Monthly Archives: August, 2020

New updated data from CDC shows that ONLY 6% of the 161,392 reported US coronavirus deaths are related to COVID-19


 

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently updated its provisional death counts for reporting period 2/1/2020 through 8/22/2020. According to the stats, CDC said that only 6% of the 153,504 US deaths are related to COVID-19 only. The other 94% had, on average, 2+ pre-existing conditions or causes per death. Nearly 60% of all deaths were over 75 years of age.

CDC said “the provisional death counts are based on death certificate data received and coded by the National Center for Health Statistics as of August 26, 2020. Death counts are delayed and may differ from other published sources.”

Given that the average life expectancy rate in the US is 78, it is not surprising to see that a couple of states purposely put COVID patients in nursing homes where individuals were at greater risk.

Below is the excerpt from the CDC on Comorbidities.

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.

CDC NOTENumber of conditions reported in this table are tabulated from deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Data for this table are derived from a cut of the NVSS database taken at a particular time, separate from other surveillance tables on this page which are tabulated on the date of update. As a result, the total number of COVID-19 deaths in this table may not match other surveillance tables on this page.

*Data during the period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS, and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more.

1Conditions contributing to death were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICDndash;10). Deaths involving more than one condition (e.g., deaths involving both diabetes and respiratory arrest) were counted in both totals. To avoid counting the same death multiple times, the numbers for different conditions should not be summated.

2Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1

Source: https://techstartups.com/2020/08/29/new-updated-data-from-cdc-now-shows-that-only-6-of-the-161392-reported-us-coronavirus-deaths-are-related-to-covid-19/

From Lockdown to Police State: the “Great Reset” Rolls Out

From Lockdown to Police State: the “Great Reset” Rolls Out

Mayhem in Melbourne

On August 2, lockdown measures were implemented in Melbourne, Australia, that were so draconian that Australian news commentator Alan Jones said on Sky News: “People are entitled to think there is an ‘agenda to destroy western society.’”

The gist of an August 13th article on the Melbourne lockdown is captured in the title: “Australian Police Go FULL NAZI, Smashing in Windows of Civilian Cars Just Because Passengers Wouldn’t Give Details About Where They Were Going.”

Another article with an arresting title was by Guy Burchell in the August 7thAustralian National Review: “Melbourne Cops May Now Enter Homes Without a Warrant, After 11 People Die of COVID — Australia, This Is Madness, Not Democracy.” Burchell wrote that only 147 people had lost their lives to coronavirus in Victoria (the Australian state of which Melbourne is the capital), a very low death rate compared to other countries. The ramped up lockdown measures were triggered by an uptick in cases due to ramped up testing and 11 additional deaths, all of them in nursing homes (where lockdown measures would actually have little effect). The new rules include a six week curfew from 8 PM to 5 AM, with residents allowed to leave home outside those curfew hours only to shop for food and essential items (one household member only), and for caregiving, work and exercise (limited to one hour).

“But the piece de resistance,” writes Burchell, “has to be that now police officers can enter homes with neither a warrant nor permission. This is an astonishing violation of civil liberties…. Deaths of this kind are not normally cause for government action, let alone the effective house arrest of an entire city.” He quoted Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews, who told Victorians, “there is literally no reason for you to leave your home and if you were to leave your home and not be found there, you will have a very difficult time convincing Victoria police that you have a lawful reason.” Burchell commented:

[U]nder this new regime you can’t even remain in your house unmolested by the cops, they can just pop ‘round anytime to make sure you haven’t had Bruce and Sheila from next door round for a couple of drinks. All over a disease that is simply not that fatal….

Last year more than 310,000 Australians were hospitalised with flu and over 900 died. By all metrics that makes flu a worse threat than COVID-19 but police weren’t granted Stasi-like powers during the flu season. Millions of people weren’t confined to their homes and threatened with AUS$5,000 fines for not having a good reason for being out of their homes.

At an August 19th press conference, Australia’s second most senior medical officer said the government would be discussing measures such as banning restaurants, international travel, public transport, and withholding government programs through “No Jab No Pay” in order to coerce vaccine resisters.

An August 13 article on LifeSiteNews quoted Father Glen Tattersall, a Catholic parish priest in Melbourne, who said the draconian provisions “simply cannot be justified on a scientific basis”:

We have a curfew from 8 pm to 5 am, rigorously enforced including by the use of police helicopters and search lights. Is the virus a vampire that just comes out at night? Or the wearing of masks: they must be worn everywhere outside, even in a park where you are nowhere near any other person. Why? Does the virus leap hundreds of metres through the air? This is all about inducing mass fear, and humiliating the populace by demanding external compliance.

Why the strict curfew? Curfews have been implemented recently in the US to deter violence during protests, but no violence of that sort was reported in Melbourne. What was reported, at least on social media, were planes landing in the night from ‎the Chinese province of Guandong carrying equipment related to 5G and the Chinese biometric social credit system, which was reportedly being installed under a blanket of secrecy.

Angelo Codevilla, professor emeritus at Boston University, concluded in an August 13th article, “We are living through a coup d’état based on the oldest of ploys: declaring emergencies, suspending law and rights, and issuing arbitrary rules of behavior to excuse taking ‘full powers’.”

Questioning the Narrative

Melbourne has gone to extremes with its lockdown measures, but it could portend things to come globally. Lockdowns were originally sold to the public as being necessary just for a couple of weeks to “flatten the curve,” to prevent hospital overcrowding from COVID-19 cases. It has now been over five months, with self-appointed vaccine czar Bill Gates intoning that we will not be able to return to “normal” until the entire global population of 7 billion people has been vaccinated. He has since backed off on the numbers, but commentators everywhere are reiterating that lockdowns are the “new normal,” which could last for years.

All this is such a radical curtailment of our civil liberties that we need to look closely at the evidence justifying it; and when we do, that evidence is weak. The isolation policies were triggered by estimates from the Imperial College London of 510,000 UK deaths and 2.2 million US deaths, more than 10 times the actual death rate from COVID-19. A Stanford University antibody study estimated that the fatality rate if infected was only about 0.1 to 0.2 percent; and in an August 4th blog post, Bill Gates himself acknowledged that the death rate was only 0.14 percent, not much higher than for the flu. But restrictive measures have gotten more onerous rather than less as the mortality figures have been revised downward.

A July 2020 UK study from Loughborough and Sheffield Universities found that government policy over the lockdown period has actually increased mortality rather than reducing it, after factoring in collateral damage including deaths from cancers and other serious diseases that are being left untreated, a dramatic increase in suicides and drug overdose, and poverty and malnourishment due to unemployment. Globally, according to UNICEF, 1.2 million child deaths are expected as a direct result of the lockdowns. A data analyst in South Africa asserts that the consequences of the country’s lockdown will lead to 29 times more deaths than from the coronavirus itself.

Countries and states that did very little to restrict their populations, including Sweden and South Dakota, have fared as well as or better overall than locked down US states. In an August 12th article in The UK Telegraph titled “Sweden’s Success Shows the True Cost of Our Arrogant, Failed Establishment,” Allister Heath writes:

Sweden got it largely right, and the British establishment catastrophically wrong. Anders Tegnell, Stockholm’s epidemiologist-​king, has pulled off a remarkable triple whammy: far fewer deaths per capita than Britain, a maintenance of basic freedoms and opportunities, including schooling, and, most strikingly, a recession less than half as severe as our own.

Not restraining the populace has allowed Sweden’s curve to taper off naturally through “herd immunity,” with daily deaths down to single digits for the last month. (See chart.)

The Pandemic That Wasn’t?

Also bringing the official narrative into question is the unreliability of the tests on which the lockdowns have been based. In a Wired interview, even Bill Gates acknowledged that most US test results are “garbage.” The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology used in the nasal swab test is considered the “gold standard” for COVID-19 detection; yet the PCR test was regarded by its own inventor, Nobel prize winner Kary Mullis, as inappropriate to detect viral infection. In a detailed June 27th analysis titled “COVID-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless,” Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter conclude:

Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.

The authors discussed a January 2007 New York Times article titled “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t,” describing an apparent whooping cough epidemic in a New Hampshire hospital. The epidemic was verified by preliminary PCR tests given to nearly 1,000 healthcare workers, who were subsequently furloughed. Eight months later, the “epidemic” was found to be a false alarm. Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed by the “gold standard” test – growing pertussis bacteria in the laboratory. All of the cases found through the PCR test were false positives.

Yet “test, test, test” was the message proclaimed for all countries by WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom at a media briefing on March 16, 2020, five days after WHO officially declared COVID-19; and the test recommended as the gold standard was the PCR. Why, when it had already been demonstrated to be unreliable, creating false positives that gave the appearance of an epidemic when there was none? Or was that the goal – to create the appearance of a pandemic, one so vast that the global economy had to be brought to a standstill until a vaccine could be found? Recall Prof. Codevilla’s conclusion: “We are living through a coup d’état based on the oldest of ploys: declaring emergencies, suspending law and rights, and issuing arbitrary rules of behavior to excuse taking ‘full powers’.”

People desperate to get back to work will not only submit to a largely untested vaccine but will agree to surveillance measures that would have been considered a flagrant violation of their civil rights if those rights had not been overridden by a “national emergency” justifying preemption by the police powers of the state. They will agree to get “immunity passports” in order to travel and participate in group activities, and they will submit to quarantines, curfews, contact tracings, social credit scores and informing on the neighbors. The emergency must be kept going to justify these unprecedented violations of their liberties, in which decision-making is removed from elected representatives and handed to unelected bureaucrats and technocrats.

A national health crisis also a necessary prerequisite for relief from liability for personal injuries from the drugs and other products deployed in response to the crisis. Under the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA), in the event of a declared public health emergency, manufacturers are shielded from tort liability for injuries both from the vaccines and from invalid or invasive tests. Compensation for personal injuries is a massive expense for drug companies, and the potential profits from a product free of that downside are a gold mine for pharmaceutical companies and investors. The liabilities will be borne by the taxpayers and the victims.

All this, however, presupposes both an existing public health emergency and no effective treatment to defuse it. That helps explain the otherwise inexplicable war on hydroxychloroquine, a safe drug that has been in use and available over the counter for 65 years and has been shown to be effective in multiple studies when used early in combination with zinc and an antibiotic. A table prepared by the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (below) found that the US has nearly 30 times as many deaths per capita as countries making early and prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine.

The latest international testing of hydroxychloroquine treatment of coronavirus shows countries that had early use of the drug had a 79% lower mortality rate than countries that banned the use of the safe malaria drug. Lowering the US mortality rate by 79% could have saved over 100,000 lives. But an effective, inexpensive COVID-19 treatment would mean the end of the alleged pandemic and the vaccine bonanza it purports to justify.

The need to maintain the appearance of a pandemic also explains the inflated reports of cases and deaths. Hospitals have been rewarded with increased fees for reclassifying cases as COVID-19. As deaths declined in the US, the numbers of cases reported by the Centers for Disease Control were also gamed to make it appear that America was in a “second wave” of a pandemic. The reporting criterion was changed on May 18 from people who tested positive for the virus only to people who tested positive for either the virus or its antibodies. The exploding numbers thus include people who have recovered from COVID-19 as well as false positives. The Loughborough and Sheffield researchers found that when controlling for other factors affecting mortality, actual deaths due to COVID-19 are 54% to 63% lower than implied by the standard excess deaths measure.

