vice | As societies get richer, they consume more resources. That also means they
generate more pollution, driving climate change and destroying natural
ecosystems.
We
need to somehow break this link between material wealth and
environmental catastrophe. That’s why financial institutions and
governments have been focused on the idea of ‘decoupling’ GDP growth
from resource use.
The
assumption is that it is possible to continue growing the global
economy while reducing our actual resource use and material footprint,
perhaps by shifting to renewable energy.
This notion has been most recently articulated in the book More From Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources—and What Happens Next,
by Andrew McAfee, principal research scientist at the MIT Sloan School
of Management. Financial and other data, McAfee argued, shows we can
actually easily reduce our material footprint while continuing to grow
our economies in a win-win scenario.
But
new scientific analysis by a group of systems scientists and economists
who have advised the United Nations seems to pull the rug out from
under this entire enterprise. The new research indicates that the
conventional approach is based on selective readings of statistical
data.
McAfee
argues, for instance, that as we are increasing wealth, the
productivity motor of capitalism is driving us to greater heights of
efficiency due to better technologies. This means we are able to make
stuff faster and smaller using less materials and in some cases less
energy. And that in turn implies we are causing less pollution. The
problem is that this story, according to the new research, ignores how
greater efficiency in certain regions or sectors is not slowing down the
overall consumption machine. Within the wider system these efficiencies
are enabling us to consume even greater quantities of resources
overall.
thelastamericanvagabond |The alleged gunmen who killed the son of Esther Salas,
the judge recently assigned to the Epstein-Deutsche Bank case, worked
for a company of corporate spies and mercenaries with ties to
intelligence and also to Deutsche Bank.
The news of the shooting of the husband and son of Esther Salas, the
judge recently assigned to oversee the Jeffrey Epstein – Deutsche Bank
case, caused shock and confusion while also bringing renewed scrutiny to
the Epstein scandal just a week after Epstein’s main co-conspirator,
Ghislaine Maxwell, was denied bail in a separate case.
The case Salas is set to oversee is a class action lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank investors who
allege that Deutsche Bank “failed to properly monitor customers that
the Bank itself deemed to be high risk, including, among others, the
convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.” The case came after the New
York state Department of Financial Services had settled with Deutsche
Bank over the bank’s failure to cut ties with Epstein-linked accounts,
resulting in Deutsche Bank paying a $150 million fine.
Deutsche Bank, unlike other financial institutions, failed to close all
of its accounts linked to Epstein until less than a month prior to his
arrest last year, even though the bank had identified him as “high
risk” years before.
Beyond the tragedy of Sunday’s shooting, which claimed the life of Salas’ only child, the quick discovery of the death of the main suspect,
Roy Den Hollander, of a “self-inflicted” gunshot to the head before he
could be arrested or questioned by authorities has led to speculation
that there is more to the official narrative of the crime than meets the
eye.
With law enforcement sources now claiming that Esther Salas was not
the intended target of the attack and some media reports now suggesting
that Den Hollander’s motive was related to his dislike of feminism, it
appears there are efforts underway to distance Sunday’s tragic shooting
from Salas’ recent assignment to the Epstein case, which occurred just four days before the tragic shooting.
The most likely reason for any such “damage control” effort lies in
the fact that both U.S. law enforcement investigations and mainstream
media reports have consistently downplayed the connections of Jeffrey
Epstein’s sexual trafficking and financial crimes to intelligence
agencies in the U.S. and Israel. Similarly, Roy Den Hollander previously
worked for a New York firm has been described as a “private CIA” with
ties to those countries’ intelligence agencies and, also, ties to
Deutsche Bank.
Fist tap Dale | This is a condensed version of the three hour phone call between survivor Maria Farmer & investigative journalist Whitney Webb. I’ve included all of their discussion relating to Mossad, Mega Group, Les Wexner, and Israel. These are the key pieces of information that the mainstream media won’t touch and is in fact complicit in keeping this decades long blackmail operation continuing. Jeffery Epstein was not the head of the snake, he was only mid management and was assigned by Israeli Intelligence to work for Ghislaine Maxwell in the 80’s, who reported to billionaire Zionist Les Wexner.
*Alan Dershowitz decided to yet again attack another Epstein victim smearing Virginia wasn't enough, so he wrote a blast piece accusing Maria Farmer of being a bigoted anti-semite because of this phone call. This is inexcusable- Maria Farmer is a victim of racism by these fake Jewish supremacists INCLUDING Alan "I kept my underwear on" Dershowitz.
She is not the racist, her captors were. She clearly says she knows its not all Jews in this call, she accuses the elite & mafia for what happened to her & her sister & the other victims. This particular EDITED video is only focusing on the Zionist/ Israeli connections in the phone call, but please take the time to hear out the full 3 hour unedited call with Whitney Webb. Maria Farmer isn't the anti-Semite, nor is Whitney Webb. Alan Dershowitz and this band of criminals hiding behind a Jewish identity to get away with their wicked crimes are the anti-semites.
https://www.blacklistednews.com/artic...
I hope you guys listen to the full unedited phone call between Farmer & Webb, because there’s a lot I didn’t include in this video.
Whitney Webb is working on writing a book that covers the intelligence aspects of the story. Keep an eye out for her book in late summer! She’s amazing!
