The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

The Most Revolutionary Act

Global Warming on Earth and Other Planets

Dmitry Orlov

Earth’s climate is changing quite rapidly, and many people have allowed themselves to be convinced that this is due to something called “anthropogenic global warming” and that the culprit is carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, farming, land clearing and other human activities. This isn’t so much a theory as a hypothesis—an unproven one. It is based on computer models, and the problem with those is that they generally show what people who pay for the research want them to show; if not, they pay somebody else to get the results they want.

And the reason these particular results were desirable was because they could be used to justify giant money-making schemes, such as taxing carbon emitters, trading carbon credits and, of course, building out wind and solar generation capacity that is expensive, intermittent, unreliable, short-lived and compromises the integrity of electric grids. Promulgating this hypothesis as a God-given truth also made it possible to riddle many people with guilt, causing them to voluntarily curtail their energy consumption, in turn allowing the rich to continue to get richer even as energy availability in the formerly rich countries starts to decline. Al Gore, Clinton’s VP and great big climate alarmist, grew obscenely rich by exploiting climate hysteria. He was last seen at the Davos conference spouting more of his climate alarmism; luckily, few people in the world still listen to him.

But now comes an important piece of news that blows up the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis clear out of the water: it is not just our globe that’s warming but also all the other globes in the solar system. What?! Well, yes, the evidence is in, and it is most puzzling. Nobody knows what the cause is, but the effect is definitely measurable and significant.

The temperatures on Neptune have been known to be linked to the 11-year solar cycle, but in 1996 this link was broken and Neptune grew much dimmer. Researchers thought that this effect might be caused by cosmic rays affecting its lower atmosphere.

• Uranus has usually been very quiet, its observable weather also linked to variation in solar activity, but since 2014 it has been unusually stormy and nobody knows why. Until 2014 its temperature was gradually decreasing, but since that year its temperature has been rising rapidly.

• Saturn has a 30-year storm cycle, but in 2010 the storm came 10 years too early and has been the largest ever seen. Also, the Cassini spacecraft recorded first ever dust storms on Saturn’s satellite Titan, whipped up by significantly higher wind speeds.

• On Jupiter, the red spots are now visible above the atmosphere, driven by increased temperature. In its large red spot, which is the largest storm in the solar system, from 2009 to 2020 wind speeds increased by 10% and are continuing to increase. Also, the number of volcanic eruptions on Jupiter’s satellite Io have increased significantly.

• Mars has experienced an entire range of effects: giant dust storms, land slides, magnetic anomalies, seismic activity and the melting of its ice caps. Mars is heating up and nobody knows why.

• On Venus, from 2006 to 2012 wind speeds increased from 300km/h to 400km/h while the number of active volcanos increased to a record number.• Overall, researcher Yuri Barkin ( reports that in 1998 the Doris system recorded sharp motions of the cores of all the planets in the solar system that took pace within 0.5-1.5 years. That’s planetary cores of all planets, not just Earth.

• Meanwhile, the Sun has been in an anomalously long solar minimum since 2012, which is now predicted to last until 2045, ruling it out as the cause of any of these mysterious temperature increases.

• Finally, on Earth we have seen increased vulcanism, increased ocean temperatures uniformly distributed across all ocean depths, melting glaciers, melting permafrost, decreases in Arctic ice, climate zones shifting north, shifts in the magnetic field, increased incidence and intensity of dust storms and tornadoes, increased incidence and intensity of hurricanes, intense floods in some places and intense droughts in others, unusually mild winters in some places and record-breaking cold spells in others… in short, the whole gamut of climate upheaval.

Nobody knows the cause of this, but I will venture a somewhat educated guess. We know that the source of the extra heat comes from outside the solar system, and so it must be in the form of subatomic particles of some sort. We also know that these particles must have fantastic penetrating ability, affecting the cores of planets as well as the atmospheres and the surfaces. And there is only one kind of subatomic particle that can fly straight through a star or a planet: that’s a neutrino. The normal neutrino flux is on the order of neutrinos per square centimeter per second any time and anywhere. Most neutrinos are thought to have been generated during the Big Bang and are still whizzing around, but additional pulses of neutrinos are generated when a large star collapses, resulting in a supernova. There is a stage during its collapse that’s called “neutrino confinement”; once it’s over, an entire swarm of neutrinos is emitted in a pulse that has been detected by experiments on Earth, including one that I happen to have worked on.

