Circles

Sorry, no results were found.

Posts

If you haven't heard it yet this is for those people (not these "trolls" online and off who purposely try to keep people in their fake Republican Democrat scam) who have not realized yet that our US government and our US legacy mainstream media has been more or less fake since 1913:

Epstein Victim Maria Farmer Speaks With Whitney Webb, Full Phone Call Part 1 (1:50:31)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MGtDj8drWvE/

Epstein Victim Maria Farmer Speaks With Whitney Webb, Full Phone Call Part 2 (1:20:44)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/kItJSpQeyCg/

Whitney Webb Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/whitneywebb

7 hrs ago

The Blackmailer as Hero

by Walter Block

retrieved from The Libertarian Forum VOLUME IV, NO. 10 DECEMBER, 1972

(All original emphasis conveyed via italicization is absent here, sry.)

Is blackmail really illegitimate? At first glance it is not hard to answer this question. The only problem it would seem to pose is why it is being asked at all. For do not blackmailers well,... blackmail people? And what could be worse? Blackmailers prey on your most hidden deep dark secrets they threaten to publicize them, they bleed you white, they can even drive you to suicide. Blackmail is so evil that even to consider its legitimacy will strike many as an unmitigated evil; even those scholars who would otherwise favor the spirit of free and untrammeled inquiry.
_ We shall push on in any case. And we shall find that the critique of the blackmailer falls like a house of cards; we shall find that the case against blackmail is based on a tissue of unexamined shibbleths, blown out of all proportion, and on deep philosophical misunderstandings.
_ What, exactly, is blackmail? Blackmail is the offer of a trade; it is the offer to trade something, usually silence, for some other good, usually money. If the offer of the blackmail trade is accepted, then the blackmailer maintains his silence and the blackmailee pays the agreed amount of money. If the blackmail offer is rejected, then the blackmailer may exercise his right of free speech, and perhaps announce and publicize the secret. Notice that there is nothing amiss here. All that is happening is that an offer to maintain silence is being made: If the offer is rejected, the blackmailer does no more than exercise his rights of free speech, something he has a complete right to do in the first place, whether or not the offer is made or accepted.
_ The only difference between a gossip or blabbermouth and the blackmailer is that the blackmailer will refrain from speaking - for a price. In a sense the gossip or the blabbermouth is much worse than the blackmailer, for the blackmailer at least gives you a chance to shut him up. The blabbermouth and gossip just up and spill the beans. A person with a secret he wants kept will be much better off if a blackmailer rather than a gossip or blabbermouth gets hold of it. With the blabber-mouth or gossip, as we have said, all is lost. With the blackmailer, one can only gain, or at worst, be no worse off. If the price required by the blackmailer for his silence is worth less than the secret, the secretsholder will pay off, and accept the lesser of the two evils. He will gain the difference to him between the value of the secret and the price of the blackmailer. It is only in the case that the blackmailer demands more than the secret is worth that the information gets publicized. But in this case the secret-keeper is no worse off with the blackmailer than with the inveterate gossip. (He may still be better off with the blackmailer, even here, because the typical blackmailer gains nothing if he publicizes the secret - except the dubious value of making sure that the secret-keeper knows he is not bluffing - so the secret keeper may well be able to bargain down the blackmailer's price.) It is indeed difficult, then, to account for the vilification suffered by the blackmailer, at least compared to the gossip, who is usually dismissed with merely slight contempt.
_ Blackmail need not entail the offer of silence in return for money. This is only the most well known form. More generally, blackmail may be defined as threatening to do something, anything, (which is otherwise entirely legal) unless unless the blackmailer's demands, financial or otherwise, are met. In its more general form there are several acts which qualify as blackmail but interestingly enough, far from receiving the vilification associated with blackmail, have even attained respectability among certain segments of the population. As an example, let us consider the lettuce boycott, beloved of every radio-lib worth his limousine.
_ The lettuce boycott is (a form of) blackmail!! What is being done in the lettuce boycott (and every other boycott, for that matter), what the lettuce boycott consists of, is making threats to various retailers and wholesalers of fruits and vegetables. These threats are that if the retailer or wholesaler handles non-union lettuce, people will be asked not to patronize their establishments. The not inconsiderable energies, time, and money of the lettuce boycott movement will be brought to bear on all handlers of non-union lettuce.
_ Now, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the boycott of non-union lettuce. But I am here concerned to show that the lettuce boycott is indeed blackmail, and that, as a form of blackmail, it is entirely legitimate. We can see that the lettuce boycott conforms perfectly to the more general definition of blackmail as a threat that something oherwise entirely legal will take place unless the blackmailer's demands are met. In this case, the threat is to withhold patronage from establishments unless they refuse to handle non-union lettuce. Although it is not legal to threaten this, it is perfectly legal not to patronize establishments that one, for any reason, does not like. So the lettuce boycott is legitimate, and blackmail as well, a pair of strange bedfellows if ever there was one.
_ Let us consider the question of the threats involved in blackmail, because perhaps more than anything else, it is this aspect of blackmail that is most misunderstood and feared. Now threats are usually considered evil, and rightly so. The usual dictum against aggression warns of aggression against non-aggressors as well as the threat of such aggression. And the reason is not hard to fathom. If a highwayman were to accost us, it is usually the threat of aggression that will get us to do his bidding. It is the threat of aggression that will relieve us of our possessions. If the highwayman actually had to use aggression against us, as opposed to the threat thereof, it would be practically an admission of defeat. So the threat of aggression is entirely illegitimate.
_ But notice that the threat involved in blackmail is entirely different. In aggression, what is being threatened is aggressive violence, something that the aggressor has no right to do. In blackmail, however, what is being "threatened" is something that the blackmailer most certainly does have a right to do! To exercise his right of free speech, to gossip about our secrets, or in the case of the lettuce boycott, to threaten not to patronize certain stores. One can hardly call the "threat" in blackmail a real threat. When contrasted to the real threat of the highwayman, the "threat" of the blackmailer can only be characterized as an offer to keep silent, and not as a real threat at all. The blackmailer never threatens bodily violence or any type of violence. If he did, he would no longer be a legitimate blackmailer; he would be an illegitimate aggressor, who uses threats as a means of coercion.
_ There is one case where blackmail would not be legitimate, but not because it is blackmail. It would rather be illegitimate because it would be in violation of a contract. For instance, if the secret-keeper takes a lawyer or a private investigator into his confidence on the condition that, among other things, the confidence be maintained in secrecy, then, if the lawyer or private investigator turns around and tries to blackmail him, it would be in violation of the contract, and therefore illegitimate. It is only when the blackmail violates an agreement that it is illegitimate. If there is no contract, if it is a perfect stranger who holds the secret, then the blackmail is legitimate because perfect strangers have free speech rights. It is only someone who has sold his right to speak freely (about the secrets of his client) like the lawyer or the private investigator who then has no right to engage in blackmail.
_ In addition to being a legitimate activity, blackmail has many good effects, the litanies to the contrary notwithstanding. And once we get over the shock that there is anything at all that can be said in favor of blackmail, it is not too surprising that this should be so. For apart from some innocent victims that get caught in the net, who does the blackmailer prey upon? There are two groups. On the one hand we have the murderer, the thief, the swindler, the embezzler, the cheater, the rapist, etc., all criminals and violators of the stricture against aggression upon non-aggressors. On the other hand we have people who engage in activities which are not illegitimate themselves, but go against the mores and habits of the majority of the people. There are the homosexuals, the sado-masochists, the sex perverts, the communists, the adulterers, etc. It is my contention that the institution of blackmail has beneficial, but different, effects on each of these groups, none of which seem to have been realized by writers on the subject. Let us consider them each in turn.
_ In the case of the criminals, blackmail, the threat of blackmail, and the very existence of the institution of blackmail serves as a hindrance. It makes the payoff to the criminal less certain and less rewarding because if caught, the criminal must now share some of his "hard won" loot with the blackmailer, with the risk that the blackmailer can always turn him in. Even with blackmail illegal, this can have a much greater effect than many people would believe possible. How many of the anonymous "tips" received by the police can be traced, directly or indirectly, to blackmail? And the value of these tips cannot be over estimated. How many criminals are led to pursue crime on their own, eschewing the aid of fellow criminals in "jobs" that call for cooperation - out of fear of possible later blackmail? Since there are always some people on the verge of committing crimes, or at the margin of criminality, as the economist would say, where the least factor will propel them one way or another, the additional fear of crime-related blackmail may be enough, in many cases, to dissuade them from crime.
_ Imagine then how much more effective blackmail would be in curtailing real crime if blackmail itself were legalized! Then the blackmailer would not have to worry about possible legal steps being taken against him because of his public-spirited preying on criminals. This would undoubtedly encourage the quantity and quality of such blackmail efforts, with attendent depredations upon our criminal class.
_ It is sometimes said that what diminishes crime is not the penalty attached to the crime but the certainty of being caught. Although this controversy rages with great relevance in the debates on capital punishment, we need not enter into it here. For our purposes it will suffice to point out that the institution of blackmail does both. It increases the penalty associated with crime, since criminals are forced to share a part of their loot with the blackmailer. It also raises the probability of being caught, as the blackmailers are now added to the police, private citizens, vigilantes and others whose function if not purpose it is to suppress crime. And let it be added that blackmailers who can often be members of the criminal gang in good standing are in an especially good position to foil crimes. Their "inside" position surpasses even that of a spy or infiltrator. who is forced to play a part. The blackmailer can live the part of the criminal, for until he turns against the gang as a blackmailer, he really is a criminal. Legalizing blackmail also will at one fell swoop allow us to take advantage of not one but two crime-fighting adages: "divide and conquer," and "take advantage of the lack of honor among thieves." So it is pretty clear that one effect of legalizing blackmail will be to diminish crimes of aggression.

