Post

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

More from @robinmonotti

Robin Monotti

@robinmonotti

Jul 12

"BILLIONAIRES TRY TO SHRINK WORLD'S POPULATION
Report Says" (WSJ, 2009)
"The New York meeting of billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Eli Broad, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah, Michael Bloomberg and others was described by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as an informal gathering aimed at encouraging philanthropy. Just a few billionaires getting together for drinks and dinner and a friendly chat about how to promote charitable giving.
There was no agenda, we were told. And no plan for a follow-up meeting.

"Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority," the article said, adding that "this could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values."
Such a stand wouldn't be surprising. Mssrs. Gates, Buffett and Turner have been quietly worrying about Malthusian population problems for years. Mr. Gates in February outlined a plan to try to cap the world's population at 8.3 billion people, rather than the projected 9.3 billion at which the population is expected to peak.
But some right-leaning blogs have started attacking the billionaires as forming a kind of secret sterilization society or giant ATM to fund abortions. It fed into time-honored fears of the rich using their wealth to reshape mankind in its preferred image. Some are raising the specter of eugenics."

wsj.com/articles/BL-WH…

https://x.com/robinmonotti/status/1811483462118891876

https://x.com/robinmonotti/status/1811483462118891876

Read 4 tweets

Robin Monotti

@robinmonotti

Jun 21

"NO EXTENSION OF NATO'S JURISDICTION FOR FORCES OF NATO ONE INCH TO THE EAST of a unified Germany" - US Secretary of State Baker to Gorbachev, 1990.

"NOT ONE INCH EASTWARD": HOW NATO LIED TO RUSSIA:
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”

The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.

This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September 12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.
The “Tutzing formula” immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east. The Soviets would need much more time to work with their domestic opinion (and financial aid from the West Germans) before formally signing the deal in September 1990.

As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen."

'NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard'
"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner"
nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/…

Read 8 tweets

Robin Monotti

@robinmonotti

Jun 1

'Hitler’s Bank: The Unknown Story Of The Bank For International Settlements—Introduction'—By Mark Arnold
"Wolfe, who himself had a career as a banker earlier in his life, clearly states that the purpose for this financial crisis, which is actually still on-going, is:
“… to take down the United States and the U.S. dollar as the stable datum of planetary finance and, in the midst of the resulting confusion, put in its place a Global Monetary Authority—a planetary financial control organization to ‘ensure this never happens again.’”

The BIS is, in effect, its own sovereign state; and is where all the world’s central banks (55 are members) meet to analyze the global economy and determine what actions they will take, thus pulling the strings of the world’s monetary systems. The stock of the BIS is owned by the member central banks, much the same as the stock of most national central banks is owned by the banks in orbit around them. In other words, just like the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, the BIS is privately owned. It is controlled by a board of directors comprised of central bankers from 11 different nations; the United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Within the BIS the single most powerful and elite group is the Economic Consultative Committee (ECC), current members of which include U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Bank of England governor Mark Carney, Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank, Zhou Xiaochuan of the Bank of China, plus the central bank governors of Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Canada, India and Brazil." [2016]

fromanativeson.com/2016/04/23/hit…

Hitler’s Bank: The Unknown Story of the Bank for International Settlements—Part I—by Mark Arnold –
"Germany in late 1923. In response to the devastating inflation in the country the German government appointed to the post of currency commissioner a 46 year old banker and economist named Hjalmar Horace Greely Schacht, and gave him near dictatorial powers over the German economy. A fascinating character, Schacht would play a vast role in both the formation of the Bank for International Settlements and the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Though born in 1877 in a former section of the German empire that is now part of Denmark, Schacht’s parents had spent years in the United States...

In order to help stabilize the German economy, since the “mark” was devastated as a medium of exchange, a new currency called the “rentenmark” had been introduced into Germany. Most currencies of the day were gold-backed, but with the lack of gold in Germany following World War I the rentenmark’s value was pegged to the value of all of German land and holdings used for agriculture, industry and business.

“He brilliantly understood the key point of psychology of money, which is as valid today as it was in the hyper-inflation of the 1920s: the appearance of financial stability creates monetary value. If people believed that someone was in charge, that the chaos would end, and that the rentenmark had value, then it would be valued.”

Schacht was promoted and became, in addition to currency commissioner, the president of the national central bank of Germany—the Reichsbank.

His next step was to begin the process of building a gold reserve to give the currency a more sound backing. To this end, on December 31st 1923 he travelled to London and was met at the Liverpool Street train station by none other than the legendary governor (the equivalent of president) of the Bank of England himself—Montagu Norman...

In 1925 he (Norman) sent a message to Federal Reserve of New York governor Benjamin Strong in which he stated: “I rather hope that next summer we may be able to inaugurate a private and eclectic [9] Central Banks ‘Club’, small at first, large in the future.”

Writing later about the bank’s creation, Schacht stated: “…my idea of a Bank for International Settlements had met with such enthusiastic response from all those those taking part in the Young Conference that soon there was not one among them who would not have claimed the suggestion as his own.”

Read 10 tweets

Robin Monotti

@robinmonotti

May 18

Do viruses exist? – Doctors for COVID Ethics
Michael Palmer, MD and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD
"In the context of the COVID-19 “pandemic”, many people have come to understand that political and scientific authorities have been systematically lying about the origin of the infectious agent, as well as the need for and the safety of mandatory countermeasures, including lock-downs, masks and vaccines. Some skeptics have gone further and begun to question the existence of the virus responsible for COVID-19, or even of viruses and pathogenic germs altogether. Here, we put these questions in perspective.

Before we go into any specifics on germs and viruses, we should acknowledge that the public has ample reason to mistrust not only politicians, public officials and the media, but also the “scientific community...”

Has the SARS-CoV-2 virus ever been isolated?

Yes, it has been—numerous times. An overview of such studies has been provided by Jefferson et al. [15]. A solid study that correlates virus isolation, PCR and clinical findings in a series of hospitalized COVID-19-patients has been published by Wölfel et al. [16]. It is also possible to buy samples of the purified virus from the American Type Culture Collection. These are heat-inactivated, but they should still permit investigators with the required expertise and equipment to confirm the identity of the virus.
The legend that SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated is founded solely on the rigid demand that such isolation be accomplished without the use of cell cultures. As noted before, practicing virologists are highly likely to ignore this demand, for which we cannot fault them.

But isn’t COVID-19 just the flu rebranded?

It was indeed quite striking that concomitantly with the rise of COVID-19 case numbers those of influenza took a nosedive. This can be understood as follows:
It is quite common for respiratory infections to be caused by more than one virus. If testing is not comprehensive, then the tests chosen will skew the results.
The hysteria around COVID-19 caused physicians to carry out diagnostic tests selectively for COVID-19, to the exclusion of other respiratory pathogens.
Extremely loose criteria were used for diagnosing COVID-19 infections. You have likely heard of the widespread problems with false-positive PCR tests.
The flawed laboratory methods could not but lead to many spurious diagnoses of COVID-19. The patients so diagnosed were then usually not tested any further for influenza, which caused the number of diagnosed influenza cases to drop off. Failure to test for bacterial pathogens caused patients with bacterial pneumonia to go unrecognized and be denied the necessary treatment with antibiotics. This was just one of the many forms of medical malpractice in the COVID-19 era that were the real drivers of excess mortality [17,18].

Conclusion

While we have every reason to distrust and indict today’s medical and scientific establishment, this should not lead us to disregard solid scientific evidence where it exists. Germ theory in general and also virology are very rich in such evidence, notwithstanding their recent distortions and abuses, which must urgently be identified and corrected. However, the remedy lies not in radical skepticism bordering on nihilism. Instead, we must recapture and rekindle the spirit of rigorous but unprejudiced debate that once made medical science great."

doctors4covidethics.org/do-viruses-exi…

Not all infectious pathogens can satisfy Koch’s postulates
"One reads now and then that some pathogenic virus or other microbe does not satisfy Koch’s postulates, which is then construed as proof that it does not cause the disease for which it is known. This is fallacious. Koch’s postulates do not constitute some sort mathematical axiom; they should be understood in their historical context.
Koch needed to convince a public that was initially radically skeptical; thus, the more comprehensive and rigorous his evidence, the easier it would be for him to succeed. It thus made perfect sense for him to focus on pathogens that could be grown in pure culture—that is, in the absence of any other living things—and which could then be inoculated into experimental animals and isolated again as many times as desired. However, once the idea of infectious pathogens had taken hold in principle, it soon became apparent that not all of them met every single postulate in the canon. For example, Rickettsia prowazekii and Treponema pallidum—the bacterial agents that cause typhus or syphilis, respectively—cannot be grown in pure culture, and therefore cannot meet the second, third and fourth postulate. They can, however, be propagated in experimental animals, and Rickettsia prowazekii also in cell culture.
Viruses, by their very nature, can only multiply within living cells but not in pure culture. Therefore, no virus can possibly satisfy Koch’s postulates. However, we repeat that these postulates are not a logical necessity. If they are not fulfilled, the question of disease causation must be settled in some other manner."