Neutrinos only interact with matter through the weak nuclear force that’s effective within an atomic nucleus, which is a tiny target, making such interactions very unlikely. There are several neutrino species, and we specifically looked for muon neutrinos: “When a muon neutrino interacts with a nucleus, it can produce an energetic muon which travels only a short distance, emitting a sharply outlined cone of Cerenkov radiation which can be detected by photomultiplier tubes.” ( And what photomultiplier tubes detect is photons, which carry electromagnetic energy that is eventually reradiated as infrared radiation, a.k.a. heat. The hypothesis, then, is that around 1998 the solar system was bombarded by an unusually huge flux of neutrinos. This will be very difficult to prove since, as far as I know, none of the neutrino detectors were set up to detect baseline shifts and now that the event is over it is probably too late.

Another phenomenon that I know next to nothing about but that could, I suppose, be responsible, is gravity waves. Large gravity waves can be generated when two giant black holes merge into one.



Mexico Becomes First Nation To Admit Harms Of Geoengineering, Halts Future Experiments

GeoengineeringDerrick Broze

Last American Vagabond

The Mexican government has announced a moratorium on solar geoengineering experiments following an unauthorized small scale experiment by a U.S. startup. How will the decision impact the plans of globalists who aim to use geoengineering as a gateway to world governance?

Only weeks ago, Luke Iseman, the CEO of Make Sunsets, the company behind the experiment, announced to the world that he had released two weather balloons filled with reflective sulfur particles as part of publicity stunt meant to spark conversation around the science of geoengineering.

Geoengineering is a controversial science of manipulating the climate for the stated purpose of fighting man-made climate change. There are several types of geoengineering, including Solar Radiation Management (SRM) or solar geoengineering.  Stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, is a specific solar geoengineering practice which involves spraying aerosols into the sky in an attempt to deflect the Sun’s rays. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is currently developing a five-year research plan on solar geoengineering.

Iseman launched the balloons in Baja California, Mexico without seeking approval from the Mexican government or local authorities. This prompted the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources to release a statement condemning the experiment and banning further solar geoengineering attempts until further notice. The Mexican government also said it will practice the precautionary principle to protect communities and the environment against potential dangers of geoengineering.

The Secretariat noted that “studies show negative impacts due to the release of these aerosols and that they cause meteorological imbalances”. The statement also mentions previous international agreements which are designed to limit the use of geoengineering techniques, including the 2010 United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity, which established a moratorium on the deployment of geoengineering.

The Center for International Environmental Law applauded Mexico’s response and called on “all governments to take steps to ban solar geoengineering outdoor experiments, technology development, and deployment.”

Luke Iseman, CEO of Make Sunsets, appears to be something of a climate change extremist. In December, Iseman told Climate Change News that the experiment was “part entrepreneurial and part provocation, an act of geoengineering activism”. Iseman also said that within his company, “We joke slash not joke that this is partly a company and partly a cult”.

Iseman also recognized that some groups will make him “look like the Bond villain”, but he believes “it’s morally wrong, in my opinion, for us not to be doing this”.

The Potential Dangers of Solar Geoengineering

The Mexican Secretariat promised further coordination with experts to review the existing scientific research to “expose the serious risks that solar geoengineering practices represent for the environment, peoples and their community settings”.


For the last decade I have reported on studies highlighting the dangers posed by solar geoengineering. For example, in 2018, I reported that a team at University of California, Berkeley found evidence that geoengineering will likely reduce the yields of certain crops. The researchers came to this conclusion by studying previous volcanic eruptions in Mexico and the Philippines. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines and El Chichon in Mexico in 1982 caused a decrease in wheat, soy, and rice production due to the volcanic ash blocking sun light.

The researchers concluded that “projected mid-twenty-first century damages due to scattering sunlight caused by solar radiation management are roughly equal in magnitude to benefits from cooling”.

One of the other dangers of solar geoengineering is the potential loss of blue skies. According to a report by the New Scientist, Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science has shown that releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere would scatter sunlight into the atmosphere. He says this could decrease the amount of sunlight that hits the ground by 20% and make the sky appear more hazy.

Although a number of authorities have warned about the dangers of geoengineering techniques, the risks are seen as secondary to the perceived risks of climate change. The interesting thing to note is that although proponents of geoengineering hail it as the solution to climate change and sustaining life, research indicates that geoengineering could actually have the reverse effect of heating the Earth.

According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, if geoengineering programs were started and then suddenly halted the planet could see an immediate rise in temperatures, particularly over land. The study, titled “The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management”, seems to indicate that once you begin geoengineering you cannot suspend the programs without causing the very problem you were seeking to resolve.

Further, in February of 2015, an international committee of scientists released a report stating that geoengineering techniques are not a viable alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat the effects of climate change. The committee report called for further research and understanding of various geoengineering techniques, including carbon dioxide removal schemes and solar-radiation management before implementation.