The legalization of blackmail will also have good effects upon actions which may be illegal but are not criminal in the sense that they involve aggression but are at variance with the mores of the majority of the people. Far from suppressing them, the legalization of blackmail will have a liberating effect.

Even now, with blackmail still illegal, we are witnessing some of its beneficial effects. Let us take homosexuality as an example. Homosexuality may be illegal but is not really criminal since it involves no aggression. For individual homosexuals, we must admit, blackmail causes untold harm and can hardly be considered beneficial. But for the group as a whole, or rather, for each individual as a member of the group, blackmail has helped. Blackmail has helped the gay community as a whole by making homosexuality more widely known, by making the public more accustomed to homosexuality, and by placing the homosexual in a more open light. In so doing, the blackmailer has contributed to forcing the homosexuals to make themselves more known. Let it be repeated. Forcing individual members of a downtrodden group out into the open, or "out of the closet'', can by no stretch of the imagination be considered doing them a favor. Forcing anyone to do anything can usually only violate rights; and forcing someone to do something "for his own good" is a particular rung in hell reserved for liberals. But still it must be realized that practically the only way a downtrodden group of people can attairi liberation is by being known to each other so that they can cooperate with each other. And it must be realized that one important effect of blackmail is to force people out into the open where they will be able to know each other. In this way blackmail can legitimately claim some small share in the credit for the liberation of groups whose only crime is to deviate from the norm in some non-criminal way.

