Be yourself; Everyone else is already taken.— Oscar Wilde.
This is the first post on my new blog. I’m just getting this new blog going, so stay tuned for more. Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates.
Be yourself; Everyone else is already taken.— Oscar Wilde.
This is the first post on my new blog. I’m just getting this new blog going, so stay tuned for more. Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates.
How many times have you heard that slavery was “America’s original sin”? I’m not quite sure what that means, but I think the idea is that slavery was a uniquely horrible thing that defines the United States and will stain whites forever. It’s one of the few things Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Barack Obama agree on. There are books about it. Here’s a college course at UC Davis called “Slavery: America’s Original Sin: Part 1.”
The fact is, there has been slavery in every period of history, and just about everywhere. The Greeks and Romans had it, the ancient Egyptians had it, it’s all over the Bible, the Chinese and the pre-Columbian Indians had it, the Maoris in New Zealand had it, and the Muslims had it in spades. But I have never, ever heard of slavery being anyone else’s “original sin.”
About the only societies that never had slaves were primitive hunter-gatherers. As soon as people have some kind of formal social organization, they start taking slaves.
You’ve heard about slavery and mass human sacrifices of Central and South American Indians, but North American Indians were enslaving each other long before the white man showed up.
Tlingit and Haida Indians, who lived in the Pacific Northwest, went raiding for slaves as far South as California. About one quarter of the population were slaves, and the children of slaves were slaves. During potlatches, or huge ceremonial feasts, the Tlingit would sometimes burn property and kill slaves, just to show how rich they were. What’s a couple of slaves to a guy who lives in a house like this?
When we bought Alaska from the Russians in 1867, Indians were furious when we told them they had to give up their slaves. The Tlingit carved this image of Abraham Lincoln, the emancipator, to try to shame the government into compensating them for slaves.
What were called the Five Civilized Tribes of the American Southeast happily bought black slaves. In 1860, there were 21,000 Cherokee, and they owned 4,000 slaves. And that was just the Cherokee. Many took their slaves with them when they were forced to move Wes t.
Free blacks in the South owned slaves. The fact of having been slaves didn’t stop them from wanting to be slave masters themselves. In 1840, in South Carolina alone, there were 454 free blacks who owned a total of 2,357 slaves. Only about 20 percent of Southern households had even one slave, but 75 percent of the free-black households in South Carolina owned slaves.
Don’t believe me? It’s all in this book by the expert on the subject, Larry Koger of the University of South Carolina. And he demolishes the idea that most blacks bought slaves only to get family members out of slavery. Like whites, some were kind masters and some were mean, but, for the most part, they owned slaves for exactly the same reasons whites did.
There’s a whole book about this black guy, Andrew Durnford.
He had a plantation of 672 acres along the Mississippi in Louisiana, and close to 100 slaves. Another black slave owner in Louisiana, P.C. Richards, owned 152 slaves. Black slaveowners avidly supported the Confederacy. There are no accurate estimates of the number of slaves held by free blacks at the time of the Civil War, but they would have been tens of thousands.
If slavery is somebody’s Original Sin, it’s sure not ours. Take a look at this map of the slave trade, beginning in 1500.
The thicknesses of the lines represent numbers of slaves. What became the United States imported just 400,000 slaves—about 3 percent of all the slaves who crossed the Atlantic. Look at all the slaves who went to Brazil and to the Caribbean Islands. They needed millions because, unlike American slaveowners who raised slave families, they bought grown men and worked them to death. And let us not forget, virtually every slave on this map was caught by blacks or Arabs.
And look at all the slaves who ended up in North Africa and the Middle East.
That’s millions of them going to Muslim countries at exactly the same time slaves were crossing the Atlantic. And Arabs had been taking black slaves out of Africa, across the Sahara, for 900 years before America was even discovered—and a forced march across the desert was a lot worse than crossing the Atlantic. In this article about Africa’s first slavers—the Arabs—historian Paul Lovejoy estimates that over the centuries, Muslims took about 14 million blacks out of Africa [Recalling Africa’s harrowing tale of its first slavers – The Arabs – as UK Slave Trade Abolition is commemorated, March 27, 2018]. That is more than the 12 million who went to the New World.
And you might ask, where are the descendants of all those Middle Eastern slaves? America has millions of slave descendants. Why don’t you see lots of blacks in Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iraq? Arabs castrated black slaves so they wouldn’t have descendants.
Muslims were even more enthusiastic about enslaving white people. Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters, by Prof. Robert C. Davis is the best book on the subject. Remember the Barbary Pirates of North Africa? Between 1530 and 1780 they caught and enslaved more than a million white, European Christians. During the 16th and 17th centuries, Arabs took more white slaves south across the Mediterranean than there were blacks shipped across the Atlantic.
Mostly, Muslim pirates captured European ships and stole their crews. In just three years, from 1606 to 1609, the British navy admitted it had lost 466 British merchant ships to North African pirates [Counting European Slaves on the Barbary Coast Past & Present, August 2001]. Four hundred sixty-six ships in just three years. Arabs took American slaves. Between 1785 and 1793 Algerians captured 13 American ships in the Mediterranean and enslaved the crews. This is a 1804 battle between Arab pirates and the USS Enterprise.
It was only in 1815, after two wars, that the United States was finally free of the Barbary pirates.
Muslim pirates also organized huge, amphibious slave-catching assaults that practically depopulated the Italian coast. In 1544, Algerian raiders took 7,000 slaves in the Bay of Naples in a single raid. This drove the price of slaves so low it was said you could “swap a Christian for an onion.”
After a 1566 raid on Granada in Spain netted 4,000 men women, and children, it was said to be “raining Christians in Algiers.” Women were easier to catch than men, and were prized as sex slaves, so some coastal areas lost their entire child-bearing populations. One raid as far away as Iceland brought back 400 white slaves.
Prof. Davis notes that the trade in black Africans was strictly business, but Muslims had a jihad-like enthusiasm for stealing Christians. It was revenge for the Crusades and for the reconquest of Spain from the Arabs in 1492. When Muslim corsairs raided Europe, they made a point of desecrating churches and stealing church bells. The metal was valuable but stealing church bells silenced the voice of Christianity.
It was a tradition to parade newly captured Europeans through the streets so people could jeer at them, while children threw garbage at them. At the slave market, both men and women were stripped naked to evaluate their sexual value. In the North African capitals—Tunis, Algiers, Tripoli—there was a big demand for homosexual sex-slaves. Other Europeans were worked to death on farms or building projects.
Prof. Davis writes that unlike in North America, there were no limits on cruelty: “There was no countervailing force to protect the slave from his master’s violence: no local anti-cruelty laws, no benign public opinion, and rarely any effective pressure from foreign states.” Slaves were not just property, they were infidels, and deserved whatever suffering a master meted out.
For a man, there was a fate even worse than being a sex slave. Hundreds of thousands became galley slaves, often on slave-catching pirate ships. They were chained to their oars 24 hours a day, and could move only to the hole where the oar went through the hull—so they could relieve themselves. If the men were rowing, they fouled themselves. Galley slaves lived in a horrible stench, ate rotten food, were whipped by slave drivers and tormented by rats and lice. They could not lie down and had to sleep at their oars. Many never left their ships, even in port. Their job was to row until they died, and to be tossed overboard at the first sign of weakness.