Please feel totally free to re-upload or share this video. I provided a download link because I want to encourage people to expose the criminal Zionist network. The more the REAL story gets out there, the more likely we can bring justice to the victims and put these gangsters away! Wexner, Maxwell, Barak, Netanyahu, Rothschild, Lauder, Bronfman, and Dershowitz are all villains who have been complicit in trafficking children around the world in order to blackmail the political elite to control them for Israel’s agenda. They must be exposed!
blacklistednews | Jeffrey Epstein's former defense attorney Alan Dershowitz on Wednesday
smeared Epstein victim Maria Farmer as "anti-Semitic" while she's in the
middle of undergoing treatment for brain cancer and struggling to
survive, let alone defend herself.
As the New York Times reported
last year, Maria Farmer and her younger sister Annie were the first
people to report Epstein to the FBI and NYPD all the way back in 1996.
Dershowitz on Wednesday evening posted an article he wrote for Newsmax titled, "Key Witness in Epstein Case Made Anti-Semitic Claims,"
where he took comments of hers condemning Ghislaine Maxwell's alleged
supremacist views completely out of context and accused her of sharing
"anti-Semitic canards" that sound like they came from "The Protocols of
the Elders of Zion."
In one particularly hilarious example, Dershowitz said Farmer was
anti-Semitic for saying Epstein and Maxwell were connected to "The
Rothschilds" -- even though Dershowitz himself told Fox News' Laura
Ingraham on Fox News late last year that he was introduced to Epstein
through Lynn Forester de Rothschild!
"Farmer claimed to have evidence that the Israeli Mossad hired
Jeffrey Epstein to video tape prominent American political leaders
committing acts of pedophilia so that Israel could blackmail them into
doing their bidding," Dershowitz said, "and that the entire conspiracy
was under the protection and direction of 'The Rothschild's.'"
Dershowitz also constructed this quote of hers where he compiled multiple of her statements into one:
"They are 'Jewish supremacists'" and they are "all
connected" through a mysterious organization called MEGA, which is run
by Leslie Wexner who is "the head of the snake."
EXCLUSIVE: Married Israeli politician Ehud Barak
is seen hiding his face entering Jeffrey Epstein's NYC townhouse as bevy
of young beauties were also spotted going into mansion - despite his
claim he NEVER socialized with the pedophile and his girlshttps://t.co/wQBJDkfVzt
For 100 minutes, not a single truth was discussed outside the truth that Abraham Cooper is supremely arrogant about being in a position of strength and control, and very explicitly says as much to the slobbering, grinning, and thoroughly chastened and humiliated negroe "celebrity".
Nick
Cannon's jaws and knees must really, really hurt after a hundred
minutes of grinning, bowing and scraping before this nasty little
Brooklyn mensch.
Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary
culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be
the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”?
Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold
numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been
enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it
rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic
Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and
waving as they go, hidden in plain sight?
off-guardian | The mask-wearing phenomena is interesting on several counts; one is
that it seems to be a completely artificial concoction. Another is the
opposing idea that there is good logical argument for wearing one.
It does look as if there is a conscious manipulation of an archaic
psychological complex (the innate fear of “different” deeply seated in a
very old truth about neighboring tribes), i.e., “taking advantage of a
psychological, although illogical, propensity” in order to push along
the agenda of the manipulators — but who or what is the manipulator? I
leave that question up to the reader, and other authors, to contemplate.
We again have seen historically the manipulation of a populace to
hate “other” that is fabricated by the state. The most obvious in recent
years is the Nazi vilification of the Jews. Even more recently Muslim’s
have been similarly targeted as “other to be feared” by the US
Government. Mexicans and immigrants in general have been as well.
Many people believe that other marginalized peoples, races, people of
certain sexual orientations, other religious groups as well as women,
have been purposely and maliciously marked as “other” by the state. The
rationalization for this action generally comes under the insistence
that it is for the “good of the people.” Therefore the groups identified
as dangerous are to be avoided, chastised, abused, shamed and even
violently harmed for being the “enemy.”
This all may seem like a stretch to some people, and yes, it can be
subtle—at least a conscious and nefarious intention or agenda behind it
can be subtle. With regard to the mask-wearing/not wearing phenomena the
process has happened so quickly it is relatively easy to follow its
progress. In the beginning, mask-wearing was considered unnecessary in
the effort to minimize disease transmission.
In fact, several official reports were clear that masks simply could not prevent the tiny virus particles
to reach the inner sanctum of the human body where it would wreak
havoc—a popular analogy was the dubious efficacy of throwing dirt at a
chain-link fence in order to reach the other side. Then the tables begin
to turn, as “case” numbers began to escalate during the horrid spectre
of “the second wave” — mask-wearing became a new focus.
However, an interesting thing happened with the public. They began to take it all very personally.
Seeing someone not wearing a mask did not translate to a logical
response such as avoiding that mask-less person to lessen the
possibility of infection, but rather the response was to mark that
person as the selfish enemy who was purposefully trying to spread
disease, or at least didn’t care about that possibility. Again, it
didn’t seem that people even considered the person a physical threat,
but more an emotional one, as someone that isn’t decent.
Vilification became the weapon to attack this marked enemy with, that and shaming, as well as denigration. “They are out to destroy us, the decent people who care about life, grandma, community and what is good in the world.” That is what marking “other” is all about—identification of the enemy, either moral enemy, or physical enemy.