It is not surprising that this should be so when we reflect upon the old aphorism that "the truth shall make you free". For the only "weapon" at the disposal of the blackmailer is the truth. If it were not for the truth, the blackmailer would be in no position to be able to blackmail. But in using the truth to back up his threats, as upon occasion he must, without any intention on his part he sets the truth free to do whatever good, as well as whatever bad, it is capable of doing.

21 hrs ago

Remember that polio is a virus that only exists in humans, (not animals).

If it was eradicated and is showing up in the water system..... SOMEONE PUT IT THERE.


Another biological weapon TO ENSLAVE YOU , and THEY WILL KEEP COMING.......

Unless they gauge A CRITICAL MASS VOICE.


EVERYONE needs to speak up, and start understanding what they censor AND WHY THEY ARE DOING IT.

START UNDERSTANDING THEIR END GAME. TRUST YOUR INTELLIGENCE.

GOD GAVE YOU ONE. USE IT.

Videos

Sorry, no results were found.

Circles

Sorry, no results were found.

Videos

Sorry, no results were found.

Posts

If you haven't heard it yet this is for those people (not these "trolls" online and off who purposely try to keep people in their fake Republican Democrat scam) who have not realized yet that our US government and our US legacy mainstream media has been more or less fake since 1913:

Epstein Victim Maria Farmer Speaks With Whitney Webb, Full Phone Call Part 1 (1:50:31)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MGtDj8drWvE/

Epstein Victim Maria Farmer Speaks With Whitney Webb, Full Phone Call Part 2 (1:20:44)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/kItJSpQeyCg/

Whitney Webb Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/whitneywebb

7 hrs ago

The Blackmailer as Hero

by Walter Block

retrieved from The Libertarian Forum VOLUME IV, NO. 10 DECEMBER, 1972

(All original emphasis conveyed via italicization is absent here, sry.)