Muslims have taken slaves for as long as there have been Muslims, which is about 1,400 years.
Mohammed himself was an enthusiastic slave trader. Muslims still take black slaves. As this article points out, Libya still has slave markets, Mauritanian Arabs take black slaves, and there is still slavery in Niger, Mali, Chad and Sudan[Libya’s slave markets are a reminder that the exploitation of Africans never went away, by Martin Plaut, New Statesman, February 21, 2018].
And, of course, it was white people who abolished slavery, both in their own countries and, except for a few stubborn holdouts, the whole world. Africans, just like the Tlingit Indians, screamed about all the wealth we made them give up.
But slavery’s still our “original sin.” As Time magazine wrote just this month about slavery “Europeans and their colonial “descendants” in the United States engineered the most complete and enduring dehumanization of a people in history.”[Facing America’s History of Racism Requires Facing the Origins of ‘Race’ as a Concept, by Andrew Curran, July 10, 2020]
What a small minority of Americans did for 246 years—and in a relatively mild form—is worse than anything that was ever done anywhere by anyone.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the power of white privilege. I hope you are enjoying it.
The Biden administration is seeking to radically narrow the boundaries of respectable American political thought. The administration has repeatedly issued statements and reports that could automatically castigate citizens who distrust the federal government. We may eventually learn that the new Biden guidelines spurred a vast increase in federal surveillance and other abuses against Americans who were guilty of nothing more than vigorous skepticism.
Biden is Nixon on steroids
The Biden team is expanding the federal Enemies List perhaps faster than any time since the Nixon administration. In June, the Biden administration asserted that guys who are unable to score with women may be terrorist threats due to “involuntary celibate–violent extremism.” That revelation was included in the administration’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, which identified legions of new potential “domestic terrorists” that the feds can castigate and investigate.
The White House claims its new war on terrorism and extremism is “carefully tailored to address violence and reduce the factors that …infringe on the free expression of ideas.” But the prerogative to define extremism includes the power to revile disapproved beliefs. The report warns that “narratives of fraud in the recent general election … will almost certainly spur some [domestic violent extremists] to try to engage in violence this year.” If accusations of 2020 electoral shenanigans are formally labeled as extremist threats, that could result in far more repression (aided by Facebook and Twitter) of dissenting voices. How will this work out any better than the concerted campaign by the media and Big Tech last fall to suppress all information about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the election? And how can Biden be trusted to be the judge after he effectively accused Facebook of mass murder for refusing to totally censor anyone who raised doubts about the COVID-19 vaccine?
The Biden administration is revving up for a war against an enemy which the feds have chosen to never explicitly define. According to a March report by Biden’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “domestic violent extremists” include individuals who “take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the US government in support of their belief that the US government is purposely exceeding its Constitutional authority.” But that was the same belief that many Biden voters had regarding the Trump administration. Does the definition of extremism depend solely on which party captured the White House?
The Biden report writers were spooked by the existence of militia groups and flirt with the fantasy of outlawing them across the land. The report promises to explore “how to make better use of laws that already exist in all fifty states prohibiting certain private ‘militia’ activity, including … state statutes prohibiting groups of people from organizing as private military units without the authorization of the state government, and state statutes that criminalize certain paramilitary activity.” Most of the private militia groups are guilty of nothing more than bluster and braggadocio. Besides, many of them are already overstocked with government informants who are counting on Uncle Sam for regular paychecks. Some politicians and pundits might like to see a new federal crime that labels any meeting of more than two gun owners as an illegal conspiracy.
The Biden report promises that the FBI and DHS will soon be releasing “a new edition of the Federal Government’s Mobilization Indicators booklet that will include for the first time potential indicators of domestic terrorism–related mobilization.” Will this latest publication be as boneheaded as the similar 2014 report by the National Counterterrorism Center entitled “Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts”?
The new Red Guard
As the Intercept summarized, that report “suggests that police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as ‘Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility,’ … and ‘Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity)’ … to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies.” The report recommended judging families by their level of “Parent-Child Bonding” and rating localities on the basis in part of the “presence of ideologues or recruiters.” Former FBI agent Mike German commented, “The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical, and social-service employees to rate the communities, individuals, and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face.”
Biden’s “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” report also declared that “enhancing faith in American democracy” requires “finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories.” In recent decades, conspiracy theories have multiplied almost as fast as government lies and cover-ups. While many allegations have been ludicrously far-fetched, the political establishment and media routinely attach the “conspiracy theory” label to any challenge to their dominance.
According to Cass Sunstein, Harvard Law professor and Oba- ma’s regulatory czar, a conspiracy theory is “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Reasonable citizens are supposed to presume that government creates trillions of pages of new secrets each year for their own good, not to hide anything from the public.
“Conspiracy theory” is a magic phrase that expunges all previous federal abuses. Many liberals who invoke the phrase also ritually quote a 1965 book by former communist Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Hofstadter portrayed distrust of government as a proxy for mental illness, a paradigm that makes the character of critics more important than the conduct of government agencies. For Hofstadter, it was a self-evident truth that government was trustworthy because American politics had “a kind of professional code … embodying the practical wisdom of generations of politicians.”
The rise of conspiracy theories
In the early 1960s, conspiracy theories were practically a non-issue because 75 percent of Americans trusted the federal government. Such credulity did not survive the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Seven days after Kennedy was shot on November 22, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson created a commission (later known as the Warren Commission) to suppress controversy about the killing.
Johnson browbeat the commission members into speedily issuing a report rubber-stamping the “crazed lone gunman” version of the assassination. House Minority Leader Gerald Ford, a member of the commission, revised the final staff report to change the location of where the bullet entered Kennedy’s body, thereby salvaging the so-called “magic bullet” theory.
After the Warren Commission findings were ridiculed as a whitewash, Johnson ordered the FBI to conduct wiretaps on the report’s critics. To protect the official story, the commission sealed key records for 75 years. Truth would out only after all the people involved in any coverup had gotten their pensions and died.
The controversy surrounding the Warren Commission spurred the CIA to formally attack the notion of conspiracy theories. In a 1967 alert to its overseas stations and bases, the CIA declared that the fact that almost half of Americans did not believe Oswald acted alone “is a matter of concern to the US government, including our organization” and endangers “the whole reputation of the American government.”
The memo instructed recipients to “employ propaganda assets” and exploit “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out … parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.” The ultimate proof of the government’s innocence: “Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.”
The New York Times, which exposed the CIA memo in 1977, noted that the CIA “mustered its propaganda machinery to support an issue of far more concern to Americans, and to the C.I.A. itself, than to citizens of other countries.” According to historian Lance deHaven-Smith, author of Conspiracy Theory in America, “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited … with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” In 2014, the CIA released a heavily-redacted report admitting that it had been “complicit” in a JFK “cover-up” by withholding “incendiary” information from the Warren Commission. The CIA successfully concealed a wide range of assassinations and foreign coups it conducted until congressional investigations in the mid-1970s blew the whistle.
“Conspiracy theory” allegations sometimes merely expose the naivete of official scorekeepers. In April 2016, Chapman University surveyed Americans and announced that “the most prevalent conspiracy theory in the United States is that the government is concealing information about the 9/11 attacks with slightly over half of Americans holding that belief.”
That survey did not ask whether people believed the World Trade Centers were blown up by an inside job or whether President George W. Bush secretly masterminded the attacks. Instead, folks were simply asked whether “government is concealing information” about the attacks. Only a village idiot, college professor, or editorial writer would presume the government had come clean.
Three months after the Chapman University survey was conducted, the Obama administration finally released 28 pages of a 2003 congressional report that revealed that Saudi government officials had directly financed some of the 9/11 hijackers in America. That disclosure shattered the storyline carefully constructed by the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission, and legions of media accomplices. (Lawsuits continue in federal court seeking to force the US government to disclose more information regarding the Saudi government role in the attacks.)
Conspiracy theories a tool for control
“Conspiracy theory” is often a flag of convenience for the political-media elite. In 2018, the New York Times asserted that Trump’s use of the term “Deep State” and similar rhetoric “fanned fears that he is eroding public trust in institutions, undermining the idea of objective truth and sowing widespread suspicions about the government and news media.” However, after allegations by anonymous government officials spurred Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, New York Times columnist James Stewart cheered, “There is a Deep State, there is a bureaucracy in our country who has pledged to respect the Constitution, respect the rule of law…. They work for the American people.” New York Times editorial writer Michelle Cottle proclaimed, “The deep state is alive and well” and hailed it as “a collection of patriotic public servants.” Almost immediately after its existence was no longer denied, the Deep State became the incarnation of virtue in Washington. After Biden was elected, references to the “Deep State” were once again labeled paranoid ravings.
Much of the establishment rage at “conspiracy theories” has been driven by the notion that rulers are entitled to intellectual passive obedience. The same lèse-majesté mindset has been widely adopted to make a muddle of American history. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the court historian for President John F. Kennedy and a revered liberal intellectual, declared in 2004, “Historians today conclude that the colonists were driven to revolt in 1776 because of a false conviction that they faced a British conspiracy to destroy their freedom.” What the hell is wrong with “historians today”?! Was the British imposition of martial law, confiscation of firearms, military blockades, suspension of habeas corpus, and censorship simply a deranged fantasy of Thomas Jefferson? The notion that the British would never conspire to destroy freedom would play poorly in Dublin, where the Irish suffered centuries of brutal British oppression. Why should anyone trust academics who were blind to British threats in the 1770s to accurately judge the danger that today’s politicians pose to Americans’ liberty?
How does the Biden administration intend to fight “conspiracy theories?” The Biden terrorism report called for “enhancing faith in government” by “accelerating work to contend with an information environment that challenges healthy democratic discourse.” Will Biden’s team rely on the “solution” suggested by Cass Sunstein: “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups” by government agents and informants to “undermine” them from within?
Does the Biden administration also propose banning Americans from learning anything from the history of prior federal debacles? Nixon White House aide Tom Charles Huston explained that the FBI’s COINTELPRO program continually stretched its target list “from the kid with a bomb to the kid with a picket sign, and from the kid with the picket sign to the kid with the bumper sticker of the opposing candidate. And you just keep going down the line.” A 1976 Senate report on COINTELPRO demanded assurances that a federal agency would never again “be permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers threats, to the established order.” Actually, the FBI and other agencies have continued secretly warring against “threats,” and legions of informants are likely busy “cognitively infiltrating” at this moment.
Permitting politicians to blacklist any ideas they disapprove won’t “restore faith in democracy.” Extremism has always been a flag of political convenience, and the Biden team, the FBI, and their media allies will fan fears to sanctify new government crackdowns. But what if government is the most dangerous extremist of them all?
How many of you believe that this country is plunging head-first into a state of revolution? How many of you believe that a planned currency collapse coupled with the implementation of a brutal martial law and gun confiscation will be the trigger events which will incite the coming revolution?
In addition, nonsense climate change policies designed to bring America and most Americans to their knees will occur under a Democratic Party leadership. The Democrats are aligned with the UN troops in our country under the Kigali Principles of UN Peacekeeper intervention (ie invasion of the United States). As I have demonstrated, Nancy Pelosi and Beto O’Rourke are aligned with former Mexican President Nieto who took $100 million to leave the Sinaloa cartel alone. In part, I blame the deaths of these 9 American citizens on Pelosi, Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder and Obama. It was their open border, let-the-drugs-flow policies that led to these deaths. These horrific murders are just the beginning of what is coming to both sides of the border. What else can we expect than when we witness Pelosi and O’Rourke hanging out with Nieto?
The exit of California from the Union would devastate our economy and agricultural production. Key Democrats are aligned with this movement. Senators Kamala Harris and Feinstein and Governor, Gavin Newsome, are aligned with the Communist Chinese on a number of fronts. Many Democrats and even some Republicans are being blackmailed by the Epstein operation. I could go on, but the readers know where this is leading. We are a nation that has forsaken its rule of law just like Nazi Germany did in 1932. Adam Schiff is holding Soviet-style hearings with secret witnesses, hearsay evidence and outright liars. This is your judicial future America should the Democrats takeover. We would be witnessing the Obama administration on steroids.
Being a coach and former athlete, I know the feeling of a once-inferior opponent rising up to defeat my team. I know the feeling of underestimating an opponent. I have done that with the Democrats. The Kentucky Governor’s race is proof of what I am saying along with the fact that Texas is turning “blue”. We are all faced with the possibility that the Democrats could be running the country in the next several months. These are Democrats in name only. These individuals are Communists and I am not exaggerating when I say that many are demonically possessed and serve Satan. Then there are radicalized Democrats like AOC and Omar. They run their Congressional offices like a makeshift terrorist organization. They crawled out from underneath the rock we call the “Justice Democrats”. There is nothing that these people will not do to solidify their power. And I have just had the “aha moment” of my life when I have come to the final realization that they and their fellow servants of Satan could be running this country in a few months.
Many of us in the alternative media believe that this is the likely scenario that will very soon turn this country into the most dangerous country on the face of the earth. It might behoove us to look a little closer at the nature of revolution in order to predict where all of this is likely headed. In the present political climate, I see no way to stem the tide of unthinkable brutality and violence which seems imminent. It is in this mindset that I set about to research the topic of revolution and this series of articles reflects the results of the research. And as a result of past and common patterns of revolution, it appears as if a clear picture is beginning to emerge.
We already are in a civil war. The last thing to happen in a civil war is the piling up of bodies. And America, make no mistake about it, the enemy controls the media, the military industrial complex, the stock market and the banks. Guerrilla war will be the only viable form of resistance.
Most military strategists identify four levels of conflict; (1) nuclear war is the trump card of all conflict; (2) conventional warfare; (3) guerrilla warfare; and, (4) terrorism.
It is safe to say that if our country does indeed descend into revolution, nuclear war will not come into play, for if it did, there would be nothing to rule over in the aftermath.
The United States has witnessed civil war of a conventional nature In the 1860’s as two mighty armies of that era locked horns in what proved to be the conflict in which America suffered her greatest loss of life. In the Civil War, both sides had equivalent weaponry and as a result employed conventional tactics. However, given the disparity of technology and resources between the people the globalist controlled forces of the new Democratically controlled government, a conventional war would prove to be a disaster for the rebel forces. If key elements of the military were to break away and support the people, perhaps a conventional war would unfold. However, it is not likely that the upcoming civil war will be conventional as it is not probable that the military will bifurcate and turn in on itself. The likely mode of the revolutionary war conflict facing the people of the United States is that it will consist of either guerrilla warfare or terrorism.
Terrorism is the least preferred option by any insurgent group. With terrorism, there is absolutely no hope of final victory because territory is never occupied. For that reason, nobody aspires to engage in terrorism if they have a viable alternative and the American people do have a choice given how well armed we are. However, terrorism arising out a defeated guerrilla force is a distinct possibility as it would represent American guerrilla’s fallback position should they be defeated. Subsequently, does the MIAC Report which labeled Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Second Amendment Supporters, Ron Paul Supporters, Veterans and now Christians as domestic terrorists, make a little more sense as to why DHS made these bold proclamations? The DHS of the Obama years understood and demonstrated their understanding of these facts and has also prepared for what I just wrote about in the previous paragraph. Hillary was to be 2016 recipient of Obama’s work, but Donald Trump happened.
The Veterans Administration estimates that there are approximately 21.5 million veterans living in the United States. We also live in a country with over 300 million privately owned guns. These combined factors point clearly to a guerrilla war being the preferred and necessary mode of combat which will likely be visited upon this country.
Guerrilla warfare, for most of human history, is not new. Tribal war, which traditionally pits one guerrilla force against another, is the oldest form of warfare. The new “conventional” form of warfare, which pits guerrillas against “conventional” forces, is more recent as it first arose in Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago.
The good news for future American freedom fighters is that guerrilla war has been getting more successful since 1945, but unfortunately guerrilla fighters still lose most of the time. An analysis of past conflicts featuring guerrilla war, reveals that only 25% of guerrilla forces, out of 443 such conflicts since 1775, were successful. The government prevailed almost 64% of the time with the remainder of the conflicts ended in a stalemate. Conversely, since the end of WWII, the percentage of success for guerrilla forces has indeed gone up to 39.6%. Yet that still means that government forces have continued to prevail 51% of the time. When the American people engage in a guerrilla war in the upcoming years, the people have less than a 40% chance of success.
Guerrilla wars are rarely short and as a result do not favor the American culture and our collective psyche of instant gratification. When Americans flip the switch on the wall, we expect the light to come on. Will Americans set aside their entitlements as well as their entrenched soft lifestyle and rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
The Vietnamese culture with an external locus of control predominating the people where the group is more important than the individual is the perfect mindset for guerrilla fighters. This could prove to be the American rebels biggest challenge because guerrilla warfare is not something that one does like driving over a speed bump. It is a way of life, a very hard way of life filled with misery, extreme sacrifice and unspeakable losses.
For my money, the best guerrilla fighters in the modern era were the Viet Cong in which Vietnamese people were involved in some form of guerrilla war from 1942-1975. After the Americans invaded Vietnam, the forces in the north had a saying, “born in the north, to die in the south.” There were nearly two generations of Vietnamese people in which war was an unavoidable part of life. What General Westmoreland and LBJ failed to recognize was that in order to defeat and totally subdue the Vietnamese people, the Americans would have had to have engaged in unspeakable genocide because despite the fact that the US won every single battle of the war, the Vietnamese rebels were never going to give up. Do we Americans have that same tenacity to persevere like the Vietnamese?
Prior to WWII, guerrilla wars lasted an average of seven years. Following WWII, guerrilla conflicts lasted an average of 10 years. Will Americans embrace the tenets and sacrifices of guerrilla war and can it ever become a way of life? I believe that conditions would have to be unspeakably horrendous for America to embrace a conflict under these conditions. I think that things would have to be so bad, so completely genocidal, that fighting and dying would be the only viable alternative for America in order to embrace guerrilla warfare as a way of life. What I am saying here is that we are a very soft people.
Successful guerrilla leaders such as Lawrence of Arabia, Mao, Castro and Giap all concur that there are three phases of any guerrilla war. However, before the phases can unfold there are two preconditions which must be met.
The first condition which is a prerequisite for guerrilla war, is based upon the fact that there has to be a decisive battle for the belief systems of the people as a whole. The globalists have invested billions of dollars in order to dominate the mainstream media. On the other side is the alternative media. Both sides are vying for control of the belief systems of the country.
There are two very distinct ideologies playing out today in the court of public opinion. On one hand, the future rebels are adept at exposing the loss of national sovereignty and civil liberties every chance they get. Conversely, the globalist dominated media is spending billions of dollars to convince the masses that there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory and despite some governmental incompetence, the government loves and protects its people. And the globalists are being somewhat effective. Have you ever noticed that when you are describing a globalist inspired conspiracy such as what happened at Benghazi, and no matter how well documented your position is, that your audience frequently responds with “you must be one of these conspiracy theorists.” Our facts are rarely attacked because they are accurate, but the idea of the existence of any kind of conspiracy is what is challenged. This kind of programming coming from the media is brilliant and effective. Who is winning this war of words? The jury is still out, but the unmistakable conclusion is that the ideological battle lines for the upcoming conflict have clearly been drawn. One might argue that social media censorship will eventually beat down the alt media.
The globalists sell the sheep on the notion that we have to control you to protect you (from a threat of our creation), and the other side is saying “we will take our chances, give us freedom.”
The second precondition which must be met prior to descending into guerrilla war consists of both sides engaging in an arms race. In response to the Obama administration’s threat of seizing our guns for the false flag events of the Aurora Batman massacre and Sandy Hook, Americans went on a gun-buying frenzy which continues to this day. DHS has engaged in their own arms buildup as they have purchased 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition to go with 2700 new armored personnel carriers and that is not all. The federal government has invested in 730,000 drones, super soldier robots and intelligence gathering techniques which are mind-blowing. As an aside, Snowden’s public revelations related to the extent of the NSA’s illegal surveillance activities contained nothing that most of us in the alternative media did not already know. It is my belief that Ed Snowden knows a lot more than has been reported related to the reasons underlying the NSA spying and the media is refusing to report on it.
In summary, the American people and their government have engaged in an arms race very similar in nature to two rival countries preparing to go to war.
The preconditions for armed conflict and the likelihood that the conflict will be guerrilla is very likely. In Part Two of this series, an analysis of the commonalities between past guerrilla conflicts (e.g. Giap, Mao, Castro, etc.) will be offered. Emerging from the discussion in the next part in this series is the discovery of the fact that there three overlapping phases to guerrilla war and it will be a shocking surprise to all of us as to how far along this country is in relation to these three phases. All that is needed is the right trigger event and that will be discussed in the next part as well.
If society collapses, you can bet that the foods the pioneers ate will become dietary staples
Dealing with this subject has been quite difficult for me. Both the concept of the state stripping you of everything and the SHTF concept have as many backgrounds as diverse interpretations, so trying to approach this from a single point of view is a complicated task.
In my country, Venezuela, after 20 years of “revolution,” we have bottomed out and learned to live in situations we never imagined (so much so that I was able to write an article on survival techniques I never imagined myself using on daily basis).
It’s not that the governments before Hugo Chavez were much better. But there was a much more stable political and economic situation with access to the international market.In 1999, when Chávez’s government was instated, oil prices were the highest in Venezuela’s history. The newly born Communist policy in the country was hardly felt and had very few repercussions on the professional citizens who lived on a monthly salary.
That’s probably why those first few years didn’t really feel like something was taken away from us. In addition, the newly elected president had a 60% popular approval rating and promised endless opportunities for the neediest people.
One of the first economic policies was the implementation of exchange control, currently in effect. Any operation with foreign currency was managed by the state. Later came the control of the prices of basic products, which caused the disappearance of those items and initiated a black market that is also very much in force to this day.The real problem began in 2004 with the accelerated decrease in oil prices that translated into a lower income for the government. Remember that we are talking about an oil-reliant country.
The decay was soon seen in many aspects. There was no longer maintenance on public roads, and public services failed often until reaching the point of constant failures of electric service, even for days.
The public health situation is also getting worse and worse. As a health professional, I have seen this deterioration for the last 10 years.
I am an oncologic breast surgeon. In Venezuela, breast cancer is the main cause of death from cancer in women. However, in the hospital where I work, the most important hospital in Caracas, there are no basic services for this issue. No chemotherapy, the radiotherapy equipment has been inoperative since 2015, and surgical procedures are suspended every week.
For me, as a doctor, it is frustrating not to be able to help my patients in any way. Just last week two breast cancer patients who were going to the operating room were suspended for the fourth time in a row. This time the anesthesia machine was failing.
The purchasing power of the Venezuelan citizen also decreased. It seemed to have happened from one day to the next, but if you look at the political situation since 1988, the decline took a long time; all that was left was to hit rock bottom.
Finding ourselves in extreme situations makes our defense system act in a primitive way. This means activating the fight or flight response at any time within any context—and yes, the state takes advantage of that.
The state will rip you off, but it doesn’t happen all of a sudden. There are a lot of logistics; it takes a long time to develop the kind of policy that makes citizens totally dependent on the state.
You start by losing something unimportant, like some kind of monetary bonus now given to you as government-run grocery store credits, and you end up losing your freedom and all kinds of rights, including freedom of speech and protest, but these issues are so extensive that they require an article of their own to explain them properly.
The state has taken charge, with great success I must say, and you are now living in fear of the so-called public authorities, meaning police and military police, since they serve as pro-government forces of repression.
Many of us have lost the incentive to go out and protest. We did it for more than 10 years. However, I have seen the evolution of the manifestations before and now.
I remember 2003 when repression was minimal, almost non-existent. Today many friends who still have the strength to continue have gotten gas masks in order to defend themselves from the hundreds of tear gas grenades used by the authorities that should be defending people.
In any public protest, savage repression is a constant. That violence is what we Venezuelans have become used to.When there is no public or social security, when the devaluation of the currency is occurring on a daily basis, and when you don’t know if the bakery on the corner is going to be broken into tomorrow, at that moment, the debacle has already occurred.
Defending oneself from these kinds of problems is as difficult as trying to explain them. Many have chosen to leave and seek a future in other countries. That way the state even strips you of your own country by causing you to become self-exiled.
I don’t blame them. We all have more than one family member or close friend who has been kidnapped or stolen from violently, and sadly, all we can say is “You should be thankful you weren’t killed”.
Personal security becomes a problem of epic proportions, to the extent that going out on the street is considered a risky activity—a risk to which, unfortunately, you have to get used to in order to live a normal life.Living in that state of continuous stress in which your rights are violated, in cities where, despite paying high taxes, everything seems to be in ruins, is part of that hopelessness that the state achieves in the individual.
Living in a place where a good monthly salary fora top executive, for example, does not reach $100 a month, is not easy, especially taking into consideration that a basic shopping list for a family of four can cost up to $140 monthly.
So the mismanagement of incompetent and corrupt civil servants results in the deep separation of three social classes: extreme poverty, which represents more than 80% of the population and is totally dependent on the government; the working middle class, which manages to subsist through one or two basic incomes plus the economic help of family members abroad; and those who do business with the government and can live in a very comfortable, ideal world that has nothing to do with reality.
Of course, there are exceptions to this, and some people have high incomes without being involved in dubious businesses.
It is sad to see how fourth-level professionals, trained in the country, must leave in order to provide for their families.
I know it is not a unique situation in the world—it has happened and will continue to happen—but it is very different to read about it than to see it sitting in the front row or even being the leading character.
Nowadays it is the common denominator, and more and more qualified professionals and technicians step into the international airport in search of a better quality of life.That’s why there is a whole generation that has no kind of roots in their country and only waits for the opportunity to leave.
I think the worst part of all this is the desolation sown in all of us. It seems to be an endless story, with the political disqualification of opposition leaders, political prisoners, and many more vexations.
Writing all this is not easy, but it makes me reflect. It is an exercise in introspection. Without a doubt, the state strips you of everything in its eagerness to stay in charge. That’s the way they do it.
There comes a point at which the only thing in your mind is to know if you will return home alive. Everything else is secondary. At that point, the state has already massacred you internally. You can never be the same again. I’m sure I am not.
Even if you are a person who is not involved in politics, an “apolitical” citizen, in this state of anarchy, you have to fix your position.
As Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
The following video compiles clips released by CENTCOM, showing the Oct. 26, 2019 Delta Force raid in Syria that resulted in the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.
Suddenly, they had rock-hard intelligence that the terror leader would be in a specific compound at a certain time, and they only had 48 hours to spin up a plan and execute the mission before the window of opportunity would close indefinitely.
The 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment–Delta, also known as Combat Applications Group (CAG) or Delta Force, inserted near the compound via Chinook helicopters flown out of al Assad Airbase in Iraq. Baghdadi’s henchmen were alerted to the arrival of US troops and gathered to defend their leader. Thermal aerial footage shows the group of insurgents being eliminated in a single burst of high explosive munitions.
The special operations troops then closed in on the compound and released canines. Baghdadi donned an explosive-laden suicide vest and took three of his children into a tunnel to use as human shields. As the military canines closed in, Baghdadi detonated his vest, killing himself and three of his children.
The US troops spent two hours combing through the compound, capturing significant pieces of intelligence on the ISIS terror network’s members, and future plans. They also conducted a DNA test on the mangled corpse of the slain terrorist to confirm his identity.
Several ISIS fighters were killed during the operation. Only one American service personnel, the 1st SFOD-D’s military working dog, “Conan,” was injured, and that was due to direct exposure to live electrical wires, but Conan has since recovered and returned to duty.
For an influential group of American Christians, support for Israel — and hatred of Iran — are based in a biblical prophecy. Become a Video Lab member!
When President Trump authorized the drone strike that killed the powerful Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, he wasn’t just flexing America’s muscle in the Middle East.
He was also acting on the advice of a politically powerful group of evangelical Christians who believe that the US and Israel are part of the Bible’s plan to bring about the second coming of Jesus.
Once considered a fringe element of the religious right, evangelical Christian Zionists are playing an increasingly visible role in Republican politics. Today, unprecedented access to the Trump administration has given them an opportunity to reshape the Middle East.
As crime rates surge, so are vaccine mandates — and resistance by police to those mandates. That means major cities across the United States risk losing one-third or more of their police forces, hesitant about getting the COVID-19 shot.
In Chicago, more than 4,500 employees of the Chicago Police Department — about one-third of both officers and civilian employees — refused to disclose their vaccine status. Mayor Lori Lightfoot and the city’s Fraternal Order of Police are in a political standoff.
Chicago Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara said last week, “It’s safe to say that the city of Chicago will have a police force at 50% or less for this weekend coming up.”
A real disruption also soon could hit Los Angeles, where the city’s vaccine mandate deadline is in December. Last month, employees of the Los Angeles Police Department filed a federal lawsuit opposing the city’s vaccine mandate. Likewise, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told The Associated Press earlier this month, “I don’t want to be in a position to lose 5[%], 10% of my workforce overnight.” He added that he won’t enforce the county-level mandate.
“It’s impossible to know how long this potentially lasts. We could see extreme shortages,” Jason Johnson, a former deputy commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department, now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, told The Daily Signal. “Are cities going to enforce this mandate? There is greater risk to public safety by enforcing the mandate than not enforcing the mandate.”
Two-thirds of Baltimore Police Department employees got at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, below the Maryland state average of 85%, Baltimore’s WJZ-TV reported. Those numbers are similar to Chicago’s.
Baltimore police union leader Sgt. Mike Mancuso wrote to members: “Until the city responds to our right to bargain these issues, or the courts intervene, I suggest you do nothing in regard to revealing your vaccination status, as it is outlined in the city’s policy.”
National Public Radio reported that more than 230 police officers across the United States have died from COVID-19 so far in 2021, which is more than four times as many deaths as by gunfire. In 2020, the coronavirus killed nearly 250 officers nationally.
At least 150 Massachusetts State Police officers resigned ahead of the state’s vaccine mandate, NPR reported. Eighty-five percent of the State Police officers are vaccinated.
The Washington State Patrol has objected to the state mandate there, and on Monday, lost 53 civil servants, along with 74 commissioned officers — 67 troopers, six sergeants, and one captain, The Seattle Times reported. That came after a viral final sign-off on Friday from one Washington state trooper, who told Washington Gov. Jay Inslee what he thought of the mandate in no uncertain terms.
Meanwhile, the Seattle Police Department lost more than 300 officers, USA Today reported. Tuesday was the deadline for Seattle municipal government employees to comply with the vaccine mandate. Seattle Police Officers Guild President Mike Solan said he anticipates another “mass exodus.”
Oregon State Police troopers sued to stop or delay the mandate, but lost in state court on Oct. 7.
“This is more than just police officers,” said Johnson, the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund president. “We are seeing this among firefighters and teachers. These mandates were not well thought through.”
Police employees reached a deal with the city of Milwaukee last week that requires police union members to be vaccinated or wear face coverings while on duty, except when eating and drinking, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.
Police unions are likely open to negotiating a face-saving measure for mayors who don’t want to be seen as admitting to a poor policy, Johnson said.
“This should provide more incentives to get vaccinated, not impose mandates,” he said. “There can be adjustments to make for officers hesitant to get vaccinated. If they have natural immunity, they can be exempt. If they don’t have natural immunity, they could have the option of wearing a mask. They could be put on limited duty.”
Mayors and other municipal officials will have to reconsider a policy that leads to a massive loss of police officers, said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
“I would be more worried about murderers, rapists, and drug dealers acting with impunity than I would about a couple of police officers transmitting the virus,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “I don’t know why these officers are refusing to get the vaccine. Presumably, they have a good reason. But any policy that leads to mass firings of police has to be fixed.”
Initially, the granting of a marketing authorization (MA) was the responsibility of each Member State. A 1993 regulation, replaced by a regularly amended 2004 regulation, established an evaluation agency: the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
The EMA consists of a Management Board of 36 members, most of whom represent the Member States (most often the director or president of their national agency). The Management Board appoints an Executive Director, who is supported by seven expert committees.
The agency is one of a vast category of more or less decentralized bodies, whose names themselves vary (agency, office, observatory, etc.), created to advise the European Commission on technical matters.
The Commission, as a political institution, remains free to follow this advice or not, and it is the Commission that grants the MA. But the EMA, with its expert competence, especially in the medical field, plays a crucial preparatory role.
As an agency of the European Commission, the EMA’s obligations in terms of transparency and access to documents derive from directives stipulating that any document held by the EMA in the course of its activities is in fact a public document.
Its lack of transparency was denounced when it refused to tell Members of Parliament the basis on which the laboratories that produced the vaccines were chosen and the amount of money paid for them.
The “predictability” of the EMA is so great that the American industry envies it, especially the neo-conservative “think tank” Pacific Research Institute, financed by the bio-technology industry, which militates for less and less government intervention. And for good reason! The day after his departure from the EMA in 2011, Executive Director Thomas Lönngren joined the board of directors of NDA Ltd, a lobbying company serving pharmaceutical companies, which recruited him as a “leading influencer”.
Pantouflage or “revolving doors” is a scourge. In a health sector that is both highly lucrative and highly regulated, companies have a great interest in placing their men in public agencies and implementing this entry strategy.
Italian Guido Rasi was then appointed director of the EMA in 2011, then forced to resign by the European Justice for undeclared conflict of interest, before being reappointed as director of the EMA again in 2015.
The current director, Emer Cooke, spent seven years at EFPIA, the main lobby of the pharmaceutical industry in the European Union, which organizes meetings in the European Parliament with representatives of GSK, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer…
A European audit by the Court of Auditors in 2012 confirms serious problems of conflict of interest within the EMA (and 3 other agencies: EASA (aviation safety) EFSA (food safety) and ECHA (safety of chemicals).
Le Canard Enchaîné revealed that some of the EMA’s experts are employees or own shares in the pharmaceutical companies whose lucrative products they are supposed to evaluate.
Whistleblowers have denounced this problem: “For months, our company has been discreetly paying an expert to lobby for our product. The remuneration is exorbitant, but the most serious thing is that he is an expert at the EMA.”
In the Mediator (ER: which also goes by the name benfluorex, which caused up to 2,000 deaths in France) affair, the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs implicated several French experts, who sat at the European Medicines Agency, in the late banning of Mediator and the subsequent health drama.
The EMA itself offers pharmaceutical companies “scientific advice”, which is invoiced to help them submit their applications for marketing authorizations, particularly conditional ones, such as those for vaccines against cardiovascular disease (cMA).
A 2017 report notes “a general acceptance of corruption” within the EMA and:
– a general acceptance of corruption
– ineffective management structures
– inappropriate funding mechanisms
– unequal distribution of resources
In June 2020, the EMA made the decision to authorize Gilead’s remdesivir. (ER: Anecodotally, this drug is being used in American hospitals, for example, where erstwhile healthy patients end up on dialysis or have other kidney problems.)
The journal Prescrire commented, “Once again, the EMA has been less than rigorous in its relationship with the firms, at the expense of patients and caregivers, who are left in limbo.”
In October, following this seemingly senseless decision, the Commission signed a huge contract with Gilead, even though the company had just learned of the latest WHO study that invalidated the effectiveness of its treatment.
The health of the French people deserves better than a health dictatorship, it deserves a public drug centre, transparent and independent public expertise, a democratic decision-making process, and intelligent, benevolent and non-coercive health policies.
Government and business are making a dangerous gene therapy with 2.2 million adverse reactions the condition for employment, education, travel and access to many public spaces.
The first step is to stop calling them “vaccines.” They don’t prevent or cure the flu. (Ivermectin does that.)
There is a sinister hidden agenda, which may include depopulation, trans humanism, social control, implanted digital ids and operating systems.
VigiAccess (vigiaccess.org) is the World Health Organization’s database of reported adverse drug reactions from around the world.