The eminent Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung made popular a phrase,
“participation mystique,” which had already been invented by Lévy-Brühl,
a French scholar and philosopher who lived in the early part of the
20th Century.
Roughly, and simply speaking, “participation mystique” refers to a
collective human compulsion to project an identity on to a group of
people that is largely imaginative or symbolic. This is probably where a
concept like “herd mentality” originates, or even a more common phrase
we are hearing these days, “sheeple” — people who seem to follow blindly
an official narrative.
It also applies to “conspiracy theorists,” “tin foil hat wearers,”
and in the context of this article, “selfish no-mask-wearers.” This
projection that Jung speaks of is generally unconscious, or at least the
impetus for it is. What becomes the basis for fear, hate, disgust, or
whatever other derogatory term and emotion that sputters forth when
confronting the object of the projection is again unconscious and
archaic in origin.
If any group of people can be identified as other, and conscious
manipulative propaganda from a controlling entity has always been good
at marking groups that are unsympathetic to the entity’s agenda as
“other,” then it is easy to conjure up this magic of unconscious
projection in a group as they move against another, identified and
marked, group.
realworldeconomicsreview | Ten years ago, the rich and powerful Rockefeller Foundation played
through and favorably described a scenario in which a pandemic would
lead to autocratic forms of government with total surveillance and
control of citizens. Now it has published a pandemic plan to make this
scenario a reality.
According to the preamble by the President of the Foundation, it took
two weeks to set up and edit this plan, implicating a large number of
“experts and decision-makers from academia, business, politics and
government – across industries and political ideologies” and publish it
in glossy on April 21, 2020, under the title “National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan: Pragmatic steps to reopen our workplaces and our communities”.
I became aware of this plan through a German translation of an article by Dux Morales in the Italian newspaper il manifesto about it. As I read through this my breath stood still.
Two weeks seems a very short time for such a comprehensive work with
allegedly many contributors and about 25 signers. However, the
Foundation had ten years to prepare for this moment. So it wasn’t a
hollow phrase in the 2010 publication, which already included the
“Lock-Step” pandemic response scenario, telling decision-makers in
foundations: ” Scenarios are designed to stretch our thinking about both
the opportunities and obstacles that the future might hold; they
explore, through narrative, events and dynamics that might alter,
inhibit, or enhance current trends, often in surprising ways.”.
In the current brochure, the Rockefeller Foundation proposes, along
with other recommendations, to form a Pandemic Testing Board, modelled
on the War Production Board, which was an agency of the US to supervise
and plan war production during World War II. This new powerful
technocratic council is designed to consist of nine representatives from
business, government, acadimia, universities and labor, and the order
seems not to be random. Microsoft and Google are probably at the top of
the list of candidates for this council.
The name of one of the four authors of the proposal caught my eye
immediately: E. Glen Weyl, techno-libertarian market radical, Microsoft
research manager and long-time campaigner for the legalisation and reintroduction of debt bondage, precisely for migrants.
Another author is Ganesh Sitaraman, professor of law at Vanderbilt
University and former researcher at the “Counterinsurgency Training
Centre” in Afghanistan. The third is Julius Krein, former hedge fund
manager and head of the right-wing nationalist journal American Affairs, which emerged from the Journal of American Greatness. The renowned ethics professor Danielle Allen is allowed to dilute a bit this toxic cocktail of authors.
In wartime, anything goes
As in wartime, the Pandemic Board should have the power to confiscate
and order the production of whatever is needed to achieve testing
capacity in a short time, a capacity to test so many people a day that
the majority of Americans, and possibly the entire world population, can
be tested for Covid-19 on a weekly basis. This, it is said, is
necessary to get the economy back on track.
Congruously, the state should guarantee test providers a fair price,
“e.g. $100” per test. Where companies invest, governments are to relieve
them from any risk for their great profit prospect by a guarantee to
order tests.
A pandemic corps of 300,000 testers and contact tracers will have to
perform police-like tasks towards a reluctant population – even if the
latter is not stated explicitly in the brochure -, because “the
infection status must be known for people to participate in many
societal functions “. In other words: Those who cannot prove that they
are corona-free will not be allowed to go to work and even less to
participate in social life.
In order to “enable more complete contact tracing”, apps and tracking
software should be used as extensively as possible, recording and
reporting who is close to whom.
The foundation innocently writes that laws must be passed to prevent
dismissal due to infection. As if that had even the slightest chance of
happening in a country where in many states you can be dismissed for any
reason with two weeks’ notice, including when you are being called up
for jury duty.
The global unique ID under a new name
The brochure also promotes the plan to introduce a globally unique
identification number for everyone, which the Rockefeller Foundation has
already been busy pushing forward with the ID2020 total surveillance
project, but now under the name “unique patient identification number”.
Everyone is declared a patient here.
This unique “patient” number will provide information on the viral
status, antibody status and finally the vaccination status of each
citizen. But not only that. The database is to be a hyper database that
will be linked to pretty much any other database with personal
information, from attendance lists in schools, passenger lists of any
kind of transport, or ticket sales at events. Of course, privacy is to
be preserved. What else?
In order to identify populations at risk and to achieve performant
contact tracing and decision support, powerful analytical tools must
operate across any such platform of data. Existing obstacles in
accessing and collating data by such analysis instruments (i.e.
artificial intelligence) need urgently be removed. Recent progress
towards this goal through new regulation is praised.
charleshughsmith |The word privilege is much bandied about now. I've
been writing about privilege for many years, and ended up writing a
book about the source (and thus the end) of privilege: Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege.
