Gilead Sent Death Threats To Kill HCQ As COVID-19 Cure, French Dr Testifies In Parliament

via GreatGameIndia

After it was revealed in a shocking investigation that WHO policies on Hydroxychloroquine were based on a fake study by a pornstar and a science-fiction writer, now in an ongoing investigation, a French doctor has testified in parliament that Gilead sent him death threats after he started talking about HCQ as a cure for COVID-19.

Gilead Sent Death Threats To Kill HCQ As Cure For COVID-19, French Dr Testifies In ParliamentGilead Sent Death Threats To Kill HCQ As COVID-19 Cure, French Dr Testifies In Parliament

In late March, a study by a French research team led by the renowned epidemiologist Dr. Didier Raoult revealed that he was able to cure his 80 patients by administering hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

“By administering hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, we were able to observe an improvement in all cases, except in one patient who arrived with an advanced form, who was over the age of 86…,” reported Fox News.

Dr Didier Raoult cure patients with HydroxychloroquineIn late March, a study by a French research team led by the renowned epidemiologist Dr. Didier Raoult revealed that he was able to cure his 80 patients by administering hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

They were also able to demonstrate 91% effectiveness in more than 1,000 patients with zero side-effects.

In his tweets Dr. Raoult explained about his results:

New article published online by my teams: in vitro demonstration of the hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin synergy to counter SARS-COV2 replication In vitro testing of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin on SARS-CoV-2 shows synergistic effect.

New results from the IHU Méditerranée Infection: 80 patients treated with a hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin combination.

Our two articles published this evening allow us to continue to demonstrate:

  1. The effectiveness of our protocol, on 80 patients.

2. The relevance of the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, thanks to research carried out in our P3 containment laboratory.

Soon, Dr. Didier Raoult started receiving death threats. He filed a complaint for “death threats” and “acts of intimidation against a public service official” following which an investigation was opened by French Judiciary.

Now during a shocking testimony before the parliament, Dr. Raoult told lawmakers under oath that the person who sent him death threats was a top recipient of Gilead Pharmaceuticals.

Professor Raoult testified that, shortly after he started to talk about HCQ as a treatment, in March, he received anonymous death threats. He filed a complaint with the police, and an enquiry was opened by the French judiciary.

The medical doctor behind the threats was found and happens to be from a Nantes university hospital. It happened to be the person who received the most money from Gilead over the past 6 years.

Professor Raoult told members of the French parliament to open an investigation into Gilead Sciences. He also mentioned the stock exchange speculation that took place in connection with information becoming available regarding Remdesivir and HCQ. You can watch the entire testimony of Dr. Didier Raoul presented to the French Parliament on Wednesday June 24, here.

Earlier, in an investigation it was revealed that WHO policies on Hydroxychloroquine were influenced by a fake study by a pornstar and a Sci-Fi writer. An obscure US healthcare analytics company has come under sharp scrutiny for the integrity of its key studies that were published in some of the world’s most prestigious medical journals. World Health Organization and several national governments changed their COVID-19 policies and treatment based on the faulty data provided by the company with a pornstar and a sci-fi writer on their payroll.

A report by GreatGameIndia on the history of Gilead Sciences revealed that behind the benign image of a vaccine manufacturer, Gilead Science has a dark history of allegations of bioterrorism, including having Pentagon to bomb a competitors factory under the false pretext of association with Al-Qaeda.

Gilead’s flu drug, Tamiflu, originally manufactured by Gilead Sciences, was criticized for being ineffective and even harmful. Chairman of Gilead Sciences Donald Rumsfeld and Board Member of Gilead, Former U.S. Secretary of State, George Schultz profited heavily from a $1.5 billion stockpiling by the U.S. government on Tamiflu leading up to the 2009 H1N1 “swine flu” outbreak.

The interesting part is, Gilead was part of the vaccine lobby at whose behest the WHO faked the H1N1 pandemic in 2009, and kept it a secret from people until committees were setup which exposed the entire racket.

For latest updates on the outbreak check out our Coronavirus Coverage.

Send in your tips and submissions by filling out this form or write to us directly at the email provided. Join us on WhatsApp for more intel and updates.

GreatGameIndia is a journal on Geopolitics and International Relations. Get to know the Geopolitical threats India is facing in our exclusive book India in Cognitive Dissonance. Past magazine issues can be accessed from the Archives section.

Chinese Chip Manufacturers Want to Abandon American Technologies

via Sputnik

Chinese chip makers want to insure themselves against US sanctions. SMIC and Yangtze Memory Technologies are considering replacing American equipment with domestic alternatives, after the US said it didn’t rule out sanctions against SMIC, similar to those imposed against Huawei.

Semiconductor manufacturing international corporation (SMIC) is a leading Chinese chip manufacturer that recently raised a record $7.8 billion worth of investment in production development.

But SMIC products are still lagging behind today’s most advanced chips in terms of manufacturability: SMIC produces 14nm chips, while leading manufacturers TSMC and Samsung produce smaller 5nm chips.

That said, even at 14nm, many Chinese electronics manufacturers use SMIC products. And this number looks set to rise due to US sanctions on Huawei, leading the company to buy a significant proportion of its chips from SMIC, up to 20 percent of the company’s orders, according to the chip maker.

The problem is that even in the 14nm manufacturing process, SMIC, as well as other chip manufacturers throughout the world, depends on American technology. For example, all the software needed to design chips is American: Cadence Design Systems, Synopsys, Ansys. The companies supplying the equipment necessary for chip production are also American: Applied Materials, KLA, ASML.

This makes SMIC sensitive to the secondary US sanctions imposed on Huawei, banning US companies from supplying chips to the Chinese telecom company if their production uses any American technology. Moreover, the US authorities have recently announced the possibility of blacklisting SMIC and imposing similar sanctions against it, motivated by the fact that SMIC allegedly cooperates with the Chinese military-industrial complex. This is damaging for SMIC’s share price, and as reports of possible sanctions became public, the company’s capitalization fell by around 20 percent.

Given all of this, Chinese chip manufacturers are trying to reduce their dependence on imports. Chinese authorities have repeatedly spoken about the need to develop their own fundamental technologies and China has set a target to meet 70 percent of its needs for chips and semiconductors by 2025, and to achieve complete import substitution by 2030. To do this, the so-called “Big Fund” (China integrated circuit industry investment fund) was created in 2014, and has already built up a war chest of more than $30 billion. This is being used to finance the development of local equipment manufacturers: Naura, Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment, Hwatsing, ACM Research, Mattson Technology and Shanghai Micro Electronics Equipment. The latter, according to the Chinese media, promises to have installed its own equipment to produce 28nm chips by 2022.

Xu Canhao, professor at School of Computer Science and Technology at Suzhou University, considers this goal too ambitious, saying that it’s almost impossible to establish a domestic production base in just a few years.

“If we are talking about a 40nm manufacturing process, or even older technologies, of course, Chinese companies can do that. But if we are talking about a 5nm manufacturing process, it’s almost impossible to cease dependence on American technologies. China has always lagged behind in the field of semiconductors. After all, it is a process that involves a lot of production chain links.”

So far, to produce chips of at least 28nm, SMIC is able to provide itself with only 20 percent of the necessary equipment and technologies, while the rest has to be imported, if not from the USA, then from Japan, South Korea or the EU. But even non-US equipment still uses US technologies in some way. Therefore, China needs to develop its own industrial base from scratch. But this is a long process, the expert pointed out.

“For example, Dutch ASML produces photolithographic systems. But the laser radiation source these systems use is American. This is a very long production chain, and there is no company that can manufacture world-class products alone. The main problem for us is that we don’t have advanced semiconductor technologies. We’ve created a special fund to stimulate the semiconductor industry. Companies involved in this area are subject to tax breaks. But we need many years to reach the breakthrough international level. It took the US, the EU and Japan 40-50 years to develop these technologies. We simply won’t be able to reach such a high level in two or three years.”

Even those Chinese manufacturers that produce innovative products on a global scale still depend on foreign components. Back in spring, Yangtze Memory Technologies created a prototype of a 128-layer 3D NAND flash memory chip, which is not yet mass-produced by any company in the world. However, the company depends on foreign supplies, and, fearing a further deterioration in relations with the United States, it, like Huawei, started stockpiling components so that they would last for at least a year.

Chinese high-tech manufacturers are now trying to solve pressing problems by diversifying their suppliers. However, assuming that the technological and ideological confrontation with the United States is serious and long-lasting, China needs to think of how to ensure its independence and economic and technological security in the future.

China is sparing no expense in technology development, planning to allocate $1.4 trillion to it by 2025. A few decades ago, China produced only cheap consumer goods, but today it has switched to producing cars, telecommunications equipment and computers, which already are a real competition for Japanese, European and American products. It is hard to estimate how long it will take China to develop its own competencies in semiconductors. The Chinese authorities have exempted companies engaged in the semiconductor industry from income tax for 10 years. And it may well be the case that this is how long it could take them to become competitive players in the world market.

This Is What “White Privilege” Looks Like, According To Some

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Video footage from inside the cabin of a plane shows an African-American woman belligerently refusing to let a flight attendant pass her in the aisle because of “white privilege”.

Yes, really.

The clip begins with the flight attendant attempting to get past the black woman as the obnoxious passenger repeatedly expresses her demand to go to the bathroom before accusing the attendant of “getting aggressive with me.”

Another female passenger then gets involved in the argument as the black woman gets in her face and tells her, “Are you my boss? You are white privilege, you’re not my boss. Sit down,” (she is already sat down).