Ushering in “The Great Reset”

Forcing compliance with global vaccine mandates is one obvious motive for maintaining the appearance of an ongoing pandemic, but what would be the motive for destroying the global economy with forced lockdowns? What is behind the “agenda to destroy Western society” suspected by Australian commentator Alan Jones?

Evidently it is this: destroying the old is necessary to usher in the new. Global economic destruction paves the way for the “Great Reset” now being promoted by the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the International Monetary Fund and other big global players.

Although cast as arising from the pandemic, the “global economic reset” is a concept that was floated as early as 2014 by Christine Lagarde, then head of the IMF, and is said to be a recharacterization of the “New World Order” discussed long before that. It was promoted as a solution to the ongoing economic crisis triggered in 2008.

The World Economic Forum – that elite group of businessmen, politicians and academics that meets in Davos, Switzerland, every January – announced in June that the Great Reset would be the theme of its 2021 Summit. Klaus Schwab, founder of the Forum, admonished:

The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.

No country will be allowed to opt out because it would be endangering the rest, just as no person will be allowed to escape the COVID-19 vaccine for the same reason.

Who is behind the Great Reset and what it really entails are major questions that need their own article, but suffice it to say here that to escape the trap of the globalist agenda, we need a mass awakening to what is really going on and collective resistance to it while there is still time. There are hopeful signs that this is happening, including massive protests against economic shutdowns and restrictions, particularly in Europe; a rash of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the lockdowns and of police power overreach; and a flood of alternative media exposés despite widespread censorship.

Life as we know it will change. We need to ensure that it changes in ways that serve the people and the productive economy, while preserving our national sovereignty and hard-won personal freedoms.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute and author of thirteen books, including her latest, Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

(Republished from Web of Debt by permission of author or representative)

Hide 94 CommentsLeave a Comment

Commenters to Ignore…to FollowEndorsed Only

Trim Comments? 
No
Short
Long
  1. This article is truly insane. The author states that:

    Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.

    And, at the same time, she states that:

    The latest international testing of hydroxychloroquine treatment of coronavirus shows countries that had early use of the drug had a 79% lower mortality rate than countries that banned the use of the safe malaria drug.

    In other words, the disease is imaginary, but there is a drug that is effective for treating it.

    The conspiracy is twofold: they invented a disease and concealed the truth about the drug that can cure it. You just can’t make this up.

    • Agree: Saggy
    • Troll: Kali
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD
  2. Fake virus, fake tests and fake numbers. Covid 19 is just the latest of these scams. A partial list includes H1N1, H5N1, Bird Flu, Swine Flu and then AIDS epidemic (see Peter Duesberg on this) where as CDC criminal Debra Brix has stated “we have told the hospitals to tag everything possible as Covid 19.” They also get paid a lot more money. Covid 19 has not been identified by the standard pathogen test, the Koch’s Postulate test or any serious scientific test because they can’t. The PCR test gives 200 false positives, or ap. 82%, does not distinguish different Corona’s (the inventor said it will not detect Coronas) and is not quantitative.

    This scam has been used as a cover for another massive theft by the banking cartel for their buddies on Wall St. and is also used to condition the goyim to give up their natural God given constitutional rights using a bogus fear campaign. The state Governors cannot make laws and the same people that make the laws cannot enforce them under the U.S. constitution. The states are guaranteed a republican form of government not a dictatorship. The mandates to wear face diapers and close businesses and isolate (CIA derived tactic) cannot be legally enforced in the U.S. and all businesses including restaurants and bars need to nullify these illegal mandates.

    This particular scam was exposed in 2014 by a journalist as originating from the Rockefeller Foundation documents of 2012 -video below. Also video on phony face mask fraud.


    https://www.bitchute.com/video/HrZ6AWG9vrXN/

Dr. Vernon Coleman: Nothing is Now Impossible

WATCH the banned video here:

Nothing is Now Impossible

Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA

It may seem like hyperbole to compare what is happening to us now to what happened in Europe during World War II.

It’s different, of course.

We aren’t being bombed, for example.

But the threat to us all, and the world in which we live, is now just as great as it was in 1939 and the 1940s.

In some ways the threat is greater.

Then, we just had to beat a small bunch of deranged psychopaths. And we had the support and leadership of our governments. We had Winston Churchill.

Today, in a bizarre turn, our enemies are our own governments. We are being manipulated, threatened and punished by dictators. We are living in totalitarian states. We have no democracy and very little freedom of speech.

We are fighting people who want to turn us into slaves. The plans of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum are worse than anything thought up by Hitler or Stalin.

We are oppressed by individuals who are just as evil as any of those who slaughtered the innocent across Europe, laying the foundations for the development of the European Union.

The EU: conceived by Nazis, built by Nazis and now loved by Nazis was the first step towards a World Government – the first fascist super state. It was quickly absorbed by the UN into the Agenda 21 plans.

Today, the enemy doesn’t wear jackboots or do the goosestep. And this time we have elected and financed our own enemy. Our political leaders are the enemy. We are paying for our own oppressors. In New Zealand, concentration camps have been set up for the tiny number of people who have tested positive. They don’t call them that, of course. I think they’re holiday camps in newspeak. Or quarantine camps perhaps.

We all have a number of choices, of course.

The easy option is always to join the oppressors – to become collaborators. That’s what millions have done. They accept the lies about covid-19 because they cannot believe that their own political leaders would lie so much. They socially distance, they wear the masks, they put themselves under house arrest when ordered to do so. Some have probably even managed to convince themselves that the lies must be true. How could anyone lie so much? How could anyone be as totally incompetent as they say that nice Professor Ferguson is? And doesn’t the BBC say that smiling Mr Gates does a lot for charity?

Some people just keep quiet. They say and do nothing for fear of the consequences. They hope that the evil will pass. Or that someone else will speak up and change things for them.

And then there’s us.

There are always some difficult buggers who refuse to lie down and accept unjust and absurd laws.

It happened in World War II. The resistance movement played a major part in defeating the Nazis.

And today the resistance movement is all we’ve got.

It’s us. We’re the resistance movement, and we’re missionaries to the Truth Deniers.

And we’re in a war.

You know how, if you bend a paperclip you can never get it back to the way it was? Well, that’s our political system. It is bent and cannot be mended. I have long distrusted the party system and it is now clearer than ever that it doesn’t work. Our political system, our administration, our local government, our health care system – they are all rotten to the core. Destroyed by unbridled ambition, greed and the dead hand of the brainwashed, indoctrinated hand-maidens of Common Purpose.

We are watching, first hand, as the pseudoscientists and crooks who run the climate change fraud are leading an assault on God, nature and mankind.

Nothing is as it used to be nor as it seems to be. Everything is controlled from afar by people we can’t see and over whom we have no control. In the US and Europe, everything is controlled by lobbyists – tens of thousands of them spending billions a year – and ensuring that the principles of Agenda 21 (if we can call them principles) are introduced, adhered to and thoroughly exploited by the rich and the mega rich – cruising the world’s seas in huge self-contained super yachts.

Everywhere I look there is deceit and manipulation. Nothing is what it appears to be. So, for example, it seems to me as though every position the World Health Organisation has taken, based on the available scientific research, has been reversed. A couple of months ago, the WHO thought that wearing masks was pointless and unnecessary. The available evidence said they were right. And then suddenly, without the science changing, the World Health Organisation changed its mind and masks became mandatory. The only difference? Could it be that Bill Gates had become a major `shareholder’ in the WHO? That’s the pro-vax organisation not the rock band by the way – though the rock band would probably give better health advice.

On the 28th May 2020, Dr Fauci, the American coronavirus supremo announced that masks are little more than symbolic. They were derided as virtue signalling. And then, suddenly, there is Dr Fauci standing next to President Trump wearing a mask. In the UK, the government’s medical advisors had dismissed masks as unnecessary. And then suddenly, for no apparent reason, the Government changed its tiny mind and anyone not wearing a mask suddenly became liable to a fine of up to £3,200. The odd figure, incidentally, came from a bizarre and unprecedented system whereby non-mask wearers would be fined £100 for an initial offence with the fine doubling for each subsequent occasion.

Incidentally, what is going to happen to the millions of dumped single use masks? How many people know that if you wash a cloth mask it becomes more useless every time you wash it? And if you don’t wash it then you are putting a cloth containing bacteria, fungi and viruses next to your mouth every time you put it on. Legionnaire’s Disease is a real and lethal risk. What will happen when vaccines come in? Will those who refuse vaccination be forced to continue to wear a mask as a sign of shame? Perhaps they could issue masks containing yellow stars – just to make the point. And why do so many people wear masks in the street when they don’t have to? Just about all the pictures I saw recently of teenagers campaigning for better exam results, showed them wearing masks when they didn’t have to. Why? Were they stupid? Or were the photos staged?

Mask enthusiasts often say that masks must be fine because surgeons wear them. This simply displays their ignorance. Not all surgeons do wear masks because studies have shown that wearing them does not reduce infection. Moreover, surgeons usually work in air conditioned, cooled operating theatres. They do their work standing or sitting and they wear masks for relatively short periods of time.

Terrorism, let me remind you, is, according to my definition, politics by intimidation – without any moral restrictions. We are being terrorised by our own governments. Masks must be worn and pubs must be shut.

Is this in homage to the new global religion –Chrislam? The Archbishop of Canterbury provided Christians with a short talk from his kitchen but virtue signalled by shutting churches. What sort of leadership was that?

There is no logic to anything anymore.

Theatres are closed and will stay closed though thespians and artists who behave will receive grants to buy their allegiance. If plays are performed actors will have to respect social distancing rules so no plays by Shakespeare will ever again be performed. There will be no choirs and no opera.

And yet we are allowed to climb into aeroplanes where the air is constantly recirculated and whatever viruses one traveller has will inevitably be shared by everyone by the time the aeroplane lands.

Racism is now so much a part of our lives that no one takes any notice – and if they do then they keep quiet about it. Biden, the Democratic Presidential candidate, who at one point said that 120 million Americans had been killed by covid19, announced that he would pick as his vice president a woman of colour. No one thought this sexist and racist, though it clearly was.

Ironically, the woman he picked had apparently accused him of being a racist and of sexual assault. It says a good deal to me about opportunistic politicians that the two have, nevertheless, buried any principles they might have had and agreed to work with each other.

Incidentally, Biden has supported just about every war America has started for 30 years.

Politicians and advisors are now talking about our needing to wear masks, and maintain social distancing, indefinitely. That is the sort of indefinitely which means forever. The collaborators who are merrily wearing their fashion masks in the open air in countries where it is not a legal necessity are going to kill humanity.

I wonder how many people know that the phrase `If you’re not with us you are against us’ originated with Jesus Christ and not George W.Bush.

The mass of people have unwittingly joined a conspiracy against themselves. Never before have ordinary people been so cowed, so curiously deferential. Children are frightened because they don’t know any better. But the adults who believe the crap they are being fed annoy me enormously. How can anyone have got to adulthood without wanting to question the blatant lies we are currently being fed? The lies are grotesque, inexplicable and indefensible. Those of you with a mischievous sense of humour might be amused by two of my early videos – `New Law – Everyone Must Now Hop and Wear Galoshes’ and `Everything You Are Allowed to Know but I Can’t Tell You What about’.

Inspired by appalling policewoman Dick, who encouraged public shaming, the collaborators happily join their masters in demonising, monstering and abusing those too ill to wear a mask or brave enough to think for themselves. I still think the Dick woman should be arrested and charged with something – inciting harassment, perhaps. If that isn’t an offence it should be.