Privilege and inequality are two sides of the same coin. Those with privilege get more than everyone else without actually creating more value, which is the definition of inequality.
What few seem to grasp is the absolute source of inequality / privilege is our financial system, specifically the way we create and distribute money.
Few people connect the dots between a central bank (the Federal Reserve)
creating money out of thin air and giving the super-wealthy first dibs
on this new money, and the vast inequalities of wealth and power that
are widening to the point of social disorder on a grand scale.
While the majority may not fully understand the source of inequality, they do intuit that billionaires got the mine and the rest of us got the shaft. Since
humans are social apes and social apes have a sense of fairness, even
within pecking orders with a few at the top, the inherent unfairness of
our financial system generates resentment and indignation, while the
lack of understanding generates frustration.
My
colleague Mark Jeftovic penned a post explaining how those closest to
the Fed's money spigot get wealthier for doing absolutely nothing but
being close to the spigot. This is the most basic structure of our financial system and economy. Everything else flows from this simple mechanism. On Cantillionaires, Sycophants and Losers.
Put another way: while the rest of us earn money by creating goods and services, those close to the Fed's money spigot create absolutely nothing but they get billions of dollars at rates of interest that are essentially zero, or adjusted for inflation, less than zero.
As a result, they can outbid the rest of us for all the assets that generate income.
bloomberg | A major new study of the relationship between carbon dioxide and
global warming lowers the odds on worst-case climate change scenarios
while also ruling out the most optimistic estimates nations have been
counting on as they attempt to implement the Paris Agreement.
A
group of 25 leading scientists now conclude that catastrophic warming
is almost inevitable if emissions continue at their current rate, even
if there’s less reason to anticipate a totally uninhabitable Earth in
coming centuries. The research, published Wednesday in the journal Reviews of Geophysics,
narrows the answer to a question that’s as old as climate science
itself: How much would the planet warm if humanity doubled the amount of
CO₂ in the atmosphere?
That number, known as “equilibrium climate sensitivity,” is typically
expressed as a range. The scientists behind this new study have narrowed
the climate-sensitivity window to between 2.6° Celsius and 3.9°C.
That’s smaller than the current range accepted by the United
Nations-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has for
almost a decade used a spread between 1.5°C to 4.5°C—a reading of
climate sensitivity that has changed little since the first major U.S.
climate science assessment in 1979. Improving these estimates is “sort
of the holy grail of climate science,” says Zeke Hausfather, director of
climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute and one of the study’s
authors.
Climate
sensitivity is one of the most iconic numbers in climate science, but
it’s not necessarily intuitive. The range isn’t a projection; it’s more
like a speed limit that influences projections. “It informs all the
other things—like 2100 warming projections, for example—that depend on
the sensitivity of our models, and our scenarios,” Hausfather says.
What gave the authors confidence is that three independent
lines of evidence—the modern temperature record, geological evidence,
and the latest Earth systems models—all agreed on the same answer. Kate
Marvel, a research scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space
Studies and Columbia University’s applied math and physics department,
also contributed to the new paper. She answered questions for Bloomberg
Green about the scope and meaning of the new work.
What is “equilibrium climate sensitivity,” and why is it so important?
It's
basically answering this question: How hot is it going to get? People
are sometimes really surprised. They’re like, “You guys have one job
like, why do you not know this?”
The number one determinant in how
hot it's going to get is what people are going to do. If we gleefully
burn all the fossil fuels in the ground, it's going to get very hot. If
we get extremely serious about mitigating climate change—cutting our
emissions, moving off fossil fuels, changing a lot about our way of
life—that will have a different impact on the climate. As a physical
scientist, “What are we going to do?” is totally above my pay grade.
strategic-culture | As the Covid-19 pandemic continues its deadly march around the world,
a number of relatively dormant conflicts, as well as several well-known
flash points, stand ready to place the world on the edge of a major
armed conflict. History shows us that during times of stress – economic
depression, religious strife, vacuums of political leadership, and
public health crises like that which is now plaguing the world – the
chances for war increase commensurately.
India and China, which fought a border war in 1962, are against faced
off at several key border locations stretching from Ladakh in the
western Himalayas to Arunachal Pradesh in the eastern sector of the
mountain range. The resurgent border conflict between the world’s most
populous and second-most populous nations is exacerbated by the Covid-19
virus that has taken a toll on what had been the burgeoning economies
of both nuclear-armed countries. Deaths and injuries among Indian and
Chinese border troops have resulted from fights, with sticks and rocks
being used as weapons. A wider and deadlier conflict may result if the
weapons used are India’s T-90S tanks and Apache helicopters – now
engaged in exercises along the border – and armed Chinese troops that
have penetrated some 8 kilometers beyond the 1962 truce line, which is
officially called the Line of Actual Control (LAC), in eastern Ladakh.
Meanwhile, the number of Covid cases in India has climbed about one
million.