Read 5 tweets

Robin Monotti

@robinmonotti

Mar 28

'How the British Invented Communism (And Blamed it on the Jews)':
'Trotsky and British Intelligence'
"When the Tsar was overthrown on March 15, 1917, Trotsky was working as a journalist in New York City. He set sail for Russia, but British authorities arrested him when his ship stopped in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The British held Trotsky for a month in a Canadian internment camp.
For reasons unknown, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) came to Trotsky’s rescue, ordering his release. The order came from William Wiseman, US station chief for Britain’s foreign intelligence division, now known as MI6.
Following Trotsky’s release on April 29, 1917, he embarked for Russia and joined the Revolution. The rest is history.
In Russia, British handlers kept Trotsky close. One of his handlers was Clare Sheridan, who happened to be Winston Churchill’s first cousin. She was a sculptress who claimed to be a Bolshevik sympathizer. Sheridan sculpted Trotsky’s portrait, and was rumored to be his lover. Reliable sources have identified Sheridan as a British spy.
Trotsky was banished by Stalin in 1929, spending the rest of his life on the run.
During the Moscow Treason Trials of 1938, Trotsky was convicted, in absentia, of working for the British SIS. The star witness against him was Soviet diplomat Christian Rakovsky, who testified that British intelligence had blackmailed him in London in 1924, using a forged letter, all allegedly with Trotsky’s knowledge and approval.
“I went to Moscow and talked to Trotsky [afterwards],” Rakovsky testified. “Trotsky said that the forged letter was only an excuse. He agreed that we were to work with the British Intelligence.”

'Hidden History'
"Soviet show trials are not the most reliable sources. However, a good deal of independent evidence corroborates Rakovsky’s testimony.
If Rakovsky’s charge is true, then Trotsky was already working for British intelligence as early as 1924. In that case, his relationship with the British was likely established some time earlier, perhaps as early as 1917, when MI6 mysteriously freed him from a Canadian internment camp.
The evidence suggests that Trotsky was already under SIS control in 1920, when Churchill publicly denounced him as a scheming “International Jew.”
Seen in this light, Churchill’s anti-Jewish rant in the Illustrated Sunday Herald begins to look like a cover story.
But covering for what?
What was Churchill trying to hide, by blaming Jews—and Trotsky, in particular—for the Russian Revolution?
You will not find the answer in conventional history books. The story has been erased.
But, in 1920, memories were still fresh. Witnesses were speaking out. The British faced hard questions about their role in the Russian Revolution. They needed a scapegoat."

richardpoe.com
richardpoe.com/2023/01/08/how…

'How Marxism Serves the Empire'
"In 1882, Milner was just an idealistic young journalist filled with enthusiasm for imperialism and social reform.

In that year—the last year of Marx’s life—Toynbee and Milner both gave lecture series on the topic of socialism.(104)

Both praised Marx as a genius. Both argued, intriguingly, that socialism was Britain’s secret weapon for containing and heading off revolution.

The core of their argument was pure Young Englandism—the idea that the upper classes could save Britain from revolution by giving socialism to the masses.

They further claimed—once again in the spirit of Young England—that the middle class, or bourgeoisie, was the biggest obstacle to their goal."

Read 6 tweets

Robin Monotti

@robinmonotti

Mar 14

Electric cars pollute 1,850 times more than fuel-based vehicles, study finds
The 2022 U.K.-based Emissions Analytics study found that after driving both a gas and electric car 1,000 miles, the number of particles collected from the EV was vastly greater than the gasoline-powered car.
"The 2022 study from the U.K.-based Emissions Analytics group found that during a 1,000 mile journey, EVs release 1,850 times more pollutants into the surrounding environment than gas-powered vehicles, due to the heavier weight which eats through tires.
While many think of emissions from exhaust, tire wear plays a significant role in emitting pollutants. The synthetic rubber used to create tires include certain chemicals that get released into the air, and because EVs are significantly heavier than conventional cars due to massive lithium batteries.

Overall, EVs weigh about 30 percent more than gas-powered vehicles, and cost thousands more to make and buy. These issues are in addition to the fact that they are not suitable in colder climates (such as Canada and the northern U.S.), offer poor range and long charging times (especially in cold weather), and have batteries that take tremendous resources to make and are hard to recycle. "

Anthony Murdoch

lifesitenews.com/news/electric-…

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1768257336538227032

I entirely disagree that Community Notes can EVER "debunk" someone else's specific scientific experiments. Please rate not helpful:

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1768257336538227032

Read 4 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Robin Monotti

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @robinmonotti

Robin Monotti

Robin Monotti

Robin Monotti

Robin Monotti

Robin Monotti

Robin Monotti

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!