• The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 3: Can It Prevent Cervical Cancer?
    There are no valid studies showing the vaccine for the human papillomavirus, or HPV, prevents cervical cancer. However, there are studies suggesting the vaccine could increase the risk of cancer.

    The Epoch Times

    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    By Dr. Yuhong Dong

    Editor’s Note: This third installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine examines studies that link the vaccines to increased risk of serious neurological and autoimmune disorders. Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

    In part 1 and part 2 of this series, we discussed the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and its links to ovarian insufficiency and autoimmune disease.

    In part 3, we turn to questions regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, and the limitations of relevant clinical trials to detect such a type of effect.

    Summary of key facts

    There are multiple obstacles in designing a valid clinical trial to prove the HPV vaccine could prevent cervical cancer, e.g. long lead time, lack of adequate informed consent, complexity between HPV infection and cervical cancer and the negative impact of girls’ sexual behavior, which may worsen the risks of cervical cancer.
    Most of the HPV’s interventional clinical trials have too short a follow-up time to draw a concrete conclusion.
    In a large Swedish observational trial, which is treated as the most convincing study to prove the HPV vaccine’s effects on cervical cancer, a few confounding factors were not adequately balanced between the HPV vaccination group versus the unvaccinated group.
    The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) data and another U.S. study found the HPV vaccine has no effects in reducing cancer rates.
    Two other registry-based studies in Australia and the U.K. suggest that HPV vaccination is associated with increased cervical cancer rates in certain age groups.
    Long lead time from HPV infection to cervical cancer

    Typically, there is a long period from HPV infection to cervical epithelium abnormalities, then cervical cancer.

    HPV infections usually last 12–18 months and are eventually cleared by the immune system.

    Fewer than 10% of HPV infections are persistent.

    There are two types of precancerous cervical lesions, low-grade or high-grade. Low-grade cervical neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) is usually transient and resolves naturally within one to two years.

    Only a few persistent infections progress to the clinically meaningful high-grade, CIN2 or 3. Meanwhile, the median time from CIN2/3 to transition to cancer is estimated to be 23.5 years.

    Among those with weakened immune systems, HPV-related cancer might progress more quickly.

    In a review of the natural history of HPV infection, the complex pathway from infection to cancer is elucidated, including what is known (purple boxes) and where uncertainty remains (blue boxes).



    Difficulty running clinical trials for the HPV vaccine

    Because of the long lead time from HPV infection to cervical cancer, a prospective, randomized controlled trial is not easily designed and feasibly implemented.

    Lack of long-term follow-up is a common issue for most clinical trials to prove the HPV vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing cervical cancer.

    For example, a 2007 study found that Gardasil was effective in reducing HPV-associated cervical precancerous lesions rate by 20%.

    This study followed their subjects for only an average of three years after administration of the first dose.

    Furthermore, due to the complex uncertainties in the natural history between HPV infection and cervical cancer, it is not easy to claim the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine.

    A randomized trial is designed to balance the two groups — vaccine and placebo — so that any unmeasured confounding variables which might influence the outcome of the trial are distributed evenly.

    However, if the treatment group knows they got the vaccine, might their behaviors change? Might they be less risk-averse, thinking they have some protection?

    For example, girls might think they are vaccinated and “protected” from cervical cancer and may tend to initiate sexual intercourse at a younger age or engage in sexual activities with more partners.

    However, sexual intercourse at a young age, multiple sexual partners and oral contraceptive use are associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer in women.

    In other words, HPV vaccination may offer some protection if offered before sexual activity is initiated, but it may also be associated with increased behavioral risk factors.

    Whether the benefits of vaccination outweigh any risks is therefore a multifactorial question deserving of careful longitudinal study.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    Systemic analysis of 12 clinical trials on HPV vaccine efficacy

    In 2020, a Queen Mary University study led by Dr. Claire Rees reviewed 12 randomized clinical trials for Cervarix and Gardasil. The investigators found that the trials did not include populations representative of the vaccination target groups, and the trial design may have overstated vaccine efficacy.

    For example, one trial design generated evidence that the vaccine prevents CIN1. But this is not meaningful because these lesions usually resolve on their own.

    Furthermore, the study accessed efficacy against low-grade precancerous lesions. But this is not necessarily suggestive of efficacy against the more serious but much less frequent high-grade lesions.

    Finally, the cytology screenings were done every six to 12 months instead of every 36 months (normal screening interval), meaning the efficacy of the vaccine may have been overestimated, as low-grade lesions could go away spontaneously.

    All this is to say the HPV vaccine may be effective at preventing more serious lesions which lead to cervical cancer, but it is hard to know because of these poorly designed trials.

    Nothing is conclusive without a larger trial powered to detect a difference in rates of more serious cervical changes according to the typical screening schedule. However, such a trial has not yet been performed.

    Swedish nationwide health registry study

    A nationwide Swedish health registry-based study followed 1,672,983 women for 12 years to assess the association between HPV vaccination and the risk of cervical cancer.

    In this study, the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer was 47 cases per 100,000 women vaccinated and 94 per 100,000 unvaccinated, suggesting that HPV4 vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of 49 to 63% of invasive cervical cancer at the population level.

    Even though the results are positive, the study researchers raised a few concerns themselves.

    First, HPV-vaccinated women could have been generally healthier than unvaccinated women. This is known as “healthy volunteer bias.”

    Second, a mother’s history of cervical cancer might be associated with both vaccination uptake and underlying risk of cervical cancer as well as screening rates.

    Third, lifestyle and health factors such as smoking, sexual intercourse at a young age, multiple sexual partners, oral contraceptive use and obesity are reportedly associated with the risk of cervical cancer.

    These factors have not been thoroughly analyzed by this study and could have contributed to the data.

    Furthermore, parental education level and annual household income level may be interconnected with lifestyle factors such as smoking status.

    Strengths of this study include its size, duration and outcome of interest being invasive cancer, not low-grade lesions. However, it is impossible to exclude the relationship between lifestyle factors, vaccination uptake and cervical cancer.

    Only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) could balance the two groups on these unmeasured — but related — risk factors.

    However even if the risk factors (sexual behaviors) are fully balanced at baseline with an RCT, it is hard to keep them still balanced during the whole study course after HPV vaccination.

    No association found in a U.S. database

    Meanwhile, researchers found no association between vaccination and cancer mortality in the U.S.

    According to the National Cancer Institute’s SEER program, the incidence of deaths from cervical cancer before Gardasil’s introduction in the U.S. had been steadily declining for years and, in 2006, was 2.4 per 100,000 women.

    The data from 2016–2020 is 2.2 per 100,000 women — essentially unchanged.

    In a cross-sectional study using a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults aged 20–59 years, among 9,891 participants, the researchers did not find an association between HPV vaccination and HPV-related cancers.

    Increase in cervical cancer after HPV vaccine rollout: Australia

    In Australia, government data similarly reveal an increase in cervical cancer rates in certain age groups of women following the implementation of the Gardasil vaccine.

    Thirteen years after Gardasil was recommended for teenagers and young adults, there has been a 30% increase in 30- to 34-year-old women (4.9 cases/100,000 compared to 6.6 cases/100,000 in 2020) being diagnosed with cervical cancer.

    Even though the rates decreased in other age groups, the abnormal increase in the 30–34 age group needs an explanation.



    Several factors should be considered.

    First, this database does not tell the stage of cancer. More cancer diagnosed at an early stage may result in a cancer-rate increase.

    Second, decreasing cancer rates could be caused by declines in screening rates, perhaps due to the pandemic and/or a reluctance to get tested.

    Third, Australia has an increasing proportion of immigrants from South Asia, and these cultural factors may influence the cervical cancer-screening rate.

    A study of South Asian women living in Australia found that almost half had never had a previous screening test.

    Cervical cancer rates rise after HPV vaccination in the UK

    In the U.K., HPV vaccination was introduced in 2008 for girls aged 12–13 with catch-up for those aged 14–18. Many expected cervical cancer rates in women aged 20–24 to fall by 2014 as the vaccinated cohorts entered their 20s.

    However, in 2016 national statistics showed a worrying and substantial 70% increase in the rate of cervical cancer at ages 20 to 24 (i.e. from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014).

    While the author would consider it to be too early to draw conclusions regarding vaccine efficacy in protecting against cancer, this merits further study.

    Accordingly, an analysis was conducted in the U.K. in 2018 in response to public interest regarding this increase in cervical cancer.

    Researchers from Queen Mary University and King’s College London found that it was attributable to an increase in the proportion of women first screened at age 24.5 years.

    The increase was limited to stage I cervical cancer. But there was no evidence of a lack of screening leading to increasing rates.

    While the researchers considered it too early to conclude vaccine efficacy in protecting against cancer, these findings merit further study.

    Could HPV vaccines make HPV infections worse?

    Besides the vaccine’s unclear effectiveness in cancer prevention, studies further suggest the suppression of the HPV strains targeted by the vaccine may induce more virulent strains.

    For example, a 2015 study found that vaccinated young adult women had a higher prevalence of high-risk HPV types other than types 16 and 18, putting them at risk for more aggressive cervical and other HPV-related cancers.

    Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases in China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland.

    If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/truth-hpv-vaccine-part-3-et/