Is blackmail really illegitimate? At first glance it is not hard to answer this question. The only problem it would seem to pose is why it is being asked at all. For do not blackmailers well,... blackmail people? And what could be worse? Blackmailers prey on your most hidden deep dark secrets they threaten to publicize them, they bleed you white, they can even drive you to suicide. Blackmail is so evil that even to consider its legitimacy will strike many as an unmitigated evil; even those scholars who would otherwise favor the spirit of free and untrammeled inquiry.
_ We shall push on in any case. And we shall find that the critique of the blackmailer falls like a house of cards; we shall find that the case against blackmail is based on a tissue of unexamined shibbleths, blown out of all proportion, and on deep philosophical misunderstandings.
_ What, exactly, is blackmail? Blackmail is the offer of a trade; it is the offer to trade something, usually silence, for some other good, usually money. If the offer of the blackmail trade is accepted, then the blackmailer maintains his silence and the blackmailee pays the agreed amount of money. If the blackmail offer is rejected, then the blackmailer may exercise his right of free speech, and perhaps announce and publicize the secret. Notice that there is nothing amiss here. All that is happening is that an offer to maintain silence is being made: If the offer is rejected, the blackmailer does no more than exercise his rights of free speech, something he has a complete right to do in the first place, whether or not the offer is made or accepted.
_ The only difference between a gossip or blabbermouth and the blackmailer is that the blackmailer will refrain from speaking - for a price. In a sense the gossip or the blabbermouth is much worse than the blackmailer, for the blackmailer at least gives you a chance to shut him up. The blabbermouth and gossip just up and spill the beans. A person with a secret he wants kept will be much better off if a blackmailer rather than a gossip or blabbermouth gets hold of it. With the blabber-mouth or gossip, as we have said, all is lost. With the blackmailer, one can only gain, or at worst, be no worse off. If the price required by the blackmailer for his silence is worth less than the secret, the secretsholder will pay off, and accept the lesser of the two evils. He will gain the difference to him between the value of the secret and the price of the blackmailer. It is only in the case that the blackmailer demands more than the secret is worth that the information gets publicized. But in this case the secret-keeper is no worse off with the blackmailer than with the inveterate gossip. (He may still be better off with the blackmailer, even here, because the typical blackmailer gains nothing if he publicizes the secret - except the dubious value of making sure that the secret-keeper knows he is not bluffing - so the secret keeper may well be able to bargain down the blackmailer's price.) It is indeed difficult, then, to account for the vilification suffered by the blackmailer, at least compared to the gossip, who is usually dismissed with merely slight contempt.
_ Blackmail need not entail the offer of silence in return for money. This is only the most well known form. More generally, blackmail may be defined as threatening to do something, anything, (which is otherwise entirely legal) unless unless the blackmailer's demands, financial or otherwise, are met. In its more general form there are several acts which qualify as blackmail but interestingly enough, far from receiving the vilification associated with blackmail, have even attained respectability among certain segments of the population. As an example, let us consider the lettuce boycott, beloved of every radio-lib worth his limousine.
_ The lettuce boycott is (a form of) blackmail!! What is being done in the lettuce boycott (and every other boycott, for that matter), what the lettuce boycott consists of, is making threats to various retailers and wholesalers of fruits and vegetables. These threats are that if the retailer or wholesaler handles non-union lettuce, people will be asked not to patronize their establishments. The not inconsiderable energies, time, and money of the lettuce boycott movement will be brought to bear on all handlers of non-union lettuce.
_ Now, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the boycott of non-union lettuce. But I am here concerned to show that the lettuce boycott is indeed blackmail, and that, as a form of blackmail, it is entirely legitimate. We can see that the lettuce boycott conforms perfectly to the more general definition of blackmail as a threat that something oherwise entirely legal will take place unless the blackmailer's demands are met. In this case, the threat is to withhold patronage from establishments unless they refuse to handle non-union lettuce. Although it is not legal to threaten this, it is perfectly legal not to patronize establishments that one, for any reason, does not like. So the lettuce boycott is legitimate, and blackmail as well, a pair of strange bedfellows if ever there was one.
_ Let us consider the question of the threats involved in blackmail, because perhaps more than anything else, it is this aspect of blackmail that is most misunderstood and feared. Now threats are usually considered evil, and rightly so. The usual dictum against aggression warns of aggression against non-aggressors as well as the threat of such aggression. And the reason is not hard to fathom. If a highwayman were to accost us, it is usually the threat of aggression that will get us to do his bidding. It is the threat of aggression that will relieve us of our possessions. If the highwayman actually had to use aggression against us, as opposed to the threat thereof, it would be practically an admission of defeat. So the threat of aggression is entirely illegitimate.
_ But notice that the threat involved in blackmail is entirely different. In aggression, what is being threatened is aggressive violence, something that the aggressor has no right to do. In blackmail, however, what is being "threatened" is something that the blackmailer most certainly does have a right to do! To exercise his right of free speech, to gossip about our secrets, or in the case of the lettuce boycott, to threaten not to patronize certain stores. One can hardly call the "threat" in blackmail a real threat. When contrasted to the real threat of the highwayman, the "threat" of the blackmailer can only be characterized as an offer to keep silent, and not as a real threat at all. The blackmailer never threatens bodily violence or any type of violence. If he did, he would no longer be a legitimate blackmailer; he would be an illegitimate aggressor, who uses threats as a means of coercion.
_ There is one case where blackmail would not be legitimate, but not because it is blackmail. It would rather be illegitimate because it would be in violation of a contract. For instance, if the secret-keeper takes a lawyer or a private investigator into his confidence on the condition that, among other things, the confidence be maintained in secrecy, then, if the lawyer or private investigator turns around and tries to blackmail him, it would be in violation of the contract, and therefore illegitimate. It is only when the blackmail violates an agreement that it is illegitimate. If there is no contract, if it is a perfect stranger who holds the secret, then the blackmail is legitimate because perfect strangers have free speech rights. It is only someone who has sold his right to speak freely (about the secrets of his client) like the lawyer or the private investigator who then has no right to engage in blackmail.
_ In addition to being a legitimate activity, blackmail has many good effects, the litanies to the contrary notwithstanding. And once we get over the shock that there is anything at all that can be said in favor of blackmail, it is not too surprising that this should be so. For apart from some innocent victims that get caught in the net, who does the blackmailer prey upon? There are two groups. On the one hand we have the murderer, the thief, the swindler, the embezzler, the cheater, the rapist, etc., all criminals and violators of the stricture against aggression upon non-aggressors. On the other hand we have people who engage in activities which are not illegitimate themselves, but go against the mores and habits of the majority of the people. There are the homosexuals, the sado-masochists, the sex perverts, the communists, the adulterers, etc. It is my contention that the institution of blackmail has beneficial, but different, effects on each of these groups, none of which seem to have been realized by writers on the subject. Let us consider them each in turn.
_ In the case of the criminals, blackmail, the threat of blackmail, and the very existence of the institution of blackmail serves as a hindrance. It makes the payoff to the criminal less certain and less rewarding because if caught, the criminal must now share some of his "hard won" loot with the blackmailer, with the risk that the blackmailer can always turn him in. Even with blackmail illegal, this can have a much greater effect than many people would believe possible. How many of the anonymous "tips" received by the police can be traced, directly or indirectly, to blackmail? And the value of these tips cannot be over estimated. How many criminals are led to pursue crime on their own, eschewing the aid of fellow criminals in "jobs" that call for cooperation - out of fear of possible later blackmail? Since there are always some people on the verge of committing crimes, or at the margin of criminality, as the economist would say, where the least factor will propel them one way or another, the additional fear of crime-related blackmail may be enough, in many cases, to dissuade them from crime.
_ Imagine then how much more effective blackmail would be in curtailing real crime if blackmail itself were legalized! Then the blackmailer would not have to worry about possible legal steps being taken against him because of his public-spirited preying on criminals. This would undoubtedly encourage the quantity and quality of such blackmail efforts, with attendent depredations upon our criminal class.
_ It is sometimes said that what diminishes crime is not the penalty attached to the crime but the certainty of being caught. Although this controversy rages with great relevance in the debates on capital punishment, we need not enter into it here. For our purposes it will suffice to point out that the institution of blackmail does both. It increases the penalty associated with crime, since criminals are forced to share a part of their loot with the blackmailer. It also raises the probability of being caught, as the blackmailers are now added to the police, private citizens, vigilantes and others whose function if not purpose it is to suppress crime. And let it be added that blackmailers who can often be members of the criminal gang in good standing are in an especially good position to foil crimes. Their "inside" position surpasses even that of a spy or infiltrator. who is forced to play a part. The blackmailer can live the part of the criminal, for until he turns against the gang as a blackmailer, he really is a criminal. Legalizing blackmail also will at one fell swoop allow us to take advantage of not one but two crime-fighting adages: "divide and conquer," and "take advantage of the lack of honor among thieves." So it is pretty clear that one effect of legalizing blackmail will be to diminish crimes of aggression.

The legalization of blackmail will also have good effects upon actions which may be illegal but are not criminal in the sense that they involve aggression but are at variance with the mores of the majority of the people. Far from suppressing them, the legalization of blackmail will have a liberating effect.