Millions who have never taken any interest in protecting themselves from heart disease or cancer now seem so desperately afraid of covid-19, as harmless as flu let us not forget, that they have happily abandoned their freedom and their rights. Sweden proved that the lockdowns and the masks and the social distancing were all unnecessary but those are facts and facts are no longer popular.

Millions of Britons have enjoyed a summer free of work – on furlough, paid by taxpayers. They’ve been enjoying themselves on their country’s beaches; though I hope they observed the ruling that they should remain six feet six inches away from the lifeguards – so presumably any rescuing had to be done at a distance. I wonder if they will feel quite so jolly when they prepare to go back to work and discover that their jobs have gone. The UN recently estimated that half of the world’s jobs will disappear. People who find themselves unemployed this autumn will probably never work again. Ever. I wonder whether people will be angry when they realise just how much the damage is going to affect their lives? Economists and commentators say the recovery will be quick. It won’t be. This is not a temporary inconvenience. The coronavirus fraud is going to lead to permanent changes in every aspect of our society from jobs to health care and from pensions to education – and those changes are being made cold bloodedly and deliberately and globally. Millions of people are going to die in the next year because their illnesses weren’t treated because of the lockdowns.

Health care is going to change dramatically – but not for the better. GPs now seem too lazy or too afraid to see patients. Instead care assistants with modest training see patients in tents or on the pavement or in the car park. You can have a tattoo – which involves a stranger piercing your skin with a needle – but if you do agree to a vaccination it will be done on the pavement because it is too dangerous to do it in the GPs surgery. Assessing patients on the pavement is apparently happening in America too. One patient who had suffered from hay-fever and had visited to a nearby town where there have been positive tests was refused treatment by a doctor but offered a telephone conversation with a physician assistant. Some doctors are, it seems, too frightened to offer even telephone consultations. It must be a relief to them that the golf courses are now open.

You can go into a pub but you can’t go to an AA meeting because that would be too dangerous. Education will soon be done exclusively on the internet – using the excuse that it is too dangerous for children to go to school and sit together in classrooms. No one in government cares a damn about the evidence that letting children go to school is probably safer than keeping them at home – as long as you forget about the unnecessary social distancing and the mask wearing nonsense. Surely, even the most unimaginative must soon be able to discern patterns with a purpose.

It’s not difficult to see that this is part of a global plan – Agenda 21 to give it a name.

Most of the people who have died of covid-19 have been over 80 with at least two or three other serious health problems – and many lived in care homes where they were murdered.

If old people had been murdered in care homes in one country, then that might have been a result of incompetence. But when exactly the same mistake is made in just about every country in the world then it becomes clear that the deaths are a result of official policy.

It is now allegedly routine to put Do Not Resuscitate notices on everyone over the age of 60. No one is denying it. In Scotland it is rumoured that the cut off age is 45. No one is denying that. And DNR notices are routinely put on those with mental illness or physical disabilities whatever their age. That is the default position. The elderly and the frail and the disabled must be eliminated. It’s part of the Agenda 21 plan, the move towards a community based world where the individual must be subservient to the needs of the greater good.

Nothing will ever be the same again. Savers and investors face a dark and dismal future. One bank with which I have an account recently told me that my balance earns interest at a rate of 0.00001% and I consider myself lucky that the interest hasn’t yet gone negative. None of this is accidental. It’s all deliberate.

I’m told that there are still thousands of people who get their news from the BBC! How can this be? If the BBC ever published an honest fact the whole bent organisation would go into meltdown and have to issue an immediate retraction and apology. `We are terribly sorry about the fact we broadcast the other day. It was a mistake and won’t happen again.’

Sadly, the BBC isn’t the only untrustworthy news organisation.

It has for some time now been the case that magazines, newspapers and broadcasters have been beholden to advertisers.

This wasn’t always the case.

I can remember when editors would fly into a rage if an advertiser or advertising director tried to influence a publication’s editorial content or policy.

But as circulations fell the balance of power moved from readers to advertisers and for some time now publications have done little but publish press releases. The sacking of experienced journalists, to save money, and replacing them with naïve, colourless, dishonourable youngsters has helped the decline. Today, main stream media are supine. They promote the governmental hysteria apparently without embarrassment. They use the word pandemic as though it were an accurate appraisal of the situation.

Occasionally, however, there are some bright spots of hope and I think the pressure from the resistance movement may be having an effect. The usually rather untrustworthy (in my opinion) Times newspaper recently ran a headline which read: `Flu and pneumonia killed five times more than covid last month’. Very true and it’s nice to see it in print.

In 2019, the WHO studied influenza pandemics and came to the conclusion that contact tracing is not useful from an epidemiological point of view and (and I quote) `is not recommended in any circumstances’.

Talking of flu, by the way, scientists still don’t know if having the flu vaccine makes people more likely to develop covid-19. Come to think of it, maybe that’s why there is such enthusiasm about giving the flu vaccine to as many people as possible this autumn.

Despite the WHO view on contact tracing, governments around the world (most of which were claiming to take their lead from the Bill Gates funded organisation) introduced track and trace systems – largely using a system devised by Google and Apple. The Google and Apple nonsense was pumped into three billion mobile phones and was apparently designed to record and store all contacts – not just those considered medically relevant. A German IT expert described tracing apps as a Trojan horse. I think we all know what he meant. And I’ll just remind you that the World Health Organisation condemned contact tracing as not recommended in any circumstances.

Never before has science been dismissed with such a cavalier attitude. It is clear that our mobile telephones are due to play an ever increasing part in our lives. In 2011, just 3.5% of payments in China were made with mobile phones. Today, 85% of all payments are made with mobile phones. It is a very small step from a mobile phone which runs your life to a far more convenient chip placed under the skin in your arm. It is hardly surprising that the boss of Microsoft has boasted that `we’ve seen two years’ worth of digital transformation in two months’. Gates, incidentally, has been funding the development of micro implants to give multiple doses of a vaccine or drug over an extended period.

Using a temperature gun is about as useful as asking someone their astrological sign and then isolating all those born under the fishes or the scales. But temperature guns are now seen everywhere.

Back on 23rd April, Neil Ferguson, the Oliver Hardy of mathematics, but without the charm or loveability, was reported as saying that a second wave, worse than the first, was virtually certain to happen. Politicians seem desperate for him to be proved right. If he is proved right it will possibly be a first.

We have for years been living under the eye of Big Brother. But soon Big Brother will be inside us, controlling us. Trans-humanism plans will develop further. Mobile phones will be replaced by obligatory under the skin controls. The people who happily give all their personal details to phone apps will no doubt be eager to have a chip under their skin.

Millions innocently accepted smart meters for their electricity supplies because they believed what they were told. Anyone was suckered into accepting one should now demand that it’s taken out of their home.

Just as the authorities can use the smart meter to turn off your electricity so they will switch off your access to money or food or work simply by controlling the chip under your skin. And then there will be accidents that will occur and probably result in millions of deaths. And the hackers. Oh, don’t forget the hackers.

Talking of deaths, I see that in Ireland there have, in recent months, been fewer total deaths than in any of the previous three years. I suspect that will change both there and elsewhere in the autumn. The deaths caused by the lockdown will start mounting then. When thousands start to die of treatable cancer and heart disease there will, I suspect, be a little more anger among those who are still naïve enough and ill-informed enough to believe that covid-19 is a serious pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of extra deaths are going to mar nations for months if not years – all avoidable, all caused by the lockdowns and all predicted from this chair months ago. Hundreds of crooked politicians and advisors will doubtless try to persuade us that the deaths have been caused by the coronavirus. They will only be able to get away with this if doctors continue to falsify death certificates.

Unless we stop this nonsense quickly it is going to get worse.

They are pushing us to see how far they can go. What will they try next? Wearing masks in the street, in offices, in schools and at home. Wearing goggles and gloves perhaps? I now find it impossible to imagine an insult they would not regard as appropriate. They have closed the dentists and there is no effective health care for millions. Most people are rightly now terrified of seeing a doctor or going into hospital. Do not resuscitate notices are routinely put on anyone over the age of 60 and on individuals of any age who have mental or physical problems. I find it difficult to believe it is happening – but it is and there’s no point in sticking our heads in the sand, under the blanket or anywhere else.

I am glad to see more and more protests around the world – mostly ignored or demonised by the main stream media.

In the UK Piers Corbyn and StandupX are brilliant. Piers Corbyn, clearly a gentle man, has been arrested 45 times for standing up for our freedom. He has been arrested for the modern crime of telling the truth.

By now he has probably been arrested 46 times, 47 – who knows. The police should give him a season ticket.

The new normal as they call it is nothing more than the new world order – the global reset so beloved by fascist extremists and wicked hypocrites such as the utterly appalling Prince Charles – what a bloody family that has turned out to be. They’re like something out of a bad soap opera. They, like the BBC, should be defunded. The BBC doesn’t deserve public money and the royals don’t need it.

The internet has, despite all the bans and shutdowns and the activities of the state financed trolls, been a revelation – and our only hope of salvation. Listen to the Richie Allen radio show and watch, among others, UK Column, Amazing Polly, Dr Judy Mikovits, Ice Age Farmer and The Corbett Report.

When all this is over, every political leader who has put citizens under house arrest and maintained the evil myth of this pandemic must be tried for treason. We’ll try them before hanging, drawing and quartering them because that’s the way civilised people do things.

Remember: decisions are made by those who speak up.

And what’s the point of a life if you sell your soul for a little peace and quiet?

Share this video quickly because it contains a lot of truths. YouTube quickly took down my recent video, entitled `Forbidden Truths’ – presumably because it contained truths which are forbidden. Naturally, in this Kafkaesque world they didn’t explain precisely what my crime was.

YouTube has also now recently taken down and banned my video entitled `Coronavirus: Mental Health Problems Will Now Soar’ which was published in May and in which I predicted that government policies would result in an increase in anxiety and depression. Figures just published confirm that the prediction was, sadly, accurate. I don’t know whether the video was taken down because I predicted what would happen or because it has now happened.


Copyright Vernon Coleman August 2020
http://www.vernoncoleman.com


Vernon Coleman’s bestselling book `Coming Apocalypse’ is available on Amazon as a paperback and an eBook. His book `A Bigger Problem than Climate Change’, in which he discusses the world’s future energy problem, is also available.

Hollie Greig Justice. The Fight Goes On!

HollieGreigJustice : https://holliegreigjustice.co.uk/

Holliegreigjustice page.PNG

BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA

PieceOfMindful

This was important enough that I wanted to get it out immediately. My research into the NCBI database for nucleotide sequences has lead to a stunning discovery. One of the WHO primer sequences in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is found in all human DNA!

The sequence “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT” is an 18-character primer sequence found in the WHO coronavirus PCR testing protocol document. The primer sequences are what get amplified by the PCR process in order to be detected and designated a “positive” test result. It just so happens this exact same 18-character sequence, verbatim, is also found on Homo sapiens chromosome 8! As far as I can tell, this means that the WHO test kits should find a positive result in all humans. Can anyone explain this otherwise?

I really cannot overstate the significance of this finding. At minimum, it should have a notable impact on test results.