The scientists found that solar geoengineering techniques are likely to present “serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally.” The report was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. intelligence community, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy.

The Intelligence-Military-Weather Manipulation Complex

As more studies confirm the dangers posed by geoengineering technologies it’s time for an honest public conversation about the reality of geoengineering programs. While any suggestion that these programs may actually already be taking place is derided as the “chemtrails conspiracy theory”, one must only look at the history of U.S. military and intelligence interest in modifying and controlling the weather.

Geoengineering itself is part of a broader category of weather manipulation technology that also includes more common tools like cloud seeding. Cloud seeding was used in the Vietnam War as the U.S. military attempted to flood the Viet Gong with rain storms as part of Operation Popeye.

From 1967 to 1972, the U.S. military conducted cloud-seeding operations over the Ho-Chi Minh trail during the Vietnam War. Cloud-seeding typically involves planes flying overhead and spraying silver iodide into the air. The goal in Vietnam was to extend monsoon season and flood out the enemy. It was reported that the operations were “tightly controlled” by Henry Kissinger, who was serving as Secretary of State at the time. Operation Popeye is the first modern example (that we know of) where attempts were made to use weather as a weapon of war.



The U.S. military is not alone in their interest in geoengineering technology. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has also discussed the potential use of geoengineering.



After Reaping Huge Profits Selling BioNTech Shares, Bill Gates Trashes Effectiveness of COVID Vaccines

Photo credit: Lowy Institute

By  Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Bill Gates, long recognized as one of the world’s foremost proponents of vaccines, raised some eyebrows at a recent talk in Australia when he admitted there are “problems” with current COVID-19 vaccines.

Speaking at Australia’s Lowy Institute as part of a talk entitled “Preparing for Global Challenges: In Conversation with Bill Gates,” the Microsoft founder made the following admission:

“We also need to fix the three problems of [COVID-19] vaccines. The current vaccines are not infection-blocking. They’re not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.”

Such statements came as a surprise to some in light of Gates’ longstanding support of — and investments in — vaccine manufacturers and organizations promoting global vaccination. However, they were the latest in a string of developments in recent weeks that have increasingly called the COVID-19 vaccines, in particular, into question.

‘This is a grift’: Gates’ investments in mRNA vaccines reveal ‘conflict of interest’

Several analysts and commentators were critical of Gates — but not due to disagreement with the statements he made in Australia. Instead, they argued that he had previously heavily invested in mRNA vaccines at the same time he encouraged a global COVID-19 vaccination campaign and supported mandatory vaccination.

Speaking Jan. 25 on The Hill TV’s “Rising,” co-hosts Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave addressed Gates’ statements. Soave initially agreed at face value with Gates’ criticism of current mRNA vaccines, saying:

“He really nails it on the issues that we’re having: the short duration of protection, not a significant discernable impact on the transmission of cases … not a massive benefit for a lot of otherwise healthy and younger people.”

However, Soave — who on Jan. 19 revealed “Facebook files” indicating the CDC significantly influenced content moderation and censorship on the platform pertaining to COVID-19 vaccines — then pointed out Gates’ prior investments that contributed to the development of mRNA vaccine technology.

Soave said, “Bill Gates was a major proponent of mRNA technology … he was an investor in BioNTech, which developed the mRNA vaccine for Pfizer.”

“We were just doing some digging,” continued Soave, “[and] we saw that he sold a lot of those shares at … how much profit was that?”

“10x,” replied Gray. “He invested $55 million in BioNTech back in 2019 and it’s now worth north of $550 million. He sold some stock … at the end of last year, I believe it was, with the share price over $300, which represented a huge gain for him over when he invested.”

Soave then unleashed critical comments directed at Gates:

“Let’s follow that trajectory: [Gates] invests heavily in BioNTech, ‘mRNA vaccines are great, this is the future,’ he talks about the vaccine timeline and how we can develop it faster, ‘we might have to cut some corners on safety’ … All in … sells it … makes a huge amount of money … but now it’s ‘yeah, it’s okay, it could be better, but what we really need is this breath spray.’”

Soave was referring to a statement Gates made during his recent talk in Australia, immediately prior to his remarks regarding the mRNA vaccines, where he said:

“We think we can also have, very early in an epidemic, a thing that you can inhale that will mean that you can’t be infected, a blocker, an inhaled blocker.”

Gray raised the issue of conflicts of interest between individuals such as Gates who hold significant positions with drug and vaccine manufacturers, and the federal government’s spending of large sums of taxpayer money to purchase these products. She said:

“This is a grift. These companies are extracting money, taxpayer money as it were, to pay for medical treatments that are not indicated by medical professionals and are less useful than what we already have.