In Barbara Tuchman’s widely-acclaimed book on the factors that resulted
in the First World War, “The Guns of August,” she wrote, “Human beings,
like plans, prove fallible in the presence of those ingredients that are
missing in maneuvers – danger, death, and live ammunition.” All the
plans of nations large and small to prevent a repeat of the so-called
Spanish flu of 1918, which ravaged the battlefield trenches of France,
have largely proven ineffective. The world is now being subjected to
Tuchman’s danger and death – the danger of the uncontrolled pandemic and
the mounting death toll arising from it. The current missing ingredient
of live ammunition may, if cooler heads do not prevail, result in a
modern-day “guns of August.” Continued economic dislocation and a
deepening global recession is all that is needed as a catalyst for
military standoffs from the Himalayas and South China Sea to the
Caribbean waters off Venezuela and the 38th parallel of Korea to turn into hot war zones purposely or by accident.
unz |Let’s
assume that the events of the last five months are neither random nor
unexpected. Let’s say they’re part of an ingenious plan to transform
American democracy into a lockdown police state controlled by criminal
elites and their puppet governors. And let’s say the media’s role is to
fan the flames of mass hysteria by sensationalizing every gory detail,
every ominous prediction and every slightest uptick in the death toll in
order to exert greater control over the population. And let’s say the
media used their power to craft a message of terror they’d repeat over
and over again until finally, there was just one frightening storyline
ringing-out from every soapbox and bullhorn, one group of governors from
the same political party implementing the same destructive policies,
and one small group of infectious disease experts –all incestuously
related– issuing edicts in the form of “professional advice.”
Could such a thing happen in America?
What’s
most astonishing about the Covid-19 operation is the manner in which
the elected government was circumvented by public health experts
(connected to a power-mad billionaire activist.) That was a stroke of
genius. Most people regard the US as a fairly stable democracy and yet,
the first sign of infection triggered the rapid transfer of power from
the president to unelected “professionals” whose conflicts of interest
are too vast to list. Equally fascinating is the fact that the lockdowns
were not the brainchild of Donald Trump but the mainly Democrat
governors who shrugged-off any Constitutional limits to their power and
arbitrarily ordered people to stay in their homes, wear masks and avoid
close physical contact with other humans. All of this was done in the
name of “science” and condoned under “emergency powers” despite the fact
that mass quarantines of healthy people have no historical precedent or
scientific basis. No matter, this was never about science or logic
anyway, and it certainly wasn’t about saving lives. It was always about
power, pure, unalloyed political power. The power to push the economy
into freefall destroying millions of jobs and businesses. The power to
bail out Wall Street while diverting attention to a fairly-mild
infection that kills roughly 1 in every 500 people. The power to create a
permanent underclass willing to work for table scraps or less. And the
power to fundamentally restructure human relations so that normal
intimacies like handshakes, hugs or social gatherings are entirely
banned. This, of course, was the most ambitious part of the project, the
basic changes to human interaction that date back thousands of years,
and which are now seen as an obstacle to a new order in which the
individual must be isolated, desensitized and kept in a constant state
of fear to be more easily controlled and manipulated.
On
top of that, all of this is taking place in plain sight where anyone
with even minimal critical thinking skills should be able to see what is
happening, but very few do. Why is that?
Fear.
Fear has gripped the population and is preventing typically
intelligent, perceptive people from seeing something that’s right
beneath their noses. Check out this clip from an article titled “When
Will the Madness End?”:
“What’s happening now is a spread of this serious medical condition to the whole population…
The public is adopting a personality disorder … paranoid delusions, and
irrational fear. … It can happen with anything but here we see a primal
fear of disease turning into mass panic….
….
Once fear reaches a certain threshold, normalcy, rationality, morality,
and decency fade and are replaced by shocking stupidity and cruelty.…..We
find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object,
and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously
impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is
caught by some new folly more captivating than the first. ..…
…This
is made far worse by politics, which has only fed the beast of fear.
This is the most politicized disease in history, and doing so has done
nothing to help manage it and much to make it all vastly worse.” (“When Will the Madness End?“, AIER)
We’re
not saying that Covid doesn’t kill people, and we’re not suggesting
that Covid is a bioweapon released on the public for nefarious purposes.
(although that’s certainly a possibility.) What we’re saying is that
scheming elites and their allies in the media and politics see every
crisis as an opportunity to advance their own authoritarian agenda. In
fact, the restructuring of basic democratic institutions can only take
place within the confines of a major crisis. That’s why the CIA, the
giant corporations, the WHO and the Gates Posse gathered for meetings
that anticipated an event just like the Covid outbreak. They needed a
crisis of that magnitude to achieve their ultimate objective; total
control. That’s what they mean when they say there will be “no return to
normal”, they mean they’re replacing representative government with a
new totalitarian model in which the levers of state power will be
controlled by them. So while the virus outbreak might be coincidental,
the management of the crisis certainly is not.
Time |In spring, as Colombia settled into a nationwide COVID-19
lockdown, some Colombians received troubling new guidelines—and not
from the government. In remote parts of 11 of the country’s 32 states,
armed groups began enforcing their own quarantine measures, according to a report published July 15 by Human Rights Watch.
Through pamphlets and WhatsApp messages, the groups laid out curfews,
restrictions on movement, categories of essential work, and more. These
restrictions were sometimes stricter than government rules, and
punishments for breaking them far more serious.
One pamphlet seen by HRW, released in early April by Marxist guerrillas the National Liberation Army (ELN)
in the northern Bolívar department, warned that fighters would be
“forced to kill people in order to preserve lives” because residents had
not “respected the orders to prevent Covid-19.”
