Don’t black lives matter if those “vaccines” take them?

How propaganda hides the genocidal impact of the COVID-19 “vaccination” program

Part 1

A “coincidental” death in India

What happens when a propaganda blitz goes wrong, and proves (or seems to prove) the very truth it was devised to blow away? Let’s see. 

On Thursday, April 15, Vivek, the beloved Indian actor and comedian, was declared a “health ambassador” by Tamil Nadu’s Health Secretary, J. Radhakrishan, who enlisted Vivek’s “star power” (as The Hindu reported) to encourage “differently abled persons, athletes, shopkeepers and persons who have undergone organ transplantation” to get their COVID-19 “vaccinations.” Vivek dramatized the “safety” of those jabs by getting one himself: 

Tragically, that propaganda missile, launched on Thursday, crashed and burned on Friday, when Vivek suffered cardiac arrest, “fell unconscious at his house in Chennai,” and was hospitalized in critical condition. He died, at 59, on Saturday (a passing largely unreported in the Western press). 

Vivek’s hospitalization prompted a barrage of articles denying that his COVID jab had anything to do with it. “Actor Vivekh’s heart attack severe, not related to COVID-19 vaccination: Hospital” (New Indian Express). “Actor Vivek’s cardiac arrest not linked with COVID-19 vaccine, says TV Health Sec’y” (News Minute and Yahoo! News). Saturday’s obituaries kept it up, although more quietly, the exculpation buried in their later paragraphs—as at the end of this report from MSN: 

“On Thursday, Vivek received his first dose of Covid-19 vaccination at Omandurar government hospital,” reports said.

However, the hospital as well as Tami Nadu’s health secretary J Radhakrishnan told a press conference that the    Covid-19 vaccine was unlikely to be the cause of the cardiac arrest.  

10 more “coincidental” deaths in the United States

Now, it may be true that Vivek’s fatal heart attack was unrelated to his COVID-19 jab the day before. The team who tried to save him said, reportedly, that they discovered a 100% blockage in his LAD (left anterior descending artery), and performed an emergency angioplasty. So the timing of his public jab and sudden death could well have been just horribly coincidental—or maybe not, since Vivek’s post-jab death is not the only one that’s made some news (or not).

Drene Keyes

On January 30, Drene Keyes, a 58-year-old minister at the Church of Abraham in Gloucester, Virginia, and a grandmother of six, got her first Pfizer shot, in hopes it would protect her from COVID-19: “Keyes had diabetes, sleep apnea, and was obese,” reported WKTR-TV in Norfolk. “Her job made her eligible for the first dose.” Keyes felt ill right after the injection: “Something is not right. Something’s not right,” she said as she left the clinic, then started vomiting, unable to breathe. Soon after, she was rushed to VCU Tappahanock Hospital, where they tried to purge the fluid from her lungs, due (the doctors told her daughter) to a flash pulmonary edema, caused by anaphylaxis—which, within just a few hours of her injection, killed her. 

The TV station’s coverage of Keyes’ death included some poignant comments by her daughter, Lisa Jones: “My mom was wanting to protect herself, but it did not turn out that way.” 

Jones believes more research needs to be done, especially for those with underlying health issues.

“Why are we allowing people with underlying conditions  to be guinea pigs for a vaccine that is still in clinical trials and emergency use?” Jones questioned. 

She is hoping this serves as a warning for people to see their doctors and be pre-screened prior to being vaccinated.

“The pain my family feels from this unexpected loss  should not be repeated for others,” said Jones.

That local story, with its tacit focus on the welfare of its viewers, was notably unlike the rendering by NBC News—boilerplate so Pharma-friendly that Pfizer could have written it (and maybe did): “Virginia woman dies shortly after Covid vaccination, though no link has been found,” claimed the headline, followed by this repetitious lede:

A Virginia minister died shortly after she received a coronavirus vaccination, authorities said Friday, though there was no indication the vaccine was at fault. 

After identifying the departed, and noting where she had been given the shot that did not kill her, shortly after which she died, NBC’s reporters tell us once again that, according to “officials,” that shot had not killed her:

Officials said they did not know the cause of death, or any underlying conditions Keyes might have had that could have contributed to her death, and said there was no evidence it was tied to the vaccination.

After a paragraph reporting that Keyes was rushed to the hospital, we’re told yet again that that injection, just a few hours after which she died, bore no relation to her death: 

While an official cause of death was not immediately determined, Keyes did not die from any allergic reaction connected to the vaccine, according to state Health Commissioner M. Norman Oliver. 

“We can confirm that the death occurred within hours of having received the vaccine, but that is not evidence of it being related. We are currently investigating and do not yet know the cause of death.”  

NBC then bolstered that assurance of a state investigation with a statement from the CDC, which, having offered its condolences (“Our thoughts are with the family during this heartbreaking time”), noted its shared interest in determining what killed Drene Keyes: “CDC continues to closely monitor the safety of all vaccines, and we are actively working with Virginia officials to fully investigate the situation.” 

But there was no investigation, with or without the CDC, despite the family’s insistence on an autopsy; nor would officials say why they refused to do one. “The state eventually [somehow] determined Keyes, a minister, died of complications from COVID-19—Oliver wasn’t sure if Keyes knew she had it—and hypertensive cardiovascular disease,” reported the Virginia Mercury on March 12, noting also that, according to a private autopsy ordered by Keyes’ family, Keyes did not have COVID-19.  

Karen Hudson-Samuels

Ten days after Keyes’ sudden death, on February 9, Karen Hudson-Samuels, a media historian, and former anchor, producer and news director at WGPR-TV, the nation’s first black-owned and -operated TV station, was found dead, by her husband, in their home, one day after her first COVID-19 “vaccination.” Unlike Vivek, Hudson-Samuels had not publicized her jab; but the “Detroit media icon” was so famous and beloved in that city, and her death, at 68, so unexpected, and so soon after her jab, that it made many headlines starkly contradicting the official line that those “vaccines” are completely “safe.” The story was reported all throughout the Detroit media, and, elsewhere, on Fox News, and by the New York Post and Daily Mail. (The news was not reported by the New York Times, or any other major liberal outlet.)