“At the same time, the Biden administration is opening its doors, revolving doors, to people from these various industries like Jeff Zients, who is the new chief of staff for Joe Biden … who has spent his entire career at the kinds of companies, investing in the kinds of companies, that have been overcharging the government for Medicare and Medicaid payments and exact kinds of overpayments. It is an enormous grift and one that is incredibly common.”

Zients was formerly the Biden administration’s “COVID czar” and publicly pushed for universal vaccination.

Soave then said that Gates’ statements, and the broader issue of conflicts of interest between drug and vaccine proponents and the federal government, give credence to the assertions long made by “anti-vaxxers and the like.” He said:

“For there not to be more interrogation of his conflict of interest here by the mainstream is deeply disturbing, and for people who have been skeptical of this aspect of Pfizer and the drug development around COVID and who have been shot down in the media as kooks, anti-vaxxers and the like, I frankly think that this issue of pharmaceutical corruption and people pushing various interventions, having an investment in profit, should have been an issue that the left was leading on.

“We have to be more transparent about the fact that people who are having input in what the government policy is going to be, what’s going to be required people, the Biden administration tried to require people to get this, shouldn’t it be known at least when there are hundreds of millions of dollars of financial interests at stake for the people advising this? And their tune changes as it follows the money!”

Investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel also had scathing remarks following Gates’ statements in Australia, writing on his blog:

“Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who served as one of the architects of Covid hysteria and had more of an impact than any other individual on the disastrous global pandemic policies, has finally acknowledged that the mRNA shots he’s been promoting for two years are nothing more than expired pharma junk.

“Translation: Gates admits that the shots are impossible to align with rapidly developing variants, they expire in lighting speed, and they don’t stop transmission. And they don’t work for the only at-risk portion of the population.”

Schachtel called this “an incredible reversal from the man who once advertised the shots as the cure to the coronavirus,” drawing upon Gates’ previous statement: “everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves but reducing their transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal.”

In 2021, Gates described the mRNA vaccines as “magic,” saying they would be a “game changer” in the next five years.

Gates warns about ‘next pandemic,’ praises lockdowns, calls for more pandemic simulations

As reported by the Daily Mail Jan. 23, Gates’ talk in Australia was notable for some additional statements he made.

Gates “called for greater global cooperation using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of how countries could improve on their response if they worked together,” arguing that “political leaders needed to set aside their differences and work together to prepare for the next virus.”

He also praised Australia’s strict lockdown policies. . .



Big New Zealand study reveals high rates of kidney injury after Pfizer jab

Pfizer jab 97% effective against symptomatic Covid: Study - Times of India

Alex Berenson

Drawing on a national database of over four million people, researchers in New Zealand have found a strong association between Pfizer’s mRNA Covid shot and kidney injuries.

In the three weeks after a mRNA jab, the risk of acute kidney injury rose 60 percent, the researchers found. They reported almost 1,800 extra cases – the equivalent of over 100,000 extra cases of kidney injury in the United States.

The finding was posted as a “preprint” in The Lancet’s database on Friday, Jan. 20. It is the third signal from a large government-managed database linking the Pfizer’s mRNA shots to serious side effects in only the last six weeks.


The authors did not define “acute kidney injury,” a term that can cover anything from relatively benign changes on laboratory tests to a serious loss of renal function.

Still, the finding is yet another signal of the potential cardiovascular risks of the mRNAs. The kidneys essentially function as filters for the blood, and renal injuries often result from reduced blood flow to the kidneys.

The researchers also found elevated rates of heart inflammation, blood clots, and platelet damage in the weeks after one or both of the shots. In all, they found a statistical link between the Pfizer shot for four of the 12 conditions they examined.

The finding is particularly strong because the researchers did not have to depend on voluntary reporting. Instead, they compared New Zealand’s national health records to its national database of people over five who received the vaccine. Just over 4 million New Zealanders, including 95 percent of adults and teenagers, received the shots, providing a large pool to track.

The researchers then compared the number of “adverse events” they found to historical background rates.

In addition, New Zealand had relatively low rates of Covid for most of the period during which people received the Pfizer jabs, so Covid itself cannot be blamed for the excess injuries.



Australia Sees Heart Attacks Increase By 17% In 2022 – “Experts” Blame Pandemic

Heart attack statistics Australia: Cardiac arrest signs and symptoms | The Courier Mail

Zero Hedge

The public has been bombarded with a stream of news stories in recent months seeking to explain the steady rise of heart attacks in western countries in the past two years.  The epidemic is most concerning due to the large number of young and otherwise healthy people that are being stricken with heart problems otherwise reserved for older or clinically obese patients.