Even now, with blackmail still illegal, we are witnessing some of its beneficial effects. Let us take homosexuality as an example. Homosexuality may be illegal but is not really criminal since it involves no aggression. For individual homosexuals, we must admit, blackmail causes untold harm and can hardly be considered beneficial. But for the group as a whole, or rather, for each individual as a member of the group, blackmail has helped. Blackmail has helped the gay community as a whole by making homosexuality more widely known, by making the public more accustomed to homosexuality, and by placing the homosexual in a more open light. In so doing, the blackmailer has contributed to forcing the homosexuals to make themselves more known. Let it be repeated. Forcing individual members of a downtrodden group out into the open, or "out of the closet'', can by no stretch of the imagination be considered doing them a favor. Forcing anyone to do anything can usually only violate rights; and forcing someone to do something "for his own good" is a particular rung in hell reserved for liberals. But still it must be realized that practically the only way a downtrodden group of people can attairi liberation is by being known to each other so that they can cooperate with each other. And it must be realized that one important effect of blackmail is to force people out into the open where they will be able to know each other. In this way blackmail can legitimately claim some small share in the credit for the liberation of groups whose only crime is to deviate from the norm in some non-criminal way.

It is not surprising that this should be so when we reflect upon the old aphorism that "the truth shall make you free". For the only "weapon" at the disposal of the blackmailer is the truth. If it were not for the truth, the blackmailer would be in no position to be able to blackmail. But in using the truth to back up his threats, as upon occasion he must, without any intention on his part he sets the truth free to do whatever good, as well as whatever bad, it is capable of doing.

21 hrs ago

Remember that polio is a virus that only exists in humans, (not animals).

If it was eradicated and is showing up in the water system..... SOMEONE PUT IT THERE.


Another biological weapon TO ENSLAVE YOU , and THEY WILL KEEP COMING.......

Unless they gauge A CRITICAL MASS VOICE.


EVERYONE needs to speak up, and start understanding what they censor AND WHY THEY ARE DOING IT.

START UNDERSTANDING THEIR END GAME. TRUST YOUR INTELLIGENCE.

GOD GAVE YOU ONE. USE IT.

08/06/2022

Oh lookie !!! Polio cases in NY are growing because of sanitary conditions !!

Sewage water is infiltrating in the water system!

Don't forget the polio injection after the Monkey pox one people!

They are infecting animals too , so the monkey pox can be readily available to infect you too, and you can be happy injecting every two weeks!!

After all......who cares about sanitary conditions when we can keep injecting genetically modifying life altering needles in our arms....keep sending money to ukraine, suppoort immigrants who are mostly paid criminals.... and don't forget the holohoax survivors and PARASITICAL MONEY LAUNDERING GENOCIDAL OCCUPATION THEY WANT TO NAME "ISRAEL".

GO SLAVE !!! KEEP PARROTING YOUR TV SET TO FEEL PATRIOTIC AND SAFE !!! UPDATE THAT NEEDLE INJECTION DEARS.

AND COWARDICE IS "IN". KEEP THAT UP!!

08/06/2022

August 6, 2022
Ukraine War: Biowarfare and the Theft of Billions
by Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

* For years, Ukraine was recognized as one of the most, if not “the” most, corrupt nation in Europe. It held on to that reputation all the way up to the day Russia invaded it, at which point media worldwide suddenly started rewriting history

* A few days after firing several top officials, Zelensky also issued a blacklist of American “pro-Russian propagandists,” which includes Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, and independent journalist Glenn Greenwald

* After receiving billions of dollars from American taxpayers, Zelensky now wants to silence American politicians and journalists who question government’s use of funds and America’s continued involvement in the Ukraine conflict — a move that raises questions about Ukraine being a bastion of democracy and freedom

* U.S. aid to Ukraine may be a corrupt scheme to steal taxpayer funds, launder the money through Ukraine, and then funnel the money back into the hands of the transnational security elite

* Another angle that can help explain U.S. support of Ukraine’s authoritarian regime is that we have a number of biolabs in Ukraine, the purposes of which the U.S. government is keen to obscure. Russia claims it will release a comprehensive report before U.S. midterms detailing how top Democrats facilitated illegal biowarfare research in Ukraine, in collaboration with Big Pharma, which in turn funneled massive campaign contributions back to Democrats

For years, Ukraine was recognized as one of the most, if not “the” most, corrupt nation in Europe. It held on to that reputation all the way up to the day Russia invaded, at which point media worldwide suddenly started rewriting history.

Whitewashing Ukraine’s Corruption and Authoritarianism
As noted by Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, in a sober and clear-eyed article, published in April 2022:1

“Statements from U.S. and other Western officials, as well as pervasive accounts in the news media, have created a stunningly misleading image of Ukraine. There has been a concerted effort to portray the country not only as a victim of brutal Russian aggression, but as a plucky and noble bulwark of freedom and democracy …

The promoters of that narrative contend that the ongoing war is not just a quarrel between Russia and Ukraine over Kiev’s ambitions to join NATO and Moscow’s territorial claims in Crimea and the Donbas. No, they insist — the war is part of a global struggle between democracy and authoritarianism …

The notion that Ukraine was such an appealing democratic model in Eastern Europe that the country’s mere existence terrified Putin may be a comforting myth to U.S. politicians and pundits, but it is a myth. Ukraine is far from being a democratic-capitalist model …

The reality is murkier and troubling: Ukraine has long been one of the more corrupt countries in the international system … Ukraine’s track record of protecting democracy and civil liberties is not much better than its performance on corruption. In Freedom House’s 2022 report,2 Ukraine is listed in the ‘partly free’ category, with a score of 61 out of a possible 100 …

Even before the war erupted, there were ugly examples of authoritarianism in Ukraine’s political governance … The neo-Nazi Azov Battalion was an integral part of President Petro Poroshenko’s military and security apparatus, and it has retained that role during Zelensky’s presidency …

[O]ne can condemn Putin’s actions and even cheer on Ukraine’s military resistance without fostering a false image of Ukraine’s political system. The country is not a symbol of freedom and liberal democracy, and the war is not an existential struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. At best, Ukraine is a corrupt, quasi-democratic entity with troubling repressive policies.

Given that sobering reality, calls for Americans to ‘stand with Ukraine’ are misplaced. Preserving Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity most certainly are not worth the United States risking war with a nuclear-armed Russia.”

Media ‘Rediscovers’ Ukraine’s Corrupt Past
Given how mainstream media have been fawning over Zelensky, picturing him as a fierce fighter for democracy, it was surprising to see The Associated Press and NPR suddenly revisiting Ukraine’s history of corruption. A July 20, 2022, article, originally published by AP and republished by NPR, states:3

Don’t get caught unprepared as things go south. Order a case of five life-saving antibiotics prescribed directly to you by board certified physicians. Use promo code “RUCKER10” for $10 off. Having an emergency supply of antibiotics is crucial before the crap hits the fan.

“Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s dismissal of senior officials is casting an inconvenient light on an issue that the Biden administration has largely ignored since the outbreak of war with Russia: Ukraine’s history of rampant corruption and shaky governance.

As it presses ahead with providing tens of billions of dollars in military, economic and direct financial support aid to Ukraine and encourages its allies to do the same, the Biden administration is now once again grappling with longstanding worries about Ukraine’s suitability as a recipient of massive infusions of American aid.”

The sudden critique comes on the heels of Zelensky’s firing of his top prosecutor, his intelligence chief and several other senior officials, claiming they are spies or collaborators with Russia.

Zelensky has also dragged his feet when it comes to assigning a new anti-corruption prosecutor, something that should have occurred last December, and which, according to the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, “undermines the work of anti-corruption agencies.”

Zelensky Blacklists Americans After Getting Millions From Taxpayers
A few days after firing his top officials, Zelensky’s Center for Countering Disinformation — established in 2021 — also issued a blacklist of American “pro-Russian propagandists,” which includes Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, independent journalist Glenn Greenwald, retired Col. Douglas Macgregor and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer.4

As noted by Fox News host Tucker Carlson, “Now the Ukrainian government has decided that they can impose censorship in our country.” Carlson questioned how President Biden can possibly claim that we’re “defending democracy” by sending millions of American taxpayer dollars to Ukraine.

This is being done while Zelensky bans all opposition parties — 11 in all — and blacklists American politicians and journalists who question the use of U.S. taxpayer funds and our involvement in the Ukraine conflict.5 It rather appears we’re aiding authoritarianism, doesn’t it? Greenwald, who appeared on Carlson’s show to discuss the blacklisting stated:6

“The Ukrainians have a conflict with this neighboring country in Russia. They’re totally free to pursue whatever war policies they want. They can fight Russia in the next 10 years if they choose. But that’s not what they’re doing.

They’re begging and in a sense, demanding that other countries, including my own, the United States, provide them with a seemingly endless supply of weapons and money, which means we not only have the right, but the obligation to debate that and ask whether that’s in the interest of the American people to do.”

Ukraine Is No Defender of Democracy
In the video at the top of this article, I’ve included three episodes of “The Jimmy Dore Show” in which Dore discusses this and other news surrounding the Ukraine war. In the first segment, he reviews past news articles discussing Ukraine’s corruption. Repeatedly, in 2014, 2015 and beyond, Ukraine was declared the most corrupt country in Europe.

In the second segment, Dore reviews how Zelensky was supposed to clean out corruption and usher in a new era of good governance. That didn’t happen though.

The Panama Papers7,8 — described as “a giant leak of more than 11.5 million financial and legal records [which] exposes a system that enables crime, corruption and wrongdoing” — have revealed Zelensky, his wife and several associates own “hidden offshore assets,” raising suspicions that Zelensky may be just as corrupt as his forerunners.


The third Dore Show segment reviews Ukraines’ blacklist of pro-Russian journalists, which, as mentioned, includes Greenwald, Scott Ritter, Jeffrey David Sachs and many others. The beauty of being discredited by mainstream media is that they revealed to you who is actually telling the truth.

What Happens to US Weapons in Ukraine?
One wonders whether the U.S. “aid” to Ukraine might also be a corrupt scheme in and of itself. As admitted by CNN,9 the U.S. government doesn’t know what happens to the billions of dollars’ worth of military hardware and munitions shipped to Ukraine.

The supplies cannot be tracked, and the obvious risk is that the weapons can end up in the hands of militias and terrorists. However, this is “a conscious risk the Biden administration is willing to take,” CNN says. In the meantime, the U.S. and NATO are simply shipping over whatever Zelensky claims he needs. According to CNN:10

“Trucks loaded with pallets of arms provided by the Defense Department are picked up by Ukrainian armed forces — primarily in Poland — and then driven into Ukraine, Kirby said, ‘then it’s up to the Ukrainians to determine where they go and how they’re allocated inside their country.'”

Theft Through Endless Warfare

As noted by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in 2011, the purpose of the Afghan war — the longest war in U.S. history, which lasted from 1999 until 202111 — was not to subjugate Afghanistan. It was to launder money through war.

The economy is tanking. We recommend two America First precious metals firms. Our Gold Guy delivers personal service, no gimmicks. GoldCo offers a wide array of products. You can’t go wrong with either (or both).

“The goal was to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax base of the United States, out of the tax bases of the European countries, through Afghanistan, back into the hands of transnational security elite. That is the goal. I.e., the goal is to have an endless war; not a successful war,” Assange said.