Searching “covid-19 vaccine” gives a list of different categories of reactions, with each further broken down into more specific types of side effects.
While the true number of adverse reactions is likely much higher as there are many doctors speaking out about their reports of adverse reactions being dismissed, the quantity and variety of officially recorded adverse reactions is more than enough to make you think twice about complying with vaccine mandates.
Some of the highlights from the list of adverse reactions:
-952,822 reports of nervous system disorders such as tremors, seizures, loss of sensation, Bell’s palsy, and cerebrovascular “accidents”.
-119,464 reports of vascular disorders including hypertension, hypotension, thrombosis (the infamous blood clots), and circulatory collapse.
-108,468 reports of cardiac disorders such as palpitations, tachycardia, myocarditis, pericarditis, cardiac arrest, and cardiac failure.
-647,069 reports of musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, which include muscle spasms, decreased mobility, and spinal pain.
-303,701 reports of skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders including rashes, itching, excessive sweating, cold sweats, blisters, and hair loss.
-85,797 reports of reproductive system disorders, mostly related to menstrual issues but also including erectile dysfunction as well as 92 cases of infertility so far.
-104,221 reports of psychiatric disorders including confusional states, hallucinations, delirium, psychotic disorders, and suicidal ideation.
-30,921 reports of immune system disorders such as anaphylactic shock, allergic reactions, and hypersensitivity
-73,537 reports of ear and labyrinth disorders including vertigo, tinnitus, ear pain, and deafness.
-Buried deep under “General disorders and administration site conditions” are 11,536 deaths.
Despite the vaccines being recommended for pregnant women there are a few thousand reports of spontaneous abortions as well as fetal deaths, stillbirths, and premature deaths. These incidents are likely to be grossly underreported as there where dozens of pregnant women posting on social media about getting vaccinated only to soon after announce that they had miscarried.
In total, over 2.2 million adverse reactions have been reported to VigiAccess. 69% are females are 30% are males, which could be explained by the fact that women are more likely to see a doctor when feeling ill or perhaps there are yet unknown reasons which put women at higher risk for side effects.
Also, 39% of adverse reactions occurred in people 18-44 years of age, despite this age group being at very low risk for severe illness or death from the covid virus itself. It would be difficult to make the argument that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks for this age group.
I have several family members whose jobs are at risk due to vaccine mandates.
They are being forced to choose between unemployment – without unemployment benefits – or submitting to a vaccine which is proven not to be safe and also is not fulfilling its intended purpose of preventing covid-19.
This is a game of medical Russian roulette. Sure, most people have no serious reactions but then we have stories like the Denver police officer who can no longer walk after receiving the mandatory vaccine (Denver Police Officer Can’t Walk After Getting COVID-19 Vaccine) or the mother of two children who died from blood clots (Mother of 2 dies from blood clots after getting COVID-19 vaccine).
These people and others were forced to choose between unemployment and vaccination, and it was not a good deal.
There are also numerous reports of university athletes dying suddenly in recent weeks.
Most universities and colleges in North America have mandated vaccines for students and staff, yet there is no official investigation into the correlation between the vaccine and these mysterious deaths. Since when was it normal for people 18-25 years of age to drop dead from unknown causes?
In conclusion, mandated and coerced vaccinations are not only a potential health risk but also a gross violation of civil rights. If we allow governments and employers to force medical procedures on us then we are opening the door to further abuses.
With the mainstream media and politicians fearmongering over population increases which will supposedly affect climate change, the next set of mandates could easily extend to abortion, sterilization, or euthanasia. Continued compliance with these draconian edicts will not get us back to normal. On the contrary, this will only normalize authoritarianism.
Consumer watchdog groups accuse the FDA of having evolved from a “hard-charging tiger of an agency” a century ago, to a “pliant pussycat” today.
Regulatory agencies, says Encyclopedia Britannica, are a uniquely American institution. Though conceptualized as mere advisory bodies at the time of their emergence in the late 19th century, federal regulatory agencies have since acquired comprehensive legislative powers and even quasi-judicial powers — exercising “social control through rulemaking” with “almost no supervision by other branches of government.”
As legal scholars tamely explain, “unique pressures and influences … invariably push [regulators’] actions, and their decisions on policy questions, in a direction favored by regulated firms.”
This phenomenon, known as regulatory capture, has become the norm — not least because lucrative “revolving door” jobs generally await tractable regulators once they exit their government posts.
In the crowded field of captured agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is one of the standouts. FDA gets 45% of its budget from the pharmaceutical industry, and fast-tracks more than 50% of the drugs it approves.
Consumer watchdog groups accuse the FDA of having evolved from a “hard-charging tiger of an agency” a century ago, to a “pliant pussycat” today.
FDA states that drug recalls are initiated either “by FDA request” or “on a company’s own initiative.” According to the consumer website Drugwatch, however, FDA “can only recommend” but not force a recall.
Vaccine recalls, too, are “almost always initiated voluntarily by the vaccine manufacturer.” In 1976, public outcry forced the government to pull the plug on a dangerous swine flu vaccine after just 10 weeks, but only after 40 million Americans had received it.
Although manufacturers do withdraw dangerous drugs, vaccines and consumer products from the market from time to time (sometimes after FDA has obligingly looked the other way for decades), many observers believe such recalls represent the tip of the iceberg — a placatory bone thrown to persuade the public that the nation has a functional oversight system.
Is the FDA at least scrupulous about which drugs and vaccines it lets out of the starting gate?
As a long line of drug fiascoes suggests, the clear answer is no — experimental COVID vaccines are the latest example.
The still timely tale of thalidomide
Thalidomide never received FDA approval, but the saga illustrates how, even 60 years ago, the FDA had already cast its lot with industry.
In the late 1950s, German firm Chemie Grünenthal (now Grünenthal) developed thalidomide with the help of former Nazi scientists (including Hitler’s IG Farben adviser on chemical warfare), promoting the drug for nausea and other discomforts of pregnancy.
In some countries, thalidomide was an ingredient in children’s cough syrups. Chemie Grünenthal sold thalidomide in 46 countries for five years before admitting the drug posed risks of severe birth defects, including missing or deformed limbs and injuries to major organs.
In the U.S., Chemie Grünenthal gave two pharmaceutical giants (companies that dominate the American market to this day) permission to manufacture thalidomide: first Smith Kline & French (now GlaxoSmithKline) and then Richardson-Merrell (now Sanofi).
Richardson-Merrell expected smooth regulatory sailing, but after it ignored repeated requests for pregnancy safety data from Dr. Frances Kelsey — a newly minted FDA employee with untarnished integrity — Kelsey “took a bold stance against inadequate testing and corporate pressure” and refused to approve thalidomide’s U.S. release.
Mistakenly confident that “corporate pressure” would eventually bear fruit, the company went ahead and distributed, “in an uncontrolled fashion,” more than 2.5 million doses of thalidomide to 20,000 pregnant women under cover of “clinical trials.”
When Kelsey still would not approve the drug, the company was forced to give up, but threatened to sue Kelsey after she tried to track down thalidomide babies. Neither the FDA nor the U.S. attorney backed up Kelsey.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy shone a light on Kelsey’s efforts by giving her a President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service. Even so, thalidomide survivors allege the FDA and Richardson-Merrell kept the full story of thalidomide buried for decades.
In fact, not only did FDA squelch efforts to locate thalidomide victims, but it produced a whitewashed report stating that Richardson-Merrell’s “unauthorized marketing program” had produced just 17 thalidomide babies — a bogus estimate emphatically denounced by survivors.
At some point, FDA appears to have quietly changed its tune. In an undated presentation on its website, the agency states: “By late 1961, it was obvious that thalidomide had caused serious birth defects in thousands of children.”
In 2013, a GSK researcher published a surprisingly frank dissection of the thalidomide disaster, describing how the drug established a template for industry and regulatory behavior that is still relevant today:
“Strong marketing pressure in an industry hungry for new medicines brought an inadequately tested drug to the market, targeted outsourcing quickly expanded the client base and finally market forces prevented timely withdrawal, even when evidence was emerging of disastrous side-effects. […] [M]any of the pressures that led to the thalidomide disaster exist today with record high management and shareholder pressures to achieve success, parallel worldwide marketing, increased numbers of targeted outsourcing by small companies forming alliances with ‘Big Pharma’ and…a breakdown in the system of checks and balances that have existed in the regulatory authorities …”
In the intervening decades, thalidomide has undergone a “dramatic revitalization.” Undaunted by its horrific teratogenic track record and other serious adverse effects such as blood clots, nerve damage and neurotoxicity, the U.S. today permits thalidomide as a treatment for multiple myeloma. The hunt is also on for dermatological and other uses.
DES and Vioxx
Self-congratulatory regulators claim the thalidomide disaster gave birth to stricter regulations and safer drugs. However, it is not hard to find examples that undermine this assertion.
For instance, despite numerous danger signals, it took the FDA until 1971 to issue a warning about pregnant women’s use of diethylstilbestrol (DES) — a drug the FDA approved in 1947, in the pre-thalidomide era.
No ban accompanied FDA’s soft-pedaled 1971 warning, however, so mothers-to-be continued to receive DES for at least another decade.
Scientists now acknowledge DES provokes calamitous epigenetic effects in future generations, with DES grandchildren showing increased risks of preterm delivery, neonatal mortality, cerebral palsy and “malformations of any type.”
Merck’s infamous painkiller Vioxx is another example of FDA foot-dragging — a “cautionary tale of masterful public relations, aggressive marketing and ineffective regulation.”
Just six months after Vioxx’s May 1999 approval, an FDA-convened data and safety monitoring board identified a “disconcerting” trend of serious heart problems and deaths in patients taking Vioxx — a risk confirmed one month later to be twice as high as that in the group taking a comparison painkiller.
Despite this early evidence, the FDA said little, leaving it up to well-paid Merck consultants to massage the data.
According to subsequent independent analyses, Vioxx produced elevated cardiovascular risks even with short-term use, and the risks persisted long after the individual stopped taking the drug.
At its peak, Vioxx was marketed in 80-plus countries.
In September 2004, after roughly 20 million Americans had taken the drug — credited with causing tens of thousands of premature deaths from heart attacks and strokes in the U.S. alone — Merck finally withdrew Vioxx.
That same month, FDA reviewer Dr. David Graham blamed the FDA for failing to protect public safety, telling the Senate Finance Committee that his agency’s “procedures and culture made it impossible to adequately investigate drugs.”
In Europe, a Scottish scientist characterized the episode as “quite possibly” one of the worst drug disasters in history.
Describing the FDA’s willingness to turn a blind eye to the drug’s harms as “the equivalent of allowing ‘two to four jumbo jetliners’ to crash every week for five years,” Graham noted he had been “ostracized,” asked by superiors to “soften his conclusions” and “subjected to veiled threats” and “intimidation.”
The FDA’s response to safety concerns, Graham also asserted, was “almost always one of denial, rejection and heat.”
Readers ready to dismiss the examples of thalidomide, DES and Vioxx as ancient history should check out the FDA’s webpage of more recent drug recalls.
From Aug. 30, 2017 to Oct. 1, 2021, manufacturers have recalled 381 drugs or drug lots — an average of approximately eight recalls per month. Notable entries include drugs or products by COVID vaccine makers Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and AstraZeneca (or their subsidiaries).
In 2015, Pfizer acquired Hospira, “the world’s leading provider of injectable drugs and infusion technologies.” At the time, Hospira’s track record was less than stellar, with more than 40 recalls in the prior three years.
The conservative FDA recall list shows at least 12 more Hospira recalls since September 2017. Other “urgent” Hospira recalls have not yet appeared on FDA’s list.
Nearly all of the Pfizer-Hospira recalls have been for potentially life-threatening production failures — such as mislabeling of one product for another, microbial contamination, cracked vials (and other defects jeopardizing product sterility) and presence of particulates (including glass and human hair).
Kaiser Health News reported in early 2021 that “a decade’s worth of FDA inspection reports” had flagged one of Pfizer’s Hospira manufacturing plants as a “repeat offender” for bacterial and mold contamination.
Pfizer also appears several other times on the FDA recall list:
Over the past two decades, merger-happy Pfizer has spearheaded three of the ten largest pharmaceutical mergers in history, with Wyeth (2009), Pharmacia (2003) and Warner-Lambert (2000).
In August 2021, Pfizer added cancer drug maker Trillium Therapeutics to its roster — right around the time concerned health providers were reporting an uptick in aggressive cancers in COVID mRNA vaccine recipients.
Wyeth was the manufacturer of two notorious diet pills recalled in 1997 for causing long-lasting heart valve injuries — fenfluramine (Pondimin) and dexfenfluramine (Redux), both part of the “fen-phen” cocktail of diet drugs.
Pondimin had been allowed to remain on the market for 24 years before being pulled. One year after Pfizer’s acquisition of Wyeth, Pfizer also issued a recall of Wyeth’s fatal and liver-damaging leukemia drug, Mylotarg, which had received accelerated FDA approval a decade earlier.
More speedy approvals on the horizon
The FDA is far from the only captured agency. Many critics of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, blame the EPA’s “completely broken” and “reckless” safety review process for prioritizing corporate profits over public health and encouraging use of some of the world’s most dangerous pesticides, including glyphosate.
Unfortunately, new opportunities for FDA corruption are emerging, particularly in the arena of “biosimilars.” Biosimilars are biologics (such as vaccines) that the FDA considers “highly similar to and [with] no clinically meaningful differences from an existing FDA-approved reference product.” As such, they are eligible for an “abbreviated licensure pathway.”
In 2016, biosimilars were projected to become “the single fastest-growing biologics sector.”
American vaccine scientists are salivating over the prospect of proving biosimilarity for future mRNA vaccines. Though the legal terrain has yet to be consolidated, biosimilarity would guarantee lightning-fast approvals.
Coincidentally or not, Pfizer’s Hospira subsidiary is a “global leader in biosimilars.”
Japan, which has some of the most cautious vaccine policies in the world, recently recalled 1.6 million doses of Moderna’s mRNA injection against COVID, after two men injected with stainless-steel-contaminated batches died.
Don’t expect anything similar to happen in the U.S. No matter how shoddy Pfizer’s or Moderna’s manufacturing practices may be, and no matter the safety signals, the FDA’s primary goal seems to be to ensure an endless profit pipeline for the vaccine and drug manufacturers that are the agency’s own bread and butter.