Explanations for the trend blame everything from video games to climate change.  Of course, these scapegoats do not explain the statistical leap in heart failure in the past two years.  The most common narrative is that the covid virus is the cause – The problem with this theory is that there is zero evidence to support the claim that covid causes potential heart ailments.  In fact, studies show that there is no such thing as “covid heart”, a false concept spread by the mainstream media at the onset of the pandemic.

Are the “experts” baffled?  Or, are they trying to avoid the obvious culprit.

Australia is reporting a 17% increase in heart attacks in the first eight months of 2022 alone, and establishment paid researchers seem to be deliberately avoiding any mention of the covid mRNA vaccines.  Instead, they are continuing to blame covid infection along with numerous peripheral and indirect triggers associated with the lockdowns.

Multiple studies now show a direct relationship between vaccine status and Myocarditis, specifically in young people, and the attempts to suppress such information by Big Pharma and governments are failing.  If side effects are related to developing auto-immune disorders triggered by mRNA as some researchers suspect, then symptoms in many vaccinated people may not become visible for months or years.  But, as time passes, the extent of the damage will become clear to the public.

Pro-vaccine studies related to the dangers often do not include unvaccinated people as a control group for determining side effects, which suggests a desire to hide health risks associated with covid vaccination.  Eventually the questions and the deaths are going to become too prominent for the mainstream to ignore.  Are torches and pitchforks the inevitable end for vaccine enforcers and Big Pharma?



British MPs Call for Probe Into Massive Spikes in Deaths

British MPs call for probe into massive spike in deaths


Nearly 3,000 more Britons are dying than average on a weekly basis, and it’s not Covid-19 that’s responsible.

Troubled by national statistics showing 20% excess deaths per week, UK MPs have demanded an investigation, the Daily Mail reported on Tuesday. Unlike the last time excess deaths reached such levels, during the second Covid-19 wave, few of these deaths could be attributed to the virus.

Speaking before the House of Commons on Tuesday, Conservative MP Esther McVey skewered Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty for blaming the spike in non-Covid excess deaths on “patients not getting statins or blood pressure medicines during the pandemic,” pointing out that the monthly figures for statin prescriptions had remained constant.

Where is the evidence? And if there isn’t one, what is causing these excess deaths?” she asked, demanding the minister “commit to an urgent and thorough investigation of the matter.”

Labour shadow public health minister Andrew Gwynne described health secretary Steve Barclay as “part man, part ostrich” over his refusal to confront the issue, accusing PM Rishi Sunak’s government of “denial and buck-passing.

There were 50,000 more deaths than we would have otherwise expected in 2022,” he told the House of Commons on Tuesday. “Excluding the pandemic, that’s the worst figure since 1951.”

According to the Office for National Statistics, 2,837 more people died in the second week of January than normal in England and Wales, with just 5% of those deaths being attributable to Covid-19.

The last time excess deaths were so high, during the second week of February 2021, Covid-19 deaths made up 37% of the total. Nor is the statistic an outlier – the last two weeks of December saw 21% and 20% excess deaths.

The Royal College of Emergency Medicine reported as many as 500 people a week are dying because they cannot receive emergency treatment in time. A record 54,532 people waited more than 12 hours in emergency departments to actually be admitted to the hospital once the decision was made to admit them, according to NHS data, and only 65% of patients were seen within four hours.

Last month, Whitty warned that “postponement of elective and semi-elective care and screening” due to lockdowns and NHS delays would result in another wave of mortality after Covid-19 had largely subsided, with undiagnosed cancers and other chronic conditions claiming a larger than usual number of victims.



Hidden History: Unpacking the Origin of the Deep State, the Trump Coup, Covid and Climate Change


The Clash of the Two Americas Vol 4: The Anglo Venetians Roots of the Deep State

By Matthew Ehret and Cynthia Chung (2023)

Purchase link:

Book Review

This final volume of The Clash of the Two Americas is my favorite. In it, Ehret provides more historical examples, both from North America and elsewhere, to illustrate his views on Malthusianism, colonialism, oligarchy, multipolarity, globalizaiton and the historic role of British intelligence in undermining US sovereignty. See review of volumes 1,2 and 3 at Hidden History: The Clash of the Two Americas, How British Bankers Shaped America’s 20th Century and How History Helps Us Understand What Russia and China Are Up To

Ehret also uses Volume 4 to comment on contemporary events, including the 2020 electoral coup that defeated Donald Trump, COVID, the debate over anthropogenic global warming and the Great Reset.