Homo sapiens chromosome 8, GRCh38.p12 Primary Assembly
Sequence ID: NC_000008.11 Length: 145138636
Range 1: 63648346 to 63648363 is “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT”

Update: After some effort, I have finally discovered a way to display proof (beyond my screenshots) that human chromosome 8 has this exact same 18-character sequence. Please try the link below. The sequence is shown at the bottom of the page.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/NC_000008.11?report=genbank&log$=nuclalign&from=63648346&to=63648363

Against School – John Taylor Gatto

Download PDF:  John Taylor Gatto – Against school. The Six Purposes of Schooling

How public education cripples our kids, and why

I taught for thirty years in some of the worst schools in Manhattan, and in some of the best, and during that time I became an expert in boredom. Boredom was everywhere in my world, and if you asked the kids, as I often did, why they felt so bored, they always gave the same answers: They said the work was stupid, that it made no sense, that they already knew it. They said they wanted to be doing something real, not just sitting around. They said teachers didn’t seem to know much about their subjects and clearly weren’t interested in learning more. And the kids were right: their teachers were every bit as bored as they were.

Boredom is the common condition of schoolteachers, and anyone who has spent time in a teachers’ lounge can vouch for the low energy, the whining, the dispirited attitudes, to be found there. When asked why they feel bored, the teachers tend to blame the kids, as you might expect. Who wouldn’t get bored teaching students who are rude and interested only in grades? If even that. Of course, teachers are themselves products of the same twelve-year compulsory school programs that so thoroughly bore their students, and as school personnel they are trapped inside structures even more rigid than those imposed upon the children. Who, then, is to blame?

We all are. My grandfather taught me that. One afternoon when I was seven I complained to him of boredom, and he batted me hard on the head. He told me that I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else’s. The obligation to amuse and instruct myself was entirely my own, and people who didn’t know that were childish people, to be avoided if possible. Certainly not to be trusted. That episode cured me of boredom forever, and here and there over the years I was able to pass on the lesson to some remarkable student. For the most part, however, I found it futile to challenge the official notion that boredom and childishness were the natural state of affairs in the classroom. Often I had to defy custom, and even bend the law, to help kids break out of this trap.

The empire struck back, of course; childish adults regularly conflate opposition with disloyalty. I once returned from a medical leave to discover that all evidence of my having been granted the leave had been purposely destroyed, that my job had been terminated, and that I no longer possessed even a teaching license. After nine months of tormented effort I was able to retrieve the license when a school secretary testified to witnessing the plot unfold. In the meantime my family suffered more than I care to remember. By the time I finally retired in 1991, I had more than enough reason to think of our schools – with their long-term, cell-block-style, forced confinement of both students and teachers – as virtual factories of childishness. Yet I honestly could not see why they had to be that way. My own experience had revealed to me what many other teachers must learn along the way, too, yet keep to themselves for fear of reprisal: if we wanted to we could easily and inexpensively jettison the old, stupid structures and help kids take an education rather than merely receive a schooling. We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness – curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight – simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids to truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then.

But we don’t do that. And the more I asked why not, and persisted in thinking about the “problem” of schooling as an engineer might, the more I missed the point: What if there is no “problem” with our schools? What if they are the way they are, so expensively flying in the face of common sense and long experience in how children learn things, not because they are doing something wrong but because they are doing something right? Is it possible that George W. Bush accidentally spoke the truth when he said we would “leave no child behind”? Could it be that our schools are designed to make sure not one of them ever really grows up?

 

Do we really need school? I don’t mean education, just forced schooling: six classes a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for twelve years. Is this deadly routine really necessary? And if so, for what? Don’t hide behind reading, writing, and arithmetic as a rationale, because 2 million happy homeschoolers have surely put that banal justification to rest. Even if they hadn’t, a considerable number of well-known Americans never went through the twelve-year wringer our kids currently go through, and they turned out all right. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln? Someone taught them, to be sure, but they were not products of a school system, and not one of them was ever “graduated” from a secondary school. Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn’t go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry, like Carnegie and Rockefeller; writers, like Melville and Twain and Conrad; and even scholars, like Margaret Mead. In fact, until pretty recently people who reached the age of thirteen weren’t looked upon as children at all. Ariel Durant, who co-wrote an enormous, and very good, multivolume history of the world with her husband, Will, was happily married at fifteen, and who could reasonably claim that Ariel Durant was an uneducated person? Unschooled, perhaps, but not uneducated.

We have been taught (that is, schooled) in this country to think of “success” as synonymous with, or at least dependent upon, “schooling,” but historically that isn’t true in either an intellectual or a financial sense. And plenty of people throughout the world today find a way to educate themselves without resorting to a system of compulsory secondary schools that all too often resemble prisons. Why, then, do Americans confuse education with just such a system? What exactly is the purpose of our public schools?

Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:
1) To make good people.
2) To make good citizens.
3) To make each person his or her personal best.

These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education’s mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling’s true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not

to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim.. . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.

Because of Mencken’s reputation as a satirist, we might be tempted to dismiss this passage as a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia. And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern.

The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it. William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch’s 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann’s “Seventh Annual Report” to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here. That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington’s aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German- speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws. But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens – all in order to render the populace “manageable.”

 

It was from James Bryant Conant – president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century – that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling. Without Conant, we would probably not have the same style and degree of standardized testing that we enjoy today, nor would we be blessed with gargantuan high schools that warehouse 2,000 to 4,000 students at a time, like the famous Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Shortly after I retired from teaching I picked up Conant’s 1959 book-length essay, The Child the Parent and the State, and was more than a little intrigued to see him mention in passing that the modern schools we attend were the result of a “revolution” engineered between 1905 and 1930. A revolution? He declines to elaborate, but he does direct the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis’s 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which “one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary.”

Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever reintegrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose – the actual purpose – of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can’t test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called “the conformity function,” because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student’s proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in “your permanent record.” Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been “diagnosed,” children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits – and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin’s theory of natural selection as applied to what he called “the favored races.” In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit – with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments – clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That’s what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country. And lest you take Inglis for an isolated crank with a rather too cynical take on the educational enterprise, you should know that he was hardly alone in championing these ideas. Conant himself, building on the ideas of Horace Mann and others, campaigned tirelessly for an American school system designed along the same lines. Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, surely understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers. In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

 

There you have it. Now you know. We don’t need Karl Marx’s conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don’t conform. Class may frame the proposition, as when Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” But the motives behind the disgusting decisions that bring about these ends need not be class-based at all. They can stem purely from fear, or from the by now familiar belief that “efficiency” is the paramount virtue, rather than love, liberty, laughter, or hope. Above all, they can stem from simple greed.

There were vast fortunes to be made, after all, in an economy based on mass production and organized to favor the large corporation rather than the small business or the family farm. But mass production required mass consumption, and at the turn of the twentieth century most Americans considered it both unnatural and unwise to buy things they didn’t actually need. Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn’t have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era – marketing.

Now, you needn’t have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book Public Education in the United States, Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley – who was dean of Stanford’s School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant’s friend and correspondent at Harvard – had written the following in the 1922 edition of his book Public School Administration: “Our schools are . . . factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned.. . . And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.”

It’s perfectly obvious from our society today what those specifications were. Maturity has by now been banished from nearly every aspect of our lives. Easy divorce laws have removed the need to work at relationships; easy credit has removed the need for fiscal self-control; easy entertainment has removed the need to learn to entertain oneself; easy answers have removed the need to ask questions. We have become a nation of children, happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults. We buy televisions, and then we buy the things we see on the television. We buy computers, and then we buy the things we see on the computer. We buy $150 sneakers whether we need them or not, and when they fall apart too soon we buy another pair. We drive SUVs and believe the lie that they constitute a kind of life insurance, even when we’re upside-down in them. And, worst of all, we don’t bat an eye when Ari Fleischer tells us to “be careful what you say,” even if we remember having been told somewhere back in school that America is the land of the free. We simply buy that one too. Our schooling, as intended, has seen to it.

Now for the good news. Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its tricks and traps are fairly easy to avoid. School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they’ll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology – all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone, and they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired and quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more meaningful life, and they can.

First, though, we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants. Don’t let your own have their childhoods extended, not even for a day. If David Farragut could take command of a captured British warship as a preteen, if Thomas Edison could publish a broadsheet at the age of twelve, if Ben Franklin could apprentice himself to a printer at the same age (then put himself through a course of study that would choke a Yale senior today), there’s no telling what your own kids could do. After a long life, and thirty years in the public school trenches, I’ve concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven’t yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.

**  09/2003 Harper’s Magazine.

John Taylor Gatto is a former New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year and the author, most recently, of The Underground History of American Education. He was a participant in the Harper’s Magazine forum “School on a Hill,” which appeared in the September 2001 issue. You can find his web site here.

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

I taught for thirty years in some of the worst schools in Manhattan, and in some of the best, and during that time I became an expert in boredom. Boredom was everywhere in my world, and if you asked the kids, as I often did, why they felt so bored, they always gave the same answers: They said the work was stupid, that it made no sense, that they already knew it. They said they wanted to be doing something real, not just sitting around. They said teachers didn’t seem to know much about their subjects and clearly weren’t interested in learning more. And the kids were right: their teachers were every bit as bored as they were.

Boredom is the common condition of schoolteachers, and anyone who has spent time in a teachers’ lounge can vouch for the low energy, the whining, the dispirited attitudes, to be found there. When asked why they feel bored, the teachers tend to blame the kids, as you might expect. Who wouldn’t get bored teaching students who are rude and interested only in grades? If even that. Of course, teachers are themselves products of the same twelve-year compulsory school programs that so thoroughly bore their students, and as school personnel they are trapped inside structures even more rigid than those imposed upon the children. Who, then, is to blame?

We all are. My grandfather taught me that. One afternoon when I was seven I complained to him of boredom, and he batted me hard on the head. He told me that I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else’s. The obligation to amuse and instruct myself was entirely my own, and people who didn’t know that were childish people, to be avoided if possible. Certainly not to be trusted. That episode cured me of boredom forever, and here and there over the years I was able to pass on the lesson to some remarkable student. For the most part, however, I found it futile to challenge the official notion that boredom and childishness were the natural state of affairs in the classroom. Often I had to defy custom, and even bend the law, to help kids break out of this trap.

The empire struck back, of course; childish adults regularly conflate opposition with disloyalty. I once returned from a medical leave to discover that all evidence of my having been granted the leave had been purposely destroyed, that my job had been terminated, and that I no longer possessed even a teaching license. After nine months of tormented effort I was able to retrieve the license when a school secretary testified to witnessing the plot unfold. In the meantime my family suffered more than I care to remember. By the time I finally retired in 1991, I had more than enough reason to think of our schools – with their long-term, cell-block-style, forced confinement of both students and teachers – as virtual factories of childishness. Yet I honestly could not see why they had to be that way. My own experience had revealed to me what many other teachers must learn along the way, too, yet keep to themselves for fear of reprisal: if we wanted to we could easily and inexpensively jettison the old, stupid structures and help kids take an education rather than merely receive a schooling. We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness – curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight – simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids to truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then.

But we don’t do that. And the more I asked why not, and persisted in thinking about the “problem” of schooling as an engineer might, the more I missed the point: What if there is no “problem” with our schools? What if they are the way they are, so expensively flying in the face of common sense and long experience in how children learn things, not because they are doing something wrong but because they are doing something right? Is it possible that George W. Bush accidentally spoke the truth when he said we would “leave no child behind”? Could it be that our schools are designed to make sure not one of them ever really grows up?

 

Do we really need school? I don’t mean education, just forced schooling: six classes a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for twelve years. Is this deadly routine really necessary? And if so, for what? Don’t hide behind reading, writing, and arithmetic as a rationale, because 2 million happy homeschoolers have surely put that banal justification to rest. Even if they hadn’t, a considerable number of well-known Americans never went through the twelve-year wringer our kids currently go through, and they turned out all right. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln? Someone taught them, to be sure, but they were not products of a school system, and not one of them was ever “graduated” from a secondary school. Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn’t go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry, like Carnegie and Rockefeller; writers, like Melville and Twain and Conrad; and even scholars, like Margaret Mead. In fact, until pretty recently people who reached the age of thirteen weren’t looked upon as children at all. Ariel Durant, who co-wrote an enormous, and very good, multivolume history of the world with her husband, Will, was happily married at fifteen, and who could reasonably claim that Ariel Durant was an uneducated person? Unschooled, perhaps, but not uneducated.

We have been taught (that is, schooled) in this country to think of “success” as synonymous with, or at least dependent upon, “schooling,” but historically that isn’t true in either an intellectual or a financial sense. And plenty of people throughout the world today find a way to educate themselves without resorting to a system of compulsory secondary schools that all too often resemble prisons. Why, then, do Americans confuse education with just such a system? What exactly is the purpose of our public schools?

Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:
1) To make good people.
2) To make good citizens.
3) To make each person his or her personal best.

These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education’s mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling’s true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not

to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim.. . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.

Because of Mencken’s reputation as a satirist, we might be tempted to dismiss this passage as a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia. And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern.

The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it. William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch’s 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann’s “Seventh Annual Report” to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here. That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington’s aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German- speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws. But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens – all in order to render the populace “manageable.”

 

It was from James Bryant Conant – president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century – that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling. Without Conant, we would probably not have the same style and degree of standardized testing that we enjoy today, nor would we be blessed with gargantuan high schools that warehouse 2,000 to 4,000 students at a time, like the famous Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Shortly after I retired from teaching I picked up Conant’s 1959 book-length essay, The Child the Parent and the State, and was more than a little intrigued to see him mention in passing that the modern schools we attend were the result of a “revolution” engineered between 1905 and 1930. A revolution? He declines to elaborate, but he does direct the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis’s 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which “one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary.”

Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever reintegrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose – the actual purpose – of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can’t test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called “the conformity function,” because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student’s proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in “your permanent record.” Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been “diagnosed,” children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits – and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin’s theory of natural selection as applied to what he called “the favored races.” In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit – with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments – clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That’s what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country. And lest you take Inglis for an isolated crank with a rather too cynical take on the educational enterprise, you should know that he was hardly alone in championing these ideas. Conant himself, building on the ideas of Horace Mann and others, campaigned tirelessly for an American school system designed along the same lines. Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, surely understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers. In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

 

There you have it. Now you know. We don’t need Karl Marx’s conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don’t conform. Class may frame the proposition, as when Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” But the motives behind the disgusting decisions that bring about these ends need not be class-based at all. They can stem purely from fear, or from the by now familiar belief that “efficiency” is the paramount virtue, rather than love, liberty, laughter, or hope. Above all, they can stem from simple greed.

There were vast fortunes to be made, after all, in an economy based on mass production and organized to favor the large corporation rather than the small business or the family farm. But mass production required mass consumption, and at the turn of the twentieth century most Americans considered it both unnatural and unwise to buy things they didn’t actually need. Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn’t have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era – marketing.

Now, you needn’t have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book Public Education in the United States, Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley – who was dean of Stanford’s School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant’s friend and correspondent at Harvard – had written the following in the 1922 edition of his book Public School Administration: “Our schools are . . . factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned.. . . And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.”

It’s perfectly obvious from our society today what those specifications were. Maturity has by now been banished from nearly every aspect of our lives. Easy divorce laws have removed the need to work at relationships; easy credit has removed the need for fiscal self-control; easy entertainment has removed the need to learn to entertain oneself; easy answers have removed the need to ask questions. We have become a nation of children, happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults. We buy televisions, and then we buy the things we see on the television. We buy computers, and then we buy the things we see on the computer. We buy $150 sneakers whether we need them or not, and when they fall apart too soon we buy another pair. We drive SUVs and believe the lie that they constitute a kind of life insurance, even when we’re upside-down in them. And, worst of all, we don’t bat an eye when Ari Fleischer tells us to “be careful what you say,” even if we remember having been told somewhere back in school that America is the land of the free. We simply buy that one too. Our schooling, as intended, has seen to it.

Now for the good news. Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its tricks and traps are fairly easy to avoid. School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they’ll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology – all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone, and they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired and quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more meaningful life, and they can.

First, though, we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants. Don’t let your own have their childhoods extended, not even for a day. If David Farragut could take command of a captured British warship as a preteen, if Thomas Edison could publish a broadsheet at the age of twelve, if Ben Franklin could apprentice himself to a printer at the same age (then put himself through a course of study that would choke a Yale senior today), there’s no telling what your own kids could do. After a long life, and thirty years in the public school trenches, I’ve concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven’t yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.

09/2003 Harper’s Magazine.

John Taylor Gatto is a former New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year and the author, most recently, of The Underground History of American Education. He was a participant in the Harper’s Magazine forum “School on a Hill,” which appeared in the September 2001 issue. You can find his web site here.<

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Watch John Taylor Gatto explaining how he came about Inglis’ texts.
“The Six Purposes of Schooling” – John Taylor Gatto

Agenda ID2020: The Diabolical Agenda within the Agenda. “Genetically Modified Humanity”

“A Wakeup Call to the World” – this is what Dr. Carrie Madej calls the hidden agenda within the barely talked about ID2020.

What is envisaged is a “genetically modified humanity” (GMH) so as to better control, command the world population, or what’s left of it, once the Gates Agenda has been implemented.

Let that NEVER happen!

See for yourself, Dr. Carrie Madej’s presentation – 21 min. video (17 August 2020). Transhumanism – “Human 2.0”? – A Wakeup Call to the World, Nanotechnology implanted in your cells – and a genetically modified human DNA.

https://ugetube.com/watch/quot-human-2-0-quot-a-wake-up-call-to-the-world-dr-carrie-madej_UrX99t4oKdZmCZG.html

For those who don’t know yet Bill Gates and his intentions – you may also want to watch his 2010 TedTalk, in Southern California, called “Innovating to Zero”. In it he says unmistakably, “If we do a real good job vaccinating, we may reduce the world population by 10% to 15%”. Watch for yourself.

The Gates TedTalk coincides with the launching of the infamous Rockefeller Report 2010 which planned and predicted the so-called “Lockstep Scenario” in which we – humanity of 193 countries – are marching, in lockstep, to insane orders.

Under this “Lockstep Scenario” the world is losing thousands, if not millions of lives – not so much due to the covid-19 virus, but to the impacts of the closing down of the global economy, social engineering and tyranny which are being imposed on the world, on 193 countries (all UN member states) all at once – no escaping.

You may also watch this 4 min. video of Bill Gates Briefing to CIA – How the Vaccine will Modify Behavior. Already 15 years ago a sinister agenda was under preparation.

Fear is the name of the game. Where it is no longer fear of the corona virus, it is fear from the authorities’ draconian implementation measures, lockdown, destruction of the world economy, of millions of livelihoods lost, of countless victims of famine, extreme poverty, despair, suicide – and fear of what is still to come – there is no end in sight.

The end is in our hands. In the hands of the People. We have to resist in masses. We have to roll out a heart- and conscious-felt movement, like the one that took place in Berlin on 1 August and mobilized 1.3 million people. A new one is planned for 29 August, 2020 – also in Berlin – a Peace Demo – protest against Germany’s – and the world leaders’ (sic) dictatorial and out-of-law and out-of-constitution repressive measures, lockdowns – and destruction of our fundamental life support systems.

All of this, as you may realize, has nothing to do with covid, nothing to do with a virus.

The virus is just a clever idea to use an invisible enemy for instilling fear, worldwide, by this minuscule, insanely rich and psychotically power-hungry elite to put the entire world population to its knees. FEAR that obliterates the human immune system and may bring about a range of illnesses far worse than covid-19, including cancer, coronary diseases, diabetes – and much more.

Imagine the pressure, blackmail, corruption and outright threats that must be used against 193 world governments to act in unison, at the same time with lockdowns and tyranny, destroying their own and the world’s socioeconomic system as we knew it.

People, resist in solidarity!


Read related articles:

Agenda ID2020 of the “One World Order”: The 101 to Understanding Its Implications

By Peter Koenig and Dr. Vernon Coleman, August 17, 2020

The Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”

By Peter Koenig, August 14, 2020


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; New Eastern Outlook (NEO); RT; Countercurrents, Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press; The Saker Blog, the and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Peter Koenig, Global Research, 2020

Retired Nurse Blows The Whistle On Attempted Murder By Government Decree

Last week I was contacted my an ex-nurse, who is the son of a retired nurse of 32 years, about what he alleged to be an attempt to murder his mother.

Over the course of the last 48 hours, I have thrice spoken to her [and her devoted husband] about the traumatic ordeal she has survived, involving a despicable and callous attempt to murder her with a cocktail of morphine, statins, neglect. malice and deception.

Here lies a summary of the facts, which the seventy two year old whistle-blower, Janet Ainley [formerly Atkinson], and her husband, Harvey Ainley, delivered to me, with regard to the crimes committed by senior staff on the Team Ward of Wye Valley NHS Hereford County Hospital, who were acting in accordance with government policy.

The powerful credibility of this testimony is not only bolstered by Janet’s 32 years working as an enrolled nurse at staff nurse level, since she also served 23 years on employment tribunals dealing with complex human rights issues and labour laws.

In addition to having been UNISON trade union organiser for her region and twice being elected mayor of Leominster in Hertfordshire, with a completely unblemished record of public service, which is rarer than hen’s teeth in the current epoch.

Everything Janet claims in her backstory, save for her years as an employment tribunal panelist, are confirmed in this Hereford Times article from 05/06/2003.

Cancer Treatment

Not long after the lockdown measures were imposed, Janet was admitted into a private hospital for a rectal cancer investigation. Following which she was transferred to the oncology ward at Cheltenham General Hospital for out-patient radiotherapy, which finished in June 2020.

However, because she suffered chronic sickness and blisters all over the radiated area, causing severe bleeding and intense pain, her family doctor prescribed patches for her arm, which administered the minimum dose of heavy duty pain-killing drug, morphine.

In addition, Janet was prescribed liquid morphine, which she was instructed to use, in the event that the dose from the patch was not strong enough. However, on the only occasion she took the smallest dose of the liquid possible, she had a major adverse reaction.

Within just a few hours, Janet felt all the symptoms of being anesthetized by the heavy opiate and lost control of her body, before suffering from prolonged psychotropic hallucinations and memory holes.

Shortly afterwards, she had a blood test and her potassium level was found to be dangerously high. Since Janet is also insulin dependent, she was admitted on to the Team Ward at Wye Valley NHS Hereford County Hospital, for observation and treatment.

Janet consented to hospitalization on the understanding that her husband, Harvey, had informed the hospital that liquid morphine had proven to cause a severe adverse reaction and should not be prescribed to her again, under any circumstances.

Not only did he make that perfectly clear to the staff on the ward, he did so on a daily basis throughout Janet’s five day stay.

No Duty of Care Fulfilled

From the moment Janet entered the hospital, everything felt wrong.

Firstly, Harvey was refused entry by hostile security staff, when he was trying to deliver everything his wife would need, including her wheelchair, without which she was immobile.

Eventually, somebody came to meet him at the door to pick up her things, but they wouldn’t let him in to see her or tell him what was going on inside the hospital. When he finally managed to get somebody on the end of the intercom from the Team Ward, he stressed to a young receptionist that morphine must not be administered.