Latin America is the current center of the pandemic, with more than 3.5 million cases across the region and numbers in many countries still rising sharply. Analysts say COVID-19 is worsening the region’s problem with “criminal governance” –
where the state loses control over a part of its territory as non-state
armed groups, such as drug gangs and guerrilla forces, take over and
effectively govern small areas. Groups in Colombia, Brazil,
Mexico and elsewhere have taken on the fight against COVID-19, allowing
them to claim an interest in the public good, and strengthen their
violent grip on local communities—in a way that could be permanent.
Which armed groups control territory in Latin America?
The nature of criminal governance varies hugely
between regions and countries across Latin America, according to Chris
Dalby, managing editor of investigative news site InSight Crime,
which examines organized crime in the region. But it tends to take
hold, he says, in poor or remote areas where the state presence is weak;
that is, where the government has failed to provide effective law
enforcement, public services, and economic opportunity.
In Colombia, armed groups are mostly a legacy of
the country’s decades-long conflict with rebel groups. Though the
Colombian government reached a landmark peace deal with the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC)
in 2016, other guerrilla groups, including the ELN, and paramilitary
forces remain powerful in some rural areas. In Brazil, drug traffickers
exert more influence than the police in some of the favela neighborhoods
that lie on the outskirts of large cities, with the largest gang being
the First Capital Command (PCC) in São Paulo. In Mexico, drug cartels, such as the Sinaloa Cartel in the northwest of the country, have similar control over poor communities.
These distinct groups use their
territories for a range of illicit businesses: drug trafficking, people
trafficking, illegal mining, extortion rackets and more. But they often
also provide resources and public services for communities, as a way of
legitimizing their control and buying loyalty. During the pandemic, with
many money-making activities harder to carry out thanks to national
restrictions on movement and businesses, many groups have leaned into
this role of governing, Dalby says. “They’ve taken the opportunity to
reaffirm that control.”
In March, after COVID-19 started to spread through Brazil,
gangs in Rio de Janeiro favelas drove through streets using a
loudspeaker to tell residents they were putting a curfew in place and
threatening violence if they did not comply, according to Brazilian newspaper UOL. Traffickers reportedly also handed out hand soap, and issued edicts banning tourists
from entering the area in case they infect the residents. In Mexico, in
April, drug cartels handed out boxes of food and other basic supplies
to people struggling with the economic impact of the pandemic. Images
circulated in Latin American media showed packages branded with the names of cartels.
In Colombia, some armed groups implemented stricter
restrictions than the government did on people’s movement, humanitarian
workers and community leaders told HRW, allowing no exceptions for
accessing health services or banks during curfews, for example. People
who did not comply with the rules faced brutal punishments: HRW
documented at least 8 killings of civilians who apparently did not abide
by COVID-19 measures imposed by armed groups between March and June.
counterpunch | Our proposal is consistent with all the
principal undisputed facts concerning SARS-CoV-2 and its origin. The MMP
proposal has the additional benefit of reconciling many observations
concerning SARS-CoV-2 that have proven difficult to reconcile with any
natural zoonotic hypothesis.
For instance, using different approaches,
numerous researchers have concluded that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
has a very high affinity for the human ACE2 receptor (Walls et al., 2020; Piplani et al., 2020; Shang and Ye et al., 2020; Wrapp et al., 2020).
Such exceptional affinities, ten to twenty times as great as that of
the original SARS virus, do not arise at random, making it very hard to
explain in any other way than for the virus to have been strongly
selected in the presence of a human ACE2 receptor (Piplani et al., 2020).
In addition to this, a recent report found that the spike of RaTG13 binds the human ACE2 receptor (Shang and Ye et al., 2020).
We proposed above that the virus in the mine directly infected humans
lung cells. The main determinant of cell infection and species
specificity of coronaviruses is initial receptor binding (Perlman and Netland, 2009).
Thus RaTG13, unlike most bat coronaviruses, probably can enter and
infect human cells, providing biological plausibility to the idea that
the miners became infected with a coronavirus resembling RaTG13.
Moreover, the receptor binding domain
(RBD) of SARS-CoV-2, which is the region of the spike that physically
contacts the human ACE2 receptor, has recently been crystallised to
reveal its spatial structure (Shang and Ye et al., 2020).
These authors found close structural similarities between the spikes of
SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 in how they bound the human ACE2 receptor:
“Second, as with SARS-CoV-2, bat RaTG13
RBM [a region of the RBD] contains a similar four-residue motif in the
ACE2 binding ridge, supporting the notion that SARS-CoV-2 may have evolved from RaTG13 or a RaTG13-related bat coronavirus
(Extended Data Table 3 and Extended Data Fig. 7). Third, the L486F,
Y493Q and D501N residue changes from RaTG13 to SARS CoV-2 enhance ACE2
recognition and may have facilitated the bat-to-human transmission of
SARS-CoV-2 (Extended Data Table 3 and Extended Data Fig. 7). A
lysine-to-asparagine mutation at the 479 position in the SARS-CoV-2 RBD
(corresponding to the 493 position in the SARS-CoV-2 RBD) enabled
SARS-CoV to infect humans. Fourth, Leu455 contributes favourably to ACE2
recognition, and it is conserved between RaTG13 and SARS CoV-2; its
presence in the SARS CoV-2 RBM may be important for the bat-to-human
transmission of SARS-CoV-2″ (Shang and Ye et al., 2020). (italics added)
The significance of this molecular
similarity is very great. Coronaviruses have evolved a diverse set of
molecular solutions to solve the problem of binding ACE2 (Perlman and Netland, 2009; Forni et al., 2017). The fact that RaTG13 and SARS CoV-2 share the same solution makes RaTG13 a highly likely direct ancestor of Sars-CoV-2.
A further widely noted feature of SARS-CoV-2 is its furin site (Coutard et al., 2020).
This site is absent from RaTG13 and other closely related
coronaviruses. The most closely related virus with such a site is the
highly lethal MERS (which broke out in 2012). Possession of a furin site
enables SARS-CoV-2 (like MERS) to infect lungs and many other body
tissues (such as the gastrointestinal tract and neurons), explaining
much of its lethality (Hoffman et al., 2020; Lamers et al., 2020).
However, no convincing explanation for how SARS-CoV-2 acquired this
site has yet been offered. Our suggestion is that it arose due to the
high selection pressure which existed in the miner’s lungs and which in
general worked to ensure that the virus became highly adapted to the
lungs. This explanation, which encompasses how SARS-CoV-2 came to target
lung tissues in general, is an important aspect of our proposal.
The implication is therefore that the
furin site was not acquired by recombination with another coronavirus
and simply represents convergent evolution (as suggested by Andersen et al., 2020).
An intriguing alternative possibility is
that SARS-CoV-2 acquired its furin site directly from the miner’s lungs.
Humans possess an epithelial sodium channel protein called ENaC-a whose
furin cleavage site is identical over eight amino acids to SARS-CoV-2 (Anand et al., 2020).
ENaC-a protein is present in the same airway epithelial and lung
tissues infected by SARS-CoV-2. It is known from plants that
positive-stranded RNA viruses recombine readily with host mRNAs (Greene and Allison, 1994; Greene and Allison, 1996; Lommel and Xiong, 1991; Borja et al., 2007).
The same evidence base is not available for positive-stranded animal
RNA viruses, (though see Gorbalenya, 1992) but if plant viruses are a
guide then acquisition of its furin site via recombination with the mRNA
which encodes ENaC-a by SARS-CoV-2 is a strong possibility.
A further feature of SARS-CoV-2 has been the very limited adaptive evolution of its genome since the pandemic began (Zhan et al., 2020; van Dorp et al., 2020; Starr et al., 2020).
It is a well-established principle that viruses that jump species
undergo accelerated evolutionary change in their new host (e.g. Baric et al., 1997). Thus, SARS and MERS (both coronaviruses) underwent rapid and readily detectable adaptation to their new human hosts (Forni et al., 2017; Dudas and Rambaut, 2016).
Such an adaptation period has not been observed for SARS-CoV-2 even
though it has now infected many more individuals than SARS or MERS did.
This has even led to suggestions that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had a period
of cryptic circulation in humans infections that predated the pandemic (Chaw et al., 2020).
The sole mutation consistently observed to accumulate across multiple
studies is a D614G substitution in the spike protein (e.g. Korber et al., 2020).
The numerically largest analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes, however, found
no evidence at all for adaptive evolution, even for D614G (van Dorp et al., 2020).
The general observation is therefore that
Sars-CoV-2 has remained functionally unchanged or virtually so (except
for inconsequential genetic changes) since the pandemic began. This is a
very important observation. It implies that SARS-CoV-2 is highly
adapted across its whole set of component proteins and not just at the
spike (Zhan et al., 2020). That is to say, its evolutionary leap to humans was completed before the 2019 pandemic began.
It is hard to imagine an explanation for this high adaptiveness other than some kind of passaging in a human body (Zhan et al., 2020). Not even passaging in human cells could have achieved such an outcome.
Two examples illustrate this point. In a follow up to Shang and Ye et al., (2020),
a similar group of Minnesota researchers identified a distinct strategy
by which the spike (S) protein (which contains the receptor bind
domain; RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 evades the human immune system (Shang and Wan et al., 2020).
This strategy involves more effective hiding of its RBD, but it implies
again that the spike and the RBD evolved in tandem and in the presence
of the human immune system (i.e. in a human body and not in tissue
culture).
The Andersen authors, in their critique of
a possible engineered origin for SARS-CoV-2, also stress the need for
passaging in whole humans:
“Finally, the generation of the predicted
O-linked glycans is also unlikely to have occurred during cell-culture
passage, as such features suggest the involvement of an immune system” (Andersen et al., 2020).
The final point that we would like to make
is that the principal zoonotic origin thesis is the one proposed by
Andersen et al. Apart from being poorly supported this thesis is very
complex. It requires two species jumps, at least two recombination
events between quite distantly related coronaviruses and the physical
transfer of a pangolin (having a coronavirus infection) from outside
China (Andersen et al., 2020).
Even then it provides no logical explanation of the adaptedness of
SARS-CoV-2 across its whole genome or why the virus emerged in Wuhan.
By contrast, our MMP proposal requires
only the one species jump, which is documented in the Master’s thesis.