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-3.html
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 3: Can It Prevent Cervical Cancer? There are no valid studies showing the vaccine for the human papillomavirus, or HPV, prevents cervical cancer. However, there are studies suggesting the vaccine could increase the risk of cancer. The Epoch Times Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. By Dr. Yuhong Dong Editor’s Note: This third installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine examines studies that link the vaccines to increased risk of serious neurological and autoimmune disorders. Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here. In part 1 and part 2 of this series, we discussed the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and its links to ovarian insufficiency and autoimmune disease. In part 3, we turn to questions regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, and the limitations of relevant clinical trials to detect such a type of effect. Summary of key facts There are multiple obstacles in designing a valid clinical trial to prove the HPV vaccine could prevent cervical cancer, e.g. long lead time, lack of adequate informed consent, complexity between HPV infection and cervical cancer and the negative impact of girls’ sexual behavior, which may worsen the risks of cervical cancer. Most of the HPV’s interventional clinical trials have too short a follow-up time to draw a concrete conclusion. In a large Swedish observational trial, which is treated as the most convincing study to prove the HPV vaccine’s effects on cervical cancer, a few confounding factors were not adequately balanced between the HPV vaccination group versus the unvaccinated group. The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) data and another U.S. study found the HPV vaccine has no effects in reducing cancer rates. Two other registry-based studies in Australia and the U.K. suggest that HPV vaccination is associated with increased cervical cancer rates in certain age groups. Long lead time from HPV infection to cervical cancer Typically, there is a long period from HPV infection to cervical epithelium abnormalities, then cervical cancer. HPV infections usually last 12–18 months and are eventually cleared by the immune system. Fewer than 10% of HPV infections are persistent. There are two types of precancerous cervical lesions, low-grade or high-grade. Low-grade cervical neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) is usually transient and resolves naturally within one to two years. Only a few persistent infections progress to the clinically meaningful high-grade, CIN2 or 3. Meanwhile, the median time from CIN2/3 to transition to cancer is estimated to be 23.5 years. Among those with weakened immune systems, HPV-related cancer might progress more quickly. In a review of the natural history of HPV infection, the complex pathway from infection to cancer is elucidated, including what is known (purple boxes) and where uncertainty remains (blue boxes). Difficulty running clinical trials for the HPV vaccine Because of the long lead time from HPV infection to cervical cancer, a prospective, randomized controlled trial is not easily designed and feasibly implemented. Lack of long-term follow-up is a common issue for most clinical trials to prove the HPV vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing cervical cancer. For example, a 2007 study found that Gardasil was effective in reducing HPV-associated cervical precancerous lesions rate by 20%. This study followed their subjects for only an average of three years after administration of the first dose. Furthermore, due to the complex uncertainties in the natural history between HPV infection and cervical cancer, it is not easy to claim the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. A randomized trial is designed to balance the two groups — vaccine and placebo — so that any unmeasured confounding variables which might influence the outcome of the trial are distributed evenly. However, if the treatment group knows they got the vaccine, might their behaviors change? Might they be less risk-averse, thinking they have some protection? For example, girls might think they are vaccinated and “protected” from cervical cancer and may tend to initiate sexual intercourse at a younger age or engage in sexual activities with more partners. However, sexual intercourse at a young age, multiple sexual partners and oral contraceptive use are associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer in women. In other words, HPV vaccination may offer some protection if offered before sexual activity is initiated, but it may also be associated with increased behavioral risk factors. Whether the benefits of vaccination outweigh any risks is therefore a multifactorial question deserving of careful longitudinal study. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now Systemic analysis of 12 clinical trials on HPV vaccine efficacy In 2020, a Queen Mary University study led by Dr. Claire Rees reviewed 12 randomized clinical trials for Cervarix and Gardasil. The investigators found that the trials did not include populations representative of the vaccination target groups, and the trial design may have overstated vaccine efficacy. For example, one trial design generated evidence that the vaccine prevents CIN1. But this is not meaningful because these lesions usually resolve on their own. Furthermore, the study accessed efficacy against low-grade precancerous lesions. But this is not necessarily suggestive of efficacy against the more serious but much less frequent high-grade lesions. Finally, the cytology screenings were done every six to 12 months instead of every 36 months (normal screening interval), meaning the efficacy of the vaccine may have been overestimated, as low-grade lesions could go away spontaneously. All this is to say the HPV vaccine may be effective at preventing more serious lesions which lead to cervical cancer, but it is hard to know because of these poorly designed trials. Nothing is conclusive without a larger trial powered to detect a difference in rates of more serious cervical changes according to the typical screening schedule. However, such a trial has not yet been performed. Swedish nationwide health registry study A nationwide Swedish health registry-based study followed 1,672,983 women for 12 years to assess the association between HPV vaccination and the risk of cervical cancer. In this study, the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer was 47 cases per 100,000 women vaccinated and 94 per 100,000 unvaccinated, suggesting that HPV4 vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of 49 to 63% of invasive cervical cancer at the population level. Even though the results are positive, the study researchers raised a few concerns themselves. First, HPV-vaccinated women could have been generally healthier than unvaccinated women. This is known as “healthy volunteer bias.” Second, a mother’s history of cervical cancer might be associated with both vaccination uptake and underlying risk of cervical cancer as well as screening rates. Third, lifestyle and health factors such as smoking, sexual intercourse at a young age, multiple sexual partners, oral contraceptive use and obesity are reportedly associated with the risk of cervical cancer. These factors have not been thoroughly analyzed by this study and could have contributed to the data. Furthermore, parental education level and annual household income level may be interconnected with lifestyle factors such as smoking status. Strengths of this study include its size, duration and outcome of interest being invasive cancer, not low-grade lesions. However, it is impossible to exclude the relationship between lifestyle factors, vaccination uptake and cervical cancer. Only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) could balance the two groups on these unmeasured — but related — risk factors. However even if the risk factors (sexual behaviors) are fully balanced at baseline with an RCT, it is hard to keep them still balanced during the whole study course after HPV vaccination. No association found in a U.S. database Meanwhile, researchers found no association between vaccination and cancer mortality in the U.S. According to the National Cancer Institute’s SEER program, the incidence of deaths from cervical cancer before Gardasil’s introduction in the U.S. had been steadily declining for years and, in 2006, was 2.4 per 100,000 women. The data from 2016–2020 is 2.2 per 100,000 women — essentially unchanged. In a cross-sectional study using a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults aged 20–59 years, among 9,891 participants, the researchers did not find an association between HPV vaccination and HPV-related cancers. Increase in cervical cancer after HPV vaccine rollout: Australia In Australia, government data similarly reveal an increase in cervical cancer rates in certain age groups of women following the implementation of the Gardasil vaccine. Thirteen years after Gardasil was recommended for teenagers and young adults, there has been a 30% increase in 30- to 34-year-old women (4.9 cases/100,000 compared to 6.6 cases/100,000 in 2020) being diagnosed with cervical cancer. Even though the rates decreased in other age groups, the abnormal increase in the 30–34 age group needs an explanation. Several factors should be considered. First, this database does not tell the stage of cancer. More cancer diagnosed at an early stage may result in a cancer-rate increase. Second, decreasing cancer rates could be caused by declines in screening rates, perhaps due to the pandemic and/or a reluctance to get tested. Third, Australia has an increasing proportion of immigrants from South Asia, and these cultural factors may influence the cervical cancer-screening rate. A study of South Asian women living in Australia found that almost half had never had a previous screening test. Cervical cancer rates rise after HPV vaccination in the UK In the U.K., HPV vaccination was introduced in 2008 for girls aged 12–13 with catch-up for those aged 14–18. Many expected cervical cancer rates in women aged 20–24 to fall by 2014 as the vaccinated cohorts entered their 20s. However, in 2016 national statistics showed a worrying and substantial 70% increase in the rate of cervical cancer at ages 20 to 24 (i.e. from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014). While the author would consider it to be too early to draw conclusions regarding vaccine efficacy in protecting against cancer, this merits further study. Accordingly, an analysis was conducted in the U.K. in 2018 in response to public interest regarding this increase in cervical cancer. Researchers from Queen Mary University and King’s College London found that it was attributable to an increase in the proportion of women first screened at age 24.5 years. The increase was limited to stage I cervical cancer. But there was no evidence of a lack of screening leading to increasing rates. While the researchers considered it too early to conclude vaccine efficacy in protecting against cancer, these findings merit further study. Could HPV vaccines make HPV infections worse? Besides the vaccine’s unclear effectiveness in cancer prevention, studies further suggest the suppression of the HPV strains targeted by the vaccine may induce more virulent strains. For example, a 2015 study found that vaccinated young adult women had a higher prevalence of high-risk HPV types other than types 16 and 18, putting them at risk for more aggressive cervical and other HPV-related cancers. Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases in China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland. If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/truth-hpv-vaccine-part-3-et/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-3.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 3: Can It Prevent Cervical Cancer?
    There are no valid studies showing the vaccine for the human papillomavirus, or HPV, prevents cervical cancer. However, there are studies suggesting the vaccine could increase the risk of cancer.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 10415 Views
  • Many Say They Want Peace When What They Really Want Is Obedience: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix
    Caitlin JohnstoneWednesday 24 Jan 24
    Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):



    Everyone says they want peace, but they mean different things by this. To an anti-imperialist, peace means the end of violence, oppression and exploitation. To a Zionist, peace means Palestinians lie down and accept their fate and neighboring nations cease disobeying Israel. To a supporter of the US empire, peace means all nations around the world submit to US unipolar hegemony. Many say they want peace when what they really want is tyranny.

    If “peace” to you means other populations bow down and submit to your will, then it makes perfect sense for you to believe that your wars are being waged to attain peace, because those wars are being used to violently bludgeon those populations into obedience. If your definition of peace means the cessation of all violence and abuse, then you will support ceasefires, peace negotiations, diplomacy, the de-escalation of tensions, the cessation of imperialist extraction, and the end of apartheid and injustice.

    Pay less attention to people’s words about wanting “peace” and focus instead on what actions they are supporting to accomplish that end. This will show you the truth about what they really want.




    https://x.com/caitoz/status/1748455323126632957?s=20


    Someone asked “Can we all agree that our world would be better without a Hamas?”

    This is the sort of question that can only make sense to you if you view Hamas as some kind of invasive alien presence that was imposed upon Palestine from the outside instead of a natural emergence from the material circumstances that have been forced upon Palestinians. If you’ve got a group of people being sufficiently oppressed and violently persecuted by the ruling power, you’re going to start seeing violent opposition to that ruling power as sure as you’ll see blood arise from a wound.

    If Hamas had been completely eliminated a decade ago, there would be a Palestinian group organizing violence against the state of Israel today under that or some other name. If Hamas is completely eliminated tomorrow, there will be a Palestinian group organizing violence against the state of Israel in a matter of years (assuming there are any Palestinians left when this is all over, of course). If a man starts strangling me, at some point I’m going to try to gouge his eyes and crush his testicles. That’s just what happens when humans find themselves under a sufficient amount of existential pressure.

    Asking if the world would be better without Hamas is as nonsensical as asking if Alaska would be better without coats. The presence of coats in Alaska is the natural consequence of the material conditions in that region, and as long as those material conditions persist for the population of Alaska then there will necessarily be coats.

    Don’t ask if the world would be better without a Hamas, ask if the world would be better without the conditions which make a Hamas inevitable.



    Biden has started a new US war in Yemen while backing a genocide in Gaza, both of which are fully supported by the party which supposedly opposes him. But by all means go ahead and spend the rest of the year fixating on the US presidential race.



    Know how you can tell it no longer matters who the US president is? They stopped getting assassinated.



    The Biden administration’s justifications for its acts of war in Yemen are premised on the absurd assumption that the world economy should march on completely uninhibited during an active genocide.



    Supporting the world’s most powerful government bombing the poorest country in the middle east for trying to stop a genocide is the most sycophantic bootlicking you can possibly cram into a single political opinion.




    https://x.com/caitoz/status/1748478825602953304?s=20


    Israel isn’t relentlessly murderous and abusive because it’s run by Jews, it’s relentlessly murderous and abusive because that’s the only way to maintain an ethnostate that was abruptly dropped on top of an already existing civilization. This would be true if it’d been a Mormon state or a Romani state.

    Take any already existing country with its own ethnic and religious makeup and its own relationships with surrounding countries and drop a brand new artificial ethnostate on top of it with a deluge of immigrants who are designated special and above the people in that region, and you’re going to get a ton of violence. You’re also going to see the dominant group espouse supremacist ideological beliefs to justify why it’s fine for them to be placed above the other group and receive better treatment by the state. These things would happen regardless of what those respective ethnic and religious makeups happen to be.

    How can we be sure of this? Because we’ve seen it happen time and time again in other settler-colonialist projects throughout history which had nothing to do with Jews or Muslims.

    It’s not about Jews and Judaism, it’s about the nature and character of the ethnostate which got placed overtop a pre-existing civilization in the 1940s. The religions and ethnicities are interchangeable with pretty much any other in terms of how much violence would be necessary to institute and maintain such a state.



    People who say they oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza but don’t forcefully oppose Biden’s facilitation of Israel’s actions in Gaza do not actually oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza.



    There’s a type of uninformed comment I keep seeing, usually from Americans, that goes something like this: “What do I care about Israel and Hamas? It’s none of our business and we should stay out of it.”

    This comment is born of the misunderstanding that people want the US to meddle in middle eastern affairs to stop the slaughter in Gaza, which is a notion many Americans reflexively oppose these days because they have learned that US “humanitarian interventions” in that region are consistently disastrous and often very costly.

    But that isn’t what’s being called for. What’s being called for is for the US to STOP intervening in Israel and Gaza — to END an intervention that is ALREADY taking place. The US has been pouring billions of dollars of weaponry into Israel every year for many years now, and has sent a whole lot more since October 7 to assist the Israeli butchery that’s been happening in Gaza. If the US ceased supporting Israel’s violence in Gaza, that violence would necessarily be forced to end.

    As a retired Israeli major general named Yitzhak Brick told the Jewish News Syndicate in November, “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the US. The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.”

    If you don’t want your government engaging in foreign conflicts and intervening in foreign affairs, then you should oppose the US-backed massacres in Gaza, because that’s exactly what it is. The anti-interventionist position for an American to have is to demand that the Biden administration stop actively facilitating this mass atrocity.

