.
It’s really interesting how many of us equate how the love of God should be expressed. Many religions dictate that we who care should restrict ourselves to doing good deeds and NOT becoming too rebellious towards the ‘things of the …
The post What’s Love Got to Do with It? Everything! “Jesus Drives Money Changers from the Temple” appeared first on Global Research.
by Jon Rappoport
January 27, 2020
(To join our email list, click here.)
“In the previous epidemics, which turned out to be duds—West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Swine Flu, MERS, Zika, Ebola—there were people claiming the virus had been diabolically weaponized, it was spreading unchecked, and THIS WAS THE BIG ONE. If they had been right, we would not be here to discuss epidemics. We would all be dead. Of course, this history of duds gives these doomsayers no pause at all. They keep predicting THE END. They have miraculously short memories.” (Jon Rappoport, The Underground)
I’ve been investigating and writing about fake epidemics for over 30 years. One of my prime strategies: were there hidden and unreported causes that would explain people’s symptoms and illnesses—causes having nothing to do with viruses? I found them. “The virus” turned out to be a convenient and very effective cover story that would obscure the true causes that important forces wanted to hide.
So I began looking into Wuhan, the center of the current “coronavirus epidemic.” I was particularly interested in the one symptom that was slightly different from the typical flu symptoms from past fake epidemics: the emphasis on lung problems and pneumonia.
Here is what I’ve found out so far.
First of all, Wuhan, a city of 11 million, is called “the Chicago of China.” It is both an economic juggernaut and a transportation hub—railroads, roads, highways connecting travelers to other Chinese cities.
Several sources list the annual GDP of Wuhan at a staggering $220 billion dollars.
230 foreign Fortune 500 companies have offices in Wuhan and do business there. All in all, 80 foreign countries are funding companies in the city.
The Chinese New Year is now underway. It lasts from January 25 to February 10. During this period, Chinse people travel. They journey far and wide. In fact, this is the largest annual human migration on the planet. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of people on the move. So it’s a devastating coincidence (?) that now there would be an epidemic and a massive lockdown of Chinese cities and transportation. Along with stopping people from moving around, enormous amounts of money are being lost because tourist consumers can’t go on the road and spend money. This might be called a clue. It would require much investigation. Is someone intentionally torpedoing the Chinese economy?
Then there is this, from Bloomberg News, “China Wants Activists to Stay Out of Its War on Pollution. Citizen activism in the mold of Greta Thunberg is all but taboo in the world’s biggest polluter,” January 23, 2020:
“When Premier Li Keqiang declared a ‘war against pollution’ in 2014, a few hundred residents of the city of Wuhan in central China took it as a cue.”
“They printed Li’s words on a six-meter (20 foot) banner and protested outside a foul-smelling incinerator plant they feared was causing illness in the community. Buoyed by the conviction they were answering the leadership’s call, the residents were instead harassed by local police officers who tore down the sign and trampled on it.”
“’We were worried and angry when we realized what was causing the stench and making our kids sick’, said Zhang Xijiao, 44, who was detained for a week for making the banner. ‘But we are like ants, the local government can crush us as they please’.”
“Ren Rui, 40, quit her apartment in 2017 after her son developed a lung condition that required repeat surgery. She said smoke from the plant would blow her way under certain conditions. She tried to rent it out, ‘but no one wants to move here. Sometimes my mood depended on the direction of the wind,’ said Ren. Despite the financial pressure since, ‘I never regretted moving away’.”
Faulty incinerator. Illness. Pollution. Lung problems.
Let’s move on to another description of Chinese protests—in Wuhan.
CNN, July 11, 2019, “China has made major progress on air pollution. Wuhan protests show there’s still a long way to go”:
“…Recent weeks [in Wuhan] have seen major protests there — in themselves a rarity in China — over plans for a new garbage incineration plant.”