My favorite sections include his commentary on the Trump legacy, the historical Venetian role in the Anglo-Venetian/Anglo-Dutch Deep State and the role of faulty computer modeling in both the Covid lockdowns and “catastrophic” climate change debate.

The 2020 Electoral Coup that Defeated Trump

Although I have issues with a number of Trump’s policies (especially his promotion of vaccines and Zionism,) I agree with Ehret’s observations that Trump was the first “nationalist” president in 60 years and posed to the globalist forces that control the Deep State. To this end, Trump adopted numerous positive policies aimed at improving the US economy and the well being of Americans, including:

  • Programs to re-industrialize the (by bringing factories back from the Third World)
  • Gutting the National Endowment for Democracy (CIA-funded program to destabilize foreign governments)
  • Ending CIA support for Syrian rebels
  • Increasing economic cooperation with Russia and China
  • Ending decades of US involvement in World Trade Organization (WTO) financial programs,
  • Reducing US involvement in NATO
  • Withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO)
  • Cancelling US involvement in 2016 Paris Climate Accords
  • Making the US energy self-sufficient for first time in decade

In describing the 2020 electoral coup that awarded the presidency to Trump’s opponent Biden, Ehret documents the long involvement of Dominion and sister company Smartmatic voting machines in electoral fraud in Mexico, Venezuela, the Philippines and the US (including the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections).

The Venetian Roots of the Deep State

The Venetian empire, founded by Roman oligarchs fleeing the Visigoths and Huns in the 5th century AD, lasted a little over 1000 years. By 1350, they controlled world finance through their control of the world’s gold and silver bullion, their monopoly on maritime trade, the 120-180% loans they made to European leaders and their wide reaching intelligence networks.

During the 16th century, the Venetians (the first to establish a private central bank in 1507), shifted their power base from Venice to Amsterdam. After Amsterdam first gained independence from Spain in 1581, a Venetian-Dutch alliance formed enabling Venetian Bankers to create a similar private Central Bank in Amsterdam in 1619. In 1688, this alliance would work with English protestants seeking to dethrone the Catholic king James II, to “invade” England and install Dutch merchant William and his wife Mary II (daughter of James II) on the English throne. In 1694, William would create the Bank of England, granting it the express power to loan out gold certificates in excess of its bullion holdings (in other words, granting them control of money creation).*

Covid, Climate Change and Stochastic Statistical Modelling

The section on Covid looks mainly at the work of Neil Ferguson, the British epidemiologist who achieved global prominence through predictive modeling leading to the 2020 global lockdowns.

Ferguson confidently predicted 500,000 deaths from COVID in the UK and 2 million in the US.

Given his past record, it’s astonishing anyone took him seriously, especially when he prevented other statisticians from reproducing his results by refusing to release an unredacted copy of the code he used. .

  • In 2002, he predicted 50,000 people would die of Mad Cow Disease, which subsequently resulted in only 177 deaths.
  • In 2005, he predicted 150 million people would die of Bird Flu. Only 282 died between 2003-2008.
  • In 2009, he predicted 65,000 deaths due to Swine flu, which ended up killing 457 people.

Ehret goes on to explain the stochastic or Monte Carlo Method Ferguson uses to produce such outlandishly erroneous results.* Apparently climate scientists use a similar stochastic (random sampling) approach to predict catastrophic climate change. Ehret’s 2021 paper In Defense of CO2 (which he includes in his appendix) enumerates a number of problems with stochastic modelling to predict climate change:

  • Because the physical space-time shaping the discoverable universe is intrinsically non-linear, it can’t be expressed (or graphed) as linear equations, as many climate scientists have done.
  • It’s too easy for totally random data sets to be skewed by computer programmers who aspire to shape government policy. Specifically Ehret has concerns this modelling is being used to promote artificial scarcity, depopulation and corporate backers of the Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, rather than ending colonialism, poverty and war.
  • Global temperature charts reveal global warming tapered to a near standstill between 1998-2013, despite IPCC predictions they would increase in tandem with atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
  • Medieval ice cores reveal global temperatures were were significantly warmer than today (the Vikings grew wheat in Greenland) despite much lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations
  • Prehistoric ice core records reveal that increases in atmospheric CO2 tend to follow (rather than precede) warming temperatures.

*The stochastic or Monte Carlo method of statistical modeling is used to estimate potential outcomes where randomness or uncertainty is present. It relies on repeated random sampling.


Kari Lake: Freedom of information request reveals some 200k FAILED votes occurred on election day in AZ

Kari Lake bombshell: Freedom of information request reveals some 200k FAILED votes occurred on election day in AZ

By J D Heyes

News Target

Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake refuses to concede to now-appointed Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs because she keeps finding evidence that the election was a hot mess and likely skewed the outcome.