    https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/many-say-they-want-peace-when-what
    Many Say They Want Peace When What They Really Want Is Obedience: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix Caitlin JohnstoneWednesday 24 Jan 24 Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): Everyone says they want peace, but they mean different things by this. To an anti-imperialist, peace means the end of violence, oppression and exploitation. To a Zionist, peace means Palestinians lie down and accept their fate and neighboring nations cease disobeying Israel. To a supporter of the US empire, peace means all nations around the world submit to US unipolar hegemony. Many say they want peace when what they really want is tyranny. If “peace” to you means other populations bow down and submit to your will, then it makes perfect sense for you to believe that your wars are being waged to attain peace, because those wars are being used to violently bludgeon those populations into obedience. If your definition of peace means the cessation of all violence and abuse, then you will support ceasefires, peace negotiations, diplomacy, the de-escalation of tensions, the cessation of imperialist extraction, and the end of apartheid and injustice. Pay less attention to people’s words about wanting “peace” and focus instead on what actions they are supporting to accomplish that end. This will show you the truth about what they really want. ❖ https://x.com/caitoz/status/1748455323126632957?s=20 ❖ Someone asked “Can we all agree that our world would be better without a Hamas?” This is the sort of question that can only make sense to you if you view Hamas as some kind of invasive alien presence that was imposed upon Palestine from the outside instead of a natural emergence from the material circumstances that have been forced upon Palestinians. If you’ve got a group of people being sufficiently oppressed and violently persecuted by the ruling power, you’re going to start seeing violent opposition to that ruling power as sure as you’ll see blood arise from a wound. If Hamas had been completely eliminated a decade ago, there would be a Palestinian group organizing violence against the state of Israel today under that or some other name. If Hamas is completely eliminated tomorrow, there will be a Palestinian group organizing violence against the state of Israel in a matter of years (assuming there are any Palestinians left when this is all over, of course). If a man starts strangling me, at some point I’m going to try to gouge his eyes and crush his testicles. That’s just what happens when humans find themselves under a sufficient amount of existential pressure. Asking if the world would be better without Hamas is as nonsensical as asking if Alaska would be better without coats. The presence of coats in Alaska is the natural consequence of the material conditions in that region, and as long as those material conditions persist for the population of Alaska then there will necessarily be coats. Don’t ask if the world would be better without a Hamas, ask if the world would be better without the conditions which make a Hamas inevitable. ❖ Biden has started a new US war in Yemen while backing a genocide in Gaza, both of which are fully supported by the party which supposedly opposes him. But by all means go ahead and spend the rest of the year fixating on the US presidential race. ❖ Know how you can tell it no longer matters who the US president is? They stopped getting assassinated. ❖ The Biden administration’s justifications for its acts of war in Yemen are premised on the absurd assumption that the world economy should march on completely uninhibited during an active genocide. ❖ Supporting the world’s most powerful government bombing the poorest country in the middle east for trying to stop a genocide is the most sycophantic bootlicking you can possibly cram into a single political opinion. ❖ https://x.com/caitoz/status/1748478825602953304?s=20 ❖ Israel isn’t relentlessly murderous and abusive because it’s run by Jews, it’s relentlessly murderous and abusive because that’s the only way to maintain an ethnostate that was abruptly dropped on top of an already existing civilization. This would be true if it’d been a Mormon state or a Romani state. Take any already existing country with its own ethnic and religious makeup and its own relationships with surrounding countries and drop a brand new artificial ethnostate on top of it with a deluge of immigrants who are designated special and above the people in that region, and you’re going to get a ton of violence. You’re also going to see the dominant group espouse supremacist ideological beliefs to justify why it’s fine for them to be placed above the other group and receive better treatment by the state. These things would happen regardless of what those respective ethnic and religious makeups happen to be. How can we be sure of this? Because we’ve seen it happen time and time again in other settler-colonialist projects throughout history which had nothing to do with Jews or Muslims. It’s not about Jews and Judaism, it’s about the nature and character of the ethnostate which got placed overtop a pre-existing civilization in the 1940s. The religions and ethnicities are interchangeable with pretty much any other in terms of how much violence would be necessary to institute and maintain such a state. ❖ People who say they oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza but don’t forcefully oppose Biden’s facilitation of Israel’s actions in Gaza do not actually oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza. ❖ There’s a type of uninformed comment I keep seeing, usually from Americans, that goes something like this: “What do I care about Israel and Hamas? It’s none of our business and we should stay out of it.” This comment is born of the misunderstanding that people want the US to meddle in middle eastern affairs to stop the slaughter in Gaza, which is a notion many Americans reflexively oppose these days because they have learned that US “humanitarian interventions” in that region are consistently disastrous and often very costly. But that isn’t what’s being called for. What’s being called for is for the US to STOP intervening in Israel and Gaza — to END an intervention that is ALREADY taking place. The US has been pouring billions of dollars of weaponry into Israel every year for many years now, and has sent a whole lot more since October 7 to assist the Israeli butchery that’s been happening in Gaza. If the US ceased supporting Israel’s violence in Gaza, that violence would necessarily be forced to end. As a retired Israeli major general named Yitzhak Brick told the Jewish News Syndicate in November, “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the US. The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.” If you don’t want your government engaging in foreign conflicts and intervening in foreign affairs, then you should oppose the US-backed massacres in Gaza, because that’s exactly what it is. The anti-interventionist position for an American to have is to demand that the Biden administration stop actively facilitating this mass atrocity. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/many-say-they-want-peace-when-what
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5707 Views
  • Many Say They Want Peace When What They Really Want Is Obedience: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix
    Caitlin JohnstoneWednesday 24 Jan 24
    Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):



    Everyone says they want peace, but they mean different things by this. To an anti-imperialist, peace means the end of violence, oppression and exploitation. To a Zionist, peace means Palestinians lie down and accept their fate and neighboring nations cease disobeying Israel. To a supporter of the US empire, peace means all nations around the world submit to US unipolar hegemony. Many say they want peace when what they really want is tyranny.

    If “peace” to you means other populations bow down and submit to your will, then it makes perfect sense for you to believe that your wars are being waged to attain peace, because those wars are being used to violently bludgeon those populations into obedience. If your definition of peace means the cessation of all violence and abuse, then you will support ceasefires, peace negotiations, diplomacy, the de-escalation of tensions, the cessation of imperialist extraction, and the end of apartheid and injustice.

    Pay less attention to people’s words about wanting “peace” and focus instead on what actions they are supporting to accomplish that end. This will show you the truth about what they really want.




    https://x.com/caitoz/status/1748455323126632957?s=20


    Someone asked “Can we all agree that our world would be better without a Hamas?”

    This is the sort of question that can only make sense to you if you view Hamas as some kind of invasive alien presence that was imposed upon Palestine from the outside instead of a natural emergence from the material circumstances that have been forced upon Palestinians. If you’ve got a group of people being sufficiently oppressed and violently persecuted by the ruling power, you’re going to start seeing violent opposition to that ruling power as sure as you’ll see blood arise from a wound.

    If Hamas had been completely eliminated a decade ago, there would be a Palestinian group organizing violence against the state of Israel today under that or some other name. If Hamas is completely eliminated tomorrow, there will be a Palestinian group organizing violence against the state of Israel in a matter of years (assuming there are any Palestinians left when this is all over, of course). If a man starts strangling me, at some point I’m going to try to gouge his eyes and crush his testicles. That’s just what happens when humans find themselves under a sufficient amount of existential pressure.

    Asking if the world would be better without Hamas is as nonsensical as asking if Alaska would be better without coats. The presence of coats in Alaska is the natural consequence of the material conditions in that region, and as long as those material conditions persist for the population of Alaska then there will necessarily be coats.

    Don’t ask if the world would be better without a Hamas, ask if the world would be better without the conditions which make a Hamas inevitable.



    Biden has started a new US war in Yemen while backing a genocide in Gaza, both of which are fully supported by the party which supposedly opposes him. But by all means go ahead and spend the rest of the year fixating on the US presidential race.



    Know how you can tell it no longer matters who the US president is? They stopped getting assassinated.



    The Biden administration’s justifications for its acts of war in Yemen are premised on the absurd assumption that the world economy should march on completely uninhibited during an active genocide.



    Supporting the world’s most powerful government bombing the poorest country in the middle east for trying to stop a genocide is the most sycophantic bootlicking you can possibly cram into a single political opinion.




    https://x.com/caitoz/status/1748478825602953304?s=20


    Israel isn’t relentlessly murderous and abusive because it’s run by Jews, it’s relentlessly murderous and abusive because that’s the only way to maintain an ethnostate that was abruptly dropped on top of an already existing civilization. This would be true if it’d been a Mormon state or a Romani state.

    Take any already existing country with its own ethnic and religious makeup and its own relationships with surrounding countries and drop a brand new artificial ethnostate on top of it with a deluge of immigrants who are designated special and above the people in that region, and you’re going to get a ton of violence. You’re also going to see the dominant group espouse supremacist ideological beliefs to justify why it’s fine for them to be placed above the other group and receive better treatment by the state. These things would happen regardless of what those respective ethnic and religious makeups happen to be.

    How can we be sure of this? Because we’ve seen it happen time and time again in other settler-colonialist projects throughout history which had nothing to do with Jews or Muslims.

    It’s not about Jews and Judaism, it’s about the nature and character of the ethnostate which got placed overtop a pre-existing civilization in the 1940s. The religions and ethnicities are interchangeable with pretty much any other in terms of how much violence would be necessary to institute and maintain such a state.



    People who say they oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza but don’t forcefully oppose Biden’s facilitation of Israel’s actions in Gaza do not actually oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza.



    There’s a type of uninformed comment I keep seeing, usually from Americans, that goes something like this: “What do I care about Israel and Hamas? It’s none of our business and we should stay out of it.”

    This comment is born of the misunderstanding that people want the US to meddle in middle eastern affairs to stop the slaughter in Gaza, which is a notion many Americans reflexively oppose these days because they have learned that US “humanitarian interventions” in that region are consistently disastrous and often very costly.

    But that isn’t what’s being called for. What’s being called for is for the US to STOP intervening in Israel and Gaza — to END an intervention that is ALREADY taking place. The US has been pouring billions of dollars of weaponry into Israel every year for many years now, and has sent a whole lot more since October 7 to assist the Israeli butchery that’s been happening in Gaza. If the US ceased supporting Israel’s violence in Gaza, that violence would necessarily be forced to end.

    As a retired Israeli major general named Yitzhak Brick told the Jewish News Syndicate in November, “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the US. The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.”

    If you don’t want your government engaging in foreign conflicts and intervening in foreign affairs, then you should oppose the US-backed massacres in Gaza, because that’s exactly what it is. The anti-interventionist position for an American to have is to demand that the Biden administration stop actively facilitating this mass atrocity.

    https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/many-say-they-want-peace-when-what

    https://thealtworld.com/caitlin_johnston/many-say-they-want-peace-when-what-they-really-want-is-obedience
    Many Say They Want Peace When What They Really Want Is Obedience: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix Caitlin JohnstoneWednesday 24 Jan 24 Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): Everyone says they want peace, but they mean different things by this. To an anti-imperialist, peace means the end of violence, oppression and exploitation. To a Zionist, peace means Palestinians lie down and accept their fate and neighboring nations cease disobeying Israel. To a supporter of the US empire, peace means all nations around the world submit to US unipolar hegemony. Many say they want peace when what they really want is tyranny. If “peace” to you means other populations bow down and submit to your will, then it makes perfect sense for you to believe that your wars are being waged to attain peace, because those wars are being used to violently bludgeon those populations into obedience. If your definition of peace means the cessation of all violence and abuse, then you will support ceasefires, peace negotiations, diplomacy, the de-escalation of tensions, the cessation of imperialist extraction, and the end of apartheid and injustice. Pay less attention to people’s words about wanting “peace” and focus instead on what actions they are supporting to accomplish that end. This will show you the truth about what they really want. ❖ https://x.com/caitoz/status/1748455323126632957?s=20 ❖ Someone asked “Can we all agree that our world would be better without a Hamas?” This is the sort of question that can only make sense to you if you view Hamas as some kind of invasive alien presence that was imposed upon Palestine from the outside instead of a natural emergence from the material circumstances that have been forced upon Palestinians. If you’ve got a group of people being sufficiently oppressed and violently persecuted by the ruling power, you’re going to start seeing violent opposition to that ruling power as sure as you’ll see blood arise from a wound. If Hamas had been completely eliminated a decade ago, there would be a Palestinian group organizing violence against the state of Israel today under that or some other name. If Hamas is completely eliminated tomorrow, there will be a Palestinian group organizing violence against the state of Israel in a matter of years (assuming there are any Palestinians left when this is all over, of course). If a man starts strangling me, at some point I’m going to try to gouge his eyes and crush his testicles. That’s just what happens when humans find themselves under a sufficient amount of existential pressure. Asking if the world would be better without Hamas is as nonsensical as asking if Alaska would be better without coats. The presence of coats in Alaska is the natural consequence of the material conditions in that region, and as long as those material conditions persist for the population of Alaska then there will necessarily be coats. Don’t ask if the world would be better without a Hamas, ask if the world would be better without the conditions which make a Hamas inevitable. ❖ Biden has started a new US war in Yemen while backing a genocide in Gaza, both of which are fully supported by the party which supposedly opposes him. But by all means go ahead and spend the rest of the year fixating on the US presidential race. ❖ Know how you can tell it no longer matters who the US president is? They stopped getting assassinated. ❖ The Biden administration’s justifications for its acts of war in Yemen are premised on the absurd assumption that the world economy should march on completely uninhibited during an active genocide. ❖ Supporting the world’s most powerful government bombing the poorest country in the middle east for trying to stop a genocide is the most sycophantic bootlicking you can possibly cram into a single political opinion. ❖ https://x.com/caitoz/status/1748478825602953304?s=20 ❖ Israel isn’t relentlessly murderous and abusive because it’s run by Jews, it’s relentlessly murderous and abusive because that’s the only way to maintain an ethnostate that was abruptly dropped on top of an already existing civilization. This would be true if it’d been a Mormon state or a Romani state. Take any already existing country with its own ethnic and religious makeup and its own relationships with surrounding countries and drop a brand new artificial ethnostate on top of it with a deluge of immigrants who are designated special and above the people in that region, and you’re going to get a ton of violence. You’re also going to see the dominant group espouse supremacist ideological beliefs to justify why it’s fine for them to be placed above the other group and receive better treatment by the state. These things would happen regardless of what those respective ethnic and religious makeups happen to be. How can we be sure of this? Because we’ve seen it happen time and time again in other settler-colonialist projects throughout history which had nothing to do with Jews or Muslims. It’s not about Jews and Judaism, it’s about the nature and character of the ethnostate which got placed overtop a pre-existing civilization in the 1940s. The religions and ethnicities are interchangeable with pretty much any other in terms of how much violence would be necessary to institute and maintain such a state. ❖ People who say they oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza but don’t forcefully oppose Biden’s facilitation of Israel’s actions in Gaza do not actually oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza. ❖ There’s a type of uninformed comment I keep seeing, usually from Americans, that goes something like this: “What do I care about Israel and Hamas? It’s none of our business and we should stay out of it.” This comment is born of the misunderstanding that people want the US to meddle in middle eastern affairs to stop the slaughter in Gaza, which is a notion many Americans reflexively oppose these days because they have learned that US “humanitarian interventions” in that region are consistently disastrous and often very costly. But that isn’t what’s being called for. What’s being called for is for the US to STOP intervening in Israel and Gaza — to END an intervention that is ALREADY taking place. The US has been pouring billions of dollars of weaponry into Israel every year for many years now, and has sent a whole lot more since October 7 to assist the Israeli butchery that’s been happening in Gaza. If the US ceased supporting Israel’s violence in Gaza, that violence would necessarily be forced to end. As a retired Israeli major general named Yitzhak Brick told the Jewish News Syndicate in November, “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the US. The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.” If you don’t want your government engaging in foreign conflicts and intervening in foreign affairs, then you should oppose the US-backed massacres in Gaza, because that’s exactly what it is. The anti-interventionist position for an American to have is to demand that the Biden administration stop actively facilitating this mass atrocity. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/many-say-they-want-peace-when-what https://thealtworld.com/caitlin_johnston/many-say-they-want-peace-when-what-they-really-want-is-obedience
    THEALTWORLD.COM
    Many Say They Want Peace When What They Really Want Is Obedience: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix - TheAltWorld
    "Don’t ask if the world would be better without a Hamas, ask if the world would be better without the conditions which make a Hamas inevitable."
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5392 Views
  • U.S. Government Still Requires COVID Shots for Legal Immigrants — Even Kids
    With the COVID-19 shots long proven unable to prevent infection or transmission, why does U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services still mandate them for anyone legally immigrating to the U.S.?

    Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    It’s helpful to think of a COVID-19 experience as a never-ending house of horrors, with room after room of scandal and outrage, so much so that you never quite get through it. There simply are not enough researchers or column inches to cover it all.

    In the past, any one of these outrages would be enough to call forth enormous public debate. Introduce them all at once — starting March 2020 — and gradually unfold and codify them over a few years and many features slip through the cracks.

    Consider, for example, the continued requirement that any legally immigrating person coming to the U.S. from another country and seeking residency is absolutely required to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a shot widely admitted not to protect against infection or spread and is associated with injury on a scale without pharmaceutical precedent.

    And yet the U.S. government requires it. The evidence is here from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.



    Note the language: “To prevent the following diseases.”

    That is completely untrue. You cannot make it true simply by claiming that it prevents something. It does nothing of the kind, despite its moniker of being a vaccine.

    All the others are indeed vaccines that generally prevent the disease because they are sterilizing shots. The COVID-19 shot is not. And yet there it is, riding the coattails of public health valor from past ages.

    It is generally not possible to avoid the requirement.

    You can appeal for a religious exemption, which involves several rounds of correspondence and documentation. They have variously been granted after much headache, bureaucracy and expense. Very few will go to the trouble.

    Meanwhile, the U.S. is currently experiencing a wave of immigration from asylum seekers which this country has never seen in raw numbers before.

    There is no requirement that these people coming across the Southern border and then shipped around the country face any such requirement of COVID-19 vaccination. That only kicks in if you seek to immigrate the old-fashioned way, which is to say, by seeking legal permission.

    Based on reports from archive.org, it appears that the addition of the COVID-19 shot was in the first week of October 2021. It was not there and then it was, by pure bureaucratic edict. Edit file, submit, done.

    This was long after it was well known that the vaccine did not stop infection or transmission, and long after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was aware of the health risks of the vaccine.

    It was also a time when vaccine uptake was dramatically dropping from the levels of the initial enthusiasm from earlier that year.

    By this time, vast numbers had grown skeptical and were willing to take their chances. The market for shots was headed south.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    It appears that immigrant populations — who had not been required to get it for the first 10 months of 2021 — were roped into the market as mandates began to invade private workplaces and cities.

    In other words, this was a forced recruitment of immigrant populations to boost the demand for the shots.

    The Biden administration attempted to impose such mandates on the whole of the private sector. The Supreme Court blocked that measure in January 2022. So most were repealed. But the one for legal immigration stayed and has not been challenged in court.

    There is a darker way to understand this policy move too. It serves as a filtering mechanism. Many people around the world were fleeing shot mandates from their home countries.

    Adding this one to the list of required injections was a way to signal to the world: the U.S. would not provide any sanctuary to shot refuseniks, so don’t bother even trying.

    It also operates as a culling mechanism against anti-lockdown and anti-mandate opinions. It assured that the U.S. would not be allowing people to work here who think for themselves, look at the evidence or otherwise refuse to bow to the pharma agenda.

    The CDC further elaborates on the regulation: it must be within 12 months and it does pertain to children too. There is a narrow range of exemptions for repeated shots but that requires additional paperwork.



    There is simply no basis for this mandate at all. The vaccine is not efficacious in the normal sense of that term. Nor is it necessary for healthy adults, much less children, who face a near-zero risk of medically significant outcomes.

    There is the additional peculiarity that whatever immune response occurs from the shot fades quickly, and even less pertains to the existing strain in the community of this fast-mutating virus.

    In other words, there is nothing defensible about this policy at all. It is keeping untold families apart and preventing U.S. citizens from moving to the U.S. with children and spouses from other countries who decline the shots.

    They have worked to get back but the vaccine mandate here bars them from doing so. Sadly, there are few in Congress willing to take up the causes and do something about this.

    It’s the sort of rule that is enforced with no rationality at all but which benefits powerful pharmaceutical companies.

    The issue has been barely covered in the media at all, and there are currently no real efforts ongoing to push back because the victims are powerless and much of the world has moved on.

    Meanwhile, this COVID-19 vaccine is being gradually added to every list of requirements that is available, from immigration to the childhood schedule to school attendance.

    This is despite how the shot has completely failed to perform up to the promise of the first year.

    This is fully known by vast swaths of the world’s population, and yet U.S. bureaucracies persist in their impositions without the slightest sense that they ought to acquiesce to the reality that everyone knows.

    Originally published by Brownstone Institute.

    The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

    🚨 U.S Government Still Requires COVID Shots for Legal Immigrants — Even Kids

    Meanwhile, the U.S. is currently experiencing a wave of immigration from asylum seekers which this country has never seen in raw numbers before.

    There is no requirement that these people coming across the Southern border and then shipped around the country face any such requirement of COVID-19 vaccination.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/u-s-government-covid-shots-legal-immigrants/

    Join 👉 @DrPaulMarik
    U.S. Government Still Requires COVID Shots for Legal Immigrants — Even Kids With the COVID-19 shots long proven unable to prevent infection or transmission, why does U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services still mandate them for anyone legally immigrating to the U.S.? Jeffrey A. Tucker Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. It’s helpful to think of a COVID-19 experience as a never-ending house of horrors, with room after room of scandal and outrage, so much so that you never quite get through it. There simply are not enough researchers or column inches to cover it all. In the past, any one of these outrages would be enough to call forth enormous public debate. Introduce them all at once — starting March 2020 — and gradually unfold and codify them over a few years and many features slip through the cracks. Consider, for example, the continued requirement that any legally immigrating person coming to the U.S. from another country and seeking residency is absolutely required to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a shot widely admitted not to protect against infection or spread and is associated with injury on a scale without pharmaceutical precedent. And yet the U.S. government requires it. The evidence is here from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Note the language: “To prevent the following diseases.” That is completely untrue. You cannot make it true simply by claiming that it prevents something. It does nothing of the kind, despite its moniker of being a vaccine. All the others are indeed vaccines that generally prevent the disease because they are sterilizing shots. The COVID-19 shot is not. And yet there it is, riding the coattails of public health valor from past ages. It is generally not possible to avoid the requirement. You can appeal for a religious exemption, which involves several rounds of correspondence and documentation. They have variously been granted after much headache, bureaucracy and expense. Very few will go to the trouble. Meanwhile, the U.S. is currently experiencing a wave of immigration from asylum seekers which this country has never seen in raw numbers before. There is no requirement that these people coming across the Southern border and then shipped around the country face any such requirement of COVID-19 vaccination. That only kicks in if you seek to immigrate the old-fashioned way, which is to say, by seeking legal permission. Based on reports from archive.org, it appears that the addition of the COVID-19 shot was in the first week of October 2021. It was not there and then it was, by pure bureaucratic edict. Edit file, submit, done. This was long after it was well known that the vaccine did not stop infection or transmission, and long after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was aware of the health risks of the vaccine. It was also a time when vaccine uptake was dramatically dropping from the levels of the initial enthusiasm from earlier that year. By this time, vast numbers had grown skeptical and were willing to take their chances. The market for shots was headed south. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now It appears that immigrant populations — who had not been required to get it for the first 10 months of 2021 — were roped into the market as mandates began to invade private workplaces and cities. In other words, this was a forced recruitment of immigrant populations to boost the demand for the shots. The Biden administration attempted to impose such mandates on the whole of the private sector. The Supreme Court blocked that measure in January 2022. So most were repealed. But the one for legal immigration stayed and has not been challenged in court. There is a darker way to understand this policy move too. It serves as a filtering mechanism. Many people around the world were fleeing shot mandates from their home countries. Adding this one to the list of required injections was a way to signal to the world: the U.S. would not provide any sanctuary to shot refuseniks, so don’t bother even trying. It also operates as a culling mechanism against anti-lockdown and anti-mandate opinions. It assured that the U.S. would not be allowing people to work here who think for themselves, look at the evidence or otherwise refuse to bow to the pharma agenda. The CDC further elaborates on the regulation: it must be within 12 months and it does pertain to children too. There is a narrow range of exemptions for repeated shots but that requires additional paperwork. There is simply no basis for this mandate at all. The vaccine is not efficacious in the normal sense of that term. Nor is it necessary for healthy adults, much less children, who face a near-zero risk of medically significant outcomes. There is the additional peculiarity that whatever immune response occurs from the shot fades quickly, and even less pertains to the existing strain in the community of this fast-mutating virus. In other words, there is nothing defensible about this policy at all. It is keeping untold families apart and preventing U.S. citizens from moving to the U.S. with children and spouses from other countries who decline the shots. They have worked to get back but the vaccine mandate here bars them from doing so. Sadly, there are few in Congress willing to take up the causes and do something about this. It’s the sort of rule that is enforced with no rationality at all but which benefits powerful pharmaceutical companies. The issue has been barely covered in the media at all, and there are currently no real efforts ongoing to push back because the victims are powerless and much of the world has moved on. Meanwhile, this COVID-19 vaccine is being gradually added to every list of requirements that is available, from immigration to the childhood schedule to school attendance. This is despite how the shot has completely failed to perform up to the promise of the first year. This is fully known by vast swaths of the world’s population, and yet U.S. bureaucracies persist in their impositions without the slightest sense that they ought to acquiesce to the reality that everyone knows. Originally published by Brownstone Institute. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense. 🚨 U.S Government Still Requires COVID Shots for Legal Immigrants — Even Kids Meanwhile, the U.S. is currently experiencing a wave of immigration from asylum seekers which this country has never seen in raw numbers before. There is no requirement that these people coming across the Southern border and then shipped around the country face any such requirement of COVID-19 vaccination. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/u-s-government-covid-shots-legal-immigrants/ Join 👉 @DrPaulMarik
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    U.S. Government Still Requires COVID Shots for Legal Immigrants — Even Kids
    With the COVID-19 shots long proven unable to prevent infection or transmission, why does U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services still mandate them for anyone legally immigrating to the U.S.?
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4600 Views
  • Is Gaza Genocide Just Your “Anti-Semitic Imagination”?
    Kevin Barrett, Senior EditorJanuary 18, 2024

    VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

    $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts
    Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.



    Rumble link Bitchute link

    This week’s False Flag Weekly News featured J. Michael Springmann and I discussing the historic story “Israel Busted For Genocide.” Needless to say, we sided with the prosecution.

    Then last night I appeared on Charles Moscowitz’s podcast and heard Charles’ brief for the defense. Though I like Charles Moscowitz, and have a fair bit in common with him both philosophically and politically, I find his take on Zionism infuriating. Moscowitz’s new book The Anti-Semitic Imagination goes over a long list of “conspiracy theories” and absolves organized Jewry of involvement in pretty much all of them. Even the conspiracy to invade, occupy, and ethnically-cleanse Palestine, according to Moscowitz, is really the Palestinians’ fault. It’s also the fault of “radical jihadist Islam.” (Eyeball roll.)

    Below are excerpts from the two conversations.

    Kevin Barrett and J. Michael Springmann on Zionist genocide

    Kevin Barrett: Here’s the top war crime story this week: South Africa is leading the prosecution of Israel for genocide in The Hague.

    Sam Husseini (listen to our interview) has been tirelessly pushing this idea for months. Now it finally happened. Shout out to South Africa for making it happen.

    South Africa presented the case for the prosecution last Thursday, and then Friday was Israel’s response. The prosecution’s five-point accusation included mass killings of Palestinians, bodily and mental harm, forced displacement, a food blockade, destruction of the health care system, and preventing Palestinian births. All of these fit the definition of genocide under international law.