Although we do not rule out a possible role for mixed infections in the
lungs of the miners, nor the possibility of recombination between
closely related variants in those lungs, nor the potential acquisition
of the furin site from a host mRNA, only mutation was needed to derive
SARS-CoV-2 from RaTG13. Hence our attention earlier to the figure from P. Zhou et al., 2020showing that RaTG13 is the most closely related virus to SARS-CoV-2 over its entire length. This extended similarity is perfectly consistent with a mutational origin of SARS-CoV-2 from RaTG13.
In short, the MMP theory is a plausible
and parsimonious explanation of all the key features of the COVID-19
pandemic and its origin. It accounts for the propensity of SARS-CoV-2
infections to target the lungs; the apparent preadapted nature of the
virus; and its transmission from bats in Yunnan to humans in Wuhan.
Slate | In early July, a group of scientists authored an article
outlining the evidence for COVID-19 being an airborne disease. It made
plenty of headlines, which was, frankly, a bit confusing. Didn’t the
public already know that COVID-19 was a respiratory illness? And didn’t
medical providers already know that COVID-19 could be transmitted by
aerosols in some situations, not just droplets? Why was this news,
exactly?
To understand the confusion, we have to go back to the definition of airborne.
In medical parlance, an “airborne” disease is one that is spread
primarily by the distribution of aerosols—tiny particles, less than 5
microns in size, that can linger in the air and travel long distances.
They can also travel lower into your respiratory tract. Classic examples
are chicken pox, measles, and tuberculosis. In contrast, a “droplet
disease” is one that is primarily transmitted by much larger droplets
(20 microns or larger) that don’t linger in the air and don’t travel
long distances—they typically fall to the ground within about 3 feet of
the source. Classic examples are influenza, mumps, and whooping cough.
These droplets can land in your eyes, nose, or mouth, and infect you, or
be transferred from fomites (surrounding objects) to hands, and thereby
to the face, infecting the respiratory tract by direct contact with
mucus membranes in the eyes, nose, or mouth. But that doesn’t mean you
can think of a droplet disease as requiring direct contact—this kind of disease can infect you either when you inhale it or when you have direct contact with it.
Which underscores the problem. In real life, what comes out of a
COVID-infected patient when they breathe, cough, or sneeze doesn’t
neatly fit exactly into one category or the other—particles can exist along a size continuum. And just to make things more confusing, not everyone even uses the term airborne
to mean aerosol only—sometimes it means only that the disease is spread
by any size infective particle that is inhaled. On top of that,
while the World Health Organization hasn’t disputed that the disease
can be spread by inhaled droplets, it has focused mainly on direct
contact with droplets, which is why, until recently, it’s mostly pushed
hand-washing and distancing as ways to contain spread, while being
slower to push masks, which are mainly protective against droplet
inhalation. Sorting through these competing transmission ideologies, and
trying to figure out if you are keeping yourself safe from aerosols or
droplets, feels like canoeing through crabgrass.
What I have come to realize is that it really shouldn’t matter that
much. Even as we’ve focused on droplets, in the clinical world, we’ve
always known that a COVID-positive patient could generate aerosols and
spread the disease that way. The WHO and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention both acknowledged this, hence their recommendation that
medical staff wear an N95 mask when performing a procedure considered
“aerosol generating.” But we couldn’t agree on what these procedures
were either, in practice. Placing a breathing tube into someone’s
trachea before putting them on a ventilator is considered an
aerosolizing procedure, that is certain. But scientists and physicians
quibble about everything else that could be an aerosolizing procedure:
nebulizer treatments for asthma, chest tubes inserted for collapsed
lungs, suctioning, CPR. A patient just sitting quietly by themselves in a
room might cough and generate an aerosol, as well as a spray of
droplets capable of traveling up to 200 mph, a speed that could easily launch them further than 3 feet.
medicalexpress | Scientists have known for several months the new coronavirus can become
suspended in microdroplets expelled by patients when they speak and
breathe, but until now there was no proof that these tiny particles are
infectious.
A new study by scientists at the University of Nebraska that was
uploaded to a medical preprint site this week has shown for the first
time that SARS-CoV-2 taken from microdroplets, defined as under five
microns, can replicate in lab conditions.
This boosts the hypothesis that normal speaking and breathing, not
just coughing and sneezing, are responsible for spreading COVID-19—and
that infectious doses of the virus can travel distances far greater than
the six feet (two meters) urged by social distancing guidelines.
The results are still considered preliminary and have not yet
appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, which would lend more credibility
to the methods devised by the scientists.
The paper was posted to the medrxiv.org website, where most
cutting-edge research during the pandemic has first been made public.
The same team wrote a paper in March showing that the virus remains
airborne in the rooms of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and this study
will soon be published in a journal, according to the lead author.
"It is actually fairly difficult" to collect the samples, Joshua
Santarpia, an associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical
Center told AFP.
The team used a device the size of a cell phone for the purpose, but
"the concentrations are typically very low, your chances of recovering
material are small."
The scientists took air samples from five rooms of bedridden patients, at a height of about a foot (30 centimeters) over the foot of their beds.
The patients were talking, which produces microdroplets that become
suspended in the air for several hours in what is referred to as an
"aerosol," and some were coughing.
The team managed to collect microdroplets as small as one micron in diameter.
They then placed these samples into a culture to make them grow,
finding that three of the 18 samples tested were able to replicate.
For Santarpia, this represents proof that microdroplets, which also
travel much greater distances than big droplets, are capable of
infecting people.
"It is replicated in cell culture and therefore infectious," he said.
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...