Her latest discovery, thanks to a freedom of information request: Some 200,000 votes in Maricopa County, which skews red, were not properly tabulated and actually failed.

“Officials sabotaged Election Day. On November 8th (when 75% of votes were for @KariLake) nearly 1/4 of a MILLION voting attempts FAILED, according to the system log files that were obtained via FOIA. This is huge, folks. Huge,” she tweeted on Monday.


The Kari Lake War Room added in another tweet: “Shelby Bush confirms after reviewing the system log files from the tabulators on election day, nearly a quarter-million ballots were misread. With 446 tabulators across the county, there’s no doubt the integrity of the election in Maricopa County was compromised.”


Lake also updated supporters that she has filed a new lawsuit challenging the results of the obviously fraudulent election, which she ‘lost’ by about 17,000 votes; Hobbs was in charge of overseeing statewide elections in her previous job as secretary of state.

Now, however, Hobbs is moving to shut down the lawsuit because, as Lake notes, Hobbs knows that her ‘victory’ is illegitimate.

“Yesterday, @katiehobbs filed to get our lawsuit thrown out. Today, records revealed nearly a quarter of a million ballots were rejected on Election Day in Maricopa County in a race that came down to just 17K votes. She’s illegitimate & she knows it. More evidence to come,” Lake tweeted.


But there’s more: Lake’s team also found evidence that nearly 40,000 ballots were not legally counted.

“Today’s Senate Testimony CONFIRMS nearly 40,000 ballots illegally counted (10% of the signatures reviewed). I think all the ‘Election Deniers’ out there deserve an apology,” she noted of the “bombshell discovery” this week.


In a tweet poll published this week, Anthony DeWitt asked if the public believes Kari Lake’s race for Arizona Governor was stolen from her. He said, “This is a serious poll. I want to see how many people believe that the 2022 Arizona Governor’s election was stolen from Kari Lake.” The results so far show that 91.1 percent believe the election was stolen, 3.6 percent are unsure, and 5.2 percent believe it was a fair election.


Last week, Lake addressed rumors that she was planning to run for the U.S. Senate after a survey found that she likely could win.

“I’m told Kari Lake is considering running for the US Senate seat held by Kyrsten Sinema in 2024,” CNN political reporter Kate Sullivan posted on Twitter.

In a statement to the Becker News, Lake’s campaign said, “Kari is hyper-focused on winning her court case as she is the duly elected Governor and her Election Case proves that.” Lake is currently attempting to legally address November election issues she says cost her a victory against then-Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who was sworn in as Arizona’s new governor earlier this month.

“It is true that dozens of people have reached out to Kari suggesting she run for US Senate,” the campaign’s statement continued. “There have been several polls showing she is the strongest candidate and could win. The corruption in DC is as bad as it is in AZ and we need to root out that corruption, but Kari’s focus is on her election case and saving the good people of Arizona from a fraud named Katie Hobbs who is dead set on destroying State 48.”


Judge calls California’s medical misinformation law “nonsense,” blocks it on First Amendment Grounds

By Christina Maas

Reclaim the Net

A federal judge questioned the new law that penalizes doctors for sharing COVID-19 “misinformation.”

The new law, which came into effect on January 1 this year, prohibits doctors from spreading what the state deems to be misinformation to patients, or risk being penalized for “unprofessional conduct,” which could result in their licenses being revoked.

Here’s a summary of the case so far if you’re not up to date.

The law has been challenged through separate lawsuits filed by two organizations and a group of doctors on the grounds of violations. They filed a motion at the US District Court of Sacramento to hold the law until the cases are concluded.

In a hearing, Senior Judge William Shubb described the law’s definition of misinformation as “nonsense.”

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

“Because AB 2098 [the misinformation law] implicates [plaintiff’s] First Amendment right to receive information, she has standing,” the court wrote.

“Vague statutes are particularly objectionable when they involve sensitive areas of First Amendment freedoms because they operate to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms,” the court added, referring to a 2001 case, California Teachers Association v. State Board of Education.

“When the challenged law implicates First Amendment rights, a facial challenge based on vagueness is appropriate.”

The court granted the plaintiffs a hearing to challenge the law and blocked the enforcement of the law until the case is decided.

The law defines misinformation as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

Shubb noted that “standard of care” is not a new principle, but argued, “contemporary scientific consensus” is.

According to Deputy Attorney General Kristin Liska, who is representing Gov. Gavin Newsom, a medical professional has to violate all three aspects of the definition of misinformation for punishment to be applicable; share misinformation, contradict scientific consensus, and go against the standard of care.