Kimberly Credit

The day after Hudson-Samuels died, Dr. Kimberly Credit, the first female pastor of Mount Zion Baptist Church, in Boonton, New Jersey (and founder of a podcast called The Preaching Lab), publicly received her first injection of the Moderna “vaccine,” as a way to tell the rest of her community, “Go thou and do likewise.” “As a leader,” she wrote on Facebook, “I want to lead by example[,] especially for Pastors and the African American community.”

Got my first vaccine dose today. Thank you to Pastor Joe Carter for his leadership in pulling Black Clergy together and for allowing me to pray live for our news outlets. Thank you New York Times and Channel 2 News for interviewing me. #DoTheResearch #BeInformed #OurTrustInGod #WeNeedEveryoneVaccinatedToEndThis 

Though she made no public mention of it, Dr. Credit was presumably injected for the second time 28 days later, on March 10. Throughout the interim, and afterward, she posted nothing about feeling ill, not even after surgery. On Easter Sunday morning, April 4, at her church pulpit, she told the congregation, passingly, that she was short of breath. Afterward she posted the details of her next day’s podcast (on “Preaching in a Pandemic”), with this prefatory sentence: “Listen … let me say this before I get a good and needed nap in.” 

Then, on April 5, minutes before that podcast: “Suddenly, without warning, Rev. Dr. Kimberly Credit entered eternal rest,” as her obituary puts it. Her death, at 44, went unreported, except here and there online, where admirers shared their shock at her untimely passing. (“It’s hard for me to believe this,” wrote Ann Brock on her blog, The Old Black Church. “This was one anointed woman of God.”)  The only outlets that took note of Dr. Credit’s evidently fatal “vaccinations” were COVID-dissident sites like Daily Exposé, in the UK: “Young Pastor DIES After Taking, and Promoting, Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.” 

(Although, in her Facebook post on Feb. 10, she thanks the New York Times and CBS affiliate WLNY-TV  for covering her first injection, there seems to be no mention of it in their archives.)

So, if Vivek’s post-jab death was a “coincidence,” are his and those three others just “coincidental,” too? If so, the gods of Chance have certainly been working overtime in 2021, since those three aren’t the only such fatalities; though noting them requires that we step back and take a longer view of just how “safe” those “vaccines” really are.

Midwin Charles

On March 1, Midwin Charles, the dazzling Brooklyn defense attorney who often popped up as a legal analyst on CNN and MSNBC, told her multitude of Twitter followers that she’d just got the first of her two Pfizer jabs (“qualified because of my asthma”) “at a FEMA center,” where the “[p]rocess was organized, efficient, and everyone is kind and in a good mood. Let’s do this!” Charles also urged the jab on her own mother, who finally gave in after “weeks of convincing,” according to another of the lawyer’s many online posts, which hint that the effects of the “vaccine” were not as pleasant as her visit to that well-run FEMA center. 

There was, at first, “a little soreness at vaccine injection site,” and then, a few days later, “mild fatigue” and some “shortness of breath.” Thereafter, Charles posted nothing on her health, until March 19: “HEY GUYS!” she wrote on Instagram. “HAPPY HOUR TONIGHT IS CANCELED. I’M NOT FEELING WELL. SEE YOU NEXT FRIDAY.” A few weeks later, on April 7, Charles died, at 47. Her family did not disclose the cause of death, nor has any media outlet reported it.

While there were, strangely, few obituaries in the corporate press (the New York Times did not report it), online there was an outpouring of grief from Charles’ friends and colleagues: “Midwin, you were a brilliant spirit and beautiful soul. You were such a blessing,” posted MSNBC’s Joy Reid. “I’m just stunned, and have been since I learned of this today.” The likely cause of Charles’ death went tactfully unmentioned then, nor has it come up  since, not there or anywhere throughout the media, whether corporate or left/liberal. The Sun and Daily Mail each ran a big obituary piece playing up the seeming mystery of Charles’ death.  The likelihood that she was killed by her “efficient” Pfizer “vaccination” was noted only by LifeSite News, a Catholic website, on April 9, with a headline as pitiless as it is accurate: “TV personality who boasted of being vaccinated, pressuring her mom to do the same, dies after receiving jabs.”

Joshimar Henry

One of the first Chicagoans to get Dose #1 of Pfizer’s COVID-19 “vaccine” on December 15—an event covered live, and breathlessly reported, on MSNBC—was Dr. Joshimar Henry, who marked his second shot, on Jan. 6, on Facebook, where, like Vivek and Midwin Charles, he used his own experience to counter what he called “the hesitancy of many” to get jabbed: “Initially I was also hesitant but was reassured with some research and clarifying my doubt through reading.” He’d just had the shot, and, “like many of his colleagues” at Norwegian American Hospital, was just fine; so everybody else should do it, too: “I do believe that the benefits of this vaccine certainly outweigh the risks given its low side effect profile.”

That assurance was as premature as it was dangerous. The very fit and handsome Dr. Henry died, at 27, not quite three months later, on April 3, his obituary mentioning no cause of death. 

Gerren Taylor

On the day that Dr. Henry died, Gerren Taylor (née Ashley Taylor Gerren) got the Johnson & Johnson jab on April 3, in Los Angeles, with no public to-do about it, though she was a celebrity, like Midwin Charles. Hired by LA Models, at the tender age of 12, to strut the runways as their youngest-ever property, then dumped at 14, because, the agency told her, her body had grown “too big”—a shock that pushed her into a depression, and an eating disorder—Taylor rebounded with a starring role in “Baldwin Hills,” the BET reality TV show that aired from 2007 to 2009, showcasing the love lives of the teen-aged kids of Baldwin Hills’ rich-and-famous black residents. Taylor’s stardom enabled her to speak out from her bruising experience of rejection by the agency, urging girls not to strive, impossibly, to emulate the “body image” rampantly projected by the media. She went on to great success as an entrepreneur, with Myoko’s Closet, a children’s clothing company named after her daughter. 

On April 12, eight days after her injection, Taylor, 30, died in her sleep—”from unknown causes,” reported Essence

“Her cause of death is as yet unknown,” the New York Post reported. “However, Essence reported that it may have been related to the reality TV show star’s battle with the autoimmune disease lupus as she was reportedly on dialysis at the time of her death.” The same story ran in The Sun and Daily Mail (the Post’s British counterparts), also attributed to 

Essence—which now makes no mention of dialysis. That Taylor’s death “may [well] have been related to” her recent jab went unreported by the media, while it was noted by her friends, on “social media”: “I told you not to get that vxxxxxe ash f***,” one wrote bitterly on Instagram. “She said she took the mRNA jab; that’s either Pfizer or Moderna,” wrote another friend, Natasha James, on Facebook. (Taylor is survived by Myoko, her 7-year-old daughter.)

NaTalia Johnson

Two weeks after Taylor’s death, on April 24, NaTalia Johnson, a former prima ballerina living now in Sacramento, updated her Facebook profile to tell her online friends that she had been injected (without noting which “vaccine” was used), and, as the upbeat text around her photo indicates, to urge others to get “vaccinated,” too:

The native Texan (born in Lubbock) had retired to Sacramento in 2013, to serve as artistic director of the Natalia Johnson Conservatory of Ballet. Her story is remarkable. Having beat scoliosis (by wearing a back brace 23 hours a day, her one free hour devoted to ballet), then graduating from Lubbock High School with honors, Johnson set off for New York, with a scholarship to study dance at Juilliard, but through a chance encounter ended up at the Dance Theater of Harlem, starting an illustrious career that had her performing with the Urban Ballet Theater, Ballet Noir, Renaissance Ballet, Collage Dance Collective, and, in her hometown, Ballet Lubbock. Twice honored as an International Ballet All-Star, Johnson studied at the Alvin Ailey Dance Theater, taught master classes at schools and theaters nationwide, and also taught and choreographed New York City’s public schools. Upon retiring from the stage, Johnson moved to Sacramento, opening her own conservatory there, while teaching in an elementary school, and also helping her sister, Candida, to graduate over 800 young women from the Girls Self-Esteem Program Academy, by mentoring them in “poise, grace, dignity and self-respect.” 

On May 7, 13 days after her injection, Johnson came home from work at 9:30 p.m., telling Candida that she felt horribly “tired”—she was crying because of it—and sick enough to see the doctor, but decided she would go next day. The sisters put on a movie starring Michael B. Jordan, and had fun watching it together, NaTalia lying on the bed; then, suddenly, “she sat up with a shocked look on her face, and held out her arms to me,” recalled Candida, who felt her sister’s body “tightening up,” then going limp. She and a neighbor struggled to revive her, using CPR, until the EMTs arrived, and also tried for half an hour, to no avail: Natalia Johnson was gone, at 37—due either to “a stroke, brain aneurysm or a heart attack,” surmised Candida (who didn’t mention the injection, nor did any of the press coverage of NaTalia’s death).

Simone Scott

On May 1, a week before NaTalia Johnson’s death in Sacramento, Simone Scott, a freshman at Northwestern University, in Evanston, Illinois (just north of Chicago), received her second dose of the Moderna serum, hoping it would not affect her as the first one did. That shot, on April 3, had laid her low for several days of what felt like a bad flu, followed by a lingering fatigue; so it was a relief for her, her mother and stepfather back in Mason, Ohio, and her dad in Washington, D.C., that her second shot had no immediate side effects. Now “fully vaccinated,” Simone headed into her last month of spring semester classes with the same acuity, determination and strict discipline that she had shown in all her efforts since fifth grade, when she decided to become a journalist, with an expertise in law. To that end, she was double-majoring in broadcast journalism and political science/pre-law, working toward two bachelor’s degrees, with her sights set on Harvard Law School for her J.D.  

The feeling of relief after her second shot did not last long. On May 9, when she came home on a surprise visit for Mother’s Day, Simone seemed tired, and told her mother, Valerie Kraimer, that she’d been having nosebleeds. Back in Evanston on May 12, she made an appointment for a virtual check-up with a doctor who told her she was suffering from allergies. On May 13, she woke up with a low fever, and went to the student infirmary, where she tested negative for COVID-19, flu and other viruses; and though her heartbeat was irregular, they let her go, telling her to go to the ER if things got worse. On May 14, she came back with a sore throat, and was given a prescription for an anti-viral drug. 

On Sunday, May 16, Simone could not get up, or eat. “Dad, I feel so dizzy,” she texted Kevin Scott. “I cannot get out of bed.” Her mother packed a bag, and started the long drive to Evanston; Kevin Scott called the Northwestern campus police, asking them to check up on his daughter at her dorm. (He had to talk them into it.) When they finally did, they found she couldn’t walk, and called an ambulance. On the way to North Shore Hospital, Simone went into cardiac arrest, requiring CPR, which barely saved her, as her heart was no longer functioning; so they rushed her into surgery, to insert a balloon pump in the failing organ. It didn’t work, so, next day, they placed her on a heart-lung bypass called an ECMO. That didn’t work either.

The doctors diagnosed it as a case of severe myocarditis—inflammation of the heart, thinking that some virus had attacked it. By May 20, they decided that a heart transplant might be the only way for Simone to survive, so she was moved to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, where, on May 23, doctors carried out the transplant. Although the new heart soon began 

to beat as hoped, so it seemed that she   might make it, her lungs had been badly damaged, and   infected by the immunosuppressive drugs she needed for  the transplant to succeed. She hung on, intubated, for a little over three weeks, and died at 11:19 a.m. on June 11, at the age of 19. 

Ayesha K. Faines

Throughout the weeks that Gerren Taylor, NaTalia Johnson and Simone Scott lived after their injections, Ayesha K. Faines regaled her online followers with proud updates on her status as a “fully vaccinated” African-American, having got her second Pfizer jab at some point in mid-March. A former TV journalist in Jacksonville and New York City, the Yale-educated Faines was now nationally famous as a panelist on “The Grapevine,” a YouTube-based talk show featuring up to a dozen black millennials, hashing over topics such as Critical Race Theory, black/Latino relations, (white) racism as a mental illness, Bruno Mars as cultural appropriator and “the colonization of black beauty.”

On that last subject Faines was an especially compelling speaker, not just on “The Grapevine” but in all of her endeavors both online and (pre-COVID) as a public speaker. “A brave new voice for feminine power,” as her LinkedIn profile describes her, the dauntingly articulate (and visually arresting) Faines was the founder of Women Love Power, a company devised “to help women develop their authentic power,” and, as a columnist for Zora Magazine, “routinely explore[d] the intersection of love and power.” “Sought after for her expertise in mythology, race, and gender politics,” Faines was also a prolific poster on Instagram and (especially) Twitter, where she not only exulted in her own injections, but also voiced contempt for black Americans who were refusing to get jabbed.  

While that majority regard the COVID-19 “vaccination” drive as yet another oblique white attempt to kill them off (about which more below), Faines saw the shots not as inimical, in any way, to African-Americans, but as wholly reconcilable with blackness: “Just know that I’m melanated and vaccinated,” she tweeted playfully on March 30. Focused, as she was, on “feminine power,” Faines must have especially disliked the captivity of lockdown, and felt especially liberated by her second shot in early April, which meant she now was free to do her exercises (she was a competitive salsa dancer) outside home: “I’ve been practicing at home during quarantine [sic], but praise God I’m vaccinated and going back to the studio in the beginning of may!” she tweeted on April 10. 

Unlike the majority of African-Americans, Faines saw the “vaccines” not as some covert poison used by whites to lower black numbers—a view she candidly disdained, in this tweet on March 5: 

“‘The percentage of [Blacks] who don’t want to take the vaccine right now are reluctant because of misinformation or no information’ and not necessarily because of concerns of [sic] historical racial bias in medicine.

Thus Faines quoted Cornell Belcher, a pollster whose new study of black “vaccine-hesitancy,” conducted for the National Urban League, now showed (he said) that black people distrusted the injection program not because of their long history of  grotesque abuse by the American medical establishment (Tuskegee is the least of it), but because they’re either “misinformed” or ignorant—and, therefore, in urgent need of being properly “informed” ASAP, presumably by, say, the National Urban League, with generous funding by, say, Pfizer, and/or the Gates Foundation (both of them, as it happens, generous donors to the National Urban League), so that all those uninjected will now finally see the light, and get the jab. 

Having tweeted Belcher’s claim as if it were a valid observation, Faines charged that all too many African-Americans were “vaccine-hesitant” not because of the atrocious history of black suffering at the (white) hands of US doctors, but because they had been duped by Donald Trump and other white Republicans:   

Not to mention the same cadre that downplayed COVID, like TRUMP and Desantis, were among the FIRST to get the vaccine. That’s the game. — Sow seeds of doubt. Discourage marginalized groups from being vaccinated so that wealthy whites have an abundant supply

I wish it were appropriate to disentangle the illogic of that tweet, to demonstrate how much more dangerous it is to hold that view of those “vaccines” than to be healthily suspicious of them. I wish it were appropriate, because it would be if Ayesha Faines herself did not soon inadvertently, and tragically, disprove what she and Belcher wrote about the ignorance and/or delusion of that black majority. 

Having been knocked flat by her first jab in mid-March (“The first Pfizer shot had me down for the count,” she tweeted on April 3), Faines bounced right back to her packed schedule, keeping at it right through April, May and most of June. On June 28, she posted 25 tweets, and her last Facebook post at 10:45 p.m. that night. Those comprised her final words online. She died four days later, at 35, on July 2.

Faines’ sudden death received much online coverage, with no cause given. A few days later, her family released a statement, reported first by Zora, the magazine that ran Faines’ columns, and then by News4Jax, the Jacksonville news outlet for which she’d worked as traffic anchor, as well as BET and a few other sites online: “Ayesha K. Faines was born with asthma and multiple severe food allergies. On June 29, 2021, Ayesha suffered a fatal anaphylactic reaction from an unknown allergen.”

There was no mention of Faines’ “vaccination” in the coverage of her death, nor, with some very few exceptions, did any of her multitude of online mourners mention it. Only the COVID Blog and Sandra Rose—both COVID-dissident websites—noted her injections as the likely cause of death. If she did die of anaphylactic shock, it was more likely due to Faines’ two Pfizer shots than to anything she ate, since such fatal food allergies are now far more unusual than such severe allergic reactions among those  jabbed with the mRNA “vaccines”—a side effect that, back in January, the CDC assured us was extremely rare, which we may take as meaning that it isn’t all that rare; and more recent data from Japan and Israel suggest that it is not so uncommon after all.   

Maurice Shepperson 

Five days after Ayesha Faines died in New Jersey, Maurice Reginald Shepperson (who went by “Reggie”) drove himself to the ER of Henderson Hospital in Las Vegas, wracked with pain all over, unable to breathe or focus—in such bad shape that he skidded off the hospital parking lot onto the sidewalk. The 36-year-old flight attendant (a Southwest Airlines employee) had fallen ill soon after returning from a trip to Hawaii, with his mother, Dawn. Both had tested negative for COVID-19, several times. Shepperson quarantined as soon as he felt sick (Dawn left his meals outside his door), then tested positive, and just kept getting worse.

They had him in the ICU for over four weeks, much of the time on a ventilator. Every day, Dawn talked to him on FaceTime, praying with him every hour, on the hour. (“He would talk when he could,” she said. “He would give me a thumbs-up when he could.”) On Tuesday, Aug. 10, the hospital called Dawn to let her know that Reggie had passed on. 

Although we don’t know exactly when he was injected, the fact that Shepperson was “fully vaccinated” led the news in dozens of pieces published nation- and world-wide, many of them with the exact same headline: “Fully vaccinated Southwest flight attendant dies of COVID-19.” The implication of that headline, and many others near-identical, is (of course) that this was “news” becauseit was an oddity, like “Man Bites Dog”—a point spelled out in several of the articles: “Severe infections of COVID-19 among those who are vaccinated are extremely rare,” declared the New York Post, “even as the highly contagious Delta variant has spread across the United States.” 

The latest figures posted on the CDC’s website showed that just 8,054—or 0.005 percent—of the 166 million Americans who’ve been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 had suffered serious breakthrough infections causing hospitalization or death as of Aug. 9.

Thus the “fully vaccinated” Reggie Shepperson’s untimely death was misreported, as (a) “extremely rare” (which it most certainly was not), and, therefore, (b) as an untimely death not caused by his “vaccination”—which, as we have seen, is how those other nine untimely deaths of black Americans were also variously misreported; and they are not the only ones, as we shall see.

We will begin Part 2 of this essay by revisiting the question that I posed at the beginning: “What happens when a propaganda blitz misfires, and proves (or seems to prove) the very truth it was devised to blow away?” We will start to answer that key question by reviewing all the ways in which “our free press” ensured that We the People not see the significance of those ten deaths—i.e., what those “vaccines” are obviously doing to us all, and by design.


On my Substack (finally!), and my talk today (Sunday) at the protest in Foley Square

Our Substack is now up and running, thanks to Jimmy Han; so please subscribe, at As you’ll see, how much you pay for it is up to you; and, as promised, we’ll comp those who have emailed me requesting it.

Since Substack does not offer any digest option, I’m trying to figure out how I will use it; I think I’ll keep on sending some stuff out via this list-serve—single articles that I think others ought to see, with little or no commentary by myself—while using Substack for the more substantial pieces of my own. I’m always mindful of those NFU subscribers who don’t want their inboxes filling with my daily missives, so this informal approach may be a viable solution.

Let me know if you have any questions. Meanwhile, I remind you that I’ll be speaking at the protest in Foley Square today, concerning the fascistic imprisonment of all those dragged off to federal prison, where they languish on no charges, and in torturous conditions, for participation in, or some vaguer connection to, the “insurrection” on January 6th.

Those of you in NYC should be there if you can. (It starts at noon.) For those who can’t, I’m told that the event will be live-streamed via this link (don’t ask me why):

(I think it also will be live-streamed via the Pete Santilli Show, so you should check that website if the one above turns out to be dysfunctional.)


“This is the largest experiment performed on human beings in the history of the world”: Dr. Robert Malone gives a brilliant interview

Dr. Robert Malone: “This is the Largest Experiment Performed on Human Beings in the History of the World.”

 by Veronika Kyrylenko November 9, 2021


Stop that program NOW! Jabs “dramatically increase” the risk of cardiac inflammation, finds top cardiological journal

Dr. Vernon Coleman on the findings, which MUST put an IMMEDIATE stop to the “vaccination” program:

Abstract of the article in Circulation:


Dems deplored those rushed “vaccines” until it was THEIR turn to lie about them

GOP propaganda though it is, it makes an inarguable point about the Democrats’ outrageous double standard vis-a-vis the “safety and effectiveness” of those “vaccines”:


Russians urged to “vaccinate” their cats

Russians urged to vax their cats
So this is how it ends

Edward Slavsquat
Nov 29

Leave our furry friends alone

If you had “insane Russian scientist says inject all the cats” on your 2021 Bingo Card, congratulations:

They’ve gone too far

According to the expert, pets can be a source of coronavirus infection for their owners.

“There is evidence that cats can be sick with SARS-CoV. Dogs are sensitive to a certain extent,” Butenko clarified, adding that weasels can also get sick, and there is also evidence that predatory animals (leopards, lions and tigers) have become infected from people in zoos. The virologist noted that cats are the only animals that need to be vaccinated in an urban setting.

The doctor believes that if you do not vaccinate the animal, you need to carefully monitor so that it does not show symptoms of coronavirus infection

Didn’t The Simpsons predict this?


Anyway, let’s see what they’re saying on the Russian Message Boards:

Why do Russian people hate science?


South African doctor who discovered “Omicron” says there’s nothing to worry about

UPDATE: South African Doctor Who Discovered “Omicron” Variant Says There’s Nothing to Worry About – Only Mild Symptoms (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published November 28, 2021

Dr Angelique Coetzee, the South African doctor who first spotted the new Covid variant Omicron, appeared on the BBC this weekend.

Dr. Coetzee says the patients seen so far have had “extremely mild symptoms” – but more time is needed before we know the seriousness of the disease for vulnerable people.

Click on the link for the rest.


“The Left’s COVID failure”

Although they go too easy on the left, this is a thoughtful indictment.  

The Left’s Covid failure

Amplifying the crisis is no way to rebuild trust


Throughout the various phases of the global pandemic, people’s preferences in terms of epidemiological strategies have tended to overlap closely with their political orientation. Ever since Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro expressed doubts as to the wisdom of a lockdown strategy in March 2020, liberals and those on the Left of the Western political spectrum, including most socialists, have fallen over themselves to adhere in public to the lockdown strategy of pandemic mitigation — and lately to the logic of vaccine passports. Now as countries across Europe experiment with tighter restrictions of the unvaccinated, Left-wing commentators — usually so vocal in the defence of minorities suffering from discrimination — are notable for their silence.

As writers who have always positioned ourselves on the Left, we are disturbed at this turn of events. Is there really no progressive criticism to be made about the quarantining of healthy individuals, when the latest research suggests there is a vanishingly small difference in terms of transmission between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated? The Left’s response to Covid now appears as part of a broader crisis in Left-wing politics and thought — one which has been going on for three decades at least. So it’s important to identify the process through which this has taken shape.

In the first phase of the pandemic — the lockdowns phase — it was those leaning towards the cultural and economic right who were more likely to emphasise the social, economic and psychological damage resulting from lockdowns. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s initial lockdown scepticism made this position untenable for most of those leaning towards the cultural and economic Left. Social media algorithms then further fuelled this polarisation. Very quickly, therefore, Western leftists embraced lockdown, seen as a “pro-life” and “pro-collective” choice — a policy that, in theory, championed public health or the collective right to health. Meanwhile any criticism of the lockdowns was excoriated as a “right-wing”, “pro-economy” and “pro-individual” approach, accused of prioritising “profit” and “business as usual” over people’s lives.

In sum, decades of political polarisation instantly politicised a public health issue, without allowing any discussion as to what a coherent Left response would be. At the same time, the Left’s position distanced it from any kind of working-class base, since low-income workers were the most severely affected by the socio-economic impacts of continued lockdown policies, and were also those most likely to be out working while the laptop class benefitted from Zoom. These same political fault lines emerged during the vaccine roll-out, and now during the Covid passports phase. Resistance associates with the Right, while those on the mainstream Left are generally supportive of both measures. Opposition is demonised as a confused mixture of anti-science irrationalism and individualistic libertarianism.

But why has the mainstream Left ended up supporting practically all Covid measures? How did such a simplistic view of the relationship between health and the economy emerge, one which makes a mockery of decades of (Left-leaning) social science research showing just how closely wealth and health outcomes are connected? Why did the Left ignore the massive increase in inequalities, the attack on the pooron poor countrieson women and children, the cruel treatment of the elderly, and the huge increase in wealth for the richest individuals and corporations resulting from these policies? How, in relation to the development and roll-out of vaccines, did the Left end up ridiculing the very notion that, given the money at stake, and when BioNTech, Moderna and Pfizer currently make between them over US$1,000 per second from the Covid vaccines, there might be motivations from the vaccine manufacturers other than “the public good” at play? And how is it possible that the Left, often on the receiving end of state repression, today seems oblivious to the worrying ethical and political implications of Covid passports?

While the Cold War coincided with the era of decolonisation and the rise of a global anti-racist politics, the end of the Cold War – alongside the symbolic triumph of decolonisation politics with the end of apartheid – ushered in an existential crisis for Left-wing politics. The rise of neoliberal economic hegemony, globalisation, and corporate trans-nationalism, have all undermined the Left’s historic view of the state as an engine of redistribution. Combined with this is the realisation that, as the Brazilian theorist Roberto Mangabeira Unger has argued, the Left has always prospered most at times of great crisis — the Russian Revolution benefited from the World War One, and welfare capitalism from the aftermath of the World War Two. This history may partly explain the Left’s positioning today: amplifying the crisis and prolonging it through never-ending restrictions may be seen by some as a way to rebuild Left politics after decades of existential crisis.

The Left’s flawed understanding of the nature of neoliberalism may also have affected its response to the crisis. Most people on the Left believe that neoliberalism has involved a “retreat” or “hollowing out” of the state in favour of the market. Thus, they interpreted government activism throughout the pandemic as a welcome “return of the state”, one potentially capable, in their view, of eventually reversing neoliberalism’s allegedly anti-statist project. The problem with this argument, even accepting its dubious logic, is that neoliberalism hasn’t entailed a withering away of the state. On the contrary, the size of the state as a percentage of GDP has continued to rise throughout the neoliberal era.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Neoliberalism relies on extensive state intervention just as much as “Keynesianism” did, except that the state now intervenes almost exclusively to further the interests of big capital – to police the working classes, bail out large banks and firms that would otherwise go bankrupt, etc. Indeed, in many ways, capital today is more dependent on the state than ever. As Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan note: “[A]s capitalism develops, governments and large corporations become increasingly intertwined. … The capitalist mode of power and the dominant-capital coalitions that rule it do not require small governments. In fact, in many respects, they need larger ones”. Neoliberalism today is more akin to a form of state-monopoly capitalism – or corporatocracy – than the kind of small-state free-market capitalism that it often claims to be. This helps explain why it has produced increasingly powerful, interventionist, and even authoritarian state apparatuses.

This in itself makes the Left’s cheering at a non-existent “return of the state” embarrassingly naïve. And the worst part is that it has made this mistake before. Even in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, many on the Left hailed large government deficits as “the return of Keynes” – when, in fact, those measures had very little to do with Keynes, who counselled the use of government spending to reach full employment, and instead were aimed at bolstering the culprits of the crisis, the big banks. They were also followed by an unprecedented attack on welfare systems and workers’ rights across Europe.

Something similar is happening today, as state contracts for Covid tests, PPE, vaccines, and now vaccine passport technologies are parcelled out to transnational corporations (often through shady deals that reek of cronyism). Meanwhile, citizens are having their lives and livelihoods upended by “the new normal”. That the Left seems completely oblivious to this is particularly puzzling. After all, the idea that governments tend to exploit crises to further entrench the neoliberal agenda has been a staple of much recent Left-wing literature. Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval, for example, have argued that under neoliberalism, crisis has become a “method of government”. More famously, in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein explored the idea of “disaster capitalism”. Her central thesis is that in moments of public fear and disorientation it is easier to re-engineer societies: dramatic changes to the existing economic order, which would normally be politically impossible, are imposed in rapid-fire succession before the public has had time to understand what is happening.

There’s a similar dynamic at play today. Take, for example, the high-tech surveillance measures, digital IDs, crackdown on public demonstrations and fast-tracking of laws introduced by governments to combat the coronavirus outbreak. If recent history is anything to go by, governments will surely find a way to make many of the emergency rules permanent – just as they did with much post-9/11 anti-terrorist legislationAs Edward Snowden noted: “When we see emergency measures passed, particularly today, they tend to be sticky. The emergency tends to be expanded”. This confirms, too, the ideas on the “state of exception” posited by the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, who has nonetheless been vilified by the mainstream Left for his anti-lockdown position.

Ultimately, any form of government action should be judged for what it actually stands for. We support government intervention if it serves to further the rights of workers and minorities, to create full employment, to provide crucial public services, to rein in corporate power, to correct the dysfunctionalities of markets, to take control of crucial industries in the public interest. But in the past 18 months we have witnessed the exact opposite: an unparalleled strengthening of transnational corporate behemoths and their oligarchs at the expense of workers and local businesses. A report last month based on Forbes data showed that America’s billionaires alone have seen their wealth increase by US$2 trillion during the pandemic.

Another Left-wing fantasy that has been shuttered by reality is the notion that the pandemic would usher in a new sense of collective spirit, capable of overcoming decades of neoliberal individualism. On the contrary, the pandemic has fractured societies even more – between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, between those who can reap the benefits of smart working and those who can’t. Moreover, a demos made up of traumatised individuals, torn apart from their loved ones, made to fear one another as a potential vectors of disease, terrified of physical contact – is hardly a good breeding ground for collective solidarity.

But perhaps the Left’s response can be better understood in individual rather than collective terms. Classic psychoanalytic theory has posited a clear connection between pleasure and authority: the experience of great pleasure (satiating the pleasure principle) can often be followed by a desire for renewed authority and control manifested by the ego or “reality principle”. This can indeed produce a subverted form of pleasure. The last two decades of globalisation have seen a huge expansion of the “pleasure of experience”, as shared by the increasingly transnational global liberal class – many of whom, somewhat curiously in historical terms, identified themselves as on the Left (and indeed increasingly usurped this position from the traditional working-class constituencies of the Left). This mass increase in pleasure and experience among the liberal class went with a growing secularism and lack of any recognised moral constraint or authority. From the perspective of psychoanalysis, the support from this class for “Covid measures” is quite readily explained in these terms: as the desired appearance of a coterie of restrictive and authoritarian measures which can be imposed to curtail pleasure, within the strictures of a moral code which steps in where one had previously been lacking.

Another factor explaining the Left’s embrace of “Covid measures” is its blind faith in “science”. This has its roots in the Left’s traditional faith in rationalism. However, one thing is believing in the undeniable virtues of the scientific method – another is being completely oblivious to the way those in power exploit “science” to further their agenda. Being able to appeal to “hard scientific data” to justify one’s policy choices is an incredibly powerful tool in the hands of governments – it is, in fact, the essence of technocracy. However, this means carefully selecting the “science” that is supportive of your agenda – and aggressively marginalising any alternative views, regardless of their scientific value.

This has been happening for years in the realm of economics. Is it really that hard to believe that such a corporate capture is happening today with regard to medical science? Not according to John P. Ioannidis, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University. Ioannidis made headlines in early 2021 when he published, with some colleagues of his, a paper claiming that there was no practical difference in epidemiological terms between countries that had locked down and those that hadn’t. The backlash against the paper – and against Ioannidis in particular – was fierce, especially among his fellow scientists.

This explains his recent scathing denunciation of his own profession. In an article entitled “How the Pandemic Is Changing the Norms of Science”, Ioannidis notes that most people – especially on the Left — seem to think that science operates based on “the Mertonian norms of communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism”. But, alas, that is not how the scientific community actually operates, Ioannidis explains. With the pandemic, conflicts of corporate interest exploded – and yet talking about them became anathema. He continues: “Consultants who made millions of dollars from corporate and government consultation were given prestigious positions, power, and public praise, while unconflicted scientists who worked pro bono but dared to question dominant narratives were smeared as being conflicted. Organized skepticism was seen as a threat to public health. There was a clash between two schools of thought, authoritarian public health versus science – and science lost”.

Ultimately, the Left’s blatant disregard and mockery of people’s legitimate concerns (over lockdowns, vaccines or Covid passports) is shameful. Not only are these concerns rooted in actual hardship but they also stem from an understandable distrust of governments and institutions that have been undeniably captured by corporate interests. Anyone who favours a truly progressive-interventionist state, as we do, needs to address these concerns – not dismiss them.

But where the Left’s response has been found most wanting is on the world stage, in terms of the relationship of Covid restrictions to deepening poverty in the Global South. Has it really nothing to say about the enormous increase in child marriage, the collapse in schooling, and the destruction of formal employment in Nigeria, where the State Statistics agency suggests 20% of people lost their jobs during the lockdowns? What about the reality that the country with the highest Covid mortality figures and excess death rate for 2020 was Peru – which had one of the world’s strictest lockdowns? On all this, it has been virtually silent. This position must be considered in relation to the pre-eminence of nationalist politics on the world stage: the electoral failure of Left internationalists such as Jeremy Corbyn meant that broader global issues had little traction when considering a broader Western Left response to Covid-19.

It is worth mentioning that there have been outliers on the Left – radical-left and socialist movements that have come out against the prevailing management of the pandemic. These include Black Lives Matter in New York, Left Lockdown Sceptics in the UK, the Chilean urban left, Wu Ming in Italy and not least the Social Democrat-Green alliance which currently governs Sweden. But the full spectrum of Left opinion was ignored, partly due to the small number of Left-wing media outlets, but also due to the marginalisation of dissenting opinions first and foremost by the mainstream Left.

Mainly, though, this has been a historic failure from the Left, which will have disastrous consequences. Any form of popular dissent is likely to be hegemonized once again by the (extreme) Right, poleaxing any chance the Left has of winning round the voters it needs to overturn Right-wing hegemony. Meanwhile, the Left holds on to a technocracy of experts severely undermined by what is proving to be a catastrophic handling of the pandemic in terms of social progressivism. As any kind of viable electable Left fades into the past, the discussion and dissent at the heart of any true democratic process is likely to fade with it.


German doctor murdered, brutally, a few days after showing that the “vaccines” are full of tiny “razor blades” (i..e., graphene hydroxide)

On Dr. Andreas Nock’s discovery (which, among other things, could explain why athletes in particular are keeling over during exercise):

Dr. Nock’s heartbroken partner breaks the awful news of his (apparent) assassination: and


“Omicron” should be called “Xi,” but the WHO skipped “Xi” because, well….

WHO Explains Why It Skipped ‘Xi’ When Naming New COVID-19 Variant Omicron


Updated: November 28, 2021

The World Health Organization (WHO) has explained why it skipped the Greek letters “nu” and “xi” in naming the new COVID-19 variant Omicron.

“Two letters were skipped—Nu and Xi—because Nu is too easily confounded with ‘new’ and Xi was not used because it is a common surname and [the] WHO best practices for naming new diseases … suggest avoiding ‘causing offence to any cultural, social, national, regional, professional, or ethnic groups,’” the United Nations agency said in a statement to The Epoch Times on Saturday.

Prof. Jonathan Turley, a criminal attorney and professor at George Washington University, speculated that the WHO “is again avoiding any discomfort for the Chinese government” in skipping the “Xi” letter and naming it Omicron.

“The new variant was expected to be Nu but any additional variant would then be Xi, which happens to be the name of the Chinese leader,” he wrote on Twitter.

“It is not clear if there is another reason for the decision to skip over Nu and Xi, but W.H.O.’s history with the investigation into the origins of the pandemic has fueled speculation as to a political motive,” he suggested. “It is a demonstration of the continuing credibility problems for the organization after its original inquiry. Even the new panel has been criticized for its imbalance and the background of its members.”

Click on the link for the rest.


Missouri court finds all state COVID measures both unconstitutional and illegal!


🔥 Missouri citizens have a lot to be thankful for today. In a remarkable, strongly-worded opinion, the Cole County Circuit Court of Missouri just ended ALL the state’s Covid measures. In Shannon v. Missouri Department of Health, the Court found that the Department of Health’s regulations CANNOT “abolish representative government in the creation of public health laws,” and CANNOT “authorize closure of a school or assembly based on the unfettered opinion of an unelected official.”

While we’ve seen other favorable court decisions lately, this one is a true breakthrough. It moves the bar. The Court didn’t just find a technical reason to set aside the DOH’s emergency rules. Instead, the Court found that the ORIGINAL state statutes giving the DOH its emergency authority were themselves completely invalid, for four separate reasons, because the statutes:

1) violate constitutional separation of powers;

2) violate the state’s administrative procedure act;

3) are inconsistent with other public health laws; and

4) violate constitutional equal protection.

The Missouri Court doesn’t think it’s particularly complicated. “[DOH] regulations break our three-branch system of government in ways that a middle-school civics student would recognize, because they place the creation of orders or laws, and enforcement of those laws, into the hands of an unelected official.”

Yes!! We’ve been ringing this bell since summer 2020.

The Court cited a 2020 Michigan Supreme Court case: “It is incumbent on the courts to ensure decisions are made according to the rule of law, not hysteria … One hopes that this great principle — essential to any free society, including ours — will not itself become yet another casualty of Covid-19.” It looks like that great principle has NOT become a casualty.

The Court found that the Missouri emergency health statutes were constitutionally flawed because they create “double delegation.” The judge said the state had delegated rulemaking power to the DOH, which then delegated “broad rulemaking power to an unelected official.” This type of double delegation, said the Court, “is an impermissible combination of legislative and administrative power.” It also explained that the regulations “violate the principle of separation of powers by unlawfully placing unguided and unbridled rulemaking power in the hands of a public official.”

You don’t say.

The judge cited, among other cases, Florida’s lawsuit against the CDC’s “conditional sailing order.” Relying on the cited cases, he listed all the ways that the state’s public health statutes violated separation of powers:

1) the statutes created “open-ended discretion—a catch-all to permit naked lawmaking by bureaucrats;”

2) the laws failed to provide any STANDARDS to guide local emergency orders;

3) the laws not only provided no standards, but they are “limitless, standardless, and lack adequate legislative guidance;”

4) the laws fail to “provide any procedural safeguards for those aggrieved by the orders;” and

5) they “create a system of statewide health governance that enables unelected officials to become accountable to no one.”

I think he just described a biomedical dictatorship. The judge wrote that plaintiff Robinson had produced “ample evidence” that local health supervisors used the emergency health laws to “exercise unbridled and unfettered personal authority to, in effect, legislate.”

He described the whole disgusting mess. “Local health directors have created generally applicable orders, both in writing and verbally, requiring individuals within their jurisdictions to wear masks, limit gathering sizes in people’s own homes, creating capacity restrictions, limiting usage of school and business facilities including tables, desks, and even lockers, mandating spacing between people, [and] ordering students be excluded from school via quarantine and isolation rules created by health directors based on masking or other criteria not adequately” constrained by legal standards.

The Court held that the statutes’ authorization of local health directors to create and enforce their own orders, and take other “control measures” were “unconstitutional and … therefore invalid.”

He didn’t hold back. He said “[t]his system is entirely inconsistent with representative government and separation of powers and makes a mockery of our Missouri Constitution and the concept of separation of powers.”

A mockery! Finally. A court said it.

The judge concluded by saying, “Missouri’s local health authorities have grown accustomed to issuing edicts and coercing compliance. It is far past time for this unconstitutional conduct to stop.”

Happy Thanksgiving!

The Court’s actual orders, what he then ordered various Missouri agencies to do as a result of his opinion, was the best part. The orders go on for two pages. Among other things, the judge instructed the Secretary of State to “remov[e] the invalid regulations from the register” — which effectively deletes all the state’s emergency public health statutes. He also ordered the Missouri DOH to “provide a copy of this order to all local health authorities throughout Missouri, and to post it … in locations where the same is made publicly available[.]” Haha!

Then he ordered the Department of Health to pay all the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees! A trifecta win.

It really is impossible to underestimate how important this ruling is. The combination of a smart judge with smart lawyers who litigated well has now provided a roadmap for other citizens to push back on the never-ending, mushrooming emergency orders in their own states. The reasoning is solid, persuasive, and should easily travel to other states.

We need to share the news of this order as far and wide as we can. I don’t say that very often.


In Germany, those seeking euthanasia must be “vaccinated” against COVID

This is not a joke.

(You can’t make this shit up.)

GERMANY: Those Seeking Euthanasia Must Be Vaccinated Against COVID

Germans seeking assisted suicide must be vaccinated against COVID-19 or prove they have recovered from the disease


November 27, 2021