Won’t let anyone pass her in the aisle cause that would be ‘white privilege’.

— Rita Panahi (@RitaPanahi) September 11, 2020

The black woman then accuses the flight attendant of exercising her “white privilege” while still blocking her way.

The encounter is made all the more stupid by the fact that the black woman could at any time just turn around and enter the bathroom, but she is intent on being insufferable and having an argument.

“I need to get to my door,” repeats the flight attendant as the black woman continues to bicker.

“You have white privilege and it’s not here, it’s over with, it’s 2020, wake up.”

“I’m a Queen, California, she was from a black queen,” says the woman before again arguing with the other passenger and accusing her of having “white privilege” and telling her to “shut up.”

“You need to understand, you don’t run America no more sweetheart,” she tells the blonde white woman before explaining how she once “slapped the shit” out of a “white bitch” for disrespecting her.

Despite the fact that the black woman is not wearing a mask and she is clearly acting aggressively and impeding flight staff, she was not removed from the plane.

Belarusian President Lukashenko Says IMF Offered A Billion USD Bribe To Impose Covid-19 Lockdown

by Joaquin Flores

Now we see another dimension to the German push to remove Belarus President Lukashenko!

Armstrong Economics –

Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko said last month via Belarusian Telegraph Agency, BelTA., that World Bank and IMF offered him a bribe of $940 million USD in the form of “Covid Relief Aid.” In exchange for $940 million USD, the World Bank and IMF demanded that the President of Belarus:

• imposed “extreme lockdown on his people”
• force them to wear face masks
• impose very strict curfews
• impose a police state
• crash the economy

Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko refused the offer and stated that he could not accept such an offer and would put his people above the needs of the IMF and World Bank. This fact can be verified using most search engines.

Now IMF and World Bank are bailing out failing airlines with billions of dollars, and in exchange, they are forcing airline CEOs to implement very strict policies such as forced face mask covers on everyone, including small children, whose health will suffer as a result of these policies.

And if it is true for Belarus, then it is true for the rest of the world. The IMF and World Bank want to crash every major economy with the intent of buying over every nation’s infrastructure at cents on the dollar.


by Gevorg Mirzayan

via Stalkerzone

The German Chancellor said that the fate of the most important Russian gas pipeline “Nord Stream 2” will be decided not by Germany, but by the European Union as a whole. This is how she sees the response to the situation with Aleksey Navalny. It may seem that this is a terrible omen for the gas pipeline, which has already seen billions of euros invested into it for construction. But what did Angela Merkel really mean?

The fate of Nord Stream 2 was again in question. No sooner had the project’s supporters celebrated the removal of the Danish obstacle (Copenhagen, after much delay, gave permission for the pipe to be laid through its territorial waters) than Germany, which until recently was an advocate for construction and one of the main beneficiaries of construction, began to seemingly make obstacles.

Berlin, dissatisfied with the position of Moscow in the case of Aleksey Navalny, intends to put the question of a possible curtailment of the project to a pan-European discussion. Why does Angela Merkel want to close “Nord Stream 2” – and does she in general want to?


Germany has long called for putting an end to “Nord Stream 2”, which in the understanding of a number of western activists “increases Europe’s dependence on Russian energy carriers”. They did not even require Angela Merkel to deliver a funeral speech over it. “The easiest option for Germany would be to simply withdraw its support for Nord Stream 2, allowing American and European critics to kill it,” the BBC writes. And now, against the background of the Navalny case, the aggressiveness of the project’s opponents has increased by an order of magnitude.

Until recently, it seemed that they were banging their heads against the wall of German pragmatism. Germany’s position on Nord Stream 2 was really reinforced concrete: German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she was dissatisfied with the lack of cooperation with Moscow in the case of the “poisoning of Aleksey Navalny”, but was not going to abandon Nord Stream 2 because of this. After all, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas correctly notes, “those who call for the cancellation of the project should understand the consequences of such a step”.

Firstly, Berlin needs Nord Stream 2 from an economic point of view. “Germany has a very weak position in terms of energy. They are closing a lot of power plants – nuclear, coal,” says Donald Trump. Germany and the EU do not have reliable suppliers of cheap gas that are an alternative to Russia. In addition to getting cheap blue fuel (much needed for the export-oriented economy of Germany), Germany will earn good money on the transit of Russian gas, becoming a hub country.

“If the project is stopped, the German consumer will pay for it,” said Klaus Ernst, a member of the Bundestag from the Die Linke party. In addition, Berlin is also thinking about the security of Europe under its patronage – the internal political situation in Ukraine is deteriorating, and no one can guarantee that the militants not controlled by Kiev will not decide to stop the gas export of the “aggressor country” to Europe. Well, or threaten to stop if the EU does not issue another loan to Kiev.

Finally, the issue of reputation is also important. Angela Merkel was not just a supporter of Nord Stream 2, but also a lawyer. She defended the project against those who advocated abandoning infrastructure projects with “Putin’s Russia” – human rights activists, urban lunatics, agents of influence of the US. If now, because of the Navalny case, Merkel changes her position on the “stream”, then she will be criticised for political short-sightedness.

Moreover, by both opponents of Nord Stream 2 (for catching on too late) and supporters of the project, who are dissatisfied with the fact that Angela Merkel has called into question Germany’s energy security because of some political matter. Not to mention the fact that it caused serious damage to German business (Uniper and Wintershall invested almost a billion euros each in Nord Stream 2). And since Frau Chancellor leaves her post at the end of 2021, it is important for her who she will remain in history.

“It all depends on the Russians”

However, Angela Merkel’s pragmatism seemed to be beginning to bend under the pressure of numerous critics and human rights activists calling for “punishing Putin for another poisoning of an opponent”. In their opinion, Germany is the leader of the European Union and (against the background of Donald Trump’s actual refusal to “protect freedom around the world”) a potential leader of the entire liberal community, so it has no right to stay away from the Navalny case. Therefore, Angela Merkel announced the possibility of imposing sanctions against Nord Stream 2 ,and, according to media reports, intends to initiate a pan-European response to the case of Aleksey Navalny. And gather all the EU countries together to decide how to respond to Russia’s behaviour – and part of this reaction may be the suspension of Nord Stream 2.

This suspension will be a serious blow to Moscow. After all, this is not just about an important infrastructure project – there are much bigger things at stake. “The curtailment of Nord Stream 2 will send a clear signal with long-term consequences: German business will leave the Russian market even faster, and Vladimir Putin’s attempts to modernise Russia with the economic assistance of EU countries will finally turn to dust,” writes Deutsche Welle correspondent Miodrag Soric. At the same time, as they make it clear in Berlin, the blow can be avoided. “Our further actions depend on the behaviour of the Russians,” explains German Health Minister Jens Spahn.

“I hope the Russians won’t force us to change our position on Nord Stream 2,” says Heiko Maas, alluding to the fact that the Kremlin is expected to fulfil European demands concerning the Navalny case, and that they are waiting for prompt implementation, and “not by the end of the year or even within a few months”. These demands are very simple and not burdensome – not taking the blame, but just admitting the fact of poisoning, as well as starting an investigation.

Why shouldn’t they be implemented?

One of the reasons is as old as the Russian-west conflict. Moscow does not want to create a dangerous precedent for itself. The Kremlin, in fact, is being forced to admit a politically motivated accusation – after all, the Bundeswehr, whose laboratory declared “the indisputable fact of Navalny’s poisoning”, refused to provide the Russian authorities with any material evidence, citing “the secrecy of the methods and procedures used”.

If Russia now accepts this position on faith under the threat of sanctions, then the inspired western partners will threaten the same sanctions and issue other ultimatums: non-interference in the affairs of Belarus, withdrawal from Syria, etc. And this is not to mention the organisation and information support of other provocations that should be expected before the difficult political transit in Russia in 2024. If the blackmailer issues an ultimatum, the only way to escape from it is to refuse to fulfil any, even the most insignificant demands.


In addition, it makes no sense for Russia to make concessions to Berlin, because the position of Angela Merkel has never changed. Germany, as before, is not going to close Nord Stream 2 – it just behaves more elegantly and cunningly. Yes, it is partly bluffing for the sake of forcing Moscow to make concessions – but at the same time it may be an elegant attempt by Frau Chancellor to pass between the European trickles. By putting the issue up for European discussion, Angela Merkel is calling out those who support punishing Russia, confirming her political leadership – and at the same time putting a tricky block on accepting any tough sanctions.

The fact is that decisions at such meetings should be made by consensus. And if Angela Merkel had raised the question of approving the construction of Nord Stream 2, she would not have received a green light – after all, a number of EU countries (Poland, the Baltic states) are categorically opposed to the implementation of this infrastructure project. However, Frau Merkel (apparently) will ask about something else – should Russia’s punishment for the Navalny case be extended to Nord Stream 2? And here one should not expect any consensus on the completion of the project – the positions of the European countries are too different.

Recall that the pan-European decision concerning the Skripal case was only the collective expulsion of a certain number of Russian diplomats.

And this is despite the fact that back then the grounds for sanctions were much more serious than now. Firstly, there were at least some grounds for blaming Russia for what happened – there was a recording of “Petrov and Boshirov” arriving in Salisbury, as well as information provided to the media that these people work for the Russian special services. Secondly, it was about the use of weapons of mass destruction on the territory of the European Union, which can be interpreted as an attack by the Russian Federation on European citizens. Whilst here we are talking at best about poisoning – without any evidence of Russian guilt. And Moscow can only be accused of unwillingness to take Europe’s word for it. The most important infrastructure projects are not stopped for this by respected countries.

Angela Merkel’s proposal has another advantage for Russia – it protects (at least for a while) Nord Stream 2 from threats from other EU states. There is a risk that some less conscious countries (for example, Denmark) may take their own sanctions against the project. For example, revoke permission to lay a pipe through their waters. Bringing the issue to a pan-European discussion puts unilateral sanctions on pause.

And since Navalny is not dead, but is on the mend, time will cool the hot European heads, and the idea of blocking Nord Stream 2 will go off the agenda. At least for a while.

The COVID-19 Scamdemic, Part 2: Enabling The Technocratic-Parasite-Class’ “Great Reset”

Authored by Iain Davis via,

In Part 1 we defined the UK State and looked at the driving forces behind its lockdown response to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) declared COVID 19 “global” pandemic. Please read Part 1 first to appreciate the context of this article.

It appears that COVID 19 has been exploited to bring about a new global economic, social, cultural and political paradigm. Encapsulated as the Great Reset, this affords a technocratic parasite class, often wrongly referred to as the elite, centralised global control of all resources, including all human resources.

Though influential, the UK State is just one national component of this global agenda. In order to prepare us for global technocracy, which will be a dictatorship, we need to become more accustomed to obeying orders without question. Consequently the Lockdown response has been characterised by conflicting, ever shifting advice, both to condition people to arbitrary diktat and psychologically unbalance the public to better facilitate behaviour change.

We will cover a lot of ground in this article and I should warn you, it does not make comfortable reading. But please, if you have the time, grab yourself a coffee an we’ll discuss these important issues.

The WEF using COVID 19 for their Great Reset

The UK State & COVID 19 Behaviour Change

Population wide behaviour change techniques were promoted in the UK Cabinet Office’s 2010 document Mindspace: Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy. Behaviour change (modification) has been widely adopted by the UK State as a means of controlling the populace.

So successful was the subsequent “nudge unit” that the UK State later privatised it, forming the Behavioural Insights Team. This enabled them to make a profit by selling their behaviour change expertise to other States, similarly seeking to control their own people.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the lead authors of the seminal MINDSPACE document included representatives from Imperial College, whose wildly inaccurate COVID 19 computer models underpinned lockdown policies, on both sides of the Atlantic, and the Rand corporation, a U.S. military industrialist complex think tank who former UK Chancellor Denis Healey described as “the leading think-tank for Pentagon.” The MINDSPACE authors state:

“Approaches based on ‘changing contexts’ – the environment within which we make decisions and respond to cues – have the potential to bring about significant changes in behaviour…….Our behaviour is greatly influenced by what our attention is drawn to…..People are more likely to register stimuli that are novel (messages in flashing lights), accessible (items on sale next to checkouts) and simple (a snappy slogan)……We find losses more salient than gains, we react differently when identical information is framed in terms of one or the other (as a 20% chance of survival or an 80% chance of death)……This shifts the focus of attention away from facts and information, and towards altering the context within which people act….Behavioural approaches embody a line of thinking that moves from the idea of an autonomous individual, making rational decisions, to a ‘situated’ decision-maker, much of whose behaviour is automatic and influenced by their ‘choice environment’. This raises the question: who decides on this choice environment?”

In response to the novel coronavirus, the UK State has defined our choice environment. It is the environment that best suits its policy objectives. One created by exploiting the COVID 19 pandemic in order to prepare all of us for the Great Reset.

This behavioural change approach avoids the need to make convincing arguments with facts and information. This could risk potential challenge. Evidence based debate is not welcome, and not part of behaviour change.

Better to target the population with fear inducing propaganda, censor any dissent, and frame public opinion within an altered context. Thus moving the people away from being autonomous individuals, who make rational decisions, towards situated decision makers controlled by their choice environment.

With the real risks of COVID 19 well known, on March 19th 2020, just over a week after the WHO’s declaration of a global pandemic, both Public Health England (PHE) and the UK government Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) agreed that COVID 19 was not a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID.) They downgraded it due to low overall mortality rates.

The UK State knew that COVID 19 was unlikely to kill sufficient numbers to justify the massive re-engineering of society and economic destruction required to bring about the Great Reset.Therefore, it resorted to coercion, statistical manipulation and propaganda to convince the people be terrified of the relatively low level COVID 19 risks.

With the support of the ever obedient mainstream media (MSM,) who have been directly funded by the UK government throughout the crisis, the UK State turned to its behavioural change experts. These included the Scientific Pandemic Influenza group on Behaviour (SPI-B for short.)

Spi-B’s role, during the crisis, has been to advise the State how to use behavioural change techniques to convince the people to obey its orders without question. Three days after COVID 19 was downgraded from an HCID, Spi-B recommended the following:

  1. Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of personal threat.
  2. Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of responsibility to others.
  3. Consider use of social disapproval (via the MSM) for failure to comply.

(Bracketed information added)

A free and independent media could not be “used” in this fashion to scare people without cause. Only a controlled MSM propaganda machine can possibly achieve this. The convincing myth that the western MSM is a free and independent media is one of the greatest propaganda coups in history.

Spi-B don’t believe that anyone who disagrees, and subsequently refuses to comply, with the UK State’s tranche of Lockdown policies, has any legitimate concerns. Rather they call them complacent.

To ensure that resulting non compliance doesn’t take hold, those who do stand against the tyranny of the common interest, are to be marginalised by subjecting them to the social disapproval of the terrified majority. Spi-B recommended:

“Guidance now needs to be reformulated to be behaviourally specific……The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging……Messaging needs to emphasise and explain the duty to protect others….Consideration should be given to use of social disapproval.”

Led By Nothing

Thanks to the behaviour change efforts of the UK State and its MSM, if you scrutinise the official COVID 19 statistics, social disapproval, alleging that you don’t care about people dying, is heaped upon you. This is nonsense, but effective. Not because it stops criticism, but because it frames the objections as the acts of callous monsters. Hence, the MSM’s reliance upon hard-hitting emotional messaging.

Very sad losses exploited for propaganda purposes

Early in the crisis, an example of the hard hitting emotional message came in the form of MSM stories about NHS staff who had all supposedly died from COVID 19. In any rational society it would go without saying that, of course, these people’s deaths were a tragedy.

Analysis from the Health Service Journal showed that, with millions of employees, NHS staff were statistically less likely to die from COVID 19 than the general public. While the MSM didn’t report these findings, it was left, as usual, to the so called alternative media to question power, and reveal the deceptive use of the statistics to as many people as they could.

Using snappy slogans, the UK State encouraged the nation to “clap for the NHS.” In combination with the hard-hitting emotional messages, this was part of the process of creating the controlled choice environment.

For a wider public of situated decision makers, this further strengthened social disapproval for anyone who questioned Lockdown health policies. To point out that the health impacts of the Lockdown would be significantly worse than COVID 19 was to question the NHS. An act of heresy.

This strategy was essential for the UK State because the COVID 19 statistics do not support its own fearful narrative. Even if you accept the official accounts, should you contract COVID 19 in the UK, the chances of it leading to death are between 0.3 – 0.4%. If you are infected, you have at least a 99.6% chance of survival.

This almost certainly explains why the UK State decided not to report recovery rates. The rationale given for this was that the “modelling used to calculate it was complex.”

However, to date, despite promising to publish this statistic, the UK State still doesn’t report recovery rates. It seems counting people diagnosed with COVID 19, who don’t die, is too complex. While it is incapable of simple subtraction, most people are willing to accept all the other UK State COVID 19 statistics that the MSM report to them ad nauseam.

Claimed UK deaths from COVID 19 are nominally 41,486 (at the time of writing) This means, according to UK State statistics, the global pandemic has allegedly led to the deaths of 0.06% of the UK population with the median age of death being 82 in England and Wales.

Like nearly every other mortality risk, the chances of dying from COVID 19 increase significantly with age. Mortality distribution is practically indistinguishable from standard population risk. Bluntly, the belief that COVID 19 presents some sort of dire, plague like threat is irrational and based upon nothing but persistent fear porn.

Initially, the UK MSM widely reported that COVID 19 could kill more than half a million British people. On the 12th March the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson gave a press conference in which he warned of significant loss of life. Preceded by the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, who repeated the preposterous suggestion that more than half a million people could die, Boris Johnson told the British public:

“It is going to spread further and I must level with you, I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.”

This terrifying statement was not based upon the WHO’s declaration of a pandemic. The WHO has nothing to say about mortality, only the worldwide spread of a disease. Johnson’s statement was not based upon the available data either.

It was founded entirely upon computer modelled predictions of Imperial College London COVID 19 Response Team. So far in 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMFG) have given Imperial College more than $86 million.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson terrifying the nation

As is the norm with the Imperial College’s modelled pandemic predictions, they were hopelessly inaccurate. On every occasion they have grossly overestimated mortality and have never erred by way of underestimation. Always for the financial gain of pharmaceutical corporations.

Imperial College’s lunatic COVID 19 predictions were questioned by the wider scientific community at the time. Among them were Nobel laureate biophysicist Michael Levitt, who immediately highlighted the problems with their models; Professor of global public health Devi Sridhar pointed out that Imperial had presented nothing more than a hypothesis and microbiologist Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, questioning the predictions, called the global state response to COVID 19 “grotesque” and warned that the lockdown response would be far more dangerous than COVID 19.

Scientists from around the world raised their concerns. They repeatedly warned that the science underpinning the alarm was weak. However, their voices were largely censored as the UK MSM advanced the UK State narrative without question. Perhaps, in part, because they were paid to do so by the UK State.