However, she refused to give examples of statements that would fit the definition, saying that it would depend on the circumstances. Shubb then asked how she expects medical professionals to know what would violate the law.



Did Germany just officially declare war on Russia?

Drago Bosnic

Info Brics

During a debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock bluntly stated that Germany and its allies are at war with Russia. The unexpected admission, although essentially true, is quite shocking given the fact that many Western officials have been insisting they aren’t directly involved in the conflict with Moscow. Baerbock made the statement during a discussion over sending “Leopard 2” heavy tanks to the Kiev regime. Most mainstream media conveniently ignored her words, but numerous experts were alarmed and warned that Berlin just essentially declared war on Russia.

This stands in stark contrast to claims of other German officials who have been extremely careful with their statements for nearly a year, insisting that their country is not directly involved in the Ukrainian conflict and citing uncontrollable escalation as their primary concern. However, this official stance is now in serious question, as one of the country’s top officials just effectively nullified all of their efforts. Annalena Baerbock started her statement at PACE with the following:

“And therefore I’ve said already in the last days – yes, we have to do more to defend Ukraine. Yes, we have to do more also on tanks. But the most important and the crucial part is that we do it together and that we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia and not against each other.”

Ironically, Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his now former defense minister Christine Lambrecht have been accused of being “weak” on arming the Neo-Nazi junta. They have frequently insisted that it would be dangerous to get more directly involved in NATO’s proxy war against Russia. However, it seems that the much more hawkish Baerbock is willing to say the quiet part out loud. Moscow immediately reacted to the comments, with Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova saying this is yet another proof that the political West was planning a war on Russia for quite some time now.

“If we add this to Merkel’s revelations that they were strengthening Ukraine and did not count on the Minsk agreements, then we are talking about a war against Russia that was planned in advance. Don’t say later that we didn’t warn you,” Zakharova said.

Baerbock’s comments come on the heels of nearly a year of direct Russophobic narrative, including openly declared plans for war with Russia. In mid-November, Der Spiegel published leaked German Defense Ministry documents, revealing that the Bundeswehr is preparing for war with Russia. The secret draft titled “Operational guidelines for the Armed Forces” was authored by none other than the German Chief of Staff, General Eberhard Zorn himself. He stressed the need for a “mega-reform” of the German military and clearly identified Russia as an “immediate threat”.

The claim makes little sense, as Germany is now over 1,500 km away from Russia, with Belarus, Poland and Ukraine standing between the two countries. While such assertions made some sense at the height of the (First) Cold War, when the Soviet Union had over half a million soldiers stationed in East Germany alone (in addition to other Warsaw Pact member states), the situation is effectively reversed nowadays. NATO is the one encroaching on Russia’s western borders, with the crawling expansion including coups and other interventions in various Eastern European and post-Soviet states. After decades of this creeping aggression and Moscow’s futile attempts to build a comprehensive partnership with the political West, Russia was forced to launch its counteroffensive.

Back in early March, the German government announced a dramatic increase in defense spending, including a €100 billion budget for the Bundeswehr, essentially double in comparison to 2021. Although this will inevitably put additional pressure on the already struggling German economy, ravaged by the sanctions boomerang from its failed economic siege of Russia, Berlin’s suicidal subservience to Washington DC seems to take precedence. Much of Germany’s prosperity was based on access to cheap Russian energy, now a thing of the past thanks to Berlin’s resurgent Russophobia.

In addition, Germany also uniquely holds historical responsibility on a scale virtually no other country in the world does, especially towards Russia. During the Second World War, it launched a brutal invasion of the Soviet Union, killing nearly 30 million people and destroying virtually everything in its path. Worse yet, after approximately 80 years of denazification in the aftermath of its WWII defeat, Berlin still decided to support the Neo-Nazi junta in Kiev, effectively renouncing its own official postwar political position. This also includes German weapons that are killing Russians, both soldiers and civilians.

Alarmed by the dramatic shift in rhetoric, many in Germany are already pointing out the fact that the country is repeating the same historical mistake by antagonizing Russia. Petr Bystron, an AfD (Alternative for Germany) member of the German Parliament, reminded his colleagues in the Bundestag of the consequences of sending German tanks to fight Russia in Ukraine:

“It’s an interesting approach you’re taking here. German tanks against Russia in Ukraine. By the way, your grandfathers have already tried to do it then with the Melnyks and Banderas [Ukrainian Nazi collaborators during WWII] and what was the result? Untold suffering, millions of deaths on both sides, and in the end, Russian tanks here in Berlin. And two of them are still here, in front of the Bundestag. You should pass by them every morning and remember it!”



%d bloggers like this: