Il n’y a pas de nation sans engendrement à partir d’une mémoire et d’un terroir
Par Michel Janva le 17 août 2021 Les commentaires sont fermés
Ce dimanche 15 août Mgr Rey, évêque du diocèse de Fréjus-Toulon, célébrait la messe de l’Assomption au sanctuaire Notre-Dame de Grâces à Cotignac et clôturait du même coup la Grande Marche de Saint Joseph, un pèlerinage entamé le 7 juin, au Sacré-Coeur de Montmartre. La messe était rediffusée sur la chaine de télévision C8. Extrait de son homélie :
[…] Un antique adage proclamait d’ailleurs « Regnum Galliae, Regnum Mariae », « royaume de France, royaume de Marie ». La multitude de cathédrales, églises, chapelles, oratoires et sanctuaires dédiés à Notre Dame et qui drapent notre pays, attestent de son patronage.
Chaque peuple, comme chaque personne ou chaque famille est aimée de Dieu d’un amour unique qui correspond à sa vocation particulière, selon son histoire, selon son patrimoine spécifique, sa physionomie singulière… c’est ce que rappelle le catéchisme de l’Eglise catholique. « Une fois l’unité du genre humain morcelée par le péché, Dieu cherche à sauver l’humanité en passant par chacune des entités qui la composent » (n° 36).
En 1980 au Bourget, Jean-Paul II lors de sa visite apostolique en France, interpellait notre pays : « France, fille aînée de l’Eglise et qui a engendré tant de saints, France es-tu fidèle aux promesses de ton baptême ? » Le saint pape faisait alors référence à cet événement datant de 496, le baptême de Clovis qui donnera le nom de France à notre pays : « Dans le baptême mémorable de Clovis, la France, disait le pape Léon XIII, a été comme baptisée ».
« France, qu’as-tu fait de ton baptême ? » Cette interpellation s’adresse non seulement à notre nation, mais aussi à chaque baptisé, héritier de l’histoire spirituelle de notre patrie. « Qu’as-tu fait de ton propre baptême ? Qu’as-tu fait du baptême de la France ? »
Chacun de nous, citoyen de ce beau pays, est responsable de la croissance ou de la stérilisation de « la semence divine », qui vient féconder notre nation et qui est le terreau de sa cohésion sociale. A l’heure où règnent, soit l’individualisme narcissique, avec l’atomisation de nos modes de vie, soit les communautarismes affinitaires qui fonctionnent en ghettos, on assiste à une fragmentation de notre pays (archipel français). Un morcellement qui peut conduire à une progressive désintégration du corps social. Il y a urgence à retrouver notre unité, à « faire nation ». Ce défi de l’unité ne peut être relevé par des consensus précaires, des slogans et commodats politiques, sans cesse renégociés au gré des majorités parlementaires successives, mais seulement en retrouvant les racines chrétiennes de notre pays, en retrouvant la sève, la source nourricière de son histoire sainte. Bref, en revenant à « l’âme de la France », à son ciment chrétien, à son baptême, fondement de la communion.
Le mot « nation » (nacere en latin) signifie étymologiquement « naître ». Il n’y a pas de nation sans engendrement à partir d’une mémoire et d’un terroir, à partir d’un lieu qui fait lien et qui fait récit. La vocation d’un peuple se comprend ainsi à partir de son histoire et de sa géographie. […]
At last, we are starting to get some real research to deal with the biologically manufactured COVID-19 virus that appears to have been engineered and released with either unintended consequences, or it was known that it would mutate into something far worse. Even Germany operates a secret bio-laboratory in Wuhan under high security, which it has not disclosed to the public based on reliable sources. The Delta variant is spreading rapidly and it will impact people’s respiratory ability and make them even a little out of breath after climbing stairs.
The CDC has released data for the past year covering 4.9 million people who were hospitalized between March 2020 and March 2021. Of that number, only 11% tested for COVID. They did not clarify if they were there for other reasons and just happened to test positive for COVID. But they have sorted through the data to try to determine who is dying from COVID. The two main factors are overweight and diabetes. The third most common category was fear-related disorders. Generally, these conditions alone increased your chance of death by about (1.30) 30% and if you had at least two such conditions it increased by about 50%. There were people with multiple conditions and that increased the chance of death by almost 400%. There is really no risk of death for most people and despite the extreme measures like New Zealand shutting down the entire economy, those at risk have been defined now by the CDC which does not justify terrorizing the entire nation.
Among 4,899,447 hospitalized adults in PHD-SR, 540,667 (11.0%) were patients with COVID-19, of whom 94.9% had at least 1 underlying medical condition. Essential hypertension (50.4%), disorders of lipid metabolism (49.4%), and obesity (33.0%) were the most common. The strongest risk factors for death were obesity (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.27–1.33), anxiety and fear-related disorders (aRR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.25–1.31), and diabetes with complication (aRR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24–1.28), as well as the total number of conditions, with aRRs of death ranging from 1.53 (95% CI, 1.41–1.67) for patients with 1 condition to 3.82 (95% CI, 3.45–4.23) for patients with more than 10 conditions (compared with patients with no conditions).
Conclusion
Certain underlying conditions and the number of conditions were associated with severe COVID-19 illness. Hypertension and disorders of lipid metabolism were the most frequent, whereas obesity, diabetes with complication, and anxiety disorders were the strongest risk factors for severe COVID-19 illness. Careful evaluation and management of underlying conditions among patients with COVID-19 can help stratify risk for severe illness.
This new strain has been infecting children with varying impacts from minor cases to killing about 400. New York City is going off the deep end by imposed mandatory vaccines to simply go out and do anything, which is completely illogical when nearly 50% of the cases of COVID are among those already vaccinated. Canada is banning all travel without vaccines. New Zealand is locking down the entire country because of ONE CASE of COVID. This is the most irresponsible leader of any country. She even beat Biden, hands down.
Now the White House wants everyone who is vaccinated with the two shots to get the third one because the first two do not work. Fauci is out now selling that idea because the vaccines have failed to do what he said they would — eradicate the virus. Then we have some in healthcare going nuts and demanding to test newborns for COVID. Many see this as the demand exclusively for vaccines, rejecting all therapy as diabolical. In the UK, the government has been forced to now investigate three new side-effects of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which are leading to the skin condition called erythema multiforme that causes round skin lesions. The condition may also affect mucous membranes in internal body cavities. Additionally, there are two kidney disorders reported nephrotic syndrome and glomerulonephritis. The nephrotic syndrome makes the kidneys leak too much protein into the urine.
We are only now starting to scratch the surface. It has been shown that having a common cold helps against COVID. Many of us are hesitant concerning the vaccines, not just because they were developed in 2 days on a computer program, but deep concerns that they may result in altering your DNA and possibly impact fertility. The Israeli government has reported that the Pfizer vaccine is only 39% effective. There is just no data available as to the long-term effects of these new experimental vaccines that mess with your DNA.
Meanwhile, the claims that the whole world had to be vaccinated to terminate COVID were a lie. Biden has been struggling to try to explain that the vaccinated can still contract and spread COVID, for any virus that also infects animals cannot be eradicated as was the case with smallpox. The animal population will always produce new variants naturally (e.g., Bird Flu, Swine Flu). All of this flies in the face of trying to restrict movement with COVID Passports which are really intended for climate change. This is part of the problem — the admixture of health & climate change.
Entering into this quagmire is GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology with Sotrovimab, the newest antibody therapy, developed after a large collaborative study by scientists from across the nation who have worked together and discovered a natural antibody (in the blood of a COVID-19 survivor) that has remarkable efficacy that will NOT alter your DNA. Sotrovimab is authorized for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), so there is no dispute, and it is for “the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct SARS-CoV-2 viral testing, and who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death.”
Experiments showed that this antibody, called S309, neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 strains. The newly emerged mutations can now be known as the breakthroughs as well as the closely related original SARS-CoV virus. This Molecular Biology Consortium used beamlines at two labs to perform x-ray crystallography on samples of survivor-derived antibodies during an early phase of the study. This work, alongside other crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy findings, contributed to generating a detailed structural map of how these antibodies bind to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This further allowed the wider team to select the most promising candidates enabling them to advance this analysis to cell culture and animal-based studies. Following the lab results, the developers designed Sotrovimab based on the structure of S309 and then advanced to clinical trials.
The FDA granted a EUA for Sotrovimab in late May after trials showed that people with mild to moderate COVID-19 infections who received an infusion of the therapy had an 85% reduction in rates of hospitalization or death, compared with placebo. However, as the new mutations began to appear, it was understood that a new pathogenic coronavirus could emerge from an animal-human real crossover event in the future. This is what I have been saying that there is no vaccine that will exterminate this virus. Bill Gates is either stupid, or he deliberately lied that once the world was vaccinated, we would return to normal.
This team of scientists began a follow-up study exploring what factors make antibodies resistant to viral breakthroughs. They needed to know how certain antibodies are also broadly reactive against related viruses mutations. Using biochemical and structural analysis, deep mutational scanning, and binding experiments, they were then able to identify one antibody with unparalleled universal potency. They were able to discover an antibody that neutralizes ALL KNOWN forms of this virus so far. They believe, based upon animal trials that this antibody could even PREVENT a COVID-19 infection if given prophylactically.
The new work was published in Nature. While the press bashes any treatment other than Gates’ vaccines, they are totally silent on an approach other than vaccines.
We may have an ALTERNATIVE to Gates’ Terrorizing the world.
COMMENT EVITER DE NOUVEAUX VARIANTS PLUS RESISTANTS? En soignant avec l’ivermectine et l’artemesinine les molécules des prix Nobel! par pgibertieLa logique de peur ne résiste pas aux preuves de l’efficacité des traitements contre les variants.Le regard porté sur la vaccination change…. Nous sommes confrontés à l’alternative suivante : Se faire vacciner et risquer les effets secondaires, devenir un super-épandeur et un incubateur potentiel d’une souche résistante au vaccin ? Ne pas se faire vacciner et risquer une maladie grave quand on a des comorbidités ? Tout change AVEC un ensemble de médicaments efficaces. Les pays qui vaccinent le m Le prix Nobel de médecine Tu Youyou nous a offert l’artemesinine utilisée massivement en Chine, à Madagascar contre la Covid . Les prix Nobel de médecine William C. Campbell et Satoshi Ōmura nous ont offert l’ivermectine une molécule aussi importante que la pénicilline car elle est utilisée contre les parasites, le palu , certains cancers et plusieurs virus. L’artemesinine est vendue librement en Allemagne et le kit ziverdo (zinc, ivermectine , doxycycline)distribué massivement dans plusieurs Etats de l’Inde Uttar Pradesh en Inde champion de l’ivermectine pour le traitement et la PROPHYLAXIE DE CONTACT : • 230 millions d’habitants • seulement 6,7% complètement vaccinés • 17 nouveaux cas hier sur > 200 000 tests Quand les gouvernements et les agences de santé ineptes apprendront-ils la nécessité de soigner précocement ? https://www.news18.com/news/india/at-17-uttar-pradesh-logs-lowest-ever-daily-covid-figure-active-caseload-drops-to-419-4093550.html La Martinique fait face à la pire épidémie de covid et… « Depuis quelques jours, non seulement des rumeurs circulent, mais aussi de vrais témoignages sur la disparition du médicament ivermectine de toutes les pharmacies de la Martinique ». La Corée s’intéresse aux dérivés de l’artemesinine dont le Pyramax « Pour la charge virale infectieuse, l’analyse du sous-groupe de patients à haut risque, qui présentait au moins un facteur de risque de maladie grave, a montré une clairance virale complète dans le groupe traité par Pyramax jour dix. « Un tel résultat contrastait avec le groupe placebo, qui a montré une clairance incomplète après 28 jours. » De plus, chez les sujets présentant une charge virale infectieuse dans la moitié supérieure de la population analysée, une diminution de 2,8 fois du virus a été observée lors de la réception de Pyramax par rapport au placebo. La proportion de sujets ayant besoin d’une hospitalisation, d’un traitement par oxygène, d’un soutien organique ou d’une aggravation des symptômes, entraînant une maladie grave ou le décès, était inférieure de 55,4 % dans le bras de traitement par rapport au placebo. Chez les sujets à haut risque, une tendance à une réduction de 74,3 % des résultats cliniques graves a été observée chez ceux recevant Pyramax par rapport au placebo. Shin Poong a l’intention de demander l’approbation d’un nouveau médicament expérimental (IND) auprès du ministère sud-coréen de la Sécurité alimentaire et pharmaceutique pour faire avancer Pyramax dans un essai clinique de phase III à grande échelle pour le traitement de Covid-
Canadians oppose vaccine passports, mainstream media’s own polls show
The Canadian federal government announced last Friday that starting in October, COVID-19 jabs will be required to travel domestically by air, train, or boat. shutterstock.com
ONTARIO (LifeSiteNews) – Despite Canada’s government just days ago saying only the COVID-19 vaccinated would be allowed to travel domestically, some unofficial polls from the mainstream media have shown that Canadians are opposed to vaccine passports.
Another Twitter poll conducted on August 9 by Niagara, Ontario radio station NewsTalk 610 found that, out of 10,190 votes, 82.3 percent of respondents answered “no” to the question, “Do you think Ontario should implement a vaccine passport or certificate program?”
A recent poll conducted by the National Citizens Coalition (NCC) reported that when it comes to vaccine passports, an overwhelming majority said “no.”
A total of 84 percent of respondents made up NCC supporters and “grassroots” Canadians said that they would not support a “vaccine passport” which would be used to restrict those without COVID-19 jabs.
When asked if they would vote for a politician who “supports those kinds of restrictions,” a total of 79 percent of respondents said “no.”
Additionally, 91 percent of respondents in the NCC poll said they would not support additional COVID-19 lockdowns come the fall.
The NCC bills itself as a group with the “express goal to stand up for Canadian taxpayers and to champion small-c conservative values.”
subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic
By contrast, one Maru Public Opinion poll claims that over 75 percent of Canadians would back a system for proving vaccination status. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Say ‘No’ to COVID ‘Vaccine Passports’! 209297 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 225000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
The Canadian federal government under Liberal Party Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced last Friday that starting in October, Canada will be mandating COVID-19 jabs as a requirement to travel domestically by air, train, or boat.
Canada’s Transport Minister Omar Alghabra also said that the government will require employees in the federally regulated “air, rail and marine transportation sectors to be vaccinated.”
“In addition the vaccination requirement will also extend to certain travelers. This includes all commercial air travelers, passengers on interprovincial trains and passengers on large marine vessels with overnight accommodations such as cruise ships,” said Alghabra.
Alghabra said in addition to mandating COVID-19 jabs for domestic travel for Canadians, all federal workers will be required to be jabbed by October.
Last Wednesday, Canada’s Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino said that a vaccine passport will be “a key step forward in ensuring Canadians will have the documents they need once it is safe to travel again.”
According to Mendicino, the federal vaccine passport is being developed in conjunction with all Canadian provinces and will be for those who have been fully vaccinated. It will include one’s COVID-19 jab type, and where and when it was given.
Trudeau did say in June that in the fall the federal government will be rolling out a system of “national certification of vaccination status” that travelers can use to prove they’ve had the “full” two doses of the COVID-19 jab.
Currently, both Manitoba and Quebec have forms of vaccine proof one can attain in digital form.
The government of Quebec recently said that it will go ahead with enforcing vaccine passports come the fall.
Recently, two provincial premiers have come out against COVID-19 vaccine passports, Alberta’s Jason Kenney and Ontario’s Doug Ford.
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney recently said that his government will neither introduce a provincial “vaccine passport” nor accept one if imposed at the federal level. He has also passed a bill that removed a mandatory vaccination clause in provincial law.
The Ontario government under Ford recently said that mandating that students and staff have COVID injections before being allowed to return to class and that schoolchildren will not be segregated based on their vaccine status.
Ford has been a strong advocate for COVID-19 injections but has also rejected the idea of vaccine passports. In July he told reporters his government will neither make COVID-19 injections mandatory nor create “a split society” by implementing local vaccine passports.
All travelers entering Canada are now subject to a new border screening program that uses biometrics. Travelers coming to Canada from the U.S who wish to be exempt from mandatory quarantine are required to be fully vaccinated.
Trudeau announced Sunday that Canadians will be headed to the polls on September 20 for a federal election.
Conservative Party of Canada leader Erin O’Toole recently said that all Canadians should get COVID-19 injections but then said last Friday that his party “supports” Canadians’ rights to “determine their own health choices.”
However, on Sunday O’Toole said he supports vaccine passports but also noted those without a jab should be able to travel so long as they produce a negative COVID-19 test.
Canadian civil liberties lawyer James Kitchen told LifeSiteNews that making COVID-19 jabs a condition to travel within Canada is “deeply” concerning and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms was put in place to prevent such overreach.
“This is what civil liberties advocates like me were deeply concerned about even in the spring of 2020 when lockdown policies were first imposed. Any student of history with both eyes open could have seen then that mandatory vaccinations were coming,” said Kitchen.
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
(LifeSiteNews) — Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh surveyed 5 million Americans and found that not only are those with doctorate degrees the least likely to get vaccinated against COVID-19, they are also the least likely to change their minds on the issue.
The Daily Mailreported that the researchers found a “U-shape” pattern in the graph comparing education level with “vaccine hesitancy.” Of the 5 million people surveyed, 10,000 of whom had doctorates, the least educated (high school level or below) and the most educated (Ph.D.) are the least likely to be vaccinated, with those with doctorates being the most skeptical by a fair margin.
Carnegie Mellon found that while only 8.3% of those with a master’s degree were hesitant or opposed to receiving the vaccine, 23.9% of doctorate degree-holders felt the same way. Professional degree-holders were also more likely to be hestiant than those with a bachelor’s degree, with a 12.3% and 11% hesitancy rate, respectively.
According to the study, vaccine hesitancy dropped in all education-level cohorts except for those with doctorates. The most drastic drop in hesitancy was those in the “high school or less” group, where hesitancy dropped from 35% to 20.8% in the first five months of 2021. Addressing this, the paper states that “those with Ph.D.s were the only education groups without a decrease in hesitancy.”
This steady maintenance in hesitancy at the doctorate level is an anomaly even when compared with groupings not based on education level, according to the analysis provided by the Daily Mail.
Black Americans, for example, experienced a drop from 60% to 30% in vaccine hesitancy from January to May, and the Hispanic population saw a similar decrease. Looking at the adult population overall, the data show a drop from 25% to 17% over the same time frame.
According to theDaily Mail, “Researchers concluded that the most educated people in our society — the people certified to become doctors and treat the virus — are not only the most hesitant about getting vaccinated but are also the least likely to change their minds about it.”
The survey asked respondents to list the reasons they are hesitant to receive the vaccine. The paper reported that the four biggest reasons are concern about side effects, a distrust of COVID-19 vaccines, a distrust in the government, and respondents not “believing” they need the vaccine.
The research paper did not come to a specific conclusion as to why there is such a strong vaccine hesitancy among those with doctorates, but did note that “further investigation into hesitancy among those with a Ph.D. is warranted.”
The paper also noted other “risk” factors that correlate with vaccine hesitancy, including “younger age, non-Asian race, having a Ph.D. or less than a high school education, living in a rural county with higher 2020 Trump support, lack of worry about Covid-19, working outside the home, never intentionally avoiding contact with others and no past-year flu vaccine.”
subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic
The paper, and the data therein, still has to undergo the full peer-reviewed process before an official publication can be made in a scientific journal.
New Zealand Prime Minister locks down entire nation over single COVID case
Jacinda Ardern’s lockdown measure is seen as ‘dystopian’ and ‘a zero Covid fantasy’ that is ‘a never-ending nightmare;’ Ardern has ‘lost her marbles.’ New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda ArdernShutterstock
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s lockdown measure — ordering stores and businesses closed and telling people to stay in their homes — is seen by observers as “dystopian” and “a zero Covid fantasy” that is “a never-ending nightmare.”
“Do not congregate. Don’t talk to your neighbors. Please keep to your bubbles,” warned Ardern in a televised address. “It comes down again to those very simple principles.”
The New Zealand government’s heavy-handed response to the solitary COVID-19 case has been seen as wildly disproportionate to the threat it represents by some global commentators.
“New Zealand has just been plunged into a nationwide lockdown with all vaccinations cancelled because of one Covid case,” tweeted Dan Wootton, a columnist for The Daily Mail.
“That’s right, ONE case of a virus we all know we have to learn to live with,” said Wootton.
subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic
“There’s nothing as dystopian as a country’s Prime Minister telling you that you’re not allowed to talk to your neighbors or walk past people in the street against the backdrop of a sign saying ‘Scan QR codes and turn on Bluetooth tracing,” noted Amy Tarkanian, former Nevada GOP chairwoman.
As it stands now, the entire nation will be under lockdown from 11:59 p.m. local time Tuesday and continuing for three days. The city of Auckland and the town of Coromandel, where the 58-year-old COVID-positive man traveled with his wife, will continue under lockdown for a full week.
Authorities are uncertain about how the man contracted COVID-19 since he did not leave the country, and fear that other cases remain undetected within their borders. This is the first known case of COVID in New Zealand since February.
Ardern and the government she leads have come under fire previously for their dictatorial style.
At the outset of the global pandemic in March 2020, Ardern advised her constituents to dismiss all sources of COVID-19 information other than that which comes from the New Zealand government.
“We will continue to be your single source of truth,” she said.
Referring to online theories, Arden said, “When you see those messages, remember that unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth.”
Last month, the nation’s COVID-19 response minister, Chris Hipkins, said the government may find it necessary to go chase down unvaccinated people.
“Of course, I want every New Zealander to come forward,” said Hipkins, “but human behavior suggests that there will be some people that we have to actually really go out and look for.”
Hipkins acknowledged that there had been adverse side effects to the COVID-19 jab but said this was “not unusual for this vaccine, that applies with almost every vaccine that does get rolled out.”
“Early next year, we’ll be in the phase of chasing up people who haven’t come forward to get their vaccination or who have missed their bookings and so on,” promised Hipkins.
“Serious reactions have included facial paralysis, hemorrhage, pulmonary embolism, reduced vision, seizure, stroke, and thrombosis,” according to a Newshub report.
Suffering alone: Hospital staff refuse to allow clergy, family to visit Cardinal Burke
‘Anybody who enters a hospital today has to be aware it may be the last time they’re going to see any member of their family,’ Dr. Robert Moynihan cautioned.
(LifeSiteNews) — Pope Benedict made Raymond Leo Burke “one of the princes of the Church, but now, due to the Covid virus, due to the medical protocols, he seems to be dying alone in a hospital in Minnesota, unable to see his family,” explained Dr. Robert Moynihan, Ph.D., founder of Inside the Vatican in a video interview with LifeSiteNews’ Jim Hale on Tuesday.
“It’s a very sad moment … people should be aware of how these days are unfolding for him,” he continued, expressing hope that a hospital chaplain will be able to administer last rites.
Moynihan said that the fact that Cardinal Burke’s sister is at the hospital but has not been allowed to see her brother is a terrible indictment of how things are being handled by the hospital.
“All of us know that if your brother is dying, or if he’s gravely ill, you want to have a moment with him personally before he passes,” he said.
“Anybody who enters a hospital today has to be aware it may be the last time they’re going to see any member of their family,” cautioned Moynihan.
Moynihan added that he’s received numerous emails and texts suggesting that Cardinal Burke “did not receive medical treatments that have been shown in other cases to be helpful in treating Covid,” and instead was immediately put on a ventilator.
Cardinal Burke was admitted to the hospital last week after he tested positive for COVID-19. Despite being quite lucid as recently as Sunday, Cardinal Burke is now experiencing grave difficulty breathing and is not speaking, according to Moynihan.
“Archbishop Viganò, who is a friend of Cardinal Burke, has asked for prayers for Cardinal Burke and has also asked that doctors provide the medication that in other cases seem to have provided some help,” he recounted.
subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic
According to Moynihan, Archbishop Viganò contacted a prominent doctor in Italy who has had great success in using different medications to combat the virus, yet he has been unable to connect this doctor up with Cardinal Burke’s medical team.
Pour paraphraser une célèbre boutade lancée par Bill Clinton, alors candidat à la présidence, lors d’un débat avec son adversaire républicain en 1992, « C’est le vaccin, idiot ! ». Le récit quotidien des médias grand public et du gouvernement dont le monde entier est inondé est déroutant pour la plupart, et c’est un euphémisme. Le variant dit Delta ou « indien » se propage comme la varicelle, nous dit-on, mais sans préciser ce que signifie cette « propagation ». Les personnes non vaccinées sont accusées de transmettre la COVID-19 à celles qui sont censées être vaccinées. Les États-Unis, le Royaume-Uni et l’Union européenne mènent la danse avec ce confus et mortel récit.
Des responsables politiques poussent les enfants à se faire vacciner malgré les recommandations officielles de l’OMS et des autorités médicales nationales, comme le STIKO en Allemagne, qui préconisent d’attendre. Les tests PCR, qui définissent la politique mais qui ne disent rien sur la présence d’un virus spécifique chez une personne, sont traités comme le « Gold Standard » de l’infection. Pourtant, à ce jour, aucun laboratoire n’a réussi à isoler des échantillons purs du prétendu virus SRAS-CoV-2 qui serait à l’origine de la maladie COVID-19. Comment les tests PCR peuvent-ils être calibrés si l’agent pathogène revendiqué n’est pas clairement identifié ? Avec un peu de recul, il apparaît clairement que nous sommes soumis à une opération mondiale délibérée de dissonance cognitive dont les conséquences prévues pour l’avenir de notre civilisation nous sont cachées.
Résoudre la dissonance cognitive
Dissonance cognitive est un terme utilisé en psychologie pour désigner ce que ressent une personne vivant deux expériences contradictoires ou une expérience défiant sa logique ; cette incohérence vécue lui causant un grand stress. Ce stress est résolu par le cerveau qui utilise inconsciemment n’importe quel tour de passe-passe pour résoudre cette incohérence. Le syndrome de Stockholm en est un exemple. Dans le cas présent, le conflit est résolu en donnant toute sa confiance aux autorités – gouvernements, OMS, CDC, RKI, Bill Gates ou tout autre expert épidémiologique autoproclamé, souvent sans diplôme médical. Ces autorités imposent pourtant des mesures draconiennes de confinement, de port de masque et de restriction des déplacements qui ont rapidement tourné à une vaccination forcée de facto avec des vaccins non testés dont les effets indésirables se comptent désormais par millions dans l’UE et aux États-Unis.
Le cerveau ordinaire se dit : « Pourquoi les autorités voudraient-elles nous faire du mal ? Ne veulent-elles pas le meilleur pour nous et pour le pays ou le monde ? » Les expériences réelles des 18 derniers mois, depuis que l’Organisation mondiale de la santé a déclaré une pandémie à propos d’un prétendu virus identifié pour la première fois à Wuhan en Chine, suggèrent que soit les politiciens et les responsables de la santé du monde entier ont perdu la tête, soit ils sont délibérément mauvais, soit ils sont volontairement destructeurs, soit ils sont tout simplement corrompus. Pour résoudre cette effrayante contradiction, des millions d’entre nous acceptent de recevoir une concoction expérimentale faite à base d’ARNm génétiquement modifié et pensent qu’ils sont alors protégés contre l’infection et la grave maladie qu’entraine un prétendu virus pathogène et mortel appelé COVID-19. Certains attaquent même ceux qui, autour d’eux, résolvent différemment cette dissonance en refusant ce vaccin, par simple méfiance et prudence. Pourtant, même le Dr Fauci, l’omniprésent expert médical de Washington, admet que les nouveaux vaccins à ARNm n’empêchent pas de contracter la prétendue maladie ou d’être contaminant, mais qu’ils contribuent peut-être à en atténuer l’impact. Il ne s’agit donc pas d’un vaccin, mais de quelque chose d’autre.
Un variant Delta ?
À ce stade, il est utile d’examiner plusieurs faits avérés concernant ce coronavirus et son nombre apparemment infini de « variants ». La peur actuelle au Royaume-Uni, dans l’Union européenne et aux États-Unis est déclenchée par un variant, appelé Delta, du coronavirus. Le seul problème est que les autorités compétentes ne nous apprennent rien d’utile sur ce variant.
Étant donné que le prétendu variant Delta d’un nouveau coronavirus, prétendument identifié à Wuhan mais jamais scientifiquement prouvé, est utilisée pour justifier une nouvelle série de mesures draconiennes de confinement et de pressions en faveur de la vaccination, il est utile d’examiner le test permettant de déterminer si ce variant Delta est bien présent chez une personne testée à l’aide du test PCR standard recommandé par l’OMS.
En mai dernier, le variant Delta fut d’abord appelé variant indien. Il a rapidement été identifié dans 90 % des nouveaux tests positifs au COVID-19 au Royaume-Uni, qui compte également une importante population indienne. Ce que l’on ne dit pas, c’est qu’en deux mois seulement, les prétendus positifs au variant Delta en Inde ont chuté de façon spectaculaire, passant de 400 000 par jour en mai à 40 000 en juillet. Les symptômes ressemblant étrangement à ceux du rhume des foins ordinaire, l’OMS s’est empressée de le rebaptiser Delta, en se basant sur l’alphabet grec, afin de brouiller davantage les pistes. Des baisses similaires du variant Delta ont été observées au Royaume-Uni. Les « experts » ont prétendu que c’était parce que les Indiens terrifiés étaient restés chez eux, car seul un petit 1-3% de la population avait été vacciné. Au Royaume-Uni, les experts ont prétendu que c’est parce que beaucoup de gens étaient vaccinés que les cas de delta avaient tellement chuté. Si cela vous donne l’impression qu’ils inventent n’importe quelle explication pour alimenter le discours sur les vaccins, vous n’êtes pas le seul.
Et ce n’est pas tout. Pratiquement personne au Royaume-Uni, en Inde, dans l’Union européenne ou aux États-Unis n’a pu être testée positif au variant Delta avec un test spécifique au variant Delta, car un tel test n’existe pas. Des tests complexes et très coûteux sont censés exister, mais aucune preuve n’est apportée qu’ils sont utilisés pour affirmer des choses telles que « 90% des cas britanniques sont dus au Delta… ». Les laboratoires du monde entier se contentent d’effectuer des tests PCR standard, très imprécis, et les autorités sanitaires déclarent qu’il s’agit du « Delta ». Il n’existe pas de test simple pour le Delta ou tout autre variant. Si ce que je dis n’est pas vrai, le CDC ou l’OMS ou d’autres instituts de santé devraient expliquer en détail ces tests. Ils ne le font pas. Demandez aux « experts » de la santé concernés comment ils peuvent prouver la présence d’un variant Delta du virus. Ils ne le peuvent pas. Les laboratoires d’analyse aux États-Unis admettent qu’ils ne peuvent tester aucun variant.
Des tests PCR inutiles
Le test PCR ne permet pas de détecter un virus ou une maladie. Le scientifique qui a obtenu un prix Nobel pour avoir inventé le test PCR, le Dr Kary Mullis, est passé à la télévision pour attaquer nommément le chef du NIAID, Tony Fauci, en le qualifiant d’incompétent pour avoir prétendu que les tests PCR pouvaient détecter n’importe quel agent pathogène ou maladie. Il n’a pas été conçu pour cela, mais plutôt comme un outil d’analyse de recherche en laboratoire. Les tests PCR ne peuvent pas déterminer une infection aiguë, une infectiosité continue, ni une maladie réelle. Le test PCR n’a pas été conçu pour identifier une maladie infectieuse active, il identifie plutôt du matériel génétique, qu’il soit partiel, vivant ou même mort.
Un article publié le 21 janvier 2020 par deux Allemands, Corman et Drosten, a été utilisé pour créer le test PCR et immédiatement adopté par l’OMS pour devenir la norme mondiale de détection du nouveau coronavirus. À ce moment-là, six personnes seulement avaient été identifiées comme porteuses du nouveau coronavirus. En novembre 2020, un groupe de pairs scientifiques a examiné l’article de Drosten et a découvert un nombre incroyable de failles scientifiques majeures ainsi qu’un conflit d’intérêts flagrant de la part de Drosten et de ses collègues. Les scientifiques ont noté que la conception du PCR et l’article de Drosten souffraient de « nombreuses erreurs techniques et scientifiques, notamment une conception insuffisante des amorces, un protocole RT-qPCR problématique et insuffisant, et l’absence d’une validation précise du test. Ni le test présenté ni le manuscrit lui-même ne remplissent les conditions d’une publication scientifique acceptable. En outre, les graves conflits d’intérêts des auteurs ne sont pas mentionnés. Enfin… un processus systématique d’examen par les pairs n’a, jusqu’à maintenant, pas été effectué, ou alors il était de mauvaise qualité. » Pourtant, le modèle de PCR de Drosten a été immédiatement recommandé par l’OMS comme test pour le coronavirus.
Le test PCR amplifie le matériel génétique en utilisant des rotations jusqu’à ce qu’elles atteignent ce que l’on appelle le seuil de cycle (Ct), un nombre d’amplifications permettant de détecter le matériel génétique avant que l’échantillon ne devienne sans valeur. Mullis a dit un jour que si l’on amplifie par un grand nombre suffisant de rotation, on peut trouver n’importe quoi chez n’importe qui, car notre corps est porteur d’un grand nombre de virus et de bactéries différents, la plupart inoffensifs. Même le Dr Fauci, dans une interview de 2020, déclarait qu’un CT supérieur à 35 n’a aucune valeur. Pourtant, le CDC recommanderait aux laboratoires de tests d’utiliser un CT entre 37 et 40 ! A ce niveau-là, 97% des COVID positifs sont probablement faux.
Ni le CDC ni l’OMS n’ont rendu publiques leurs recommandations en matière de Ct, mais on rapporte que le CDC recommande désormais un seuil de Ct plus bas pour les tests des personnes ayant été vaccinées, de manière à minimiser les COVIDs positifs chez les personnes vaccinées, tout en recommandant un Ct supérieur à 35 pour les personnes non vaccinées, une manipulation criminelle si elle est avérée.
Pour ceux qui s’intéressent à l’évolution de la manipulation des tests PCR pour soi-disant diagnostiquer la présence spécifique d’une maladie, il faut se pencher sur l’histoire sordide qui a commencé dans les années 1980 lorsque Fauci et son subordonné de l’époque, le Dr Robert Gallo, au NIAID, ont utilisé la technologie PCR de Mullis pour affirmer, à tort, qu’une personne était séropositive, une entreprise criminelle qui a entraîné la mort inutile de dizaines, voire de centaines, de milliers de personnes.
Notamment, presque tous les éminents défenseurs du vaccin COVID, de Fauci à Tedros, le chef de l’OMS, viennent de cette glauque affaire VIH/SIDA et de ses faux tests PCR. L’ensemble des mesures de panique imposées depuis 2020 dans le monde entier sont basées sur la fausse prémisse qu’un test RT-PCR « positif » signifie que l’on est malade ou infecté par le COVID. La peur du COVID-19 qui a émané de Wuhan, en Chine, en décembre 2019, est une pandémie qui n’est due qu’aux tests, comme l’ont souligné de nombreux médecins. Il n’y a aucune preuve qu’un virus pathogène soit détecté par le test. Il n’y a pas non plus de valeur de référence prouvée, ou « étalon-or » pour déterminer la positivité. C’est purement arbitraire. Faites la recherche et vous verrez.
La promotion de vaccins expérimentaux
Si l’économie mondiale a perdu des milliers de milliards de dollars depuis le début de l’année 2020 et ruiné d’innombrables vies sur la base de tests PCR sans valeur et que maintenant la même fraude continue avec un prétendu variant Delta, la conclusion évidente est que certains acteurs très influents utilisent cette peur pour promouvoir des vaccins génétiques expérimentaux qui n’ont jamais été testés à grande échelle sur des humains ni sur des animaux.
Pourtant, le nombre officiel de décès liés aux vaccins dans l’UE et aux États-Unis continue de battre des records. À l’heure où nous écrivons ces lignes, selon la base de données officielle de l’UE pour l’enregistrement des conséquences liées aux vaccins, EduraVigilance, à la date du 2 août, 20 595 décès ont été signalés chez des personnes venant d’être inoculées avec ces vaccins à ARNm expérimentaux ! De tels chiffres n’avaient jamais été observés auparavant. En outre, 1 960 607 conséquences médicales ont été signalées, dont 50 % graves, notamment des caillots sanguins, des crises cardiaques, des irrégularités menstruelles, des paralysies, toutes consécutives à une injection d’ARNm COVID-19. Les données américaines de la base de données VAERS établie par le CDC sont ouvertement manipulées, mais elles montrent quand même plus de 11 000 décès post-vaccins ARNm. Les grands médias n’en parlent jamais.
Les autorités et les politiciens prétendent qu’il n’y a aucune preuve que les décès ou les conséquences médicales soient liés aux vaccins. Mais ils ne peuvent pas prouver ce qu’ils prétendent parce qu’ils interdisent aux médecins de pratiquer toute autopsie. Si l’on nous dit de faire confiance à la science, pourquoi les autorités sanitaires ordonnent-elles aux médecins de ne pas faire d’autopsie sur les patients qui sont morts APRÈS avoir reçu deux doses de vaccins ARNm ? Malgré ces milliers de décès liés à ces vaccins, une seule autopsie a été pratiquée, en Allemagne, et les conclusions furent terribles. La protéine de pointe ARNm s’était répandue dans tout le corps. Depuis le mois de mai, le CDC a cessé de répertorier les cas non graves de COVID-19 chez les personnes vaccinées. Pour cacher le nombre alarmant de vaccinés qui tombent malades.
Quelque chose ne va pas du tout lorsque des experts médicaux expérimentés et respectés sont bannis pour avoir suggéré des hypothèses alternatives pour expliquer ce drame COVID. Lorsque d’autres scientifiques, qui adhérent à la ligne officielle mais critiquent Tony Fauci ou d’autres médecins traditionnels du COVID, sont accusés de « crime de haine ». Ou lorsque des remèdes bon marché et éprouvés sont interdits en faveur des coûteux vaccins ARNm mortels dans lesquels le NIAID de Fauci détient un intérêt financier.
Les défenseurs des vaccins tels que Fauci parlent déjà de la nécessité d’injections de rappel et mettent en garde contre l’apparition d’un nouveau « variant Lambda ». Comment vont-ils l’identifier celui-là ? Ou devons-nous le croire sur parole parce qu’il ou elle est considéré(e) par CNN ou la BBC comme une « autorité respectée » ? Jusqu’à quand les citoyens sains d’esprit vont-ils permettre à cette dissonance cognitive de détruire nos vies ?
William Engdahl
Traduit par Wayan, relu par Hervé, pour le Saker Francophone
Telle est la devise avec laquelle plusieurs organisations et partis politiques appellent les Français à manifester contre le délire de la Dictature Sanitaire. Certes, l’intention est noble, mais le mot liberté ne veut plus rien dire depuis 1789.
Comment est-ce possible qu’un principe comme celui de liberté change de sens ou plutôt se vide de sens du jour au lendemain, à savoir, à partir du maudit jour du 14 Juillet de 1789? Comment est-ce possible que pendant dix-huit siècles le mot liberté soit synonyme de l’amour envers Dieu et qu’il devienne synonyme de la haine envers Dieu à partir de 1789 ?
La Révolution Française créa surtout un traumatisme conceptuel et identitaire. Conceptuel car cet événement luciférien s’attaqua non seulement à Dieu et à son lieutenant, le roi, mais aussi à ses principes dont la liberté tout en imposant une dictature idéologique forgée de façon illégale à travers la boucherie des chrétiens. Et traumatisme identitaire car elle dénatura l’homme, en le séparant de son Créateur et en donnant naissance au soi-disant l’homme fait Dieu. Et ce sont ces deux aspects qu’on va analyser dans cet article afin qu’on puisse répondre à notre question. Pour autant, on va étudier dans un premier temps le sens du mot liberté avant la Révolution Française et après tout en réfléchissant au rôle de l’homme de Dieu dans la défense de ce principe avant la Révolution et au rôle de l’homme fait Dieu après la Révolution.
Liberté – amour de Dieu
Le principe de liberté tel qu’on le connaît jusqu’à la Révolution Française remonte aux temps de Jésus-Christ. C’est Lui le symbole de liberté car Il décide librement de sacrifier sa vie pour sauver l’homme. Dans ce sens, l’Évangile selon saint Jean nous dit que « Si le Fils vous libère, vous serez libres » (Jean 6 :36). Libres de quoi ? Saint Paul en désignant le Christ comme source de cet Évangile, affirme : « Il n’y a pas de différence : tous ont péché et sont privés de la gloire de Dieu, et ils sont gratuitement déclarés justes par sa grâce, par le moyen de la libération qui se trouve en Jésus-Christ. C’est lui que Dieu a destiné à être par son sang expiatoire une victime expiatoire pour ceux qui y croiraient » (Romains 3 :21 – 25a). Cette idée de liberté consisterait dans le fait que Notre Seigneur, Jésus-Christ, à travers son sacrifice, nous libère de nos péchés et, pour autant, de l’Enfer, car sa mort crée des canaux de grâce ou des instruments connus sous le nom des sacrements que le pécheur doit mettre en place pour obtenir le salut de son âme. La liberté représente ainsi la libération du Mal, du péché. Et tout comme le Créateur a donné la vie librement pour sauver sa créature, de la même façon l’enfant doit suivre l’exemple de son Père. Cet épisode nous démontre que l’amour est intrinsèquement lié à l’idée de liberté car on ne peut pas aimer si on ne choisit pas de le faire en pleine liberté.
Cette preuve d’amour du Père spirituel envers son enfant et vice-versa scella ce principe de liberté jusqu’en 1789 tel que le témoigne non seulement l’Acte des Apôtres, mais aussi l’histoire de l’humanité.
Dès les premiers temps de la Chrétienté, le mot liberté commence à se forger à travers les preuves de sacrifice que les créatures firent pour leur Créateur. Dans ce sens, Saint Pierre et Saint Paul furent tués par les romains sous les ordres de l’empereur Néron alors que Saint Laurent fut effectivement rôti sur un gril après avoir été déchiré à coups de fouets. Un sort pareil subit Sainte Julienne de Nicomédie qui, n’acceptant pas de se marier à un homme païen fut déshabillée en public et bouillie dans un bain de plomb fondu.
C’est dans ce contexte de persécution de la liberté que la figure du martyre fit son apparition car le chrétien préféra rester libre pour aimer le Christ. Ce sacrifice au nom de la liberté fut considéré par Saint Augustin « le meilleur don que Dieu puisse faire aux siens ». Et les paroles de l’écrivain latin Tertullien définissent le mieux ce concept de liberté : « Nous, nous sommes libres car nous avons décidé librement de mourir pour Lui tandis que vous, vous nous tuez car vous êtes les esclaves de votre propre haine »[1].
Ce même principe de liberté et d’amour envers Dieu guida les chevaliers (la future noblesse) au Moyen Âge à défendre l’Europe Chrétienne ainsi que la Terre Sainte de l’invasion musulmane.
Rappelons-nous dans ce sens l’origine de la chevalerie (qui plus tard se transforma en noblesse) confirmée par Aristote : « la vraie noblesse est théologale car elle descend du divin, en s’éloignant de tout ce qui est animalesque ». Au Moyen Âge une grande partie de la littérature se dédia à mettre en exergue les qualités du chevalier en reprenant cette même idée d’Aristote : «Un bon Chevalier doit être un bon Chrétien. Il peut démontrer sa noblesse seulement à travers l’exercice de la vertu … sachant, par ailleurs, que c’est la Religion Catholique la seule qui possède la parfaite vertu »[2]. Pour autant, une relation intrinsèque prend naissance entre vertus chrétiennes et chevalerie, relation scellée par le processus de christianisation de la chevalerie entamé par l’Église Catholique au XIe et XIIe siècle. Avant de relater cela il convient de rappeler que jusqu’au XIe siècle, la chevalerie était considérée par Saint Bernard ainsi que par les observateurs de l’époque une « caste efféminée et très peu virile car elle n’avait pas les vertus théologales»[3]. Et c’est à cause de ce manque de virilité que l’Église Catholique décide de civiliser la chevalerie en entamant son processus de christianisation. Dans ce sens, c’est surtout la cérémonie d’adoubement du chevalier qui consistait dans « l’extension du Royaume du Christ au royaume des hommes à travers de l’épée en forme de croix »[4] qui reflète le mieux ce processus : « Nous donnons au chevalier l’épée en forme de croix afin que, tout comme notre Seigneur, Jésus-Christ, vaincra la mort sur la croix, de la même façon, le chevalier vainque et détruise l’ennemi de la croix à travers l’épée »[5]. Et c’est à partir de ce moment que la chevalerie commence à se cimenter comme l’un des pillons les plus importants de la société médiévale en devenant quelques siècles plus tard ce qu’on connaîtra sous le nom de noblesse d’épée.
Il nous a semblé pertinent de faire une parenthèse pour présenter la généalogie de la chevalerie afin qu’on puisse mieux discerner les qualités des hommes de Dieu qui ont lutté pour ce principe de liberté, ces qualités qui se traduisaient par virilité et vertu.
Souvenons-nous, dans ce sens, des fameuses croisades dont le seul et unique but était de défendre Dieu contre l’islam. La Terre Sainte était occupée par les musulmans et la vénération des lieux saints n’était plus possible pour les pèlerins non-armés. Saint Bernard disait à propos des musulmans, qui étaient considérés des païens étant donné qu’à cet époque tous les non-convertis au christianisme portaient ce nom, : « Le Démon a suscité cette race de païens, ces enfants pervers que le courage des chrétiens a trop longtemps supporté … au lieu d’écraser du talon la bête venimeuse ». Par ailleurs, il décrit avec ces mots cette attaque envers Dieu : « Les ennemis de la Croix se disposent à profaner les lieux consacrés par le sang du Christ ! » Saint Bernard prêcha la croisade car prêcher la croisade c’était prêcher la Croix. Et c’est grâce à ses lettres et prédications que ce grand Saint put écrire au Pape les paroles suivantes : « Les villages et les bourgs sont déserts. Vous trouveriez difficilement un homme contre sept femmes. On ne voit partout que des veuves dont les maris sont encore vivants ».
Souvenons-nous aussi de la croisade qui eut lieu en Espagne pendant huit siècles contre l’invasion musulmane. Les nobles espagnoles sacrifièrent leur vie au nom de la libération de la Chrétienté de l’islam. N’oublions pas à cet égard que c’est la Vierge Marie même qui apparut dans une grotte à Covadonga en Asturies au roi Pélage, en garantissant ainsi sa victoire contre les musulmans. Elle porte le nom de Vierge de Covadonga.
Rajoutons à cela que si ces hommes de Dieu – ces chevaliers – n’avaient pas lutté pour la liberté, nous aurions parlé l’arabe à Madrid et à Paris depuis longtemps.
Souvenons-nous aussi de la virilité et de l’amour de Dieu dont fit preuve Sainte Jeanne d’Arc qui au nom de la liberté se mit à la tête des armées pour libérer la France – ce royaume de Dieu – de l’invasion anglaise. Au nom de cette même liberté, la grande reine, Catherine de Médicis, prit des mesures contre les hérétiques (les protestants) qui avaient envahi la France tout en suivant les conseils que Saint Bernard avait donné quelques siècles avant : « Ces hérétiques, on ne les convainc pas par des raisonnements car ils ne les comprennent pas, on ne peut les fléchir par la persuasion car ils sont endurcis ». Oh, comme résonnent ces mots à partir de la Révolution Française car ces même hérétiques commencèrent peu à peu à être tolérés par les derniers capétiens influencés par les idées meurtrières des Encyclopédistes, de Voltaire, de d’Holchbach ou de Rousseau, etc.
Souvenons-nous des hommes de Dieu qui ont lutté pour la liberté en défendant le trône et l’autel en France pendant le régicide et le déicide que représenta la Révolution Française et qui s’exporta dans le reste des pays européens chrétiens et monarchistes. Ces héros qui donnèrent leur dernière goutte de sang pour Dieu et pour son lieutenant, le roi, le firent pour la liberté. Dans ce sens, on va rappeler le sacrifice des prêtres réfractaires qui ne voulaient pas jurer fidélité au satanisme républicain, des aristocrates qui étaient discriminés pour l’honorable passé de leurs ancêtres ou des paysans dont l’amour de Dieu et de leur roi n’avait pas de limite. Or, tous ces braves gens ne se battaient pas pour leurs enfants, pour leurs femmes ou pour leurs besoins immédiats; au contraire, ils sacrifièrent tout pour Dieu et pour la loi de leurs ancêtres. Le premier sang versé dans ce sens fut celui d’un homme du Bas-Poitou qui se battit longtemps contre les gendarmes de la République. Au bout de vingt-deux coups d’épée reçus, les gendarmes eurent pitié de lui et lui crièrent Rend-toi, mais jusqu’à la dernière goutte de son sang il répondit Rendez-moi mon Dieu. Cet épisode unique enferma le cri de liberté qu’on aura du mal à entendre à partir du XIXe siècle.
Liberté – haine envers Dieu
À partir de la Révolution Française le concept de liberté devient un contresens. Les paroles d’un député de l’Assemblée Nationale corrobore cette affirmation: « Le changement le plus merveilleux qui jamais exista sur la terre fut celui de détruire non seulement les tyrans (le clergé, la noblesse et le roi), mais de réduire en poussière leurs propres imposteurs partout en France, c’est ça la vraie liberté »[6]. Et il rajoute : « le fanatisme (la religion catholique) a armé la Vendée avec les signes religieux, mais la liberté a ressuscité et le fanatisme a été exterminé »[7]. On voit comment le mot liberté devient synonyme d’extermination, d’anéantissement de tous ceux qui ne se soumettent pas à la loi de l’Homme fait Dieu.
Pour corroborer encore plus cette définition de la liberté après 1789, rappelons à cet égard, toutes les boucheries que l’homme de la Révolution – l’Homme fait Dieu – fit à l’Homme de Dieu. Souvenons-nous des boucheries de prêtres du 1er et 2 septembre à Paris, des noyades de Nantes quand on déshabillait les prêtres réfractaires pour les marier civilement avec des filles avant de les noyer, autrement dit de les envoyer « au château d’eau »[8] comme disaient ironiquement les Hommes faits Dieu, de l’extermination des femmes, enfants, etc. par les colonnes infernales du général Westermann qui, avec son orgueil démesuré et rongé par la haine de Dieu, dit à l’Assemblée : «Suivant les ordres que vous m’avez donnés, j’ai écrasé les enfants sous les sabots des chevaux, massacré les femmes, qui, au moins, pour celles-là, n’enfanterons plus de brigands. Je n’ai pas un seul prisonnier à me reprocher. J’ai tout exterminé»[9]. Rappelons-nous de l’oligophrénie dont firent preuve les Hommes faits Dieu avec les dames aristocrates de l’époque et on rappelle à cet égard comment on a éventré du bas du ventre jusqu’à la poitrine l’amie de la reine Marie-Antoinette, la princesse de Lamballe, comment on a traîné son corps, on l’a souillé, comment on a porté sa tête au bout d’une pique.[10]
On voit bien que pour ces sujets qui habitaient la France et l’Europe après l’anéantissement de l’autel et le trône et qui se disaient républicains, la liberté perdait tout son sens. Pourquoi ? La réponse est assez simple, ils sont dénaturés, ils ne sont pas normaux. L’Homme est la créature de Dieu et il a été fait à son image, mais en voulant être Dieu et homme à la fois, il est sorti de la normalité. À cet égard, la sagesse chrétienne se plaisait à répéter : « Seigneur, levez-vous, que l’homme ne prévale pas» (Ps. 20 :9). C’est Lucifer le premier dénaturé car il veut se libérer de son Créateur pour être lui-même le Créateur, ce qu’on appelle couramment la déification de l’homme. C’est lui qui vide de sens ce mot liberté et il lui inculque le sens de libération de son Créateur et de ses enseignements, libération de l’esprit et d’attachement à sa chair. Et c’est exactement ce que feront toutes les hérésies qui se succédèrent après l’arrivée du Christianisme. Le gnosticisme renonça à la Bible décidant de l’interpréter à sa façon et prenant comme Dieu l’Être Suprême de la Kabbale qui devint le Dieu de la Révolution Française. Le protestantisme fit la même chose en encourageant le sexe et le mariage entre nones et moines au nom de cette liberté entendu comme libération de Dieu alors que l’idéologie de la République appelée Laïcisme rendit la prostitution commencée par Luther légale à travers le mariage civil.
Liberté – aujourd’hui
Si avant la Révolution le mot liberté représentait l’incarnation de l’amour de Dieu, courage et surtout virilité, après le traumatisme social et identitaire qui vit le jour en 1789, le principe de liberté disparaîtra pour laisser la place à tout ce qui s’opposa au vrai principe : esclavage de ses propres passions, de sa chair, de sa haine envers Dieu.
Qu’en est-il aujourd’hui ?
L’Homme moderne a oublié ces principes. Il a permis ou il a toléré (car c’est à la mode) que l’Europe chrétienne de ses ancêtres soit envahie par l’islam. Il a laissé construire des mosquées sur la terre de la fille aînée de l’Église, il a permis et continue de permettre l’assassinat des prêtres catholiques partout en France. Il a laissé ou il a toléré la légalisation des crimes des enfants à travers l’avortement, il a laissé la dictature sanitaire nous emprisonner au domicile et tuer des hommes en refusant de les recevoir à l’hôpital au nom de la peur. Ce même Homme moderne a permis que la liberté soit piétinée. Tous ces faits nous rappellent l’Homme dont Saint Bernard parla avant le processus de civilisation engendré par l’Église Catholique, à savoir un homme peu viril et, pour autant, efféminé.
Et comment réagit-il? Est-ce qu’il prêche la Croisade par sa bouche comme Saint Bernard? Non, Il manifeste tout simplement.
Et pourquoi manifeste-il ? Il le fait pour ses besoins immédiats: pour la diminution de sa retraite ou pour l’augmentation du prix de l’essence. Il ne se bat plus pour des idéaux comme nos ancêtres. La citation du Duque de Tovar, don Alfonso de Figueroa y Melgar trouve ici toute sa place : « Un vrai homme se bat seulement au nom des valeurs absolues comme la liberté et non pas pour l’augmentation du prix de la patate »[11].
Luttez Messieurs et prenez l’exemple au moins des femmes de la Révolution Française, comme madame la marquise de la Rochejaquelein qui donna naissance a ses enfants en luttant contre les soldats armés de la République ou comme Sainte Jeanne d’Arc qui n’étant qu’un enfant se confronta à des milliers des soldats armés ! Luttez, luttez encore, luttez toujours pour la vraie liberté, celle des enfants de Dieu !
I came of age during the late Cold War Era, and while the possibility of nuclear war was regarded as horrifying, it was hardly unthinkable, being the subject of countless films and stories and with the rival U.S. and Soviet arsenals regularly compared in newspapers and magazines.
However, biological warfare did indeed seem unthinkable. Back in 1969, President Richard Nixon had ordered the destruction of our entire biowarfare arsenal and soon signed an international treaty with his Soviet counterparts to outlaw those horrifying weapons. The release of deadly, self-replicating biological organisms that respected no national borders obviously raised uniquely dangerous risks, and I easily understood why such weapons could never possibly be used in combat, especially by our own government.
Preconceived notions sometimes crack and crumble a bit before they finally collapse. For years I’d begun to see claims about the past use of biological weapons floating around the Internet, but the collapse only began in early January when I read a remarkable 12,000 word cover story in New York magazine. The author was Nicholson Baker, a prominent writer and liberal public intellectual, and he made a detailed and rather persuasive case that instead of being natural, the Covid virus devastating our country and the rest of the world was artificial, the product of some lab. As an intelligent layman rather than a scientist Baker’s expertise on the topic came from the many years of research that he had undertaken for Baseless, his 2020 book documenting America’s own extensive biological warfare program.
Nearly all of Baker’s very long article concerned the Covid issue, but a few facts from that book were mentioned here and there, and these greatly surprised me. Apparently during the 1950s our biowarfare program had been assigned a priority and importance comparable to that of nuclear weapons development, and the project had also resulted in numerous accidents, many of them fatal, which was hardly something I’d ever seen mentioned in my introductory textbooks. So the actual history of the topic was apparently far more complex than I’d realized.
At the time, my focus was entirely on Covid matters and my analysis that our disastrous global epidemic was probably the result of an American biowarfare attack against China (and Iran). But after producing a long series of articles on that topic, I decided to take a closer look at the history of American biowarfare programs, with Baker’s own book being a natural starting point.
Baker opened his volume by explaining that in 2009 he had begun to wonder about certain disputed events from the Korean War, a conflict that ended in 1953, years before he was even born. At the time, the Communist world had loudly accused the Americans of engaging in illegal “germ warfare” and the Americans had hotly denied those charges. Although never fully resolved during the decades that followed, most mainstream historians seemed to have come down on the American side, but Baker wondered who had really been telling the truth.
His initial exploration of books and articles led him to available government documents, including those found at a couple of presidential libraries and the National Archives, and he also interviewed some of the knowledgeable individuals and researchers. But none of the material he found seemed conclusive, so in 2012 he began using the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in hopes of obtaining some restricted documents that might finally resolve the matter.
He continued filing such FOIA requests for seven more years, and the nature of that landmark 1966 law, now seemingly honored as much in the breach as the observance, is a central theme of his book, almost as important as the particular historical question that originally prompted his effort, leading him to subtitle his volume “My Search for Secrets in the Ruins of the Freedom of Information Act.” Such criticism seems warranted given that the original statute required that agencies should respond with their documents within twenty working days, and if another agency needed to be consulted, they should do so “with all practicable speed.” But in reality, years of delay are not uncommon, with one outstanding FOIA request now more than a quarter-century old. Furthermore, such documents when finally released are sometimes rendered almost unintelligible by the whited-out redactions of words, sentences, paragraphs, or multiple pages.
The alleged legal justification for holding back or heavily mutilating such documents is that their release would endanger our current national security, but we must ask ourselves how plausible this really seems. The events of interest to Baker took place during a war that ended almost seventy years ago, fought against a global Communist coalition that no longer exists, and it hardly seems likely that any of the operational plans or technologies from that era would have much relevance today, while surely even the grandchildren of the individuals mentioned are now quite elderly if they are even still alive.
After the fall of the USSR, the old Soviet archives were generally thrown open to the world, allowing Western historians to discover many important facts and resolve various longstanding controversies such as the Katyn Forest Massacre, but over the last couple of decades they have mostly been closed back up again. Can anyone seriously argue that keeping secret the minutes of Stalin’s old Politburo meetings is vital for protecting current Russian national security rather than merely preventing Russian national embarrassment? And the same must surely be true with regard to almost all our own secret documents from the early 1950s.
At one point in his quest, Baker described sitting in a reading room of the National Archives building knowing that just on the other side of a thin wall were the 21 unavailable documents that would conclusively resolve his long investigation one way or the other. Instead, he was forced to make do with what he had been able to obtain, massive redactions and all.
By 2019 Baker had spent more than a decade on his project, punctuated by writing several unrelated but successful books and novels, and having reached his mid-sixties, he felt sure that the patient government bureaucrats would successfully outlast him. He had accumulated thousands of pages of notes and many boxes of reports and other materials, as well as a great deal of important personal knowledge that would not survive him, so he finally decided to write a book telling others what he had learned and allowing them to use the information for themselves.
Lacking access to the documents he had spent so many years fruitlessly seeking, he abandoned any effort to produce a polished chronological narrative. The author is best known as a novelist, so rather than writing in a dryly academic style, he instead chose to produce several months’ worth of long diary-style entries, mostly discussing and analyzing the contents and implications of the various documents he had uncovered, but leavening his account by including brief descriptions of his personal life and activities. Although his style was unassuming and informal, the main text itself, running less than 150,000 words, was backed by more than fifty pages of detailed source notes. The credibility of his material is indicated by the glowing cover-blurbs from noted writers who had covered related subjects.
Given that the crucial secret documents still remain secret, Baker’s analysis is necessarily based upon circumstantial evidence, including the unredacted portions of those documents that had been released, and he fully admits this difficulty, providing all his facts and conclusions in plain sight and drawing likelihoods and plausible inferences rather than expounding certitudes. Overall, I found him a very judicious analyst, and believe he made a strong even overwhelming case that America did indeed engage in biological warfare during the early stages of the Korean conflict, much as our Communist adversaries had charged at the time. The separate elements of this historical puzzle fit together to produce a reasonably persuasive whole.
First, over the decades it has been thoroughly documented that America did have a very substantial biowarfare program based at Ft. Detrick, originally established during World War II and then continuing into the postwar era, heavily augmented by the absorption of Japan’s own very extensive biowarfare resources after the close of hostilities. The Japanese had developed the feather as an ideal means of widely disseminating all sorts of deadly biological agents from the air, and our own military researchers soon built and tested a variety of “feather bombs” for that purpose, generally using the same physical containers that had been developed to distribute propaganda leaflets from planes.
In late 1950 American forces suffered a series of disastrous defeats in Korea at the hands of Chinese troops, and the report from a Pentagon committee in early December emphasized the importance of accelerating the development of bioweapons such as Q Fever, plague, and anthrax together with the necessary delivery mechanisms for covert use, while especially praising the CIA for its effectiveness in that regard. This secret report was eventually declassified by a FOIA request in 1996.
Around the same time that report was being written, a British sergeant retreating through a deserted North Korean village before advancing Chinese troops observed American military personnel, masked and gloved, carefully removing large quantities of feathers from special containers and flinging them into the empty houses before he was warned away by American MPs. He later stated that he had obviously witnessed “a clandestine operation” of some sort and mentioned that a few days afterward he was required to take an unspecified vaccine. This curious vignette appears in Unit 731, a 1989 historical account of Japan’s biowarfare program written by two BBC journalists, but oddly enough the incident was removed from the American edition of that same book.
Months later, the North Korean foreign minister issued a formal complaint to the United Nations that America had used illegal biological warfare, attacking his own troops and those of China with smallpox. These mysterious outbreaks had occurred a few months earlier, but only in areas recently occupied by retreating American forces. The accusations briefly appeared in the Western media, but were ridiculed and hotly denied by American government spokesmen.
Around the same time that Communist troops were sickening and dying, around two hundred American soldiers in the same theater had also been suddenly stricken by a mysterious outbreak of Songo fever, never before seen in Korea but with symptoms quite similar to smallpox and a specialty of America’s Japanese biowarfare mentors. Strict censorship prevented these stories from reaching the American media until many months later, at which point our government claimed that the illnesses had been spread by Chinese troops. But the disease seemed entirely absent from the hundreds of miles of Korean territory the enemy forces had traversed, and only appeared in a narrow belt along the front lines, with our stricken servicemen believing that they seemed to be spread by infected field mice or voles. Voles had long been regarded by American researchers as an excellent vector for their bioweapons, and when interviewed years later for a history of the Korean War, one of the leaders of our local CIA efforts explained that his covert operations had created a defensive belt along the front lines.
The diarist format used by Baker scatters these closely-connected facts across nearly 200 pages. So although I think any reader of Baker’s entire book will find his thesis quite convincing, any few pages read in isolation provide only a small portion of the crucial story, lacking the necessary juxtaposition to make the strongest case.
Although this round of events in 1951 and the accompanying Communist accusations received some world media coverage, a far greater volume of controversy came the following year, when Communist media organs issued widespread charges that America had begun a much larger round of biowarfare, claiming that American planes were dropping all sorts of diseased insects and voles in Korea and even parts of nearby China, once again trying to unleash an epidemic. Sensing the opportunity for a major propaganda coup, the Chinese organized an independent international fact-finding commission to investigate their accusations and interview local witnesses, managing to enlist as its head Dr. Joseph Needham, one of Britain’s most celebrated scientists and China experts, and the 665 page report eventually published claimed to have confirmed the Chinese case. An especially important element were the public confessions of numerous captured American pilots who admitted that they had taken part in such illegal germ warfare attacks.
However, these new accusations were once again blasted as a hoax by the much more powerful Western media, and after repatriation, the captured Americans claimed their statements had been coerced. Many later historians have come to the same conclusion, especially after 1998 when previously secret documents of the Soviet KGB archives revealed that they had created fake areas of disease exposure for propaganda purposes. As an example of this historical consensus, Simon Winchester’s widely-praised 2008 biography of Needham devoted almost 20 pages to this episode, which nearly wrecked his subject’s career, and he firmly concluded that that the Communist charges were fallacious.
Baker, however, suggests a more nuanced reconstruction. The notion that American planes were dropping insects and rodents from the sky seems quite an extraordinary claim, less likely to be the sort of plausible-sounding story fabricated for a war propaganda plan, especially given the very large number of seemingly-credible eyewitnesses later interviewed by Needham and other investigators, and the author wonders whether thousands of individuals could have been enlisted into such a long-standing hoax. Moreover, in 2007 the CIA finally declassified and made available on its website a large cache of secret American documents, and these included numerous communication intercepts of Chinese and North Korean commanders reporting these events and urgently requesting vaccines or DDT to protect their troops from the expected disease outbreaks. So although the evidence for such actual epidemics seems minimal and possibly fabricated, the Communist forces certainly believed that they were under biological attack, suggesting that something very odd was happening.
Baker notes that psychological warfare was a central element of CIA operations, and memos from that period indicate that all sorts of possible strategies were being explored to demoralize enemy troops, including the unusual idea of using planes to spread “fake radioactive dust” and convince the Communist forces that they were in deadly peril. Absent a public and self-defeating American announcement, it is difficult to imagine that any such dust would have even been noticed let alone regarded as dangerous, but dropping large numbers of mysterious insects and rodents might have immediately persuaded the enemy they were suffering another round of American biological attacks, with the American pilots involved assuming the same thing, and Baker believes this best fits the limited available evidence. To a considerable extent, this resembles another bizarre but solidly documented action called Operation Red Frog, in which the CIA caught a hundred Korean frogs, painted them red, then had them dropped from planes to unnerve the opposing military forces.
Moreover, top Pentagon officials believed that full-scale war against the Soviets and the Chinese might break out at any moment, and this operation allowed them to test their biological delivery systems, which would have become a crucial element of their military strategy in such a conflict. So Baker believes that a small-scale covert biological warfare operation beginning in late 1950 afterward became confused and conflated with a large-scale psychological warfare operation in 1952, leading many later historians to discount the reality of the former.
Aside from the numerous FOIA documents that he had personally obtained, one of Baker’s most important sources was a short 1998 volume by Canadian historians Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman aptly entitled The United States and Biological Warfare. He became personally friendly with the authors, whom he interviewed early in his project, and was later given twenty boxes of their accumulated research materials.
Published by a small American university press, the Endicott/Hagerman volume contains an enormous wealth of very detailed factual material, and was glowingly praised by Prof. Richard Falk of Princeton, an eminent scholar of international law, as well as mainstream historian Stephen Ambrose, who had built his career upon Eisenhower hagiography. But the text is written in a very dry and dull manner, so I found the Baker book, despite its lack of a chronological sequence, much more useful, although it was obviously built upon the research foundation provided by that earlier work.
The authors differ with Baker by firmly believing that the aerial drops of 1952 were also biological attacks, but their evidence seems overwhelmingly circumstantial and most of it could easily be explained within Baker’s framework.
One crucial point they properly emphasize is the terrible scale of the American defeat at the hands of the intervening Chinese ground forces during late 1950. They quote from Disaster in Korea, the definitive military account of that conflict by Lt. Col. Roy E. Appleman, who characterizes the situation in extreme terms: “…a series of disasters unequaled in our country’s history…a massive retreat, without parallel in U.S. military history.” As a consequence, both President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed that atomic bombs should be used if necessary to avert total defeat. Under such circumstances, is it really plausible that our forces would have balked at the use of biological warfare, especially in a very limited capacity and deployed in a plausibly-deniable manner?
Unless and until our remaining secret documents from seven decades ago are finally made available, Baker’s reconstruction strikes me as the most balanced and consistent with the somewhat contradictory evidence, and Winchester apparently agrees, seeming to reverse the conclusions of his Needham biography of a dozen years earlier by providing a long and glowing blurb for Baker’s book.
Preparation for the full use of offensive biowarfare against large enemy population centers obviously requires extensive field testing, and these efforts sometimes provoked great controversy when they eventually came to light. During September 1950, a mysterious fog with a strange odor enveloped the city of San Francisco for several days, and only decades later was this discovered to have been caused by a major biowarfare field test, as an offshore minesweeper blew a huge cloud of bacterial spores intended as a stand-in for anthrax towards the city. Although the spores were purportedly harmless, they actually produced a number of serious infections among the local residents, including at least one death. In 1975, the New York Times revealed that a decade earlier the CIA had filled New York City’s subways with “a harmless simulant of a disease-carrying gas” provoking further outrage.
There also seems reasonable evidence that far more permanent mistakes sometimes occurred. Lyme disease, transmitted by ticks, can produce itches, rashes, and sometimes more serious ailments and annually infects some 300,000 Americans and countless pets, plaguing the inhabitants of New England and much of the coastal North East. It was first diagnosed in 1975, a suspiciously recent date for the sudden appearance of an entirely natural disease, and based upon Lab 257, a heavily-researched 2005 book by Michael Carroll, Baker argues it was probably an inadvertent consequence of our biowarfare experiments. Apparently, nearby Plum Island had long been the center of CIA- and Army-funded research into tick-borne livestock diseases, and these could have accidentally infected local deer or birds, which then crossed the bay to Lyme, Connecticut, producing the endemic infestation.
Although hardly as controversial as those aimed at humans, such biological weapons targeting food supply had also constituted an important element of America’s military plans from the earliest stages, though they seem to have almost entirely disappeared from the historical record.
By early 1945, Ft. Detrick researchers had developed and tested a variety of weapons aimed at destroying Japan’s rice harvest, producing bombs to deliver mold, fungus, or bacteria for that purpose, while other military experts argued that spraying fuel oil would be the most effective means of destroying rice seedlings. Combined with America’s complete blockade of Japan’s home islands and the destruction of her fishing fleet, the strategy was intended to reduce the overcrowded Japanese population to total starvation.
Although the key documents regarding any actual implementation of these war plans remain classified or so heavily redacted as to be unreadable, we do know that the Joint Chiefs of Staff at some point officially authorized the full use of “plant BW[Biowarfare].” Baker notes that Japan’s rice crop failed in 1945, producing the worst harvest since 1909, when the population had been one-third smaller, and Japan only survived because Gen. MacArthur’s occupation government imported huge quantities of food. After the close of hostilities, leading biowarfare figures intervened with the media to suppress or downplay any stories of the methods that had been used to destroy Japanese agriculture.
Given such apparent success against Japan, it was hardly surprising that such anti-crop techniques soon became an important component of our Cold War strategy, though the consequences may have sometimes been counter-productive.
Wheat was as important to the Soviet food supply as rice had been to Japan’s, and our biowarfare experts investigated parasitic “wheat stem rust,” which they believed might be effective at destroying Soviet agriculture. By 1949 they had developed powerful anti-wheat strains, and the project was put into full production. A huge stockpile of spores was required in order to be able to deal a crushing blow to the USSR food supply, far more than could be produced in the enclosed Ft. Detrick greenhouses that had been used for testing purposes, so our experts began cultivating the fungal parasite on large sections of open acreage.
The spores were extremely light, could be lofted up to 10,000 feet into the air by winds, and a single pustule might produce 350,000 new spores. Although our biowarriors surely tried to be careful, mistakes do sometimes happen, and while no attack upon Soviet agriculture ever took place, beginning in 1950 our own wheat crop was devastated by five years of mysterious wheat rust epidemics, which eventually encompassed twelve states and by 1954 had destroyed a quarter of our bread wheat and three-quarters of our pasta wheat. This timing may have been purely coincidental, but Baker notes that a declassified Air Force report reveals that the main spore cultivation efforts had occurred in generally the same states which then became the epicenters of the spreading blight.
Sometimes such mistakes must be repeated before they are fully admitted. By the early 1960s, Ft. Detrick researchers were once again cultivating wheat rust in several acres of an experimental crop-station in Kansas, and their reports boasted of their success in reducing crop yields by 70%. This effort continued until 1965 when a huge wheat rust epidemic severely damaged the farmlands of much of Kansas and Nebraska, after which the project was halted.
Other anti-food projects were aimed at livestock, and Baker strongly suspects that hog cholera was used against East Germany’s swine herds, with the epidemic beginning soon after the CIA-abetted Berlin riots of 1953 and forcing the destruction of many tens of thousands of pigs. Such methods became part of the CIA’s standard toolkit, and according to Newsday their operatives in 1971 successfully infected Cuba’s herds with the African swine flu virus, forcing the slaughter of 500,000 pigs and completely eliminating the availability of pork, a staple of the Cuban diet, although similar efforts to destroy Cuba’s poultry industry failed. These historical events seem eerily reminiscent of the mysterious viral epidemics that began devastating China’s poultry and pork industries in 2018 and 2019, soon after the Trump Administration had brought on board one of America’s leading biowarfare advocates.
Although most of these historical facts have been known to academic specialists for decades, or could be discovered by those who actively searched them out, they have been much less likely to appear in more general works. For example, one of the glowing blurbs provided to Baker’s book is by Pulitzer Prize winner Tim Weiner, who had spent decades covering intelligence issues at the New York Times and elsewhere. His 2007 work Legacy of Ashes runs 700 pages, and is considered an authoritative history of the CIA, but when I read it a year or two ago, I saw virtually no mention anywhere of biological weapons let alone their actual use, and rechecking the index just now confirmed my recollection.
However, this climate of media avoidance has recently begun changing. Another strong endorsement of Baker’s book came from Stephen Kinzer, who just a year earlier had published Poisoner in Chief, primarily focused upon the notorious MK-ULTRA mind-control projects of Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, the CIA researcher described in the title. Kinzer’s book attracted glowing accolades from Pulitzer Prize winners Seymour Hersh and Kai Bird, both writers with great experience on intelligence matters, and received quite favorable reviews in the elite mainstream media.
At first glance, mind-control and biological warfare might seem entirely dissimilar topics, but they actually share considerable areas of overlap. Both required the creation and use of dangerous biological or biochemical agents, which for maximal effectiveness must then be tested upon unwilling human subjects, often in dangerous or lethal ways. Since in this regard they obviously operate outside the boundaries of normal legality, especially in peacetime, their use must be kept entirely secret, naturally matching them with the proclivities of an intelligence agency such as the CIA. Throughout his book Kinzer emphasized the considerable overlapping personnel and resources between these two domains. Indeed, as the CIA’s “chief poisoner,” Gottlieb developed a wide range of deadly biological compounds which he deployed in a number of mostly unsuccessful attempts to assassinate foreign leaders such as Prime Ministers Zhou Enlai of China and Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, as well as Cuba’s Fidel Castro.
But Gottlieb’s great personal quest was to create an effective system of mind-control, the use of chemical compounds or physical techniques to gain mental control over an unwilling subject, which he persuaded CIA leaders represented the Holy Grail of their espionage efforts.
There is an additional and rather ironic connection between the Ft. Detrick biowarfare programs and the unsuccessful CIA efforts at mind-control. As discussed above, there seems to be overwhelming evidence that the severe military setbacks of the early Korean War had prompted America to surreptitiously employ biological warfare, though the military impact was hardly enormous. Then in 1952, a much larger aerial effort dropped insects, rodents, and other obvious potential disease carriers on Communist-held territory, including parts of China. Baker believes that these later attacks were mostly elements of psychological warfare, with no effort made to infect the potential carriers with diseases, but obviously both the enemy governments and the pilots involved would have assumed that actual biological attacks were once again taking place. So when some of the American pilots were shot down and captured, they confessed to these apparent germ-warfare attacks, signing statements and admitting the facts to foreign visitors, thereby serving as the centerpiece of a major Communist propaganda campaign.
Since such actions would have been considered war-crimes, their widespread recognition might have produced a huge public relations disaster for America, and they were heatedly denied in the strongest possible terms as ridiculous Communist propaganda, with these determined public efforts to suppress the facts largely succeeding within the Western bloc.
Upon their return, these captured flyers were threatened with court-martials, causing them to repudiate their statements as having been made under duress. But the records show that any such coercion was almost entirely psychological, with virtually no claims of harsh physical treatment or torture.
This naturally raised the problem of explaining away the detailed and seemingly credible public statements of those captured American officers and why they had confessed to supposedly non-existent war crimes. The response was the creation of a widespread myth that the Chinese Communists had pioneered “brainwashing” as a powerful technique of mind-control. This suggested that our Cold War adversaries had made a major breakthrough in a potentially important military technology, and prompted CIA efforts to match their techniques and close the “brainwashing-gap.”
These ideas also soon entered the popular culture, with the classic example being The Manchurian Candidate, a 1959 bestseller that became an even more influential 1962 film. The fictional work tells the story of a captured American soldier transformed by Chinese brainwashing into a programmed assassin used to remove any human obstacles to a Communist seizure of our political system, and for decades afterward brainwashing remained a staple of fictional suspense plots. Yet Kinzer notes that right around the time the film appeared, the CIA finally abandoned the project as a failure despite the heavy resources expended, hardly surprising since the underlying premise had been entirely fallacious.
One major element of these failed CIA efforts had been the widespread utilization of LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs, often tested upon unwitting civilian subjects, and the use of these drugs eventually leaked out into our wider society, with serious negative consequences. So to some extent, our official refusal to acknowledge that we had illegally waged biological warfare in the early 1950s may have indirectly helped promote the creation of the drug culture that so greatly transformed our society by the late 1960s.Subscribe to New Columns
Although Gottlieb’s mind-control efforts had gone into high gear in the aftermath of the Korean War, they had actually begun during the early stages of that conflict, as Kinzer quotes in this grisly excerpt:
“In 1951 a team of CIA scientists led by Dr. Gottlieb flew to Tokyo,” according to one study. “Four Japanese suspected of working for the Russians were secretly brought to a location where the CIA doctors injected them with a variety of depressents and stimulants…Under relentless questioning, they confessed to working for the Russians. They were taken out into Tokyo Bay, shot and dumped overboard. The CIA team flew to Seoul in South Korea and repeated the experiment on twenty-five North Korean prisoners-of-war. They were asked to denounce Communism. They refused and were executed…In 1952 Dulles brought Dr. Gottlieb and his team to post-war Munich in southern Germany. They set up a base in a safe house…Throughout the winter of 1952-3 scores of ‘expendables’ were brought to the safe house. They were given massive amounts of drugs, some of which Frank Olson had prepared back at Detrick, to see if their minds could be altered. Others were given electro-convulsive shocks. Each experiment failed. The ‘expendables’ were killed and their bodies burned.”
This remarkable passage came from one of Kinzer’s major sources, Secrets and Lies by Gordon Thomas, which was published by a small American press in 2007 and bore the provocative subtitle “A History of CIA Mind Control and Germ Warfare.” Intrigued by this material, I decided to order a copy for myself, which proved a less trivial undertaking than I had assumed.
At one point in Baker’s account, he related the anecdote that when one of the earliest books revealing CIA activities appeared in 1964, representatives of the agency threatened to buy up all the copies and thereby remove it from circulation. This plan was immediately frustrated when the editor at Random House said he would simply order another print run, but such a strategy would obviously be much more effective if directed against books produced by small presses and that were no longer being printed. When I checked Amazon for the Thomas book, the cheapest hard copy available was listed at over $500, a price I had never previously encountered for a mainstream hardcover less than 15 years old and the only copy listed at AbeBooks.com turned out to be missing. But fortunately I was able to locate a more reasonably priced copy elsewhere.
The extreme rarity of that particular book is certainly quite different from the dozens of others in Thomas’s huge oeuvre, which accumulated an astonishing 45 million in total sales. Although produced by an extremely successful author and BBC broadcaster on historical and intelligence matters, this volume lacks any source notes and is also replete with the sort of detailed private conversations likely to have been invented by Thomas, who probably hoped the work would be made into a film, as had been the case with seven of his previous books. These factors naturally gave me some pause compared with the carefully-documented Baker, Endicott/Hagerman, and Kinzer volumes.
However, Thomas claimed that much of his information came from CDs containing 22,000 secret CIA documents that a whistleblower had sent him in 2001, and he republished some of these in his book, while his material had been treated as fully authentic by later writers such as Kinzer. The author also drew heavily upon extensive personal interviews, with his most important source being William Buckley, a thirty-year CIA veteran at the heart of the events, who had been close to both Allen Dulles and William Casey, two leading directors of the agency. So on balance, I regarded Thomas’s material as uniquely valuable and reasonably credible, though perhaps not quite as solid as the explicitly document-based works by Baker and Kinzer.
Thomas’s material strongly supported Baker’s account of American biowarfare attacks during the Korean War, and he even expanded the story in important ways. For example, he suggested that during 1951 Gottlieb and our other biowarfare experts may have tested their lab-cultured diseases upon 20,000 North Korean POWs, of whom nearly 1,800 died, with the full CIA records of this damaging incident possibly having been destroyed during 1972-1973. According to Thomas, Buckley also investigated the records of the confessions of our captured pilots, and noted that their detailed descriptions so perfectly matched our actual biowarfare technologies as to seem very persuasive.
And if Thomas and his personal sources can be credited, his account may have resolved one of the most puzzling and notorious incidents of the 1950s, widely discussed in other works.
In 1953 one of our leading biowarfare experts, Dr. Frank Olson, began behaving very oddly and after being taken to New York City for treatment by a psychiatrist was found dead on the pavement beneath the broken windows of his fifth floor hotel room, with the official verdict being suicide due to sudden mental illness. Decades later it came out that he had secretly been given a heavy dose of LSD as part of the CIA’s mind-control research project, and the incident was regarded as a notorious example of the potentially deadly effects of that hallucinogenic drug, which had been introduced into our society and tested upon unsuspecting Americans by CIA researchers. As compensation, the Olson family received a large financial settlement. But according to Thomas, the truth may have actually been far darker than even this story.
The development of deadly toxins and other biological weapons obviously requires considerable human testing to be effective, and during World War II Japan’s extremely large biowarfare program apparently consumed thousands of human subjects—euphemistically labeled “logs” in their reports—mostly hapless Chinese but also including some American and other Western POWs. The claims that similar lethal human experiments had been performed upon the inmates of some Nazi concentration camps figured quite prominently at the Nuremberg Tribunals. But practical needs transcend ideologies, and America’s own growing biowarfare program of the postwar years seems to have adopted entirely similar methods of testing, much of it taking place at a large secluded compound in the Black Forest region of occupied Germany, with the victims—various suspicious characters or other such “expendables”—afterwards eliminated if they somehow managed to survive the weapon tests themselves.
In 1953 Olson took his first trip to that field establishment and apparently was deeply horrified at personally witnessing the actual use of the deadly technologies he had spent the last dozen years developing in his laboratory. Returning home via Britain, his distraught state was apparent to one of his British biowarfare colleagues, who reported the facts to his superiors and the information was immediately passed along to their opposite numbers in America. It appears that Gottlieb, the head of the American program, became fearful that Olson might eventually reveal the sordid facts to the media, so he arranged to have him quickly killed, first administering a massive dose of LSD to produce the sudden behavioral changes that would support a verdict of suicide.
Apparently CIA Director Allen Dulles was very suspicious of the official suicide story, telling his close aide Buckley that Olson had seemed almost the last person in the world to commit suicide, and he tasked that officer with getting to the bottom of what had really happened. Buckley believed he had done so, even determining the identity of the assassin employed, and decades later the exhumation and autopsy of Olson’s corpse seemed to strongly support that reconstruction, so that a New York public prosecutor was preparing a homicide indictment against Gottlieb in 1999 shortly before the latter’s death. But the sordid incident was completely hushed up at the time, and after the fall of Communism, the files of the KGB and the East German Stasi revealed that they used the example of Olson’s demise as a case study of “the perfect murder by suicide.”
Kinzer seems to support this same reconstruction, though lacking access to Thomas’s documents or the benefit of his personal interviews with Buckley, he is much more circumspect in his conclusion.
Reading these books also helped to fully resolve an additional biowarfare question that had remained in the back of my mind for the last couple of years.
David Irving quite possibly ranks as Britain’s most internationally successful historian of the last one hundred years, and some of his archival research produced remarkable revelations. As I wrote in 2018:
Along with the laws prohibiting the bombing of cities, all nations had similarly agreed to ban the first use of poison gas, while stockpiling quantities for necessary retaliation. Since Germany was the world-leader in chemistry, the Nazis had produced the most lethal forms of new nerve gases, such as Tabun and Sarin, whose use might have easily resulted in major military victories on both the Eastern and Western fronts, but Hitler had scrupulously obeyed the international protocols that his nation had signed. However, late in the war during 1944 the relentless Allied bombardment of German cities led to the devastating retaliatory attacks of the V-1 flying bombs against London, and an outraged Churchill became adamant that German cities should be attacked with poison gas in counter-retaliation. If Churchill had gotten his way, many millions of British might soon have perished from German nerve gas counter-strikes. Around the same time, Churchill was also blocked in his proposal to bombard Germany with hundreds of thousands of deadly anthrax bombs, an operation that might have rendered much of Central and Western Europe uninhabitable for generations.
According to Irving, only the stubborn resistance of Churchill’s appalled military and political subordinates prevented the drunken wartime leader from carrying out his plan to to annihilate the heart of Europe with biological warfare. The great historian gives the details in one of his riveting public lectures, once easily available on YouTube, but now confined to Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/embed/C9z1fCgUn5If/
Under normal circumstances, I would consider such astonishing claims almost impossible to believe. However, during the notorious 2000 libel trial that wrecked Irving’s career and bankrupted him, his Jewish tormenters drew upon their almost unlimited funding to hire an army of researchers who spent a year or more subjecting Irving’s vast corpus of writings to line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote scrutiny, a degree of hostile fact-checking surely unprecedented in the annals of historiography. And since they never challenged any of these striking statements, I felt confident in accepting that the claims were correct. But I was still gratified to see these facts seemingly confirmed by the Kinzer, Endicott/Hagerman, and Thomas books, which each reported Churchill’s urgent 1944 order for the mass-production of anthrax bombs by his domestic industry and also his successful demand that the Americans ship him another 500,000 from our own stockpile.
One of the odd aspects of America’s informational landscape is that so many of the most controversial historical facts seem to be hidden in very plain sight. Both Nicholson Baker and Stephen Kinzer are fully mainstream and well-regarded authors, with their books heavily praised by prominent reviewers and easily available for purchase on Amazon.com, and the same is true for the much earlier history by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman. The volume by Gordon Thomas is somewhat more difficult to obtain in hard copy, but the Kindle version is priced at just $9.99, and his other books had racked up many tens of millions in sales while being made into seven films. No one could possibly describe these writers as marginalized figures, purged for their controversial historical claims. And the stories they told of America’s extensive use of biological warfare and the lethal experiments conducted upon large numbers of human victims seem quite explosive. We are obviously not living in a totalitarian state that imposes a wall of secrecy upon these sordid facts. Anyone can click a button on Amazon and begin reading the material a day or two later, or buy the Kindle version and open the book within seconds.
Yet sales of such books have probably been limited to the thousands or low tens of thousands of copies, and none of this history is promoted in the mainstream media or incorporated into our standard textbooks, which would allow it to reach many millions of readers. Most importantly, it is entirely ignored by our electronic media, which is the primary source of information for the vast majority of our population. As a consequence, I had been completely ignorant of this material, and when I contacted several knowledgeable and well-read individuals, some of whom are primarily focused upon national security issues, the same was true for them as well. Merely by failing to sufficiently emphasize certain facts, the media is hiding them almost as effectively as if they had been declared official state secrets.
One might easily argue that although quite distasteful these past events had little effect upon the world and are merely details of history, unimportant to our present-day lives. Our biowarfare attacks during the Korean War killed or injured merely the tiniest sliver of the casualties that were inflicted by our massive strategic bombing campaign or the rest of the conventional fighting on the ground. And except for Midwestern farmers whose wheat crops were devastated during the early 1950s or Northeasterners who still suffer the pangs of Lyme disease, the number of Americans impacted by these policies or their unintentional blowback, has been absolutely negligible.
But biological weapons do create enormous potential dangers, as President Nixon had emphasized when he decided to ban them, and playing Russian Roulette may seem absolutely safe until one time when it suddenly isn’t.
Consider the reality of today’s global Covid epidemic. Although still just partway through its second year, the outbreak has already killed perhaps 14 million people worldwide, and together with the efforts at control has heavily affected the lives of nearly all the world’s eight billion people, touching every continent and city. Many hundreds of thousands of Americans have been among the dead, and our own society has been enormously disrupted. By any reasonable measure, the Covid outbreak has already had an impact upon the world many times greater than that of the 9/11 attacks and the two decades of major wars and population displacements that followed, certainly making it one of the three or four most momentous events of the last one hundred years.
From April 2020 onward I have been presenting the strong perhaps even overwhelming evidence that the disease outbreak was unleashed by an exceptionally reckless American biowarfare attack against China (and Iran). The numerous articles in my series have now been viewed more than 350,000 times, a total perhaps as much as an order-of-magnitude greater than the combined sales of the various major books discussed in this article. Yet for exactly the same reasons—the studious avoidance of the mainstream and electronic media—only the tiniest fraction of those impacted by these disastrous events have become aware of the likely cause of their plight.
Perhaps if the unfortunate historical facts of America’s past decades of biowarfare development and use had become better known over the last couple of generations, our current calamity might have been avoided.
shutterstock.com
Shutterstock
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda ArdernShutterstock
naufrage/sauvetage 