Imperial College’s pandemic predictions have consistently delivered nothing but statistical dross. To imagine that no one within the UK State knew this, prior to cherry picking their report, as claimed justification for their subsequent lockdown, is ridiculous.

Whether written for the purpose, or seized upon to fit the purpose, it seems Imperial College’s fantasy predictions were selected solely to promote Lockdown policies. With tight control of the MSM narrative, the UK State simply ignored the real science and trotted out its meaningless “led by the science” propaganda soundbite. A simple, snappy slogan maintaining the public’s altered context within their choice environment.

It is not credible for Professor Mark Woolhouse, a member of Spi-B, to now state that the Lockdown was a monumental mistake. Practically the only body of scientific opinion which believed Imperial College was the one firmly attached to the UK State, such as Spi-B, who were equally committed to Lockdown policies.

The UK State had to disregard the weight of global scientific opinion, deliberately choose the fictitious computer models and actively deceive the public, falsely claiming their policy was “led by the science.”

It was no mistake.

Fixing the Numbers

Due to the lack of an unprecedented threat, it appears the UK State has instead fixed the numbers, maximised case numbers and mortality figures, fed its statistical rubbish into its MSM propaganda machine and then exploited the resultant fear, of a fake unprecedented threat, to achieve the desired behaviour change. This necessitated a continually shifting narrative, both to compensate for encroaching reality and to keep the population constantly confused and psychologically open to suggestion as a result.

One of the UK State’s first responses to the pandemic was to create a new, entirely unnecessary, death registration process. One so opaque and prone to manipulation and error, it practically guaranteed the meaningless statistics we have been given.

In late March, before the recorded peak in mortality during the second week of April, the UK State instructed the Office of National Statistics (ONS) to record all “mentions” of COVID 19 on death certificates as proof of death from COVID 19. The new death registration system meant a COVID 19 death could be recorded without the decedent either testing positive or receiving any examination by a qualified doctor, either prior to death or postmortem.

UK government statistics – PHE have only recently been recording 28 day mortality – we have no real idea what these mortality statistics are recording

The UK State split its testing regime into “pillars.” Pillar 1 focused upon swab testing (RT-PCR) the most vulnerable, the seriously ill and front line key-workers in state healthcare settings. Pillar 2 expanded the testing to include essential workers in the social care and other sectors. However, RT-PCR, used in Pillars 1 and 2, is incapable of identifying a virus and was not designed as a diagnostic test.

The UK State’s Pillar 3 relies upon antibody testing. So far, this has been a complete disaster, characterised mainly by expensive outlay on tests that don’t work which, if they did, wouldn’t reveal anything useful anyway.

The Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) petitioned the UK government, raising numerous concerns. Firstly they highlighted that current antibody tests were clinically incapable of indicating either the level of infection (asymptomatic rates) or any possible acquired immunity. There were no benchmark tests, nor any data, to assure the quality of these non-evidence based tests which consequently provided no value to health professionals trying to treat patients. The RCP concluded that their only perceivable use was for very broad research purposes. These findings were backed up by the prestigious Cochrane Review, who stated:

“We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies

…It is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID‐19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID‐19 tests requires considerable improvement.”

Pillar 4 (surveillance testing) takes tests from Pillars 1 – 3, whether saliva swabs of antibody blood tests, which the UK State then claims it uses to learn more about the prevalence and spread of the virus. Though the chances of the flawed RT-PCR and antibody tests producing anything cogent appears negligible. What is more certain is that there are multinational corporations with a firm grasp of the UK State’s testing procedures and subsequent data analysis.

Even if someone tests positive, anywhere up to 80% of these people are asymptomatic. Meaning they do not have COVID 19, the syndrome that may, in as little as 20% of cases, result from an infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Reporting a so called spike in “cases” is a vacuous claim. A large number of the positive RT-PCR tests will be wrong, up to 80% of those who test positive won’t develop COVID 19 and, of those that do, 99.6% will survive, of which more than 80% will experience COVID 19 as little more than a cold.

The actual threat from a claimed “spike in cases” is diminutive. The eternal MSM alarmism, reporting terrifying case numbers and highly speculative causes of death, is pure propaganda.

It was Pillar 2 that established community testing, providing pharmaceutical corporations further, significant influence over policy and the physical response. The collected swabs are analysed at the UK Lighthouse Labs. The data and resources are provided by the vaccine producing, pharmaceutical giants Astrazeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Creating an enormous conflict of financial interest within the Pillar testing program.

A Lighthouse Lab

From the outset Pillar 2 data collection was plagued with problems. For example, multiple tests from one individual were counted as separate positive cases and tests were prematurely counted as complete, before the results were even available. Pillar 2 testing was so poor, the UK State simply wiped off 30,302 reported cases due to methodological errors and were forced to suspend all reporting of Pillar 2 test results in late May.

Throughout the crisis, Public Health England, an agency of the UK government Department of Health, received notification of every death. They then cross referenced the test data, much of it from Lighthouse Labs, to check if the deceased had ever tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Up to 80% of whom could have been completely free of COVID 19.

No matter what the decedent died from, whether it was cancer or a road accident, and no matter when the positive test was taken, possibly months prior to death, PHE recorded it as a COVID 19 death. Only after this practice was discovered did PHE change their methodology, removing 5,377 deaths from the official mortality figures overnight.

The Great Reset aims to centralise all power and authority. Therefore it is no surprise that the UK State’s response to the supposedly deplorable performance of its own government department (PHE), has been pounced upon to justify the centralisation of its power and authority. The new Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC) will initially be led by Dr Clare Gardiner, a former GCHQ operative and former director of the National Cyber Security Centre.

The JBC will issue the biosecurity alerts that will control our daily lives. By amalgamating PHE with NHS Test and Trace and the JBC, the UK State has removed the notion of public health and replaced it with biosecurity.

In the future biosecurity UK State it is difficult to see how anyone won’t have COVID 19. The JBC definition ranges from “confirmed”, to include asymptomatic cases, “linked cases”, people who may or may not have the COVID 19 but may have once met someone who tested positive, “probable”, someone in a Lockdown area with possible symptoms and “possible”, someone who may have symptoms.

Only the “discarded,” people who haven’t been tracked and traced, who don’t live in Lockdown areas and haven’t got any symptoms at all (ie. they don’t have a cold,) will be free from the clutches of the JBC. But only after they have passed their surveillance checks.

As the reported mortality rate declined sharply, in late April the UK State instructed the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to report “suspected” COVID 19 care home deaths to the ONS. Adding thousands to the COVID 19 mortality figures in an instant.

From this point forward, COVID 19 didn’t even need to be mentioned on a care home resident’s death certificate for them to be added to the ONS’ mortality count. The MSM then reported the COVID 19 horror to a terrified public, without question or pause.

There are no sound reasons to believe any of the UK State’s official COVID 19 statistics. From the registration of deaths, through testing to data collection, analysis and reporting, the whole system is either a complete shambles, irretrievably corrupt or a combination of the two. No one, especially the MSM, know what the real COVID 19 mortality statistics or case numbers are.

Sadly, all we can do is count the dead. Which raises a gut churning possibility.

From all cause mortality, we can estimate something approaching of the true COVID 19 mortality figure. Research by the Italian Ministry of Health found that around 12% of recorded COVID 19 deaths in Italy could be accurately desscribed as such. Similarly, researchers at the U.S. Centre for Disease Control (CDC) found that around 6% of COVID 19 reported deaths were directly attributable to the disease.

All globalist States, such as Italy, the U.S. and the UK, have slightly different death registration and statistical processes. In addition, for a number of decedents, while their primary cause of death was their pre-existing comorbidity, COVID 19 probably did hasten their deaths.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the UK State, an estimate of 30%, for genuine COVID 19 deaths, can reasonably be applied to the reported mortality statistics. Suggesting that the true figure is closer to 12,500 rather than 41,500. This places the real public health risk of COVID 19 well below recent seasonal influenza.

In England, in 2014-2015, PHE estimates attributed more than 34,000 deaths to influenza in the first 15 weeks of the year, and in 2015-2017 more than 17,000. COVID 19 is not, and never was, at any stage, more dangerous than the flu. People only believe it is, and that belief is based upon little more than statistical drivel and MSM scaremongering.

Nonetheless, there has been a significant spike in all cause mortality this year which does not conform to the usual, seasonal patterns. One that corresponds precisely with the UK State’s Lockdown policies to bring about the conditions for the Great Reset. The disquieting reality appears to be that these are Lockdown deaths, not COVID 19 deaths.

It seems at least 29,000 of the most vulnerable people in our society have died before their time. I have very recently lost my father and, while most of the lives lost, falsely attributed to COVID 19, may only have been shortened by a few months, I speak from acute sorrow in the certainty that every moment with a loved one is precious beyond measure.

Fixing the Narrative

Initially the State said the purpose of it’s Lockdowm measures were to flatten the curve. The claim being this would stop the NHS being overrun from the projected surge of cases. However, this story was only deployed before the statistical shenanigans began in earnest. As the reported number of deaths hit the headlines “flatten the curve” was discarded.

The anticipated surge never happened because the predictive models it was supposedly based upon were junk. There were some notable COVID 19 hotspots, but nationally the NHS was effectively closed to virtually every condition but COVID 19.

The much publicised Nightingale hospitals were nothing but expensive white elephants and, at the height of the global pandemic, the NHS was practically deserted in the UK. However, the “flatten the curve” fable was sufficient for the UK State to shutdown the productive economy and propel the country into a totally needless state of panic.

After “flatten the curve”, public attention was firmly drawn towards deaths, rather than the unreported survival rates. These were delivered with the flashing lights of alarming mainstream media (MSM) headlines, as the meaningless figures were made accessible through daily COVID 19 “emergency” updates. A steady supply of simple snappy slogans (stay home, protect the NHS, save lives etc.) ensured the situated decision makers remained firmly entrenched within the altered context of their choice environment.

Data from the UK Government and Google – Collated by The Human Unleashed

There was never any public health rationale for the UK State’s Lockdown policies. Rather than exposing the virus to rapid extinction in the summer sun, the UK State instead ordered people to stay in their own homes where community infections were at their worse. In 2019, this was well known to the WHO.

The WHO reported that, for viral respiratory infections, quarantining exposed individuals (quarantining the healthy – by placing families under house arrest), was “not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure;” The isolation of sick individuals should only be done for limited periods and was not recommended for “individuals who need to seek medical attention;” workplace closures should only be considered in, “extraordinarily severe pandemics;” there is “no obvious rationale” for contact tracing and wearing face masks was not recommended because, “there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission.”

The UK State’s Lockdown policy was the complete antithesis of the WHO’s own, previously recommended, procedure for managing a viral respiratory pandemic. Quarantining the healthy and then re-orientating health care services maximised the risk to the most vulnerable, something which never made any sense. At least, not if saving lives was the priority.

A recent study by the Queens Nursing Institute found the following practices, commonly operating in Care Homes, at the height of the Lockdown pandemic:

“Having to accept patients from hospitals with unknown Covid-19 status, being told about plans not to resuscitate residents without consulting families, residents or care home staff…..21% of respondents said that their home accepted people discharged from hospital who had tested positive for Covid-19…..a substantial number found it difficult to access District Nursing and GP services….25% in total reporting it somewhat difficult or very difficult during March-May 2020.”

These life threatening practices were a direct result of official guidance, issued by registration bodies and health services, in response to the UK State’s Lockdown policies.

The NHS issued guidance stating care home residents should not be conveyed to hospital; they operated an apparent policy of discharging COVID 19 positive patients into care homes; GP’s were advised not to visit care settings, with consultation conducted without examination via video calls; ambulance response times increased dramatically, practically removing vital emergency care the most vulnerable; essential PPE for care home staff wasn’t supplied, further reducing their capacity to care for those most at risk; testing for COVID 19 wasn’t extended to care settings, leaving care staff confused and uncertain of the risk, with furlough further reducing staffing levels; there were widespread reports of residents having “do not attempt resuscitation” (DNAR) notices attached to their care plans, without their knowledge or consent, and this practice seemingly extended to other vulnerable adults, such as those with learning difficulties.

There is little to no evidence that children are either at risk from COVID 19 or spread SARS-CoV-2 to adults. However there is evidence that children are dying as a result of UK State Lockdown policies. Yet still the MSM persist with the dangerous claim the COVID 19 is a childhood risk.

By the mid June the UK COVID 19 mortality risk was negligible and the so called pandemic was effectively over. There has been no significant excess mortality in England for more than 13 weeks. Since mid June deaths in care settings have been at or below normal levels and COVID 19 has accounted for less illness and death than combined influenza and pneumonia.

Therefore the MSM State propaganda shifted towards cases and face masks. Masks which we are told will save us from the COVID 19 respiratory virus but clearly have no impact whatsoever upon influenza.

In reality, this was done to distract the public from the fact that there was no justification for continued Lockdown policies and to shift their attention to a new narrative in preparation for the “second wave.”

For months, the UK State consistently told the public that face masks were entirely unnecessary. After years of gold standard science, demonstrating no viral benefit to wearing face masks, suddenly they became mandatory. This was a purely political decision and certainly wasn’t led by any science.

The WHO did not recommend face masks but were then pressurised by national governments to change their advice. Because there was no science to inform this decision, the WHO hastily cobbled together some meta-analysis, which somehow missed every single randomised control trial showing how ineffective masks are, in order to falsely claim the science had recently changed.

Like virtually every other aspect of the supposed COVID 19 pandemic, the only scientific basis for this policy is behavioural science. It continues the process of creating altered contexts for situated decision makers who are no longer autonomous but now behave automatically in response to their choice environment.

The Hard Wired Second Wave

The UK State is not unique. It is just one of a number of globalist States that have colluded to foist the COVID 19 scamdemic upon the world. The Great Reset is a centrally devised and controlled global objective for all partners States.

To say that COVID 19 is a scamdemic is not to allege that it isn’t a deadly disease. It has caused terrible, but far from unprecedented, loss of life and every death leaves a gaping hole that can never be repaired. Our only hope is that we learn to live with pain.

It’s a big club and you ain’t in it

In the effort to create the social, economic and political conditions for the Great Reset the UK State is among those who have condemned people to die alone, torn from their loved ones. The sickening truth of the scamdemic is that these heartbreaking losses have been exploited to control the living.

This has been done for the sole benefit of a vile, uncaring parasite class. They have global control only because we allow it and the vast majority passively give consent without even knowing it. Constantly directed as situated decision makers, fed nothing but propaganda to ensure their automatic behaviour.

We won’t rid ourselves of the malevolent rule of the parasite class by using a party political system built to protect them, and advance their interests. Other peaceful solutions exist and we must pursue them or suffer this malignancy forever.

It is not enough for the them that people die isolated and afraid, nor that entire populations live in gratuitous fear. The Great Reset offers them the promise of the New World Order technocracy and the vaccine controlled, global biosecurity State.

It seems that we have all been set up for the second wave, hard wired into the scamdemic from the start. The final push to permanently frame the choice environment.

Analysis shows that the phrase “second wave” was trending from the day that PHE downgraded COVID 19, due to low mortality rates. The trend spiked significantly as mortality declined below all cause averages and again when it approached statistical zero.

Data from the UK Government and Google – Collated by The Human Unleashed

The UK State’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) recently leaked a report to the MSM claiming that 85,000 people could die from COVID 19 in the UK this winter. This followed the claims of former GlaxoSmithKline R&D President and current Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK State, Sir Patrick Vallance, who claimed 120,000 would die.

The Scientific evidence shows that COVID 19 reaches the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) at around 20% of the population, or even less. At this stage, it appears the virus has burned out and is incapable of infecting or making more people sick, save for the tiny minority with severely compromised immune systems. In the UK, it seems it has long passed this threshold.

Further evidence shows that a sizeable proportion of human beings, possibly up to 60%, already carry T-Cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from previous coronavirus and SARS infections. This part of the population was never at any significant risk.

There is no apparent need for a vaccine and, despite the clear suppression of treatments that could have potentially saved thousands, the fact that cases continue to rise, while hospital admission and deaths are virtually nothing, demonstrates that the COVID 19 pandemic is finished. The only thing the UK State’s testing programs are allegedly finding are residual infections that present virtually no risk to anybody. The increase in “cases” is directly proportional to the increasing number of tests.

Yet none of that matters to the State planners and propagandist pedlars of the scamdemic. Their hard-hitting emotional messaging is divorced from informing the public. A significant proportion of the MSM has been co-opted to serve nothing and no one but the parasite class.

Despite the fact that it is now certain that Lockdowns are the worst possible response to COVID 19, still SAGE “experts” argue for further, various Lockdown measures that absolutely don’t work. The only fathomable reason for this is to continue preparations for the Great Reset. Either that, or SAGE are collectively, scientifically illiterate.

A recent study by health-tech contractors Medefer estimated that the Lockdown response, to the low level threat of COVID 19, has left more than 15 million people waiting for vital health care. While this report should be treated with some caution, as Medefer are one of many private companies hoping to swoop in and profit from the Lockdown accelerated destruction of the NHS, it is beyond doubt that millions of people will suffer irreparable health damage from the Lockdown. Mental health charities have warned of the Lockdown’s devastating impact.

Totally unnecessary

The political response to this has been to argue about the definition of waiting lists. This is because the political class are the otiose puppets of the parasite class and, as such, they don’t provide any public benefit at all. In every sense, they are just the expensive illusion of democracy.

Homelessness has reached 320,000 in the UK and freedom of information requests reveal that, in England alone, nearly 20,000 household have been made technically homeless during the Lockdown. As we discussed in Part 1 the economic destruction delivered by the lockdown is unprecedented. The link between poverty and a wide range of health inequalities is beyond dispute.

With its Lockdown, the UK State has created a health crisis that will make current Lockdown and COVID 19 deaths seem like a minor, public health hiccup. Given what appears to be the appalling statistical deception and rancid propaganda that the UK State has relied upon thus far, it is easy to see how the second wave deception could emerge.

This autumn, with it’s disorienting death registration process in place, and a population of immune suppressed, mask wearing, recently released detainees facing the usual seasonal flu and pneumonia risks, the UK State, and its supplicant MSM, have everything ready to create a psychological operation beyond imagination. The likely objective will be to consolidate on the work already done, and permanently transform the people from a population of autonomous individuals, capable of rational thought into a herd of situated decision makers whose behaviour is automatic and influenced by their ‘choice environment’.

The Lockdown’s existing impact upon treatments for cancer, heart disease, and a range of serious, life threatening conditions, combined with huge waiting lists, struggling health services and the normal excess winter pressures upon the NHS, will be more than enough to create an appalling health crisis. All slickly blamed upon the second wave of COVID 19 .

I truly hope I am wrong. However, it is by no means beyond the UK State to do this.

If it again claims people need to be placed under house arrest; should it insist we can’t be with our loved ones, that we must avoid each other, literally like the plague; if it labels anyone who disagrees a “COVID denier” and starts “quarantining” people who don’t comply, then you will have a choice to make.

You can be a situated decision makers, or you can be an an autonomous individual, making rational decisions. It’s not hard. Just stop believing everything you are told, especially from the likes of me, do some independent research, take a long hard look at the evidence, and decide for yourself if you can give any credence to the claims of the UK State and its global partners.

* * *

Click here to support In This Together blog.

PENTAGON: Ahead of Its Own Squeal

by Oleg Adolfovich

NOTE: the title is based on an old Soviet puzzle, where a man kicks a pig with such force that it flies “ahead of the sound of its own squealing”.

The image shows the “Iskander M” tactical nuclear complex deployed in the Kaliningrad region. This is just one of the “surprises” for our NATO and American “partners”, who are eager to limit Russia in its ability to subdue any adversary.

Today we will talk about the START-3 Treaty, which expires on February 5th 2021. And at the same time about why its automatic extension for five years is already unprofitable for Russia and unacceptable for America.

The main reason for this, oddly enough, is again the Chinese. Today, according to various estimates, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is armed with up to 200 nuclear warheads – for example, in the US, there are about 3,800 of them, which are on combat duty and in reserve. 200 warheads is very few, according to the US, but even a quarter of them, breaking through the screen of missile defence, can cause damage that for the Americans is unacceptable – and in the next decade, the Chinese plan to double their number.

The main problem of the Americans today is that they are catastrophically lagging behind in nuclear weapons technologies, electronic warfare, and air defence/missile defence systems. This is the effect of three decades of unconditional hegemony, during which the US lost its engineering school and competencies – today in America they prefer to modify the old “Trident” complexes, but not to create new nuclear weapons.

But the most painful topic for Washington now is not even this – the START-3 Treaty provided for parity between Russia and the US, leaving out the Chinese. If we assume that America’s actions contribute to the maximum rapprochement between Russia and China, then we can no longer talk about any parity – in the event of a real war, a missile attack on America will begin immediately from the two countries.

But a retaliatory strike may not take place. Now this seems almost unthinkable, but American military experts are seriously concerned about the appearance of two anti-missile systems: the S-500 and the A-235 “Nudol”. The characteristics of the first “product” are still “completely” unknown to the world (although it has already gone into production), but there is some information about the second – in particular, the speed of interceptor missiles which can reach 7 kilometres per second.

At such intercept speeds, a nuclear warhead on the A-235 is not necessary, because the kinetic energy of a simple metal block is so monstrous that it can scatter anything from an enemy thermonuclear warhead to US satellites in near space.

In other words, the A-235 is almost 100% guaranteed to intercept a retaliatory strike – while the Americans do not know the range or other main characteristics of this complex. At the same time, the A-235 is only part of a deep-echeloned system, which includes over-the-horizon radars, a satellite grouping of the Aerospace Forces with unknown capabilities, S-400 and S-500 complexes, “Kinzhal“ complexes on upgraded MiG-31 high-altitude interceptors (a “gift” for US satellites, and not only), and on the near approaches – “Pantsir-S2”, “Buk-M3”, and “Tor-M2” complexes.

It is clear that the A-235 is just getting ready for delivery to the troops, but even in its current form, the Russian missile defence system already poses a serious threat to a pre-emptive or retaliatory strike. As for Russia’s new nuclear weapons, they are now a real headache for the Pentagon, since the Americans are not able to intercept the new “Avangard“ complexes on “Sarmat“ carriers in principle – and all of this in addition to the already “traditional” “Topol-M” and other “surprises”.

Yes, the Americans also have promising developments and dull, facile optimism is completely inappropriate here – but the main “hole” of America is that it is a completely different private model of the military-industrial complex, and the liberal economy does not allow to concentrate resources in any strategic direction. It is much more profitable for a private owner to cut the budget and show the state client graphics and beautiful presentations than to debug even a finished “product” – a striking example of this is the situation with the long-suffering and extremely expensive F-35.

The result is a somewhat paradoxical picture: Russia has been developing and commissioning weapons based on new physical principles for at least 12 years, and China, which is “focused”, is rapidly increasing its weapons, starting with the fleet and ending with nuclear missiles.

And against this background, the START-3 Treaty is coming to an end. Yes, it could be extended, but by the end of the timeframe of the Treaty, a third real force has appeared in the world, which is simply impossible to ignore – but to all calls to “sit down and talk”, the Chinese make impenetrable faces and declare that “China will not use nuclear weapons first”.

The remarks by Robert Soofer, deputy assistant secretary for nuclear and missile defense policy, are part of a larger push by the Trump administration to talk tough on China, while trying at the same time to get Beijing to participate in three-way talks with Russia on arms control.

On Tuesday, just a day before Soofer’s remarks during a virtual Mitchell Institute event in Washington, a new Pentagon report lamented the ‘ambiguity,’ in Chinese statements about its commitment to no first use. ‘China’s lack of transparency regarding the scope and scale of its nuclear modernization program, however, raises questions regarding its future intent as it fields larger, more capable nuclear forces,’ the report said.”

We can see online what “tough negotiations” with the Chinese lead to – despite all Trump’s intentions to make the “damned communists” keel, the trade deficit in the US’ trade with China continues to only increase. It just so happens that today Americans are not able to produce most of the goods. At least because all the main production facilities were transferred by this “efficient private business” to Southeast Asia, and private companies are not in a hurry to return the factories back to the excellent American jurisdiction and tax system.

“‘Now we’re waiting to see if Russia has the political will now to come and talk to us about it,’ Soofer said, noting he’s been involved in the early discussions in Vienna.”

Yeah, they’re in a hurry. They run and stumble. Especially after the Kremlin clearly saw how easily and effortlessly America withdraws from any agreements that it considers to be unprofitable for itself. For example, from the INF Treaty or the Open Skies Treaty.

Here it should be noted that Russia also benefited from exiting the INF Treaty – why limit ourselves to the silly range of our “Iskander” of 500 kilometres? Russia is now much more interested in controlling all of Europe, including Britain – and replacing short-range missiles in Crimea and the Kaliningrad enclave with medium-range missiles is a matter of one or two years. After that, you can simply forget about a serious European bridgehead – no one has yet learned to intercept “Iskander M” hypersonic missiles. And it is unlikely anyone will learn how to do it in the coming decades.

Today, Washington has a very limited arsenal for “influencing” opponents – sanctions, pressure in trade negotiations, financial, personal, and sectoral restrictions, and a ban on technology supplies. Yes, this would have been indisputable ten years ago, but today it no longer works. Russia is not going to ask the Chinese to join the new START Treaty, because it is not profitable for us or Beijing.

In addition, the Kremlin is actively cooperating with Beijing on an early warning system for a missile strike – and as soon as the Chinese have this system working, Washington’s capabilities will sharply narrow.

And, in the end, what difference does it make whether the number of warheads is limited to 1550, as in START-3, or exceeds this figure by several hundred – today’s arsenal is able to stop any life on the planet.

But the most important thing that makes the Pentagon and Trump nervous is the loss of a strategic advantage. America is showing political weakness, which is absolutely unacceptable for a hegemon – allies stick wrenches into the spokes and opponents stupidly do not pay attention to sanctions. And not only do they not pay attention, but they also have the audacity to directly interfere in political processes inside America – we cannot but believe the most democratic media on the planet, can we?

Every month of internal political crisis brings the US closer to a natural outcome – and even if the collapse of the entire dollar pyramid does not happen now, the world is already morally ready for such an end to hegemony.

After all, what is worse than gold – a transferable ruble, or a crypto-yuan?

Demography is Destiny

Authored by Addison Wiggin via The Daily Reckoning,

Demography is destiny, they say.

The early classical economists — Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Mill, Marshall, and others — were keenly interested in the role that the young and the aged played in building wealth.

Living at a time when birth rates were high and populations were expanding, they wanted to determine how demographic growth changed wages, savings, and output; which classes benefited; and whether a larger population was a long-term blessing.

Two centuries on, Peter Peterson, in his book Gray Dawn, warns that we might pose a different question: What happens to the wealth of nations when the populations get old and begin to shrink?

In this chapter, we look at the effects of demographic shift… not because it is the only trend in place, but because it is one easily missed.

The Twin Pressures of Population Growth and Diminishing Available Resources

In his book Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World, the historian Jack Andrew Goldstone argues that the great revolutions of Europe — the English and French revolutions — had one thing in common with the great rebellions of Asia that destroyed the Ottoman Empire and dynasties in Japan and China.

All these crises occurred when inflexible political, economic, and social institutions were faced with the twin pressures of population growth and diminishing available resources.

Across Europe in the early 1700s, populations began to increase as mortality rates from disease (such as plague) and famine declined, and birth rates remained high. A large excess of births over deaths during much of the early modern period produced a baby boom.

According to demographer Michael Anderson, the population in Europe doubled in the 100 years between 1750 and 1850. The “age of democratic revolution” in the late 1700s, including the French Revolution, coincided with an expansion in the proportion of young people.

Demographics and the French Revolution

A large, unruly, and youthful rural population was a leading cause of social stress in France prior to and during the Revolution. The population of France grew by 8 to 10 million people in the eighteenth century.

By contrast, in the previous century, the population had only increased by a million. Around 1772, Abbé Terray began the first serious survey of demographics in France. Terray pegged the population at 26 million.

By 1789, the eve of the French Revolution, Louis XVI is thought to have had nearly 30 million subjects in his realm — more than 20% of the entire population of non-Russian Europe.