    J. Michael Springmann: I think South Africa has it right. Genocide was defined at the convention in 1948, which the Israelis signed and which they got because of the way the Europeans treated the Jews.

    Now they’re claiming that the Palestinians are engaging in genocide against them, when in actual fact the definition is along the lines of trying to wipe out or displace or remove by threats, by statements, by actions and by killings, a people or an ethnic group or a religious group.

    That it pretty much fits the Palestinians. They’re Muslims. They’re a coherent group of people. The Zionists have been working on this since the 20s and 30s with Plan Dalet cooked up by David Ben-Gurion, one of the terrorist leaders of the Haganah. He became a prime minister and he pushed through the genocide, the Nakba, the Holocaust against the Palestinians, in 1948 and subsequently.

    So I think the case is strong. The court has jurisdiction. The only problem is that it doesn’t have any power to enforce its decisions.

    Kevin Barrett: That’s right. But every nation on earth can say that it is enforcing international law once the decision gets handed down. So that means that, for example, the Yemeni government led by the Houthis would have a strong case that it has the right to impose a blockade on the Zionist entity to stop the genocide.

    And of course, that story has been heating up this week. We have had more drone attacks on Israeli oil tankers. And then the Americans went just yesterday and started bombing Yemen. There have been two rounds of bombings. They’ve hit dozens of targets in Yemen. And the Yemenis are up in arms. There is drone footage of millions of people titting the streets.

    Messing with Yemen is not a smart move, as the Saudis learned to their chagrin about seven or eight years ago. So is this going to be another case of a relatively poor and not that heavily armed country like Afghanistan kicking Uncle Sam’s butt?

    J. Michael Springmann: I think so. They’ve done a good job of flooding the Red Sea, which may become the Iron Bottom Sea if they hit enough ships with their missiles and drones. The foolish Americans and the British and the Canadians and the Australians and the Dutch have got themselves in the middle of a hornet’s nest.

    The Yemenis are battle-tested. Tor 10 years they’ve been fighting the Saudis, backed by the United States, and the Saudis couldn’t win, even though they bombed school buses and funeral processions and wedding receptions and so forth. So the Yemenis are tough, they have weapons, they’re not stupid, they’ve repurposed some Scud missiles to improve them and fire them at the Saudis.

    And of course the lamestream media controlled by the Zio-Nazis—that’s an insult to the Nazis actually—they keep claiming that the Iranians are doing all this, the Iranians somehow are backing Hamas and Hezbollah and the Ansar Allah freedom fighters and the people in Iraq and people in Syria. And you think that Iran is this great octopus, but in fact the Americans and the British are creating more problems for themselves, and sooner or later the Houthis are going to hit some very expensive warships and kill a lot of sailors

    Kevin Barrett: Yeah, and then all bets are off. It could be World War III for all we know. And one of the real shameful things about this is that the United States is officially at war, conducting an act of aggression against Yemen, bombing Yemen, killing people. They already killed Yemenis last week. And they’re doing this to protect a genocide. That makes them war criminals of the highest order. And every American leader with any responsibility whatsoever for this needs to be tried, convicted, sentenced and hanged until dead.

    Israel’s Massacre of Journalists

    Kevin Barrett: The Washington Post is the Anglo-Zionist Empire’s propaganda organ, and even they admit that there’s a horrific massacre of journalists going on. Wael Al-Dahdouh just lost his son. He lost most of his family a month and a half ago. And now the Zionists just targeted a car that his son was riding in and murdered him, too. There was a really touching film of his wedding video, the son’s wedding video, with Wael the Father celebrating the wedding. And now here he is with his son’s corpse.

    The Zionists have murdered over 100 journalists, according to the Palestinian authorities, and at least 79 according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. About one out of every 10 reporters in Gaza has been murdered by the Zionists. I guess maybe there’s something they’re trying to hide.

    J. Michael Springmann: Yeah, they’re trying to hide the truth. And if you notice in the picture there, as in all the other pictures, the journalists that have been murdered, like the Al Mayadeen journalist and her cameraman, were all wearing “PRESS” emblazoned across their their flak vest in English and Arabic on their helmets, and yet somehow that this makes them targets instead of protecting them from the crazed creatures that are occupying Palestine and attempting to destroy the rest of the world.


    Kevin Barrett on Charles Moscowtiz’s Podcast (Excerpts)

    Podcast link

    Charles Moscowitz: Kevin, thanks for joining me.

    Kevin Barrett: Hey, it’s good to be with you, Charles.

    Charles Moscowitz: So before we get into the subjects of the day, I wouldn’t mind hearing a little bit about your story and how you arrived at where you are in terms of writing a book like Truth Jihad, your point of view, how it is you became Muslim.

    Kevin Barrett: It’s kind of a long, convoluted story, but basically, I came from a family of lapsed Unitarians, and that’s as lapsed as it gets. We didn’t even go to church to sing Kumbaya.

    Charles Moscowitz: Can I just interject briefly here, because I did, when I was on conventional radio, I used to do a segment on religions, and I’d have various people from all religions join me, and I had someone from the Unitarian Church join me. And I asked her, could you give me a thumbnail sketch on what it is that the Unitarians believe in? Are there any basic principles? And she said to me, funny, you should mention that we have a convention next month, we’re going to be figuring that out.

    Kevin Barrett: Well, I think they figured it out. And they said, “we don’t have any principles.” They actually have an atheist minister now in Madison, Wisconsin, where I went to church maybe two or three times at the Frank Lloyd Wright designed church in Madison when I was a kid.

    So I grew up in a very secular materialistic family, and I had spiritual experiences as a teenager, and knew there was a lot more to life than what the materialist paradigm was presenting. I read widely, looked into Buddhism as well as all sorts of other things when I was young, but I never really got monotheism. When my parents sent me to go to church with a Catholic next door neighbor to see what the Catholics do, it didn’t make any sense to me at all. The notion of this patriarchal God with Jesus as his son who died as redemption for everybody else’s sins, this whole story didn’t make any sense to me. But at the same time, I understood that there’s a real spiritual dimension to life. And so I looked into Buddhism, which did make a fair bit of sense.

    And then in 1989 through the grace of God, what many would call a coincidence or synchronicity, I happened to walk into a class taught by Dr. Jacob Needleman (and wound up reading Traditionalist authors like Guénon, Schuon and Lings, who became Muslims because they understood that Islam was the best-preserved authentic revealed religion as well as the one that is most rationally defensible).

    And the more I looked into it, the more I was convinced that that was the case. Islam also happened to have a very powerful mystical tradition and Sufism is a big part of that. And I very much related to that as well.

    So that’s how I came to Islam. I said, I better go study Arabic and Islamic studies to figure out what the heck I got myself into. So I went back to graduate school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and spent years learning Arabic and studying comparative religion and mostly Islam in the context of North Africa and Sufism.

    I’d probably still be teaching that stuff today, except 9/11 happened. And in late 2003, I heard David Ray Griffin, one of my great heroes—he’s a brilliant scholar, not so much a theologian as a guy who studies empirical reality and tries to figure out scientific questions—looked into 9/11.

    I looked into it, and I saw they (the 9/11 truthers) were right. And so I was very angry and upset again, and I flashed back to my JFK days and said, am I going to spend 6 or 7 years getting tenure and just let this thing go? Hell no.

    So I started doing teach-ins on the University of Wisconsin campus, became locally notorious. I had the first three mainstream pro-9/11 truth op-eds published in a mainstream newspaper in Madison, the Capital Times, and got involved in 9-11 Truth, brought Dr. Griffin to speak in Madison in 2005. I became kind of a figure in the 9/11 Truth movement.

    And then in 2006, when the opposition research guys decided to try to shut down 9/11 truth, because they couldn’t ignore it anymore, they came after me. And so I was basically beat up in mainstream media as “that evil 9/11 truth professor who’s corrupting the youth of Athens.”

    That made me permanently unemployable in the American academy. I lost a tenure-track job as well as any other possibility of employment. And so since then I’ve just been a freelance troublemaker and alternative media type guy like you.

    Charles Moscowitz: Exactly. And I think that people generally are coming around to viewing 9/11 as having more to it than what we were conventionally fed by the media.

    And in my own experience, when I ran for Congress in 2004 against Barney Frank, I discovered that he had authored this amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which basically forbade the United States from denying visas to people who were involved in terrorist activities. And it also had the effect of preventing all of our various so-called national security agencies from talking to each other and exchanging information, which, you know, led me to think that there’s something bigger going on here. There was some kind of an establishment agenda…

    I discovered… there is a peaceful element, or at least an element within Islam, as expressed by the Mufti of Rome, Palasi, who says that Islamic texts, including the Quran and the Hadith, they recognize the, quote, people of the book, which is the Islamic word for the Jews, as being sovereign in that tiny little swath of beachfront known as Israel. And that there’s a religious side to that in that such sovereignty will result in the… I mean, I suppose it’s similar to Christianity in the coming of the Mahdi or the coming of the final prophet and the ushering in of a messianic era.

    And his work has not been refuted by Islamic scholars.

    I don’t think it’s certainly the mainstream.

    But I’m wondering what you think of that, and will you lie, will you come down on that question?

    Kevin Barrett: Well, you and I actually, Charles, are on totally polar opposite sides of that question, even though maybe our philosophical framework isn’t so different. That is, your ideas about the core values of Judaism, which I respect as the core values of Islam and indeed all monotheism…

    (But) I couldn’t come up with somebody who more exemplifies what I would say is the absolutely, just utterly wrong position on Zionism, as you.

    My view of it—and I realize this is probably going to sound shocking or strange to you— agrees with Sheikh Imran Hussein’s interpretation of eschatology. And essentially, as I see it, Charles, Zionism is Antichrist or Dajjal. It’s a false messiah.

    I think that it began with Shabtai Zvi and Jacob Frank, who you agree are false messiahs and false prophets. And I agree with the Neturei Karta people from the Jewish viewpoint that God is asking all of us to be the best people that we can and to offer complete and perfect justice to everybody regardless of their nominal faith or ethnicity or religious affiliation or what have you. And I think Zionism is an expression of a pernicious and toxic Jewish supremacism that has been part of the shadow side of the Jewish faith.

    And from a Muslim perspective, we would say that emerges in part because of what we see as inaccuracies in the Torah, leading to abominations in the Talmud.

    And I think that the notion of a chosen people is, well, problematic. Of course, it can be interpreted in a way that encourages good behavior, which is your interpretation, and I honor that. But it also lends itself to interpretations that basically create a kind of supremacism that denies the rights of others and denies the viewpoints of others.

    And I think your book’s approach to Zionism horrifically denies the viewpoint and the rights and the human dignity of others, non-Zionists and non-Jews, especially Palestinians, who are the victims of genocide. And they didn’t start being the victims of genocide on October 7th. The’ve been victims of genocide nonstop ever since the earliest Zionists, who were mostly atheists and satanists, showed up in Palestine with a supremacist attitude. Rather than being immigrants who were going to work with the local people and help them and be part of their community, these people were supremacists who said, “it’s going to be a Jewish state. Jews are going to rule. Jews are the chosen people here. And we’re ultimately going to have to expel these native Palestinians.” And all the founders of Zionism knew they were going to have to commit genocide, that is expel, destroy, the local Palestinian community.

    Now that’s unacceptable, Charles. And I’ll tell you one of the reasons why. Not only because it requires genocide against the Palestinians, but also because that holy land is holy to all of us. It’s holy to Christians, to Jews, and to Muslims. Whoever has custody over that land has to administer it with perfect justice for all faiths. No special dispensations for any faith.

    The monotheists today consist of about 15 million Jews, 2 billion Muslims, and 3 billion Christians. So there are five billion monotheists today (who honor Abraham and the prophets) who are Muslim and Christian. And there are 15 million who are Jewish. All of those five billion plus people have equal rights to being equal citizens in every possible sense in that holy land.

    If I said, “it should be a Muslim state in which only Muslims are allowed to immigrate there, only Muslims are allowed to have the best property, Muslims are going to put up checkpoints so all the non-Muslims basically have to go through apartheid checkpoints to go to the store every day, Muslims are going to be shooting non-Muslim children for sport, which happens on a regular basis in Israel as the Israeli Defense Forces literally murder Palestinian children for sport on a constant basis and never face any consequences…

    If the Muslims acted like this against the Jews and the Christians in that holy land, it would be an abomination.

    So, the fact that this grotesquely deluded and egotistical and egocentric and arguably tribally psychopathic group of 15 million of the world’s 5 billion monotheists has seen fit to invade the Holy Land and commit genocide against the people who live there and erect a supremacist, apartheid, genocidal entity there and call it some kind of quasi-messianic entity and bow down and worship this genocidal entity as a golden calf–that’s Antichrist, that’s Dajjal, that’s the False Prophet, that’s another Shabtai Zvi.

    So I think that you’ve made a terrible mistake. I think you’re a good man, I think your basic values are good. But I think you’ve made a horrific mistake by grossly misinterpreting Israel, reading the history from a very, very biased viewpoint, an utterly one-sided viewpoint, that denies the story of the other, denies the humanity of the other, denies the facts that we all should be agreeing on, and instead replaces them with big lies and propaganda that are completely false about the history of what’s happened there.

    (How did Charles Moscowitz respond? Listen to the full podcast)



    Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.

    He is the host of TRUTH JIHAD RADIO; a hard-driving weekly radio show funded by listener subscriptions at Substack and the weekly news roundup FALSE FLAG WEEKLY NEWS (FFWN).

    He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS, and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.

    Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.

    Archived Articles (2004-2016)

    www.truthjihad.com


    ATTENTION READERS

    We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
    In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

    About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
    Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.

    https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/is-gaza-genocide-just-your-anti-semitic-imagination/
    Is Gaza Genocide Just Your “Anti-Semitic Imagination”? Kevin Barrett, Senior EditorJanuary 18, 2024 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. Rumble link Bitchute link This week’s False Flag Weekly News featured J. Michael Springmann and I discussing the historic story “Israel Busted For Genocide.” Needless to say, we sided with the prosecution. Then last night I appeared on Charles Moscowitz’s podcast and heard Charles’ brief for the defense. Though I like Charles Moscowitz, and have a fair bit in common with him both philosophically and politically, I find his take on Zionism infuriating. Moscowitz’s new book The Anti-Semitic Imagination goes over a long list of “conspiracy theories” and absolves organized Jewry of involvement in pretty much all of them. Even the conspiracy to invade, occupy, and ethnically-cleanse Palestine, according to Moscowitz, is really the Palestinians’ fault. It’s also the fault of “radical jihadist Islam.” (Eyeball roll.) Below are excerpts from the two conversations. Kevin Barrett and J. Michael Springmann on Zionist genocide Kevin Barrett: Here’s the top war crime story this week: South Africa is leading the prosecution of Israel for genocide in The Hague. Sam Husseini (listen to our interview) has been tirelessly pushing this idea for months. Now it finally happened. Shout out to South Africa for making it happen. South Africa presented the case for the prosecution last Thursday, and then Friday was Israel’s response. The prosecution’s five-point accusation included mass killings of Palestinians, bodily and mental harm, forced displacement, a food blockade, destruction of the health care system, and preventing Palestinian births. All of these fit the definition of genocide under international law. J. Michael Springmann: I think South Africa has it right. Genocide was defined at the convention in 1948, which the Israelis signed and which they got because of the way the Europeans treated the Jews. Now they’re claiming that the Palestinians are engaging in genocide against them, when in actual fact the definition is along the lines of trying to wipe out or displace or remove by threats, by statements, by actions and by killings, a people or an ethnic group or a religious group. That it pretty much fits the Palestinians. They’re Muslims. They’re a coherent group of people. The Zionists have been working on this since the 20s and 30s with Plan Dalet cooked up by David Ben-Gurion, one of the terrorist leaders of the Haganah. He became a prime minister and he pushed through the genocide, the Nakba, the Holocaust against the Palestinians, in 1948 and subsequently. So I think the case is strong. The court has jurisdiction. The only problem is that it doesn’t have any power to enforce its decisions. Kevin Barrett: That’s right. But every nation on earth can say that it is enforcing international law once the decision gets handed down. So that means that, for example, the Yemeni government led by the Houthis would have a strong case that it has the right to impose a blockade on the Zionist entity to stop the genocide. And of course, that story has been heating up this week. We have had more drone attacks on Israeli oil tankers. And then the Americans went just yesterday and started bombing Yemen. There have been two rounds of bombings. They’ve hit dozens of targets in Yemen. And the Yemenis are up in arms. There is drone footage of millions of people titting the streets. Messing with Yemen is not a smart move, as the Saudis learned to their chagrin about seven or eight years ago. So is this going to be another case of a relatively poor and not that heavily armed country like Afghanistan kicking Uncle Sam’s butt? J. Michael Springmann: I think so. They’ve done a good job of flooding the Red Sea, which may become the Iron Bottom Sea if they hit enough ships with their missiles and drones. The foolish Americans and the British and the Canadians and the Australians and the Dutch have got themselves in the middle of a hornet’s nest. The Yemenis are battle-tested. Tor 10 years they’ve been fighting the Saudis, backed by the United States, and the Saudis couldn’t win, even though they bombed school buses and funeral processions and wedding receptions and so forth. So the Yemenis are tough, they have weapons, they’re not stupid, they’ve repurposed some Scud missiles to improve them and fire them at the Saudis. And of course the lamestream media controlled by the Zio-Nazis—that’s an insult to the Nazis actually—they keep claiming that the Iranians are doing all this, the Iranians somehow are backing Hamas and Hezbollah and the Ansar Allah freedom fighters and the people in Iraq and people in Syria. And you think that Iran is this great octopus, but in fact the Americans and the British are creating more problems for themselves, and sooner or later the Houthis are going to hit some very expensive warships and kill a lot of sailors Kevin Barrett: Yeah, and then all bets are off. It could be World War III for all we know. And one of the real shameful things about this is that the United States is officially at war, conducting an act of aggression against Yemen, bombing Yemen, killing people. They already killed Yemenis last week. And they’re doing this to protect a genocide. That makes them war criminals of the highest order. And every American leader with any responsibility whatsoever for this needs to be tried, convicted, sentenced and hanged until dead. Israel’s Massacre of Journalists Kevin Barrett: The Washington Post is the Anglo-Zionist Empire’s propaganda organ, and even they admit that there’s a horrific massacre of journalists going on. Wael Al-Dahdouh just lost his son. He lost most of his family a month and a half ago. And now the Zionists just targeted a car that his son was riding in and murdered him, too. There was a really touching film of his wedding video, the son’s wedding video, with Wael the Father celebrating the wedding. And now here he is with his son’s corpse. The Zionists have murdered over 100 journalists, according to the Palestinian authorities, and at least 79 according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. About one out of every 10 reporters in Gaza has been murdered by the Zionists. I guess maybe there’s something they’re trying to hide. J. Michael Springmann: Yeah, they’re trying to hide the truth. And if you notice in the picture there, as in all the other pictures, the journalists that have been murdered, like the Al Mayadeen journalist and her cameraman, were all wearing “PRESS” emblazoned across their their flak vest in English and Arabic on their helmets, and yet somehow that this makes them targets instead of protecting them from the crazed creatures that are occupying Palestine and attempting to destroy the rest of the world. Kevin Barrett on Charles Moscowtiz’s Podcast (Excerpts) Podcast link Charles Moscowitz: Kevin, thanks for joining me. Kevin Barrett: Hey, it’s good to be with you, Charles. Charles Moscowitz: So before we get into the subjects of the day, I wouldn’t mind hearing a little bit about your story and how you arrived at where you are in terms of writing a book like Truth Jihad, your point of view, how it is you became Muslim. Kevin Barrett: It’s kind of a long, convoluted story, but basically, I came from a family of lapsed Unitarians, and that’s as lapsed as it gets. We didn’t even go to church to sing Kumbaya. Charles Moscowitz: Can I just interject briefly here, because I did, when I was on conventional radio, I used to do a segment on religions, and I’d have various people from all religions join me, and I had someone from the Unitarian Church join me. And I asked her, could you give me a thumbnail sketch on what it is that the Unitarians believe in? Are there any basic principles? And she said to me, funny, you should mention that we have a convention next month, we’re going to be figuring that out. Kevin Barrett: Well, I think they figured it out. And they said, “we don’t have any principles.” They actually have an atheist minister now in Madison, Wisconsin, where I went to church maybe two or three times at the Frank Lloyd Wright designed church in Madison when I was a kid. So I grew up in a very secular materialistic family, and I had spiritual experiences as a teenager, and knew there was a lot more to life than what the materialist paradigm was presenting. I read widely, looked into Buddhism as well as all sorts of other things when I was young, but I never really got monotheism. When my parents sent me to go to church with a Catholic next door neighbor to see what the Catholics do, it didn’t make any sense to me at all. The notion of this patriarchal God with Jesus as his son who died as redemption for everybody else’s sins, this whole story didn’t make any sense to me. But at the same time, I understood that there’s a real spiritual dimension to life. And so I looked into Buddhism, which did make a fair bit of sense. And then in 1989 through the grace of God, what many would call a coincidence or synchronicity, I happened to walk into a class taught by Dr. Jacob Needleman (and wound up reading Traditionalist authors like Guénon, Schuon and Lings, who became Muslims because they understood that Islam was the best-preserved authentic revealed religion as well as the one that is most rationally defensible). And the more I looked into it, the more I was convinced that that was the case. Islam also happened to have a very powerful mystical tradition and Sufism is a big part of that. And I very much related to that as well. So that’s how I came to Islam. I said, I better go study Arabic and Islamic studies to figure out what the heck I got myself into. So I went back to graduate school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and spent years learning Arabic and studying comparative religion and mostly Islam in the context of North Africa and Sufism. I’d probably still be teaching that stuff today, except 9/11 happened. And in late 2003, I heard David Ray Griffin, one of my great heroes—he’s a brilliant scholar, not so much a theologian as a guy who studies empirical reality and tries to figure out scientific questions—looked into 9/11. I looked into it, and I saw they (the 9/11 truthers) were right. And so I was very angry and upset again, and I flashed back to my JFK days and said, am I going to spend 6 or 7 years getting tenure and just let this thing go? Hell no. So I started doing teach-ins on the University of Wisconsin campus, became locally notorious. I had the first three mainstream pro-9/11 truth op-eds published in a mainstream newspaper in Madison, the Capital Times, and got involved in 9-11 Truth, brought Dr. Griffin to speak in Madison in 2005. I became kind of a figure in the 9/11 Truth movement. And then in 2006, when the opposition research guys decided to try to shut down 9/11 truth, because they couldn’t ignore it anymore, they came after me. And so I was basically beat up in mainstream media as “that evil 9/11 truth professor who’s corrupting the youth of Athens.” That made me permanently unemployable in the American academy. I lost a tenure-track job as well as any other possibility of employment. And so since then I’ve just been a freelance troublemaker and alternative media type guy like you. Charles Moscowitz: Exactly. And I think that people generally are coming around to viewing 9/11 as having more to it than what we were conventionally fed by the media. And in my own experience, when I ran for Congress in 2004 against Barney Frank, I discovered that he had authored this amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which basically forbade the United States from denying visas to people who were involved in terrorist activities. And it also had the effect of preventing all of our various so-called national security agencies from talking to each other and exchanging information, which, you know, led me to think that there’s something bigger going on here. There was some kind of an establishment agenda… I discovered… there is a peaceful element, or at least an element within Islam, as expressed by the Mufti of Rome, Palasi, who says that Islamic texts, including the Quran and the Hadith, they recognize the, quote, people of the book, which is the Islamic word for the Jews, as being sovereign in that tiny little swath of beachfront known as Israel. And that there’s a religious side to that in that such sovereignty will result in the… I mean, I suppose it’s similar to Christianity in the coming of the Mahdi or the coming of the final prophet and the ushering in of a messianic era. And his work has not been refuted by Islamic scholars. I don’t think it’s certainly the mainstream. But I’m wondering what you think of that, and will you lie, will you come down on that question? Kevin Barrett: Well, you and I actually, Charles, are on totally polar opposite sides of that question, even though maybe our philosophical framework isn’t so different. That is, your ideas about the core values of Judaism, which I respect as the core values of Islam and indeed all monotheism… (But) I couldn’t come up with somebody who more exemplifies what I would say is the absolutely, just utterly wrong position on Zionism, as you. My view of it—and I realize this is probably going to sound shocking or strange to you— agrees with Sheikh Imran Hussein’s interpretation of eschatology. And essentially, as I see it, Charles, Zionism is Antichrist or Dajjal. It’s a false messiah. I think that it began with Shabtai Zvi and Jacob Frank, who you agree are false messiahs and false prophets. And I agree with the Neturei Karta people from the Jewish viewpoint that God is asking all of us to be the best people that we can and to offer complete and perfect justice to everybody regardless of their nominal faith or ethnicity or religious affiliation or what have you. And I think Zionism is an expression of a pernicious and toxic Jewish supremacism that has been part of the shadow side of the Jewish faith. And from a Muslim perspective, we would say that emerges in part because of what we see as inaccuracies in the Torah, leading to abominations in the Talmud. And I think that the notion of a chosen people is, well, problematic. Of course, it can be interpreted in a way that encourages good behavior, which is your interpretation, and I honor that. But it also lends itself to interpretations that basically create a kind of supremacism that denies the rights of others and denies the viewpoints of others. And I think your book’s approach to Zionism horrifically denies the viewpoint and the rights and the human dignity of others, non-Zionists and non-Jews, especially Palestinians, who are the victims of genocide. And they didn’t start being the victims of genocide on October 7th. The’ve been victims of genocide nonstop ever since the earliest Zionists, who were mostly atheists and satanists, showed up in Palestine with a supremacist attitude. Rather than being immigrants who were going to work with the local people and help them and be part of their community, these people were supremacists who said, “it’s going to be a Jewish state. Jews are going to rule. Jews are the chosen people here. And we’re ultimately going to have to expel these native Palestinians.” And all the founders of Zionism knew they were going to have to commit genocide, that is expel, destroy, the local Palestinian community. Now that’s unacceptable, Charles. And I’ll tell you one of the reasons why. Not only because it requires genocide against the Palestinians, but also because that holy land is holy to all of us. It’s holy to Christians, to Jews, and to Muslims. Whoever has custody over that land has to administer it with perfect justice for all faiths. No special dispensations for any faith. The monotheists today consist of about 15 million Jews, 2 billion Muslims, and 3 billion Christians. So there are five billion monotheists today (who honor Abraham and the prophets) who are Muslim and Christian. And there are 15 million who are Jewish. All of those five billion plus people have equal rights to being equal citizens in every possible sense in that holy land. If I said, “it should be a Muslim state in which only Muslims are allowed to immigrate there, only Muslims are allowed to have the best property, Muslims are going to put up checkpoints so all the non-Muslims basically have to go through apartheid checkpoints to go to the store every day, Muslims are going to be shooting non-Muslim children for sport, which happens on a regular basis in Israel as the Israeli Defense Forces literally murder Palestinian children for sport on a constant basis and never face any consequences… If the Muslims acted like this against the Jews and the Christians in that holy land, it would be an abomination. So, the fact that this grotesquely deluded and egotistical and egocentric and arguably tribally psychopathic group of 15 million of the world’s 5 billion monotheists has seen fit to invade the Holy Land and commit genocide against the people who live there and erect a supremacist, apartheid, genocidal entity there and call it some kind of quasi-messianic entity and bow down and worship this genocidal entity as a golden calf–that’s Antichrist, that’s Dajjal, that’s the False Prophet, that’s another Shabtai Zvi. So I think that you’ve made a terrible mistake. I think you’re a good man, I think your basic values are good. But I think you’ve made a horrific mistake by grossly misinterpreting Israel, reading the history from a very, very biased viewpoint, an utterly one-sided viewpoint, that denies the story of the other, denies the humanity of the other, denies the facts that we all should be agreeing on, and instead replaces them with big lies and propaganda that are completely false about the history of what’s happened there. (How did Charles Moscowitz respond? Listen to the full podcast) Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. He is the host of TRUTH JIHAD RADIO; a hard-driving weekly radio show funded by listener subscriptions at Substack and the weekly news roundup FALSE FLAG WEEKLY NEWS (FFWN). He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS, and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host. Archived Articles (2004-2016) www.truthjihad.com ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/is-gaza-genocide-just-your-anti-semitic-imagination/
    WWW.VTFOREIGNPOLICY.COM
    Is Gaza Genocide Just Your “Anti-Semitic Imagination”?
    A grotesquely deluded and egotistical and egocentric and arguably tribally psychopathic group of 15 million of the world's 5 billion monotheists has seen fit to invade the Holy Land and commit genocide...
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 12493 Views
  • 🇳🇱 Dutch politician Eva Vlaardingerbroek: "America and Europe are facing incredibly similar problems. And that's because we're under attack by the same sick globalist agenda. As a result of that, my continent finds itself in rough waters and that is to put it mildly."

    "Europe is being flooded with immigrants from non western countries. Our national identities are being destroyed and replaced. Our sovereignty is given up to bureaucrats, unelected bureaucrats may I add, in Brussels. Our churches are closing their doors. And we're spending billions and billions of euros on a non existing climate crisis and a war in Ukraine that isn't even ours. In fact I would go as far as to say that we are paying for our own destruction."

    Subscribe to @geopolitics_live
    🇳🇱 Dutch politician Eva Vlaardingerbroek: "America and Europe are facing incredibly similar problems. And that's because we're under attack by the same sick globalist agenda. As a result of that, my continent finds itself in rough waters and that is to put it mildly." "Europe is being flooded with immigrants from non western countries. Our national identities are being destroyed and replaced. Our sovereignty is given up to bureaucrats, unelected bureaucrats may I add, in Brussels. Our churches are closing their doors. And we're spending billions and billions of euros on a non existing climate crisis and a war in Ukraine that isn't even ours. In fact I would go as far as to say that we are paying for our own destruction." Subscribe to @geopolitics_live
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2698 Views 1
  • With other European countries becoming more and more right wing with regards to immigration into their countries, how soon will these "immigrants" decide to come over to the "woke, looney left" UK?
    https://bit.ly/3SZEHRt
    With other European countries becoming more and more right wing with regards to immigration into their countries, how soon will these "immigrants" decide to come over to the "woke, looney left" UK? https://bit.ly/3SZEHRt
    BIT.LY
    With other European countries becoming more and more right wing with regards to immigration into their countries, how soon will these "immigrants" decide to come over to the "woke, looney left" UK?
    It's important to approach discussions about immigration with sensitivity and avoid generalizations about political ideologies. Immigration ...
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1062 Views
  • Want to get $200 free gift from Amazon for Black Friday Sale Offer, then
    Click here : https://uply.pro/wbozx

    #iPhone14 #Ireland #Alhamdulillah #SongKang #RanbirKapoor #AIPAC #FridayVibes #Piers #Immigrants #PresidentBiden
    #Lagos #fridaymorning #50%OFF #Kyungsoo
    Want to get $200 free gift from Amazon for Black Friday Sale Offer, then Click here : https://uply.pro/wbozx #iPhone14 #Ireland #Alhamdulillah #SongKang #RanbirKapoor #AIPAC #FridayVibes #Piers #Immigrants #PresidentBiden #Lagos #fridaymorning #50%OFF #Kyungsoo
    Love
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4129 Views
  • Want to get $200 free gift from Amazon for Black Friday Sale Offer, then
    Click here : https://uply.pro/wbozx

    #iPhone14 #Ireland #Alhamdulillah #SongKang #RanbirKapoor #AIPAC #FridayVibes #Piers #Immigrants #PresidentBiden
    #Lagos #fridaymorning #50%OFF #Kyungsoo
    Want to get $200 free gift from Amazon for Black Friday Sale Offer, then Click here : https://uply.pro/wbozx #iPhone14 #Ireland #Alhamdulillah #SongKang #RanbirKapoor #AIPAC #FridayVibes #Piers #Immigrants #PresidentBiden #Lagos #fridaymorning #50%OFF #Kyungsoo
    Love
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3995 Views
  • You’re Paying for the Israel War. You’ll Also Pay for the Refugees.
    Ryan McMaken
    This article was originally published by Ryan McMaken at The Mises Institute.

    The United States regime has picked sides in the Israel-Hamas war and has committed to funding Israel’s ongoing bombing of non-combatant men, women, and children in the Gaza Strip. Northern Gaza’s infrastructure is now all but destroyed, with millions of Gazans displaced and homeless. Nearly ten times more Gazans than Israelis have now died in the conflict. Many Gazans have fled to the southern portion of Gaza, but homelessness and abject poverty await them there.

    By employing what is essentially the carpet-bombing approach, Tel Aviv has made the choice of adopting a policy that is sure to produce hundreds of thousands of refugees—or perhaps even more than a million. Indeed, many in the Israeli regime are motivated to maximize refugees, and push Gazans out of the country altogether using the Orwellian phrase “voluntary migration.”

    On a military and tactical level, the Israeli state will have no problem accomplishing this. Tel Aviv has an air force, a deep reservoir of American-funded weapons, and a nuclear arsenal. The Israeli military can easily reduce all of Gaza to rubble. But what is sure to result from this is a humanitarian disaster accompanied by a global debate over which foreign country will host the refugees.

    Israeli mouthpieces are already at work pushing the cost onto foreign taxpayers, including American ones. This week, two Israeli politicians—one from the militarist Likud party, and one from the center-left Yesh Atid party—took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal to demand that “countries around the world should offer a haven for Gaza residents who seek relocation.” According to these politicians, “[t]he international community”—i.e., not Israel—”has a moral imperative” to resettle Gazans somewhere outside Israel at not-Israel’s expense.

    It is significant these claims appeared in an American publication. Tel Aviv is the latest welfare-queen regime—in the tradition of Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky—repeatedly haranguing the American public with demands for free money. It’s no coincidence that Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu is now seemingly ubiquitous on American prime-time news programs. His primary job right now is to demand money and favors from Washington and from other Western regimes.

    It will probably work. Americans should get ready for plane-loads of Gaza refugees arriving in their cities, funded by the American taxpayers who can now barely afford to keep up with the price of groceries. This will be sold as a “humanitarian” effort, but anyone who sees through the propaganda will see that it’s really all a cynical effort to please pro-Israel interest groups and Israeli politicians.

    A Pattern of War and Refugees

    This was all predictable from the minute the war started last month.

    The US and its allies have settled into a predictable pattern in foreign policy over the past thirty years: force the taxpayers to pay for the regime’s wars which involve bombing various poor foreign countries “back into the stone age.” Then, once the refugees start pouring out—and the Americans have lost the war, of course—Western regimes then tell the taxpayers back home to cough up even more money to pay for the resettlement of all those refugees whose countries were needlessly destroyed by the bombs dropped by Washington and its allies.

    This is no small phenomenon. A 2020 report from Brown University estimated that 37 million people have been made refugees by the US-led “War on Terrorism.” By 2016, 5.2 million of them reached Europe. In 2022 alone, more than 159,000 refugees arrived by sea in Italy, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, and Malta. Thousands more arrive at the land borders of the EU every year.

    Thanks to the distance from western Asia and North Africa, refugee totals have been smaller in the United States. Nonetheless, the total number of refugees has ranged from 50,000 to 90,000 per year in most years since the US began its war in Afghanistan. This has transformed a number of communities in the United States, however, since refugees often tend to concentrate in specific places along ethnic or religious lines. In the decades of the US’s endless on-again, off-again military meddling in Somalia, tens of thousands of Somali refugees have been relocated to Minnesota at taxpayers’ expense. Since 2018, Minnesota has hosted more than 40,000 Somalia-born migrants (many classified as refugees). Most of the refugees, of course, are concentrated within Minneapolis’ metro population of only 3.5 million. In democracies, this has political consequences.

    It is also important to remember that migrants who enjoy the legal status of refugees are not normal immigrants. Ordinary immigrants arrive at the United States at their own expense. The vast majority must find work on their own if they wish to have an income. They are eligible for few social benefits. Those seeking legal residency, of course, must go through a lengthy administrative process. For example, Mexicans who obtain a work visa in the United States have to work. They don’t show up and receive “free” help from government-funded refugee agencies in finding jobs, apartments, and other government freebies.

    In contrast, all of that is fast-tracked for people labeled “refugees” by the federal government, and most of these refugees are immediately eligible for a wide array of taxpayer-funded benefits. In total, this all costs the taxpayers nearly two billion dollars per year, or $80,000 per refugee per year in the form of federal and state programs including food stamps, child care, and public housing.

    It’s not enough that you pay for the bombs that create the refugees, dear American taxpayer. You’ll also have to pay to resettle those refugees in your town.


    https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/youre-paying-for-the-israel-war-youll-also-pay-for-the-refugees
    You’re Paying for the Israel War. You’ll Also Pay for the Refugees. Ryan McMaken This article was originally published by Ryan McMaken at The Mises Institute. The United States regime has picked sides in the Israel-Hamas war and has committed to funding Israel’s ongoing bombing of non-combatant men, women, and children in the Gaza Strip. Northern Gaza’s infrastructure is now all but destroyed, with millions of Gazans displaced and homeless. Nearly ten times more Gazans than Israelis have now died in the conflict. Many Gazans have fled to the southern portion of Gaza, but homelessness and abject poverty await them there. By employing what is essentially the carpet-bombing approach, Tel Aviv has made the choice of adopting a policy that is sure to produce hundreds of thousands of refugees—or perhaps even more than a million. Indeed, many in the Israeli regime are motivated to maximize refugees, and push Gazans out of the country altogether using the Orwellian phrase “voluntary migration.” On a military and tactical level, the Israeli state will have no problem accomplishing this. Tel Aviv has an air force, a deep reservoir of American-funded weapons, and a nuclear arsenal. The Israeli military can easily reduce all of Gaza to rubble. But what is sure to result from this is a humanitarian disaster accompanied by a global debate over which foreign country will host the refugees. Israeli mouthpieces are already at work pushing the cost onto foreign taxpayers, including American ones. This week, two Israeli politicians—one from the militarist Likud party, and one from the center-left Yesh Atid party—took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal to demand that “countries around the world should offer a haven for Gaza residents who seek relocation.” According to these politicians, “[t]he international community”—i.e., not Israel—”has a moral imperative” to resettle Gazans somewhere outside Israel at not-Israel’s expense. It is significant these claims appeared in an American publication. Tel Aviv is the latest welfare-queen regime—in the tradition of Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky—repeatedly haranguing the American public with demands for free money. It’s no coincidence that Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu is now seemingly ubiquitous on American prime-time news programs. His primary job right now is to demand money and favors from Washington and from other Western regimes. It will probably work. Americans should get ready for plane-loads of Gaza refugees arriving in their cities, funded by the American taxpayers who can now barely afford to keep up with the price of groceries. This will be sold as a “humanitarian” effort, but anyone who sees through the propaganda will see that it’s really all a cynical effort to please pro-Israel interest groups and Israeli politicians. A Pattern of War and Refugees This was all predictable from the minute the war started last month. The US and its allies have settled into a predictable pattern in foreign policy over the past thirty years: force the taxpayers to pay for the regime’s wars which involve bombing various poor foreign countries “back into the stone age.” Then, once the refugees start pouring out—and the Americans have lost the war, of course—Western regimes then tell the taxpayers back home to cough up even more money to pay for the resettlement of all those refugees whose countries were needlessly destroyed by the bombs dropped by Washington and its allies. This is no small phenomenon. A 2020 report from Brown University estimated that 37 million people have been made refugees by the US-led “War on Terrorism.” By 2016, 5.2 million of them reached Europe. In 2022 alone, more than 159,000 refugees arrived by sea in Italy, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, and Malta. Thousands more arrive at the land borders of the EU every year. Thanks to the distance from western Asia and North Africa, refugee totals have been smaller in the United States. Nonetheless, the total number of refugees has ranged from 50,000 to 90,000 per year in most years since the US began its war in Afghanistan. This has transformed a number of communities in the United States, however, since refugees often tend to concentrate in specific places along ethnic or religious lines. In the decades of the US’s endless on-again, off-again military meddling in Somalia, tens of thousands of Somali refugees have been relocated to Minnesota at taxpayers’ expense. Since 2018, Minnesota has hosted more than 40,000 Somalia-born migrants (many classified as refugees). Most of the refugees, of course, are concentrated within Minneapolis’ metro population of only 3.5 million. In democracies, this has political consequences. It is also important to remember that migrants who enjoy the legal status of refugees are not normal immigrants. Ordinary immigrants arrive at the United States at their own expense. The vast majority must find work on their own if they wish to have an income. They are eligible for few social benefits. Those seeking legal residency, of course, must go through a lengthy administrative process. For example, Mexicans who obtain a work visa in the United States have to work. They don’t show up and receive “free” help from government-funded refugee agencies in finding jobs, apartments, and other government freebies. In contrast, all of that is fast-tracked for people labeled “refugees” by the federal government, and most of these refugees are immediately eligible for a wide array of taxpayer-funded benefits. In total, this all costs the taxpayers nearly two billion dollars per year, or $80,000 per refugee per year in the form of federal and state programs including food stamps, child care, and public housing. It’s not enough that you pay for the bombs that create the refugees, dear American taxpayer. You’ll also have to pay to resettle those refugees in your town. https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/youre-paying-for-the-israel-war-youll-also-pay-for-the-refugees
    WWW.SHTFPLAN.COM
    You’re Paying for the Israel War. You’ll Also Pay for the Refugees.
    The United States regime has picked sides in the Israel-Hamas war and has committed to funding Israel's ongoing bombing of non-combatant men, women, and children in the Gaza Strip. Northern Gaza's infrastructure is now all but destroyed, with millions of Gazans displaced and homeless. Nearly ten times more Gazans than Israelis have now died in the conflict. Many Gazans have fled to the southern portion of Gaza, but homelessness and abject poverty await them there.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 7695 Views

  • Image Source
    The Gold Rush refers to a period of intense migration and exploration that occurred in the mid-1800s, primarily in California, United States, but also in other parts of the world such as Australia, Canada, and South Africa. It was characterized by a frenzy of individuals seeking to find gold and strike it rich.
    The California Gold Rush, which began in 1848, was sparked by the discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill in Coloma, California. News of the gold discovery spread rapidly, attracting people from all walks of life to the region in hopes of finding their fortune. These individuals, known as "forty-niners," included miners, entrepreneurs, and even families, who left behind their homes and traveled long distances to join the gold rush.
    The allure of quick riches and the promise of a better life led to a massive influx of people into California. The population of the state exploded, with tens of thousands of fortune seekers arriving by land and sea. The journey was often treacherous and challenging, with many facing arduous travel conditions and hardships along the way.
    Once in California, miners used various methods to extract gold from the rivers and streams. Initially, they relied on basic tools such as pans, picks, and shovels to manually search for gold nuggets and flakes in the riverbeds. As the gold rush progressed, more sophisticated techniques were employed, including hydraulic mining, which involved using powerful water cannons to wash away hillsides and extract gold-bearing gravel.
    The gold rush had a significant impact on California's economy and society. Towns sprang up overnight, turning remote areas into bustling communities. San Francisco, in particular, experienced rapid growth as it served as a major supply hub and gateway to the gold fields. Businesses catering to the needs of the miners flourished, including merchants, saloons, hotels, and transportation services.
    The gold rush also brought significant social and cultural changes. People from diverse backgrounds and countries flocked to California, creating a multicultural and cosmopolitan society. Chinese immigrants played a crucial role in the gold rush, contributing to mining operations and establishing their communities.
    While the gold rush did bring wealth to some fortunate individuals, the reality was that the majority of prospectors did not strike it rich. The competition for gold was fierce, and the easily accessible deposits were quickly exhausted. Many miners faced disappointment and financial hardships, while others turned to other industries, such as agriculture, trade, and manufacturing, to make a living.
    Despite the challenges and uncertainties, the gold rush left a lasting legacy. It played a significant role in the development and settlement of California and other regions. It spurred infrastructure projects, such as the construction of roads, bridges, and railroads, and contributed to the growth of commerce and industry.
    Moreover, the gold rush sparked technological advancements in mining techniques and equipment. It also fueled the development of financial institutions and investment practices, as people sought ways to finance their mining ventures and handle the newfound wealth.
    The gold rush remains an iconic event in history, symbolizing the pursuit of dreams, the spirit of adventure, and the allure of untapped riches. It continues to capture the imagination and serves as a reminder of the human drive for exploration and discovery. #someeofficial #gold #silver #cine #neoxian #oneup
    Image Source The Gold Rush refers to a period of intense migration and exploration that occurred in the mid-1800s, primarily in California, United States, but also in other parts of the world such as Australia, Canada, and South Africa. It was characterized by a frenzy of individuals seeking to find gold and strike it rich. The California Gold Rush, which began in 1848, was sparked by the discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill in Coloma, California. News of the gold discovery spread rapidly, attracting people from all walks of life to the region in hopes of finding their fortune. These individuals, known as "forty-niners," included miners, entrepreneurs, and even families, who left behind their homes and traveled long distances to join the gold rush. The allure of quick riches and the promise of a better life led to a massive influx of people into California. The population of the state exploded, with tens of thousands of fortune seekers arriving by land and sea. The journey was often treacherous and challenging, with many facing arduous travel conditions and hardships along the way. Once in California, miners used various methods to extract gold from the rivers and streams. Initially, they relied on basic tools such as pans, picks, and shovels to manually search for gold nuggets and flakes in the riverbeds. As the gold rush progressed, more sophisticated techniques were employed, including hydraulic mining, which involved using powerful water cannons to wash away hillsides and extract gold-bearing gravel. The gold rush had a significant impact on California's economy and society. Towns sprang up overnight, turning remote areas into bustling communities. San Francisco, in particular, experienced rapid growth as it served as a major supply hub and gateway to the gold fields. Businesses catering to the needs of the miners flourished, including merchants, saloons, hotels, and transportation services. The gold rush also brought significant social and cultural changes. People from diverse backgrounds and countries flocked to California, creating a multicultural and cosmopolitan society. Chinese immigrants played a crucial role in the gold rush, contributing to mining operations and establishing their communities. While the gold rush did bring wealth to some fortunate individuals, the reality was that the majority of prospectors did not strike it rich. The competition for gold was fierce, and the easily accessible deposits were quickly exhausted. Many miners faced disappointment and financial hardships, while others turned to other industries, such as agriculture, trade, and manufacturing, to make a living. Despite the challenges and uncertainties, the gold rush left a lasting legacy. It played a significant role in the development and settlement of California and other regions. It spurred infrastructure projects, such as the construction of roads, bridges, and railroads, and contributed to the growth of commerce and industry. Moreover, the gold rush sparked technological advancements in mining techniques and equipment. It also fueled the development of financial institutions and investment practices, as people sought ways to finance their mining ventures and handle the newfound wealth. The gold rush remains an iconic event in history, symbolizing the pursuit of dreams, the spirit of adventure, and the allure of untapped riches. It continues to capture the imagination and serves as a reminder of the human drive for exploration and discovery. #someeofficial #gold #silver #cine #neoxian #oneup
    1 Comments 0 Shares 12135 Views
  • https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/94-illegal-immigrants-apprehended-at-the-us-canada-border/ #immigrants #border #somee #cent #waivio #proofofbrain #hive
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/94-illegal-immigrants-apprehended-at-the-us-canada-border/ #immigrants #border #somee #cent #waivio #proofofbrain #hive
    Love
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 842 Views
  • “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” a sci-fi story about Chinese American immigrant parents, dominated the Oscars with seven awards, marking a milestone for Asians and Asian Americans, who have historically been underrepresented in American film and television industries.

    “For all the little boys and girls who look like me, watching tonight, this is a beacon of hope and possibilities,” Michelle Yeoh said during her Oscar acceptance speech on Sunday. She is the first Asian artist to win the best actress in the history of the 95-year-old Academy Awards.

    Just 23 of 1,808 acting nominees in the entire history of the Oscars could be identified as Asian. According to a 2021 study from the University of Southern California Annenberg, only 5.9 percent of speaking roles in films between 2007 and 2019 involved Asian characters.

    The 2023 Oscar has a record number of Asians winning major categories. Daniel Kwan, a Chinese American, and Daniel Scheinert shared the prize for best director and best original screenplay. Ke Huy Quan, the Vietnamese-born actor, won the best supporting actor.

    “The Elephant Whisperers” made history as the first Indian documentary short to win an Oscar. Composer M.M. Keeravani and artist-lyricist Chandrabose, who are both from India, won the award for best original song.

    #Oscars2023 #Oscars #EverythingEverywhereAllAtOnce #MichelleYeoh #DanielKwan #KeHuyQuan #chineseamerican #asianamerican #hollywood #asian #asia #filmindustry #immigrants
    “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” a sci-fi story about Chinese American immigrant parents, dominated the Oscars with seven awards, marking a milestone for Asians and Asian Americans, who have historically been underrepresented in American film and television industries. “For all the little boys and girls who look like me, watching tonight, this is a beacon of hope and possibilities,” Michelle Yeoh said during her Oscar acceptance speech on Sunday. She is the first Asian artist to win the best actress in the history of the 95-year-old Academy Awards. Just 23 of 1,808 acting nominees in the entire history of the Oscars could be identified as Asian. According to a 2021 study from the University of Southern California Annenberg, only 5.9 percent of speaking roles in films between 2007 and 2019 involved Asian characters. The 2023 Oscar has a record number of Asians winning major categories. Daniel Kwan, a Chinese American, and Daniel Scheinert shared the prize for best director and best original screenplay. Ke Huy Quan, the Vietnamese-born actor, won the best supporting actor. “The Elephant Whisperers” made history as the first Indian documentary short to win an Oscar. Composer M.M. Keeravani and artist-lyricist Chandrabose, who are both from India, won the award for best original song. #Oscars2023 #Oscars #EverythingEverywhereAllAtOnce #MichelleYeoh #DanielKwan #KeHuyQuan #chineseamerican #asianamerican #hollywood #asian #asia #filmindustry #immigrants
    Like
    Love
    5
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5480 Views
  • Stars and stripes presented proudly in the German restaurant/delicatessen!!!
    We are a country of immigrants who have become Americans!!!
    Stars and stripes presented proudly in the German restaurant/delicatessen!!! We are a country of immigrants who have become Americans!!!
    Like
    Love
    14
    0 Comments 0 Shares 880 Views
  • This is so fucking Stasi-sick so you won't believe.
    calling a journalist Stupid in Germany has giving a person a €1000 fine. Criticizing politicians or turkish immigrants was €10000 in fine!
    Is this What they want to scare you from speaking up!
    go to this comment section and promote #SomeeSocial
    https://youtu.be/1BJ7BCV9KrA


    This is so fucking Stasi-sick so you won't believe. calling a journalist Stupid in Germany has giving a person a €1000 fine. Criticizing politicians or turkish immigrants was €10000 in fine! Is this What they want to scare you from speaking up! go to this comment section and promote #SomeeSocial https://youtu.be/1BJ7BCV9KrA
    3 Comments 0 Shares 570 Views
More Results