“Holding banners with slogans such as ‘we don’t want to be poisoned, we just need a breath of fresh air,’ thousands [!] of people took to the city’s streets over two weeks in June and July calling for the suspension of plans to build the plant.”
“’We are fearful that the plant is too close to residence area,’ one protester in the city of 10 million people told state media. Others expressed concern that emissions could worsen air pollution and harm residents’ health.”
“Local officials were apparently surprised by the scale and size of the protests, which came after several similar waste plants were reportedly found to be giving off dangerous emissions. Photos and videos shared on social media showed large crowds marching in the streets near where the plant was to be built, and police arresting numerous protesters.”
“The government has since suspended building of the plant, which locals said had halted protests, but a heavy police presence remains in the city where the situation is tense.”
“Public pressure has been the driving force of pollution policy in China, and it shows no sign of letting up.”
“In 2016, protesters took to the streets of Chengdu wearing face masks to demand action to tackle smog, while other demonstrations have targeted power and chemical plants in Sichuan, Jiangsu and Heilongjiang provinces in recent years.”
“The Chinese government is highly sensitive to the threat of protests like those in Wuhan, with the shadow of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre looming large. Calls for collective action are among the most censored subjects online, and people organizing protests or working for civil society groups can face harassment and imprisonment.”
In other words, protests against pollution in one Chinese city can inspire protests in other cities. A very dangerous situation for the Chinese government. Furthermore, it is generally acknowledged that official and corporate reports on pollution levels are being faked, to make “dangerous” into “healthy.”
Grist.org, June 12, 2012, “China’s smog city: What Wuhan looks like with 20 times the U.S. dust limit”:
“At about 2 a.m. local time Monday morning, a dense smog began to cover the province. By early afternoon, it reached its peak density in the land-locked city of Wuhan itself…The demonstrable danger is to lungs and bloodstreams.”
Yale Environment 360, April 17, 2018, “How a ‘Toxic Cocktail’ Is Posing a Troubling Health Risk in China’s Cities”:
“The foul air of dozens of fast-expanding cities across China contains cocktails of toxic contaminants unprecedented in the range of pollutants they contain at high concentrations. Now, new research into these swirling maelstroms of gases and tiny particulates suggests that they may be incubating chemical reactions that compound the health effects in ways not seen before – effects that doctors say are cutting five years off the expected lifespan of half a billion people in northern China…China has the world’s most dangerous outdoor air pollution.”
“Three other cities listed as regularly suffering dangerous levels of four or five of the pollutants are Jining, also in Shandong, Wuhan in Hubei province, and Jiayuguan and Jinchang in Gansu. None of the seven appear in the lists of the ten most polluted Chinese cities published by the WHO or Chinese environment ministry.”
“All the five major pollutants in smogs – SO2, NOx, ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 — are known to be linked individually to increased risk of strokes, heart disease, lung cancer and asthma, and to rising hospital admissions and death rates during smogs. What is disturbing is that there is growing evidence of synergistic effects between these different pollutants that make the whole worse than the sum of the parts.”
Lung disease—and no need to invoke a virus to explain it.
Getting the picture?
We have two major clues here. One, the distinct possibility of an economic warfare attack against Wuhan and, during the Chinese New Year, against all of China. And two, the use of a coronavirus cover story to obscure huge pollution dangers and put down protests against that pollution, through mass lockdowns and quarantines.
“It’s all about the virus and nothing else.” How many times have I seen that cover story deployed?
Too many times to count them. Wherever in the world you would see extraordinary chemical pollution, grinding poverty, war, starvation, lethal dehydration, absence of basic sanitation, overcrowding in cities, horrendously contaminated water supplies, corporate takeover of farm land from the people, the highly destructive use of vaccines and toxic medical drugs and pesticides—you see a conscious and sustained effort to CONTROL the weakened population—and you will find the virus cover story publicized to the sky as the explanation for suffering, illness, and death.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
by Jon Rappoport
January 25, 2020
(To join our email list, click here.)
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but…history matters.
When you see a new story on the horizon, and it looks a lot like an old story you know was a hoax, you have to dig up that history and report it.
Yes, many people hate history. It tends to stretch their attention spans, which are rooted in the present, where the action is: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram—little crumbs of NOW and NOW and NOW.
Oh well. Here we go, back into the Dark Age of 2009, an ancient time.
What was happening then? There was a grim pandemic spreading like an angry cloud over the world, threatening to kill millions of people. Sound familiar? Sound like China right now? It was called Swine Flu.
Just like now, the 2009 announcements were coming out of the World Health Organization and the CDC; the germ was a virus; it was spreading; travelers were carrying it; people were being tested at airports; the source of the germ seemed to be animal-to-human transmission; deaths were being reported; fear was rising. People were saying, THIS IS THE BIG ONE. Other people were saying: THIS IS A WEAPONIZED VIRUS ALTERED IN A BIOWAR LAB. Just like now.
So here is what I wrote about the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic in its aftermath—I hope you can shake off the idea that the following facts are IMPOSSIBLE, “THE AUTHORITIES WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE THAT,” IT COULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED. The following facts are possible and true, the authorities did do that, and it did happen:
In the late summer of 2009, the Swine Flu epidemic was hyped to the sky by the CDC [and the World Health Organization]. The CDC was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine.
The problem was, the CDC was concealing a scandal.
At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting US cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.
Understand that the CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.
What was the Agency up to?
Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:
Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?
Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it [after it was published on the CBS News website] and, in the end, no [CBS television news] broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It [Attkisson’s article] was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.
—end of interview excerpt—
It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.
That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.
But it gets even worse.
Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.
Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).
Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.
In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.
There is no Swine Flu epidemic.
Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.
So…the premise that the CDC would never lie about important matters like, oh, a vaccine causing autism…you can lay that one to rest.
The CDC will lie about anything it wants to. It will boldly go where no person interested in real science will go.
—That’s what I wrote about the Swine Flu fraud years ago.
I reprint it here to give people some perspective on what health agencies like the CDC and the World Health Organization will do to pump up the idea (not the reality) of an epidemic.
Now, if you don’t mind, I’ll blow my own horn a little. After the mind-blowing revelations Sharyl Attkisson exposed in print, in 2009, about the Swine Flu hoax, how many other reporters understood the implications and followed up by writing their own stories and pressing home the astonishing hoax? How many interviewed Attkisson and hammered on her findings and spread the facts far and wide? How many went all-out to emphasize the outrageous guilt of the CDC on this scandal?
Most reporters, when an epidemic is announced, take the bait. Automatically. They fall for the con and the hustle like rookies going to Vegas for the first time, thinking they’re going to score at the betting tables. They make the crucial mistake of believing that some virus has really been discovered, and it is about to wreak havoc in the population.
A new virus story always sounds good. It will have legs. People will want to know about it. Some reporters—blithely accepting the existence and dire impact of a virus—will take that ball and run with it into new territory: “the virus was created in a lab.” They don’t stop and consider the possibility (confirmed by history) that the hoax goes all the way to the bottom—no virus was actually discovered, or if it was, there is a zero proof that it’s harmful. They miss that vital step.
There is more to discuss along this line—and I have, in print. It involves asking the questions, “How do researchers actually isolate a new virus and identify it?” and, “What are the correct standards for proving a particular germ causes a particular disease?” When you ask those questions and pursue the answers, you find yourself wading hip-deep in a swamp. The garbage floating around you is formidable. Everybody and his brother in the official medical community has answers, and most of them turn out to be self-serving propaganda, not science. It’s as if you’re hearing: THE WAY TO ISOLATE A VIRUS AND PROVE IT CAUSES A PARTICULAR DISEASE IS THE WAY WE SAID WE DID IT. NOW DON’T BOTHER US ANYMORE.
But it turns out that bothering is good. Necessary.
(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.