These numbers, suggests a study published by George Mason University, had to have some effect. Arguably, they changed France both politically and economically. And, we might add, cost Louis his kingdom… and his neck.


Likewise, the Russian population doubled between the 1850s and the beginning of World War I. From 1855 until 1913, the population of the Russian Empire increased from about 73 million to about 168 million.

The stress of feeding and providing shelter for that many people was too great for the existing order. The principal problem in the countryside was shortage of land. Rapid population growth meant that the size of allotments decreased from an average size of just over five hectares in 1861 to less than three in 1900.

In the West, industry absorbed the swelling population, but Russia could only put about one third of its new population on the assembly line. There was a growing feeling that, unless something was done, the countryside would soon explode. The peasants had a simple solution to their problems — confiscate all private lands owned by the landlords.

In a paper presented at the European Population Conference 2001, the Russian historian Lev Protasov suggested that prior to the Russian Revolution, demographic factors played an important role in stirring up the masses.

Curiously, a striking number of the radicals who helped foment the revolution were born in 1880. “The 1880s’ generation,” says Protasov, “made up almost 60% radicals and dominated the left factions: 62% of socialist revolutionaries, 58% of the Bolsheviks, 63% of the ‘national’ socialists and 47% of the Mensheviks. To be sure the powerful showing of young radicals in the early 20th century has been noted by historians.”

In rural areas, peasants spit out children like watermelon seeds, leaving villages overwhelmed and “overheated.” Infant and child mortality rates fell thanks to better health care, nutrition, and sanitation.

“The Russian political cataclysms of 1905 and 1917 were ‘prepared’ not only by economic or political causes,” concludes Protasov, “but by nature acting out its own laws. The demographic bursts in the last decades of the 19th century, not only sharpened modernization problems, but speeded up the marginalization of society and gave abundant ‘human material’ to the first lines of the future revolution makers.”

Youth and Revolution

In his Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington considers demographics to have been a major factor in political revolutions going back to the Protestant Reformation.

“The Protestant Reformation,” writes Huntington, “is an example of one of the outstanding youth movements in history.”

Citing Jack Goldstone, Huntington continues, “a notable expansion of the proportion of youth in Western countries coincides with the Age of Democratic Revolution in the last decades of the 18th century. In the 19th century successful industrialization and emigration reduced the political impact of young populations in European societies. The proportion of youth rose again in the 1920s, however, providing recruits to fascist and other extreme movements. Four decades later the post-World War II baby boom generation made its mark in the demonstrations of the 1960s.”

Population explosions have caused trouble. But now populations are falling. The effect could be equally devastating:

As all developed nations rely on taxes paid by young workers to support aging retirees, a declining and aging population will arrive just when the Western societies need more young people most.

Whereas young people generally exhibit a rebellious and revolutionary influence on society, what happens when people grow old? The exact opposite.

Turning Japanese

Fearfulness and loss of desire commonly accompany aging. Older people tend not to want as many things in life as young people. They lose their desire to impress friends, relatives, and partners.

Instead of buying items they don’t need, they tend to become fearful that they will not be able to obtain what they do need. There is nothing peculiar about this; it is just nature’s way of recognizing diminishing opportunities.

A man in his forties can start over. But in his late sixties, he no longer has the energy or the desire to do so. He therefore starts saving everything — tinfoil, money, rags — for fear he will not be able to get them when he needs them.

This is how an elderly individual tends to behave. But what does an aging society look like? We need only look across the ocean — to Japan.

They have been fighting a deflationary environment since the early 1990s, with no end in sight.

The rest of the developed world could also be turning Japanese — fighting a deflationary environment with no end in sight.

Washington Insiders Reveal Their Plan for Our Future

Authored by Whitney Webb via,

A group of “bipartisan” neoconservative Republicans and establishment Democrats have been “simulating” multiple catastrophic scenarios for the 2020 election, including a simulation where a clear victory by the incumbent provokes “unprecedented” measures, which the Biden campaign could take to foil a new Trump inauguration.

A group of Democratic Party insiders and former Obama and Clinton era officials as well as a cadre of “Never Trump” neoconservative Republicans have spent the past few months conducting simulations and “war games” regarding different 2020 election “doomsday” scenarios.

Per several media reports on the group, called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), they justify these exercises as specifically preparing for a scenario where President Trump loses the 2020 election and refuses to leave office, potentially resulting in a constitutional crisis. However, according to TIP’s own documents, even their simulations involving a “clear win” for Trump in the upcoming election resulted in a constitutional crisis, as they predicted that the Biden campaign would make bold moves aimed at securing the presidency, regardless of the election result.

This is particularly troubling given that TIP has considerable ties to the Obama administration, where Biden served as Vice President, as well as several groups that are adamantly pro-Biden in addition to the Biden campaign itself. Indeed, the fact that a group of openly pro-Biden Washington insiders and former government officials have gamed out scenarios for possible election outcomes and their aftermath, all of which either ended with Biden becoming president or a constitutional crisis, suggest that powerful forces influencing the Biden campaign are pushing the former Vice President to refuse to concede the election even if he loses.

This, of course, gravely undercuts the TIP’s claim to be ensuring “integrity” in the presidential transition process and instead suggests that the group is openly planning on how to ensure that Trump leaves office regardless of the result or to manufacture the very constitutional crisis they claim to be preventing through their simulations.

Such concerns are only magnified by the recent claims made by the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State under Obama, Hillary Clinton, that Biden “should not concede under any circumstances.”

“I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” Clinton continued during an interview with Showtime a little over a week ago. The results of the TIP’s simulations notably echo Clinton’s claims that Biden will “eventually” win if the process to determine the election outcome is “dragged out.”

The Uniparty’s “war games”

Members of the TIP met in June to conduct four “war games” that simulated “a dark 11 weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day” in which “Trump and his Republican allies used every apparatus of government — the Postal Service, state lawmakers, the Justice Department, federal agents, and the military — to hold onto power, and Democrats took to the courts and the streets to try to stop it,” according to a report from The Boston Globe. However, one of those simulations, which examined what would transpire between Election Day and Inauguration Day in the event of a “clear Trump win,” shows that the TIP simulated not only how Republicans could use every option at their disposal to “hold onto power”, but also how Democrats could do so if the 2020 election result is not in their favor.

While some, mostly right-leaning media outlets, such as this article from The National Pulse, did note that the TIP’s simulations involved the Biden campaign refusing to concede, the actual document from TIP on the exercises revealed the specific moves the Biden campaign would take following a “clear win” for the Trump campaign. Unsurprisingly, these moves would greatly exacerbate current political tensions in the United States, an end result that the TIP claims they were created to avoid, gravely undercutting the official justification for their simulations as well as the group’s official reason for existing.

In the TIP’s “clear Trump win” scenario (see page 17), Joe Biden – played in the war game by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager and chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton – retracted his election night concession and subsequently convinced “three states with Democratic governors – North Carolina, Wisconsin and Michigan – to ask for recounts.” Then, the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan “sent separate slates of electors to counter those sent by the state legislature” to the Electoral College, which Trump had won, in an attempt to undermine, if not prevent, that win.

Next, “the Biden campaign encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, and collectively known as “Cascadia,” to secede from the Union unless Congressional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms. (emphasis added)” Subsequently, “with advice from [former] President Obama,” the Biden campaign laid out those “reforms” as the following:

  1. Give statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico
  2. Divide California into five states “to more accurately represent its population in the Senate”
  3. Require Supreme Court justices to retire at 70
  4. Eliminate the Electoral College

In other words, these “structural reforms” involve the creation of what essentially amounts to having the U.S. by composed 56 states, with the new states set to ensure a perpetual majority for Democrats, as only Democrat-majority areas (DC, Puerto Rico and California) are given statehood. Notably, in other scenarios where Biden won the Electoral College, Democrats did not support its elimination.

Also notable is the fact that, in this simulation, the TIP blamed the Trump campaign for the Democrats’ decision to take the “provocative, unprecedented actions” laid out above, asserting that Trump’s campaign had “created the conditions to force the Biden campaign” into taking these actions by doing things like giving “an interview to The Intercept in which he [Trump] stated that he would have lost the election if Bernie Sanders had been nominated” instead of Biden as the Democratic presidential candidate.

The TIP also claimed that the Trump campaign would seek to paint these “provocative, unpredecented actions” as “the Democrats attempting to orchestrate an illegal coup,” despite the fact that that is essentially what those actions entail. Indeed, in other simulations where the Trump campaign behaved along these lines, the TIP’s rhetoric about this category of extreme actions is decidedly different.

Yet, the simulated actions of the Biden campaign in this scenario did not end there, as the Biden campaign subsequently “provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress [on January 6th] by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden,” adding that this was “based on the alternative pro-Biden submissions sent by pro-Biden governors.” The Republican party obviously did not consent, noting that Trump had won the election through his Electoral College victory. The “clear Trump win” election simulation ended with no president-elect being inaugurated on January 20, with the TIP noting “it was unclear what the military would do in this situation.”

Of course, some TIP members, including its co-founder Rosa Brooks – a former advisor to the Obama era Pentagon and currently a fellow at the “New America” think tank, have their preference for “what the military would do in this situation.” For instance, Brooks, writing less than 2 weeks after Trump’s inauguration in 2017, argued in Foreign Policythat “a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders” was one of four possibilities for removing Trump from office prior to the 2020 election.

Full TIP document below:

Who is behind the TIP?

The TIP was created in late 2019, allegedly “out of concern that the Trump Administration may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transition process.” It was co-founded by Rosa Brooks and Nils Gilman and its current director is Zoe Hudson. Brooks, as previously mentioned, was an advisor to the Pentagon and the Hillary Clinton-led State Department during the Obama administration. She was also previously the general counsel to the President of the Open Society Institute, part of the Open Society Foundations (OSF), a controversial organization funded by billionaire George Soros. Zoe Hudson, who is TIP’s director, is also a former top figure at OSF, serving assenior policy analyst and liaison between the foundations and the U.S. government for 11 years.

OSF ties to the TIP are a red flag for a number of reasons, namely due to the fact that OSF and other Soros-funded organizations played a critical role in fomenting so-called “color revolutions” to overthrow non-aligned governments, particularly during the Obama administration. Examples of OSF’s ties to these manufactured “revolutions” include Ukraine in 2014 and the “Arab Spring,” which began in 2011 and saw several governments in the Middle East and North Africa that were troublesome to Western interests conveniently removed from power.

Subsequent leaked emails revealed the cozy ties between Soros and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including one email where Soros directed Clinton’s policy with respect to unrest in Albania, telling her that “two things need to be done urgently,” which were to “bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha” and “appoint a senior European official as mediator.” Both “urgent” tasks were subsequently performed by Clinton, presumably at Soros’ behest.

In addition to her ties to the Obama administration and OSF, Brooks is currently a scholar at West Point’s Modern War Institute, where she focuses on “the relationship between the military and domestic policing” and also Georgetown’s Innovative Policing Program. She is a currently a key player in the documented OSF-led push to “capitalize” off of legitimate calls for police reform to justify the creation of a federalized police force under the guise of defunding and/or eliminating local police departments. Brooks’ interest in the “blurring line” between military and police is notable given her past advocacy of a military coup to remove Trump from office and the TIP’s subsequent conclusion that the military “may” have to step in if Trump manages to win the 2020 election, per the group’s “war games” described above.

Brooks is also a senior fellow at the think tank New America. New America’s mission statement notes that the organization is focused on “honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create.” It is largely funded by Silicon Valley billionaires, including Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric Schmidt (Google), Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn), Jeffrey Skoll and Pierre Omidyar (eBay). In addition, it has received millions directly from the U.S. State Department to research “ranking digital rights.” Notably, of these funders, Reid Hoffman was caught “meddling” in the most recent Democratic primary to undercut Bernie Sanders’ candidacy during the Iowa caucus and while others, such as Eric Schmidt and Pierre Omidyar, are known for their cozy ties to the Clinton family and even ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

The Never Trumpers

Aside from Brooks, the other co-founder of TIP is Nils Gilman, the current Vice President of Programs at the Berggruen Institute and, prior to that, worked for Salesforce, a major tech company and government contractor. Gilman is particularly focused on artificial intelligence and transhumanism, recently telling the New York Times that his work at the Berggruen Institute is focused on “building [a] transnational networks of philosophers + technologists + policy-makers + artists who are thinking about how A.I. and gene-editing are transfiguring what it means to be human.” Nicholas Berggruen, for whom the Berggruen Institute is named, is part of the billionaire-led faction, alongside Blackstone’s Steve Schwarzman and Eric Schmidt, who seek to develop A.I. and the so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution” in conjunction with the political leaders and economic elite of China.

They are critics and rivals of those in the “nationalist” camp with respect to A.I. and China, who instead prefer to aggressively “leapfrog” China’s A.I. capabilities in order to maintain U.S. global hegemony as opposed to a “new order” promoted by Berggreun, Schmidt, Schwarzman and Henry Kissinger, another key member of the “cooperation” faction. The battle over the U.S.’ future A.I. policy with respect to China appears to be a major yet widely overlooked reason for some of the antipathy towards Trump by those in the “cooperation” faction, including those who employ TIP’s founders, given Trump’s tendency to, at least publicly, support “America First” policies and increased tensions with China. In contrast, the Biden family is invested in Chinese A.I. companies, suggesting that Biden would be more willing to pursue the interests of the “cooperation” faction than Trump.

While the identities of the TIP’s founders and current director have been made public, the full member list of the TIP has not. However, the TIP’s “sister” organization, called The National Task Force on Election Crises (NTFEC), does have a public membership list and several of its members are also known to be part of the TIP. Some of these overlapping members include Michael Chertoff, former head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Michael Steele, former chairman of the RNC and Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Chertoff, Steele and Wilkerson, though Republicans, are part of the so-called “Never Trump” Republican faction, as are the TIP’s other known Republican members. Thus, while the “bipartisan” nature of TIP may be accurate in terms of party affiliation, all of known TIP’s members – regardless of party – are united in their opposition to another term for the current president.

Other known members of the TIP include David Frum (the Atlantic), William Kristol (Project for a New American Century, The Bulwark), Max Boot (the Washington Post), Donna Brazile (ex-DNC), John Podesta (former campaign manager – Clinton 2016), Chuck Hagel (former Secretary of Defense), Reed Galen (co-founder of the Lincoln Project) and Norm Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute).

Of their known members, the most outspoken is Lawrence Wilkerson, who has fashioned himself the group’s “unofficial” spokesperson, having done the majority of media interviews promoting the group and its “war games.” In an interview in late June with journalist Paul Jay, Wilkerson notes that the TIP lacks transparency and that, aside from their “war games,” their other activities are largely confidential.

He specifically stated that:

“There is some confidentiality about what we agreed to, and what we’ve put out publicly, and who’s responsible for that, and other aspects of our doing that. The Transition Integrity Project is to this point very, very close, whole, and confidential.”

In that same interview, Wilkerson also noted that the current “combination of events” involving the recent unrest in several U.S. cities, the coronavirus crisis, the national debate over the future of policing, the economic recession and the 2020 election was the foundation for a revolution in the U.S. He told Jay that:

“I want to say this is how things like 1917 and Russia, like 1979 and Tehran, and like 1789 in France. This is how these sorts of things get started. So we’ve got to be very careful about how we deal with these things. And that worries me because we don’t have a very careful individual in the White House.”

Pre-planned chaos – who benefits?

While it certainly is possible that, in the event of a clear Biden win, President Trump could refuse to leave the White House or take other actions that would challenge the faith of many Americans in the national election system. However, while the TIP claims to be specifically concerned about this eventuality and about “safe guarding” democracy without favoring either candidate, that is clearly not the case, as their simulation of a clear Trump win shows that extreme, “undemocratic” behavior, in their view, is permissible if it prevents another four years of Trump. Yet, this clear double standard reveals that an influential group of “bipartisan” insiders are intent on creating a “constitutional crisis” if Trump wins and are planning for such a crisis regardless of the 2020 election’s results.

Well before the TIP or any of their affiliated groups emerged to conduct these doomsday election simulations, other groups were similarly engaged in “war games” that predicted complete chaos in the U.S. on election day as well as the imposition of martial law in the U.S. following the emergence of unprecedented unrest and disarray in the country.

Several of these I detailed in a series earlier this year, which mainly focused on the “Operation Blackout” simulationsconducted by the U.S.-Israeli company, Cybereason. That company has considerable ties to the U.S. and Israeli intelligence and its largest investor is Softbank. Notably, Softbank is named by the Eric Schmidt-led National Security Commission on AI (NSCAI) as forming the “backbone” of a global framework of A.I.-driven companies favored by the “cooperation” faction as a means of enacting the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” in cooperation with China’s economic and political elite.

In addition to Cybereason, several mainstream media reports and a series of suspect “predictions” from U.S. intelligence and other federal agencies released last year had seeded the narrative that the 2020 election would not only fail spectacularly, but that U.S. democracy “would never recover.” Now, with the TIP’s simulations added to the mix and the advent of the previously predicted chaos throughout the country with the 2020 election just two months away, it is clear that the November 3rd election will not only be a complete disaster, but a pre-planned one.

The question then becomes, who benefits from complete chaos on and following the 2020 election? As the TIP suggested in several of their simulations, the post-election role of the military in terms of domestic policing, incidentally the exact expertise of the TIP’s co-founder Rosa Brooks, looms large, as most of the aforementioned doomsday election simulations ended with the imposition of martial law or the military “stepping in” to resolve order and oversee the transition.

The domestic framework for imposing martial law in the U.S., via “continuity of government” protocols, was activated earlier this year under the guise of the coronavirus crisis and it remains in effect. Now, a series of groups deeply tied to the Washington establishment and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies have predicted the exact ways in which to engineer a failed election and manipulate its aftermath.

Who would stand to benefit the most from the imposition of martial law in the United States? I would argue that one need look no further than the battle within Washington power factions over the future of AI, which has been deemed of critical importance to national security by the public sector, the private sector and prominent think tanks. The Schmidt-led NSCAI and other bodies determining the country’s AI policy plan to implement a series of policies that will be deeply resisted by most Americans – from the elimination of individual car ownership to the elimination of cash as well as the imposition of an Orwellian surveillance system, among other things.

All of these agendas have advanced under the guise of combatting coronavirus, but their advance can only continue to use that justification for so long. For groups like the NSCAI, Americans must welcome these AI-driven advances or else, even if it means Americans face losing their jobs or their civil liberties. Otherwise, these groups and their billionaire backers argue, the U.S. will be “left out” and “left behind” when it comes time to set the new global standards for AI technology, as the U.S. will then be left in the dust by China’s growing AI industry, which is fed by its own implementation of these technologies.

By keeping Americans angry and distracted by the partisan divide through pre-planned election chaos, a “New America” waits in the wings – one that is coming regardless of what happens on election day. That is, of course, unless Americans quickly wake up to the ruse…