Is Ukraine just another repeat of this same scheme? It’s starting to look that way. Rather than sending diplomats and urging Ukraine to negotiate peace, the NATO alliance insists Ukraine fight to the last man, and send weapons and financial aid that quickly vanish into a proverbial black hole.

What’s the Goal in Helping Ukraine?
The problem facing NATO and the U.S. is that people are increasingly becoming aware of the fact that things don’t add up. Why are we involved in this conflict? We’re clearly not defending “democracy”; quite the opposite. We’re aiding and abetting an authoritarian regime — and actual real-world Nazi adherents.

As reported by Jeff Childers, president and founder of the Childers Law firm, in a July 19, 2022 blog post:12

“The Economist ran a story yesterday headlined, ‘Is America Growing Weary of the Long War In Ukraine?’ Well. I was immediately suspicious, because the Ukraine war hasn’t been that long …

Late in the article, the Economist put its tobacco-stained finger right on the squidge that marks the real problem: ‘Mr. Biden’s aim in the war is unclear. His administration has stopped talking about helping Ukraine to ‘win,’ and instead speaks of preventing it from being defeated.’

That’s the problem, all right. What IS the goal, Joe? If it’s ‘winning,’ what does that even look like and how do we get there? … It seems the pro-war Ukrainians want the U.S. to just skip the messy middle and jump right into direct war with the Russians, to teach them a lesson or something.

But the Russians have nuclear missiles and doomsday submarines and even nuclear torpoedos for goodness’ sake. A fully-kinetic global war won’t help the Ukrainians, at all. Probably just the opposite. It’s magical thinking.”

The Rise of Totalitarianism in America
The U.S. support of an authoritarian regime like Ukraine is perhaps best explained by the realization that the U.S. itself has shifted in that direction. According to American philosopher, social critic and cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky,13 who appeared on Russell Brand’s podcast in July 2022, the U.S. is “living under a kind of totalitarian culture, which has never existed in my lifetime and is much worse in many ways than the Soviet Union before (Mikhail) Gorbachev.”

The cause for this cultural change, Chomsky believes, can be traced back to the censorship of global news. Basically, most Americans live in an echo chamber, where there’s no diversity of views, especially not from perceived adversaries:

“If today in the United States, you want to find out what Minister (Sergey) Lavrov of Russia is saying, you can’t do it. It’s barred. Americans are not permitted to hear what Russians are saying,” Chomsky told Brand. “Can’t get Russian television, can’t access Russian sources …

You wanna find out what the adversaries are saying, which is of utmost importance … But the United States has imposed constraints on freedom of access information, which are astonishing and which in fact go beyond what was the case in post (Joseph) Stalin and Soviet Russia.”

The Biolab Angle
Another angle that can help explain the U.S. support of a clearly authoritarian and anti-democratic regime is the fact that we have a number of biolabs in Ukraine, the purposes of which the U.S. government is keen to obscure. Childers addresses this as well:14

“The next story may possibly be the most significant news I’ve ever reported, and I don’t think I’m exaggerating. The news is that Deputy Chairwoman of the Russian State Duma (congress) Irina Yarovaya gave an update yesterday on Russia’s official investigation into US Biolabs in Ukraine.

What the Russians are saying isn’t pretty. And they claim to have a mountain of evidence. So far, the U.S. has not deigned to respond to any of the deadly serious allegations.

Remember that back in May, the Russians presented evidence to the U.N. Security Council arguing that the U.S. had been performing illegal bioweapons development — AND TESTING — in Ukraine, including accusing the last three Democrat administrations of working with George Soros, Bill Gates, and big pharma to break treaties, develop illegal weapons technology, release bioweapons into Ukraine, test the weapons on soldiers and mental patients, and — most significantly — infect the Russian people and crops …

A remarkable diagram shows all the alleged players that goes far beyond those named above, and includes Pfizer, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and others.

The Russians accused the top Democrats of facilitating the illegal research for military purposes in league with big pharma, which was brought in whenever there were tests or leaks, to develop lucrative treatments for the new diseases.

In return, argued the Russians, big pharma funneled massive campaign contributions back to Democrats, making a sinister and demonic viral feedback loop.”

According to Yarovaya, the key masterminds of this conspiracy include the U.S. Democratic party, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and George Soros. The U.S. government, meanwhile, has done nothing to counter these Russian allegations, other than dismiss them as “Russian misinformation” unworthy of so much as a reply.

Because the Russians are naming specific individuals, it is starting to look like the Russians plan to launch a Nuremberg-style international criminal complaint along the lines that so many Americans have been wishing for. ~ Jeff Childers
Childers suspects Biden’s attempt to set up a Disinformation Governance Board might even have been an “effort to screw an even tighter lid” on the biolabs story, seeing how Nina Jankowicz, selected to lead the board, previously worked for Zelensky himself. She also worked for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.15

Russian Report to Drop Before the US Midterms
According to Yarovaya, the Russian government intends to release a comprehensive report about the U.S. biolabs in Ukraine sometime before the U.S. midterm elections. In her July 18, 2022, status update to the Russian legislature, she stated:16

“As evidence today, the parliamentary commission may already present the facts that bio laboratories supervised by the Pentagon on the territory of Ukraine did not meet safety criteria. In the current mode of their activity, they posed and pose a colossal threat for citizens of Ukraine and for the whole world.

The facility was not only insecure. Despite the fact that they were working with dangerous viruses and pathogens, there was also a leak. It is quite likely that this explains the growth of epidemics in Ukraine.

But most likely, those who created these laboratories were interested in ensuring [they] were not adequately protected, not only for corruption, but also in order to carry out a live experiment; in this way, to monitor what the reaction from the population would be, what the mortality rate would be, what the consequences would be.”

Russians Accuse US of Intentional Negligence
To be clear, the Russians are accusing the U.S. of intentional negligence, which is no small matter. As noted by Childers, the same thing appears to have happened in Wuhan.

From 2018 onward, the U.S. State Department issued reports in which investigators warned the lab was poorly run and primed for an accident. Fast-forward to late 2019, and SARS-CoV-2 mysteriously emerged right in the vicinity of that same lab.

Now, any official that admits COVID was or might be the result of a lab leak is also careful to say that it must have been an accident. But if a lab is intentionally negligent, is a subsequent leak really accidental?

Don’t wait until food shortages get REALLY bad before stocking up. Get a three-month’s supply now while it’s still on sale.

The point the Russians seem to make is that it’s not accidental at all. However, intentional neglect allows the responsible party to pretend that an intentional release was accidental. That way, they’re not guilty of a crime. But that’s not all. Childers continues:17

“The Russians also alleged that the U.S. culprits are hiding behind ‘animal research;’ further concealing their guilt by genetically grafting human infection capabilities onto existing animal viruses, so they can claim natural origins for the newly-developed bugs. Like with COVID. Or monkeypox …

Yarovaya said the result of all this intentional negligence has been ‘unforeseen situations all over the world.’ She fingered the U.S. for the novel monkeypox outbreak. ‘Everything related to coronavirus, monkey pox, should be searched in the test tubes of American laboratories,’ she said.

By a totally random coincidence, the very same Wuhan Institute of Virology where COVID was developed was also experimenting with monkeypox … Because the Russians are naming specific individuals, it is starting to look like the Russians plan to launch a Nuremberg-style international criminal complaint along the lines that so many Americans have been wishing for.”

‘Game of Nuclear Chicken’
If Childers suspicion that the Russians are planning a Nuremberg-style complaint, it’s no wonder the U.S. government is trying to keep a lid on the accusations, even at the risk of having their silence appear incriminating in and of itself.

Childers also believes China may join with Russia in this effort, as Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine to take down dangerous biolabs would also “create a neat justification for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.” As it turns out, Taiwan is home to a staggering 1,251 biolabs that serve “medical, agricultural, food and environmental needs.”

At least 31 of those labs work with “virology, bacteriology, parasitology, mycology and vector biology,” and one, a biosecurity level 4 (BSL4) lab in northern Taiwan belongs to the military. So, China could easily justify an invasion of Taiwan by saying there are unsecured biowarfare facilities there.

“All these allegations — completely ignored by corporate media — are incredibly serious,” Childers notes.18 “The Russians are accusing the U.S. of a biological weapons of mass destruction attack. It has long been the official policy of the U.S. that a bioweapons attack is equivalent to a nuclear attack, and would justify a nuclear response.

It doesn’t matter whether they’re right. The Russians appear to believe they are legally justified in retaliating against the U.S. using weapons of mass destruction. And they’re building the case using a lot of shady stuff that the U.S. and its deep-state corporate allies have been up to.

It sure would be a good time for the U.S. government to speak up and get totally transparent about the legitimate purpose behind all these labs. Assuming there IS a legitimate purpose.

But perpetrators, whoever they are, would almost certainly risk nuclear war to protect their secrets if only half of what the Russians are saying is true. So, wittingly or not, we are all involved in a deadly game of nuclear chicken. And our driver is Joe Biden.”

Is There a Way Out?
In an interview with Lex Friedman, filmmaker Oliver Stone discussed the history of corruption in Ukraine — detailed in his film “Ukraine on Fire” — the propaganda surrounding the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, and his understanding of why Russia is acting the way it is.

At the end of that interview, Friedman asked Stone whether he thinks we can walk back from the brink of nuclear war. Stone replied:

“Yes, [through] reason … and then diplomacy. Talk to the guy. Mr. Biden, why don’t you calm down and go talk to Mr. Putin in Moscow. And try to have a discussion without falling into ideologies.”

Assuming the U.S. government in general and Biden in particular are not embroiled in criminal biowarfare activity in Ukraine, then Stone’s suggestion is reasonable. However, if their actions are based on a need to protect a dirty secret (or two), then diplomacy wouldn’t even be on the menu of options.

Russia would probably want its pound of flesh. They would want justice to be settled, which in the case of illegal biowarfare manufacturing could include the lifelong incarceration of certain individuals. Seeing how Biden is on Russia’s list of “key mastermind conspirators,” it seems reasonable to assume he wouldn’t easily be let off the hook.

And that brings us right back to Childers’ prediction, which is that the perpetrators “would almost certainly risk nuclear war to protect their secrets if only half of what the Russians are saying is true.”

So, while World War III has so far been an information war waged against the public, nuclear war between nations is still a possibility — thanks to corruption at the highest levels, which prevents diplomatic solutions.

1 Cato April 6, 2022
2 Freedom House 2022
3 NPR July 20, 2022
4, 5, 6 Fox News July 25, 2022
7 ICJJ.org Panama Papers
8 Panamapapers.org
9, 10 CNN April 19, 2022
11 CFR.org Afghan War
12, 14, 16, 17, 18 Coffee & Covid July 19, 2022
13 Mediaite July 25, 2022
15 RT May 18, 2022

This article was brought to you by Dr. Mercola

https://noqreport.com/2022/08/06/ukraine-war-biowarfare-and-the-theft-of-billions/

STORY AT-A-GLANCE For years, Ukraine was recognized as one of the most, if not “the” most, corrupt nation in Europe. It held on to that reputation all the way up to the day Russia invaded it, at which point media worldwide suddenly started rewriting history A few days after firing several top officials, Zelensky also […]

noqreport.com