However, if he had been allowed on to the ward he would have seen that Janet was almost immediately subdued with enough morphine and statins to make her violently ill with diarrhea, cause her to drift in and out of consciousness, slow down her breathing dramatically and make her dangerously dehydrated.

Even when she was drifting in and out of consciousness, Janet was still very aware of the fact that, save for those she considered to be junior staff, there was no duty of care being fulfilled on the ward.

Moreover, she felt like there was very little, if any, concern shown for her well being by the senior staff. If anything, she felt malice from at least one of the experienced nurses on the ward.

Gross Negligence

Meanwhile, Harvey called the hospital incessantly for three days, during which time he was constantly fobbed off by every member of staff he talked to, none of whom informed him about the condition of his wife’s deteriorating health. Each time he repeated that they must not give Janet morphine.

Nevertheless, for increasingly longer periods each day, Janet was left on her own in a private room on the ward, where she was suffering from chronic sickness because of the morphine and statins her body was evidently being pumped with against her will.

This gradually started shutting down the respiratory function of a woman already suffering from very low blood pressure, hypoglycemia and radiation sickness.

In fact, she was left so long without any care that she had to scream like a banshee, until a few of the staff rushed in with more than minor irritation at being asked to do their jobs.

As they cleaned up the mess, including some incredibly sore blistering caused by Janet’s recent course of radiotherapy, the nurse she accuses of malice deliberately burst one of the blisters on her back, then appeared to be smirking about the pain she had just caused.

Had Janet not been so drugged into passivity, the nurse in question would have felt the wrath of a woman who has more than three decades experience in nursing, as well as more than two decades as panel member in employment tribunals, who knows all about human rights issues and the duty of care incumbent upon every member of NHS staff.

She was even forced to inject herself with her own emergency supply of insulin, after the staff repeatedly failed to administer her daily requirement. Had she not been so diligent, she would simply not have survived to blow the whistle on the crimes committed against her.

Do Not Resuscitate Notice

A consultant came to visit Janet’s ward after three days, with two senior matrons and five of their minions. None of them showed her the slightest bit of compassion, knowing that she was still heavily subdued with the morphine she expressly denied her consent to be given before being admitted on to the ward.

They callously tried to persuade her that her life was coming to an end and that she should sign a Do Not Resuscitate Notice, no doubt intended to be applied once the morphine and statins dose was increased enough to bring on respiratory failure or a coma.

Needless to say, Janet refused to sign the DNR notice, despite continuous further attempts to persuade her by other members of senior staff, some of whom told her that the continuation of her life would be a burden upon her family and the NHS.

Family Intervention

At the end of his patience, Harvey called the family doctor to express his serious concern about not knowing what was happening to his wife. In truth, he was certain she would die if they failed to act decisively.

He explained that he had managed to talk to Janet on the phone for a few minutes, twice a day, for the five days she had been on the ward, but he knew that the only time she had ever been so incoherent was after taking liquid morphine, just before she was admitted into hospital.

The family doctor contacted the ward and told them that there were serious concerns about Janet, who would be much better off being cared for at home by her husband.

This quickly led to Janet discharging herself from the hospital, since when she has been cared for by Harvey at home, during which time her health has greatly improved every day, after deteriorating every moment she spent in hospital.

Curious Discharge

The nature of Janet’s discharge was curious, to say the least, because it was formally objected to by the senior staff on the ward, who strongly advised that she should remain hospitalized, to manage the treatment of a tumor in her liver which did not actually exist.

Furthermore, the discharge was conditional upon the hospital providing all the necessary equipment for home care, including an orthopedic bed and the prescribed medication.

However, Janet and her husband were somewhat shocked when eight senior medical professionals they had never met, arrived without notice at their home, under the pretext of making sure it was fit for home care.

Suspicious Omission

Nevertheless, the copious discharge notes they were given confirm that morphine and statins were administered without discussion or consent, but morphine has be crossed out by hand, with “side effects” being written alongside it.

Firstly, morphine is routinely used on cancer wards to relieve pain, in addition to being given to patients deemed to be travelling down an ‘end of life pathway’, which is where the senior staff were clearly attempting to lead Janet against her will.

Secondly, the side effects she suffered during the five days she was in hospital were identical to those she suffered after taking liquid morphine, just before being admitted on to the ward.

Thirdly, after Janet was discharged, the hospital sent her a job lot of the medication they prescribed for her home care – a case of glass ampules, full of the type of morphine that is only ever injected.

Why would the senior staff on the cancer ward prescribe morphine injections after Janet’s discharge, if they weren’t administering them while she was in hospital?

The only logical answer is that they would not have done so, in which case:

Why did the consultant prescribe morphine without Janet’s consent, after Harvey repeatedly stressed that they must not do so?

The most likely answer to that question is that it was a matter of COVID-1984 government policy.

The Elements of A Heinous Crime

In summary of what Janet and Harvey are alleging against the senior staff on the ward:

1. She was denied all forms of care due to her, as a retired taxpayer who paid into the system her whole working life.

2. She was subdued against her will by morphine and statins, which are routinely given to patients suffering from cancer, in increasingly larger amounts, more often than not leading to respiratory failure or a coma.

3. She was the victim of a concerted attempt to procure her signature on a DNR notice, when she was suffering the ill effects of morphine and statins being administered without her knowledge or consent.

4. She was the victim of an attempt to kill her with prescribed drugs and neglect, which only failed because she had the experience and knowledge to realise what was happening to her and because her husband took action before it was too late.

5. She strongly suspects that the motive which propelled the attempted murderers was the aim of strictly adhering to government lockdown policy of denying care to the over-60’s and facilitating as many premature deaths as possible, in the name of ‘the greater good’.

In other words, Janet and Harvey allege that it was an attempt to murder her, under the authority of a silent but deadly government decree that everybody over sixty is an unnecessary drain on national resources.

More Damning Evidence of Genocide

This damning testimony is the flip-side of the highly censored deposition of the anonymous NHS consultant from a big Surrey hospital, where the same kind of crimes against humanity are expected of all staff, on the threat of never working again in their chosen professions, if they breathe a word of it on social media or to the press.

However, many other healthcare workers are now also coming forward in corroboration of the same or similar allegations of genocidal government policy, as well as the setting aside of medical ethics, the law and morality.

In essence, this is what they are being told behind closed doors:

“It’s for the greater good, so just mark it down as a COVID death and keep your mouth shut.”

Nevertheless, it is through the courageous actions of people like Janet and Harvey that many more will be inspired to speak out, until enough people know about these crimes, to guarantee an end to the genocide being perpetrated, once and for all.

In the meantime, Janet and Harvey have agreed to provide a witness statement to Simon Dolan, in the event that would assist him in his on-going battle to have the lockdown regulations which authorised these crimes struck out as the treacherous decrees they most certainly are.

It is also Janet’s intention to bring criminal proceedings against the accused, so they can answer to their crimes before a jury; as well as making a civil damages claim for the injury, harm, damage and loss incurred at the hands of plainly murderous government policy.

We need to get the word out fast, so please share this post far and wide, copy and paste it to your page and send it to all your contacts, preferably before the censors block it to stop it going viral.

#KeepBritainFree #MagnaCarta2020 #EndGenocideNow

We Are Prisoners of War

Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA
The politicians and the psychologists are running what they think is a clever game. They are trying to confuse us by changing the laws and giving very little warning.
I hope, for example, that viewers took note of my advice not to take a holiday abroad this summer. Those who flew off to Spain and suddenly found themselves having to go into quarantine for two weeks will wish they’d gone to Bridlington instead.
We have to remember that there isn’t anyone in the Conservative Government who could remove the childproof top from a bottle of aspirin tablets. They aren’t the brightest of God’s creatures and most of them have IQs smaller than their hat size. The armies of scientists, mathematical modellers and psychologists and lunatics let out of the asylum for the duration, are screwing up our world with the sort of determination you might expect of a bunch of hooray Henrys trying to put toothpaste on their own toothbrushes or, heaven forbid, tie their own shoe laces.
Prince Charles, enthusiastic climate change nutter and aficionado of the Global Reset, will know what I mean about the toothpaste on the toothbrush. He is said to have always had a valet to do that for him so the stuff would doubtless be on his shoes and the ceiling if he had to try and do it all by himself. And he’d probably strangle himself if he tried to tie his own shoelaces – thereby proving that there is plenty of mileage in the old adage, much favoured by my Aunt Agatha, who once worked as a Lady in Waiting in one of the European monarchies: `There’s no tosser like a Royal tosser’.
The chaos our would be leaders are deliberately creating is being helped along by the fact that up in Scotland the Sturgeon woman is doing everything she can to ensure that everyone realises that Scotland is not the same as England. The bloke who claims to run Wales, and whose name I cannot for the life of me remember and can’t be bothered to look up because to be honest who gives a damn, seems to be doing much the same thing.
So, I discovered the other day that whereas blood donors in England must wear masks at all times, or they won’t be allowed to give blood, the people in Wales who are generous enough to offer half an armful of blood must remove their masks for safety reasons so that if they go pale and start to faint this can be spotted.
I have to say the Welsh theory makes far more sense than the one being favoured in England.
I have no idea what the law is in Scotland at the moment. I wouldn’t mind betting, however, that it will be something different to the laws in England and Wales. And probably something a little barking. Maybe in Scotland blood donors have to wear a Tam O’Shanter over their faces, or wear a kilt in the Sturgeon tartan and pull it up over the faces as they are being phlebotomised.
You would have a job to find a better example of the lunatic way this whole psy op is being managed.
No one can possibly take such madness seriously. I know we have to take them seriously because they’re trying to take over the world but honestly it’s difficult not to laugh at them all.
Everywhere I look I find evidence that governments are talking absolute gibberish – and treating their citizens the way you might expect them to treat a full blooded enemy.
Look at what has happened in Quatar for example. Quatar is one of the richest nations on earth but when they introduced a contact tracing app many low earning workers had to borrow money in order to buy the sort of new, up to the minute phones needed to download the app.
And why did they bother buying the phones and downloading the app?
Simple. Not having the official app installed on your phone could lead to a fine of up to $55,000 or three years in prison.
The app, developed by a private firm, requires access to the files on the phone and permanent use of the GPS and Bluetooth.
And the police have apparently been stopping motorists to check that they had their phones with them and that the required App was up and running.
And that created a problem for some citizens who didn’t have the phone required to run the app.
They didn’t dare leave their homes to buy one in case they were stopped on their way to the phone shop.
Three years in prison for not having an app on your phone.
Back in the UK mask wearing has become the law and there are still politicians and scientists telling us that we should wear masks to save the community. Be a local hero by wearing a mask.
But there is absolutely no decent science to prove that masks are of any help.
Indeed, on the contrary, the evidence shows that they probably do more harm than good. I have already detailed the evidence about masks in several videos but here is another piece of scientific evidence.
At the beginning of what was a hoax and has now morphed into a crime it was decided that there was no evidence that wearing a mask would help healthy individuals avoid infections with viruses such as covid 19.
On 6th April the World Health Organisation said that there was no evidence that masks would help. Numerous medical experts repeated that.
There has been no evidence since then that could have persuaded the WHO to change its collective mind. I think the change was political.
Indeed, I have been reminded of yet another paper, published in the BMJ Open in 2015, which I quoted some time ago and which seems to suggest cloth masks are, shall we be polite and say, offer limited protection against respiratory infection.
The study, led by the University of New South Wales, but covering medical workers in Vietnam studied 1,607 workers, some wearing heavy duty medical masks, some wearing ordinary cloth masks and some just wearing usual hospital protection. The study showed that the subjects wearing cloth masks had higher rates of infection than anyone – including the control group. The researchers also measured the masks to see how many particles got through – they found that cloth masks allowed 97% of particles through.
And as I have shown in other videos on mask wearing the evidence shows that wearing a mask can lead to illness and, possibly, worse.
As I showed in my video about the BBC’s fact checkers, masks can cause real health problems. Hypoxia, low blood oxygen levels, is a very serious problem which should not be dismissed.
You’d have to be an idiot not to be able to see that masks do far more harm than good.
The only possible conclusion, of course, is that we are being pushed into wearing masks for simply political reasons. Masks are part of the oppression.
Why, then aren’t all doctors screaming out about the pointlessness and danger of forcing people to wear masks for many hours a day?
So why are so many doctors so silent?
Fear and cowardice, I am afraid.
Doctors have been ordered to keep quiet about anything relating to coronavirus which is critical of the Government’s line.
This is pretty well a global clampdown.
If doctors had found the courage to ignore the orders they were given and to speak out, in order to protect their patients and save lives, then this whole criminal enterprise would have been over weeks ago.
But doctors have feebly followed the philosophy `keep your head down’ and `don’t rock the boat’. Or, to stick in another piece of nauseating, nautical self-protection: `don’t make any waves’.
It surprises me, and saddens me enormously, that members of the medical and nursing professions have accepted this takeover of our lives.
Even if they don’t think there is anything sinister behind what is happening they must by now realise that the whole response to the coronavirus has been wrong.
Hospitals have been closed. Patients with cancer and other serious disorders have been denied essential treatment. Thousands of patients in care homes have been murdered as a result of inept policies and management. Schools have been closed and the lives of millions of children have been ruined. They know that is no exaggeration. The government has been employing brain washing techniques to control us and to create a fake affection for the health service.
Doctors and nurses all know this is true. They know that the clever three word, three phrase slogans, the encouragement to take part in weekly clapping sessions and the advertising were all designed to build up the fear and to create a sense of national obedience.
Medical doctors and nurses know that the spin doctors have been doing everything they can to exaggerate the number of deaths. Patients with the coronavirus were listed as having died of it.
If the truth about what has happened ever emerges then the medical and nursing professions are going to be embarrassed and humiliated to put it kindly. People in both professions are going to go to jail, I think.
It is time to insist that hospitals and clinics are opened immediately without any of the social distancing which every thinking person knows was never necessary.
The media has found many curious heroes in the last three months, mostly as part of the propaganda process I’m afraid. Now is the time for the professions to earn their plaudits. The nation needs to have its health service back. It would be a big step forward on the road back to real normality – and it would destroy the not so hidden agenda of the United Nations, Bill Gates and company.
It hurts me to have to say this but I have nothing but contempt for the doctors and nurses who have kept silent through all this. Their cowardice in refusing to stand up to the politicians and the bureaucrats has already led to millions of deaths worldwide. And things are getting worse by the day.
`I’m just doing my job,’ say the silent ones. `I have my family to think of.’
Where have we heard that before?
And no doctor today is going to be executed for speaking out.
It isn’t just doctors who have betrayed us, of course.
The majority of the professions have done so.
Teachers betrayed their pupils and their responsibilities to them by insisting on absurd and inhuman social distancing rules. And I gather that some are now demanding that pupils wear masks when schools finally reopen in the autumn. There is absolutely no scientific reason for pupils to be required to wear masks or to obey any daft social distancing rules. If teachers would make the effort to look at the science they would realise this.
The clergy have betrayed us too. By closing churches and by agreeing not to hold services they have betrayed their parishioners and their Gods. Now their leaders are negotiating for a universal global religion which makes as much sense as combining all sports into one. Can you imagine the fuss if it were suggested that football, cricket, golf, tennis, hockey and so on should all be combined into a single sport? Well, that’s the madness being promoted by Tony Blair and senior churchmen.
The people who have come out of this with my great respect are the postmen and women, the delivery drivers, the rubbish collectors, the shop assistants and the transport workers – all of whom have done their jobs throughout.
Henry David Thoreau has long been one of my favourite authors. He is best known, of course, for Walden but I have been re-reading his short book `On Civil Disobedience’ which, not surprisingly, contains much advice which seems well suited to our peculiar, current circumstances.
Here’s one quote: `It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have the right to assume, is to do at any time what I think is right.’
And then there is this: `Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.’
And finally, for now: `All men recognise the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now.’
But, of course, it is the case now.
We have to stand up to our tyrannical governments.
And If it doesn’t happen soon, it will be too damned late.
Copyright Vernon Coleman July 2020
`Tickety Tonk’ is the seventh of Vernon Coleman’s diaries. It is available as a paperback and an eBook from Amazon.
Vernon Coleman’s book `Stuffed!’ is subtitled: `Why there is now no hope for England and the English; why we are doomed to generations of penury, depression and social strife; who is to blame and why the only solution to our nation’s woes is a revolution’. `Stuffed!’ was first published in 2012.

Billionaire Pervert Jeffrey Epstein and His Famous Friends: A Primer

Who is Jeffrey Epstein? A billionaire pervert, yes, but also so much more: a friend to Bill Clinton, a science blogger, an ex-convict, the possessor—allegedly—of an egg-shaped penis. Let us guide you through his life and crimes.

Epstein, the billionaire convicted in 2008 of soliciting an underage prostitute, is back in the news, popping up in disturbing news reports concerning Prince Andrew, Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, and former president Bill Clinton—including a lengthy Gawker report published today.

But 2008 was a long time ago. If you need a refresher—or a primer—read on.

Who is Jeffrey Epstein?

Jeffrey Epstein is a 61-year-old ex-banker who trades his time between Paris; Palm Beach, Florida; rural New Mexico; and the U.S. Virgin Islands. He was born in Brooklyn, attended the Dalton School and N.Y.U., worked at a financial firm called Bear Stearns for six years in the 1970s and 80s, and struck out with his own financial firm in 1982.

Epstein’s net worth is rumored to be, or have been at one point, in the billions—not just rich, but “top-out-of-sight” rich, so immensely wealthy that he and his friends are almost never required to interact with members of the general public. And what friends he has: Epstein traveled in elite circles of finance, politics, and media; as the flight manifests published today by Gawker show, he was quite literally jet-setting with everyone from Chris Tucker to Bill Clinton.

And then, in 2008, at the age of 55, Epstein was arrested for soliciting an underage prostitute in Palm Beach, Florida. He pled guilty to the charges, and is currently a registered sex offender—but received an unusually light sentence for his conviction, given the amount of evidence prosecutors had gathered to indict him. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, but ended up doing only 13 months, which he served in a private section of the Palm Beach Jail, whose warden permitted Epstein to leave the premises for up to 16 hours at a time.

While he was only convicted of solicitation of a minor, Epstein is alleged to have recruited and sexually groomed dozens of underage girls, most of them in the Palm Beach area. Epstein has reached over two dozen out-of-court settlements with young women who have accused him of prostituting them to his friends and clients.

The revelation of Epstein’s crime inspired widespread and still-ongoing speculation about whether he had made these girls available to his powerful friends—and if so, whether Epstein had blackmailed any of them.

Why is Epstein back in the news?

On December 30, 2014, two women—identified as Jane Doe #3, whose legal name is Virginia Roberts, and Jane Doe #4—submitted a filing related to a six-year-old federal lawsuit against the United States government for violating the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, a statute that codifies the rights of victims involved in crimes litigated at the federal level.

The initial complaint, filed by two other anonymous women (Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) in 2008 at the U.S. District Court in Florida, alleged that they were the victims of crimes perpetrated by Epstein—namely sex trafficking, enticing a minor to commit prostitution, and related interstate wire fraud.

In their December 30 filing, Roberts and Jane Doe #4 mounted similar allegations, but also alleged the involvement of two previously unmentioned parties: lawyer Alan Dershowitz and U.K. royal Prince Andrew, brother of Prince Charles and son of Queen Elizabeth.

Who is Alan Dershowitz?

Alan Dershowitz, a.k.a. “Dersh,” is a 76-year-old lawyer and retired Harvard Law School professor. He has represented or advised a number of celebrities and other plaintiffs in high-profile cases, including football player O.J. Simpson (who in 1993 was accused—and later acquitted—of murdering of his wife). He is one of the most prominent American supporters of the State of Israel, and consistently defends the Israeli government’s harsh policies toward the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank.

Dershowitz is a friend of Epstein’s, and advised him during the initial trial for underage solicitation. To assist Epstein, Dershowitz attempted to discredit his accusers by scraping their social media profiles for evidence that they consumed drugs and drank alcohol.

What are the allegations against Dershowitz and Andrew?

Virginia Roberts’ allegations are fairly detailed, but her primary accusations concerning these two men are:

  1. Epstein forced her, when she was underage, to have sexual relations with both Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz in a variety of locales;
  2. Dershowitz personally witnessed Epstein coercing underage girls to have sex with him and his “co-conspirators”;
  3. While he was advising Epstein, Dershowitz designed his client’s non-prosecution agreement (NPA) to grant immunity (from future prosecution) to himself and other alleged co-conspirators of Epstein.

What are Jane Doe #4’s allegations?

Jane Doe #4 alleges that she was “repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein” in Palm Beach, Florida when she was 16 years old. Jane Doe #4 says Epstein lured her to his mansion where he assaulted her by offering to pay $300 for a massage.

How have Dershowitz and Andrew responded to the allegations?

Yes. In a statement denying the allegations against Prince Andrew, Buckingham Palace asserted that “any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue.”

Dershowitz issued an even stronger statement: “I categorically and unequivocally, without any reservations, deny that there was any sexual contract of any kind between me and any of the Jane Does connected with Jeffrey Epstein, whether underage or not.” He said he intends to seek the disbarment of the accusers’ lawyers as well.

Did either Virginia Roberts or Jane Doe #4 allege anything else?

Yes. Besides Prince Andrew and Dershowitz, Roberts claims that she was forced to have sex with a friend of Epstein’s named Jean Luc Brunel. She also claims that another friend of Epstein’s, a woman named Ghislane Maxwell, recruited, groomed, and sexually abused underage girls for him—turning her victims into “sex slaves” for Epstein and his friends to use whenever they wanted.

Who is Jean Luc Brunel?

An alleged “sex-trafficking model scout” friend of Epstein who was investigated by the FBI for allegations that he had recruited underage girls through his modeling agency, MC2, and then handed them off to Epstein. Prosecutors apparently failed to substantiate those allegations, however, because Brunel was never charged with any crime.

Who is Ghislane Maxwell?

You may have heard about Ghislane Maxwell, too. A British philanthropist and society figure—her father was the flamboyant Czech-born English publisher and member of parliament Robert Maxwell—her relationship with Epstein was detailed in Vanity Fair article in 2003, which alluded to Maxwell’s role in arranging for young women to attend lavish parties thrown by Epstein. Earlier this month, she vehemently denied any role in grooming or abusing underage girls for Epstein.

How many people were in Epstein’s circle?

A lot. Hundreds. That’s judging from the number of people who were close enough to Epstein to have flown, often on more than one occasion, on his private jet. The only thing more startling than the sheer size of Epstein’s network is the stature and power of its members.

Who else did Epstein spend time with?

As you can see in the flight manifests Gawker published today, Epstein had ties to former president Bill Clinton, the actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker, the director Woody Allen, Harvard economist Larry Summers, and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. And that’s just for starters: Over the past decade, hundreds of articles have been published about Epstein’s connections among the global elite. And hundreds more will likely be written.

What does Epstein’s penis look like?

An egg, allegedy.

What happens next?

It’s difficult to say. Many of Epstein’s friends apparently overlooked, or turned a blind eye toward, his exploitation of underage women—to say nothing of those said to have actively assisted in recruiting and grooming them for Epstein and his clientele. This is another way of saying, of course, that the story of Jeffrey Epstein is unlikely to go away any time soon, because so much of it remains untold.


Email the author: trotter@gawker.com · Photos via AP and Getty

Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire’s Sex Jet

Nick Bryant 01/22/15

Bill Clinton took repeated trips on the ” Lolita Express“—the private passenger jet owned by billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein—with an actress in softcore porn movies whose name appears in Epstein’s address book under an entry for “massages,” according to flight logbooks obtained by Gawker and published today for the first time. The logs also show that Clinton shared more than a dozen flights with a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually service Epstein and his friends and acted as a “potential co-conspirator” in his crimes.

Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 in Florida to one count of soliciting underage girls for sex (and one count of adult solicitation), for which he served just over a year in county jail. But sprawling local, state, and federal investigations into the eccentric investor’s habit of paying teen girls for “massages”—sessions during which he would allegedly penetrate girls with sex toys, demand to be masturbated, and have intercourse—turned up a massive network of victims, including 35 female minors whom federal prosecutors believed he’d sexually abused. He has reportedly settled lawsuits from more than 30 “Jane Doe” victims since 2008; the youngest alleged victim was 12 years old at the time of her abuse.


Who is Jeffrey Epstein? Click here for our primer about the billionaire pedophile.


Epstein’s predatory past, and his now-inconvenient relationships with a Who’s Who of the Davos set, hit the front pages again earlier this month when one of his victims, Virginia Roberts, claimed in a federal court filing that Epstein recruited her as a “sex slave” at the age of 15 and “sexually trafficked [her] to politically-connected and financially-powerful people,” including Prince Andrew and attorney Alan Dershowitz. (The latter, the filing claimed, had sex with the victim “on private planes”; Dershowitz vigorously denies the charges, as does Prince Andrew.)

Two female associates of Epstein—the socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein’s former assistant Sarah Kellen—have been repeatedly accused in court filings of acting as pimps for him, recruiting and grooming young girls into their network of child sex workers, and frequently participating in sex acts with them. Kellen in particular was believed by detectives in the Palm Beach Police Department, which was the first to start unraveling the operation, to be so deeply involved in the enterprise that they prepared a warrant for her arrest as an accessory to molestation and sex with minors. In the end, she was never arrested or charged, and federal prosecutors granted her immunity in a 2007 non-prosecution agreement that described her as a “potential co-conspirator” in sex trafficking.

Maxwell, the daughter of the late media mogul Robert Maxwell, has been accused by Roberts of photographing Epstein’s victims “in sexually explicit poses and [keeping] the child pornography on her computer,” and “engag[ing] in lesbian sex with the underage females she procured for Epstein.” She has denied the allegations in the past.

Clinton shared Epstein’s plane with Kellen and Maxwell on at least 11 flights in 2002 and 2003—before any of the allegations against them became public—according to the pilots’ logbooks, which have surfaced in civil litigation surrounding Epstein’s crimes. In January 2002, for instance, Clinton, his aide Doug Band, and Clinton’s Secret Service detail are listed on a flight from Japan to Hong Kong with Epstein, Maxwell, Kellen, and two women described only as “Janice” and “Jessica.” One month later, records show, Clinton hopped a ride from Miami to Westchester on a flight that also included Epstein, Maxwell, Kellen, and a woman described only as “one female.”

In 2002, as New York has reported, Clinton recruited Epstein to make his plane available for a week-long anti-poverty and anti-AIDS tour of Africa with Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, billionaire creep Ron Burkle, Clinton confidant Gayle Smith (who now serves on Barack Obama’s National Security Council), and others. The logs from that trip show that Maxwell, Kellen, and a woman named Chauntae Davis joined the entourage for five days.

That last name—Chauntae Davies—shows up elsewhere in papers unearthed by the various investigations into Epstein’s sex ring: his little black book. Davies is one of 27 women listed in the book under an entry for “Massage- California,” one of six lists of massage girls Epstein kept in various locales, with a total of 160 names around the globe, many of them underage victims.

Today, Davies is an actress with credits including HBO’s Enlightened. In 2002, she was 23. According to her IMDB profile, in addition to her apparent massage work for Epstein, she landed a role that year as a “lingerie model” in Exposed, a movie produced by a softcore porn company called MRG Entertainment. (Other MRG films include Deviant Desires and Carnal Confessions; the company has since been purchased by Larry Flynt. Exposed, appropriately enough, was directed by a pseudonymous auteur who went by the name of Clinton J. Williams.) Davies’s role in Clinton’s flying AIDS-prevention circus isn’t clear, and though her LinkedIn page claims a certificate in Swedish massage, there is no evidence that she ever actually treated Epstein to one. Reached via e-mail, she said only, “I really am not interested in being slandered in the media for having known this person a time ago. Some of the things being said are not things I have information on.”

Clinton’s office did not respond to an inquiry. Kellen and Maxwell did not return messages.

Other prominent figures whose names appear in the logs, which document globe-spanning flights on Epstein’s planes during various periods from 1997 to 2005, include Dershowitz, former Treasury Secretary and Harvard president Larry Summers, Naomi Campbell, and scientist Stephen Pinker.

The logs also cast doubt on public statements made by Dershowitz, who has been vigorously downplaying his relationship with Epstein since Roberts levied her accusations against him. Dershowitz has attempted to paint himself as a mere passing acquaintance of Epstein, suggesting to the American Lawyer last week that he only began hanging around the billionaire to fundraise for his school, Harvard.

Q. From what I’ve read, your relationship with Epstein seemed chummy. You socialized with him and you and your family stayed at his various homes. Isn’t it a bad idea for a lawyer to be so close to a notorious client?

A. Let me tell you how I met him. I was introduced to him by Lady de Rothschild as an academic colleague. He was friendly with Larry Summers… He was in the process of contributing $50 million to Harvard for evolutionary biology.

Epstein did indeed pledge a substantial donation to Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, though it was $30 million, not $50 million. The first installment of $6.5 million was announced in 2003. And Epstein was indeed friendly with Summers, who assumed the mantle of president at Harvard in July 2001. The clear implication of Dershowitz’s answer is that he didn’t start hanging out with Epstein until it was in his interest to, because Epstein was the boss’ friend and was donating money to his university.

What’s more, Dershowitz told the American Lawyer, he is loyal to his wife, who is always by his side: “I’ve been married to the same woman for 28 years. She goes with me everywhere. People know that I won’t argue a case or give a speech unless my wife travels with me. This is not the profile of someone who screws around.”

But according to the flight logs, Dershowitz was close enough to Epstein to have accompanied him on a flight from Palm Beach to New Jersey’s Teterboro Airport as early as December 1997. On that flight, the pair was accompanied by a number of people, including one unidentified “female,” a “Hazel,” a “Claire,” and Maxwell.

The logs also show Dershowitz on a flight with Epstein from Bedford, Mass., to Teterboro in October 1998, and a flight from Teterboro to Martha’s Vineyard in 1999. And a 2005 trip from Massachusetts to Montreal shows him traveling with Epstein, “Tatianna,” and others.

One things the logs don’t show: Dershowitz’s wife traveling with him.

In an interview with Gawker, Dershowitz repeated his emphatic denials of ever having sexual contact with any underaged girls, and acknowledged that he first met Epstein way back in 1997. “It was just before [ Epstein confidant] Les Wexner’s 60th birthday,” Dershowitz said. “My first substantive contact with him was to fly with him to Les Wexner’s house to attend dinner with Shimon Peres and John Glenn.”

As for who else was on those flights, Dershowitz couldn’t recall. Hazel? “I don’t know.” Claire? “I have no idea.” Tatianna? “I think that was a woman in her 20s who was Epstein’s girlfriend, but I never flew with her.” The unidentified female? “That could have been my mother.”

As for why his ever-present wife didn’t appear in the flight logs by his side, Dershowitz said that she did accompany him on several Epstein-sponsored trips that don’t show up in the logs obtained by Gawker. (It is also possible that the logs, which pilots generally keep primarily to record hours of flight time, could also be incomplete or inaccurate as to the passengers.) “She travels with me all over. On occasion, she’s working or travels separately. I travel with her almost all the time, not all the time.”

One thing is for sure, though: “I have a very clear, unequivocal recollection that I was never on a plane with any young women, period.”

In the same American Lawyer interview, Dershowitz claimed that his relationship with Epstein was “entirely professional,” and that allegations that the two were “chummy” were “a total bum rap.”

Contrast that with his testimonials to Vanity Fair in a 2003, pre-pedophilia profile of Epstein:

• “Alan Dershowitz says that, as he was getting to know Epstein, his wife asked him if he would still be close to him if Epstein suddenly filed for bankruptcy. Dershowitz says he replied, ‘Absolutely. I would be as interested in him as a friend if we had hamburgers on the boardwalk in Coney Island and talked about his ideas.'”

• Dershowitz also said of Epstein: “I’m on my 20th book. . . . The only person outside my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey.”

Asked how those comments tracked with his more recent portrayal of his relationship with Epstein, Dershowitz said simply: “He was a friend with whom I talked about ideas. We never discussed women or his social life.”

If Dershowitz was a good friend to Epstein, he was a better lawyer. Along with a dream team of attorneys that included Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, and Ken Starr, he was successful in getting federal investigators not to charge Epstein with moving his victims across state lines and other associated crimes. The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein’s legal team negotiated with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida immunized all named and unnamed “potential co-conspirators” in Epstein’s child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and also any powerbrokers who may have molested them. Although Dershowitz wasn’t a signatory to the plea agreement, the latest filings in Roberts’s case against Epstein accuse Dershowitz of essentially negotiating his own immunity:

Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Epstein’s behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”. . . . Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3.

Dershowitz says the self-immunity accusation is preposterous, and that while he negotiated its broad outlines, he never read the agreement and wasn’t involved in drafting the language. Besides, he says, “If I had had sex with Virginia Roberts, which I didn’t, I wouldn’t be a co-conspirator, I’d be a perpetrator,” and thus not immune under the agreement, he told Gawker. “I did not know this woman, I did not touch this woman, and the entire story is made up out of whole cloth.”

Dershowitz has pledged to seek disbarment of Roberts’s attorneys, which include the respected former federal judge Paul Cassell, telling the American Lawyer: “Either [Cassell] will be disbarred or I will be. And if I knowingly had sex with a sex slave then I would deserve disbarment.”

Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire’s Sex Jet

Click to view all documents

Correction: Due to an editing error, this post originally confused Bedford, Mass., with Bedminster, Mass.

Nick Bryant is the author of The Franklin Scandal, the true story of a nationwide pedophile ring that pandered children to a cabal of the rich and powerful, and the co-author of Confessions of a D.C. Madam: The Politics of Sex, Lies, and Blackmail, which will be published in March. Additional reporting by J.K. Trotter and Natasha Vargas-Cooper. If you have information to share about Epstein’s activities, please email tips@gawker.com.

Top image by Jim Cooke.

%d bloggers like this: