What part will your country play in World War III?

By Larry Romanoff

The true origins of the two World Wars have been deleted from all our history books and replaced with mythology. Neither War was started (or desired) by Germany, but both at the instigation of a group of European Zionist Jews with the stated intent of the total destruction of Germany. The documentation is overwhelming and the evidence undeniable. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

That history is being repeated today in a mass grooming of the Western world’s people (especially Americans) in preparation for World War IIIwhich I believe is now imminent



Thursday, December 31, 2020

Top 10 Questions for Antony Blinken By David Swanson

 Top 10 Questions for Antony Blinken

By David Swanson

Before Antony Blinken can become Secretary of State, Senators must approve. And before that, they must ask questions. Here are some suggestions for what they should ask.

1. Second to the war on Iraq, which of the disasters you’ve helped facilitate do you most regret, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, or something else? And what have you learned that would improve your record going forward?

2. You once supported dividing Iraq into three nations. I’ve asked an Iraqi friend to draw up a plan to divide the United States up into three nations. Without yet seeing the plan, what is your initial reaction, and which state do you most hope to not end up with?

3. The trend from the Bush years to the Obama years to the Trump years is now one of moving away from ground wars in favor of air wars. This often means more killing, more injuring, more making people homeless, but an even higher percentage of that suffering on the non-U.S. side. How would you defend this trend if you were teaching children about morality?

4. Much of the U.S. public has been clamoring for an end to endless wars. President-Elect Biden has promised an end to endless wars. You’ve suggested that the endless wars shouldn’t really be actually ended. We’ve seen both President Obama and President Trump take credit for ending wars without ending them, but surely that legerdemain cannot succeed forever. Which of these wars do you support immediately and actually in the ordinary sense of the word ending: Yemen? Afghanistan? Syria? Iraq? Somalia?

5. You cofounded WestExec Advisors, a company that helps war profiteers get contracts, and serves as a revolving door for unscrupulous individuals who get rich from private money for what they do and whom they get to know in their public jobs. Is war profiteering acceptable? How would you perform your job differently in government if you anticipated being hired by a peace organization afterward?

6. The U.S. government arms 96% of the world’s most oppressive governments by its own definition. Is there any government on earth other than North Korea or Cuba that should not be sold or given deadly weapons? Do you support Congresswoman Omar’s bill to stop arming human rights abusers?

7. Should the State Department function as a marketing firm for U.S. weapons companies? What percentage of the State Department’s work should be devoted to selling weapons? Can you name a recent war that has not had U.S. weapons on both sides?

8. The U.S. and Russian governments are loaded up with nuclear weapons. The Doomsday Clock is closer to midnight than ever before. What will you do to scale back the new Cold War, re-join disarmament agreements, and move us away from nuclear apocalypse?

9. Some of my colleagues will not be satisfied until you’re as hostile toward China as toward Russia. What will you do to help them relax and think more wisely about playing around with the future of life on earth?

10. What would be one example of a situation in which you would choose to become a whistleblower?

Top 10 Questions for Avril Haines By David Swanson

 Please republish and share, but only without editing and with credit and link to original included. Thanks!

Top 10 Questions for Avril Haines
By David Swanson

Before Avril Haines can become Director of National Intelligence, Senators must approve. And before that, they must ask questions. Here are some suggestions for what they should ask.

1. What are the most extreme measures that should be considered in extreme situations to protect open democratic government?

2. Would those, excuse me, would, reclaiming my time, would those measures not be more extreme than refusing to confirm for high office someone like yourself who opposes open democratic government, for example by censoring the vast majority of this Senate’s report on torture, and overruling the CIA’s own Inspector General to refuse to discipline CIA agents who hacked into the computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee to sabotage an investigation of torture, choosing instead to award medals to those criminals?

3. When should and when should not torturers be prosecuted? And when should they be supported, as you supported Gina Haspell to fail upward into the position of CIA director?

4. According to Newsweek, you used to be summoned in the middle of the night to help decide what man, woman, or child (along with anyone too close to them) ought to be blown up with a missile. According to CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, you regularly approved of proposed drone murders. There are people in this room who have done vastly more harm to some other countries than some of the children you helped kill ever did to anyone. Which countries should have the right to use armed drones around the world and which should not, and why?

5. You co-authored the May 22, 2013, “presidential policy guidance” that claimed to justify illegal killings with missiles. You did away with the presumption of innocence, the indictment, the trial, the conviction, and the sentencing. You abolished the United Nations Charter, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and the various national laws around the globe on murder. This whitewashing of human incineration helped largely replace the policies of incarceration and torture with that of murder. Could you please give us 30 seconds of disgusting platitudes on the topic of your respect for the rule of law?

6. A report by the CIA found its own drone program “counterproductive.” Admiral Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence said that while “drone attacks did help reduce the Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, they also increased hatred of America.” According to General Stanley McChrystal: “For every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies.” Lt. Col. John W. Nicholson Jr., commander of the war on Afghanistan, blurted out his opposition to what he’d been doing on his last day of doing it. Gen. James E. Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said “We’re seeing that blowback. If you’re trying to kill your way to a solution, no matter how precise you are, you’re going to upset people even if they’re not targeted.” In the view of Sherard Cowper-Coles, Former U.K. Special Representative To Afghanistan, “For every dead Pashtun warrior, there will be 10 pledged to revenge.” We’ve seen a drone war on Yemen held up as the ultimate success, before it predictably devolved into the worst humanitarian disaster in years. How does the drone murder policy that you’ve been a part of hold up on its own terms?

7. Which is better, torture or murder?

Top 10 Questions for Neera Tanden By David Swanson


Please republish and share, but only without editing and with credit and link to original included. Thanks!

Top 10 Questions for Neera Tanden
By David Swanson

Before Neera Tanden can become Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Senators must approve. And before that, they must ask questions. Here are some suggestions for what they should ask.

1. You supported an attack on Libya that proved fraudulently marketed, illegal, and catastrophic in results, after which you argued in an email to your colleagues for trying to force Libya to pay via oil profits for the privilege of having been bombed. You wrote that this would be a good solution to a U.S. budget deficit. One of your colleagues replied that such a policy might create a financial incentive for attacking more countries. What countries, if any, would you most favor attacking and then billing for the service?

2. Reclaiming, thank you, reclaiming my time, what criteria do you think one should use if one were to select the countries most appropriate to attack and then bill for it?

Sunday, December 27, 2020

SP -- LARRY ROMANOFF -- MERS -- November 18, 2020



Por Larry Romanoff –18 de noviembre de 2020



A finales de 2012, el mundo experimentó el inicio de una nueva mini-pandemia provocada por un novedoso coronavirus al que denominaron MERS (1) (2), que supuestamente se había originado en Oriente Medio y que afectó inicialmente a un pequeño número de personas en Arabia Saudita, Jordania y Qatar. Al poco tiempo se dieron algunos casos en Inglaterra en ciudadanos que aparentemente se infectaron durante sus viajes a Oriente Medio. Este nuevo virus era similar al SARS, pero se le acusó de haber mutado y haber desarrollado una capacidad para invadir las células humanas de manera más eficiente, y por consiguiente causar la muerte de alrededor del 50% de los infectados, comparado con sólo el 10% en el caso del SARS. El virus fue visto por primera vez por un virólogo egipcio en Jeddah, Arabia Saudita, mientras realizaba pruebas a un paciente con unos síntomas inusuales, y posteriormente se descubrió que este "paciente cero" y el hombre qatarí en el Reino Unido habían sido ambos infectados por virus que eran idénticos al 99.5%. (3) No existía ninguna vacuna o tratamiento para esa enfermedad y su tasa de mortalidad superó el 40%.


Eric Zuesse -- How & Why the $2,000 Covid-19 Stimulus Checks Were Defeated The People Who Run the U.S. Government Despise Their Voters.

How & Why the $2,000 Covid-19 Stimulus Checks Were Defeated
The People Who Run the U.S. Government Despise Their Voters.

Eric Zuesse, January 2, 2021

On December 30th, U.S. Senators voted 80 to 12 not to increase the Covid-19 relief one-time payments from $600 per qualifying person, to $2,000. The same bill had already passed, December 28th, in the U.S. House, by a vote of 322 to 87.

Here is how the great investigative-reporting team of David Sirota and Andrew Perez reported this on December 31st, under the headline “Senate Democrats’ Motion To Concede On $2,000 Checks”,

Only six members of the Senate Democratic Caucus mustered the courage to vote against [Republican leader Mitch] McConnell’s maneuver — [Bernie] Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen, Jeff Merkley, Ed Markey and Ron Wyden. Democratic senators in fact provided the majority of the votes for the measure that lets the defense bill proceed without a vote on the $2,000 checks. …
Liberal Economists And Pundits Gave McConnell His Talking Points 
McConnell’s crusade to stop direct aid was abetted not only by Senate Democrats’ surrender, but also by media elites who loyally represent the party’s corporate wing and who began promoting canned talking points to undermine the direct aid. 
First came a barrage of attacks on the $2,000 checks initiative from [Lawrence] Summers, a former hedge fund executive who as President Barack Obama’s national economic director stymied the push for more stimulus after the 2008 financial crisis.
Then the New York Times’ Paul Krugman pretended the wildly popular initiative is “divisive” and said “the economics aren't very good.” Timesman Tom Friedman, who married into a real estate empire, called the idea “crazy” and fretted that checks might go to “people who don't need the help.” The minions of billionaire Michael Bloomberg joined in with a house editorial demanding Congress block the checks. 
Meanwhile, only weeks after the Washington Post news page told the harrowing tales of rising poverty and starvation in America, the paper’s editorial board argued against stimulus by insisting that “the economy has healed significantly.” 
The Post — which is owned by the world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos — argued against the $2,000 checks by saying it is unjust that some rich people might in theory end up benefiting from the proposal. …
All of this noise was quickly weaponized by McConnell, who in a Senate floor speech directly cited Summers and the Post as justification to stop the $2,000 checks to the two thirds of households in his own state who would benefit. 
“The liberal economist Larry Summers, President Clinton’s Treasury Secretary and President Obama’s NEC director says, ‘There’s no good economic argument for universal $2,000 checks at this moment.’ McConnell said, adding: “Even the liberal Washington Post today is laughing at the political left demanding more huge giveaways with no relationship to actual need.”

Basically, what Sirota and Perez were reporting is that with the exception of only 12 members in the U.S. Senate and 87 members in the U.S. House, all members of the U.S. Congress are owned 100% by America’s billionaires.

Eric Zuesse -- Which U.S. President Was Worse: Obama, Or Trump?


Which U.S. President Was Worse: Obama, Or Trump?


Eric Zuesse, originally posted at Strategic Culture


On December 17th, Gallup headlined “Biden Inherits a Battered U.S. Image Abroad”.


The Pew surveys have found the same thing: In almost all countries surveyed, other than Poland, public approval of America’s leadership plunged when Trump replaced Obama, and that low approval stayed down throughout Trump’s Presidency.


However, also on December 17th, the great investigative journalist David Sirota headlined at his “The Daily Poster” blog, “End The Austerity Loop”, and he documented that President Obama’s response to George W. Bush’s policies that had crashed the U.S. economy (and actually the entire world’s economy) had actually been to institute a bailout of the megabanks (“broker-dealers”), and — as soon as it was passed by Congress — Obama’s Administration refused to help the people who had been evicted from their homes as a result of what Wall Street had done. Obama said instead that all of the federal money had already been spent and he wouldn’t authorize increasing the federal debt even more than he already had authorized in order to bail out Wall Street.


Of course, Congress was also culpable in all of these Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies (protecting Wall Street while abandoning Main Street), but the ultimate leadership was at the top, and it was a policy of sheer hypocrisy. Trump has merely been hypocritical in a different way, and espousing a different set of excuses for his failures. 


Saturday, December 19, 2020

EN -- LARRY ROMANOFF -- A Search for Truth and Understanding -- December 17, 2020

  A Search for Truth and Understanding


By LARRY ROMANOFF, December 17, 2020



For much of my life I have been curious about the world, not so much wanting to know things as to understand them and, at various times I would attempt to satisfy that desire - usually by devouring every available book on the subject. I would read every book at the library that seemed useful and, since I traveled a lot at the time, I would visit every bookstore within reach in every city and buy every book that seemed to know things I didn't know. I once had a library of many thousands of books.

As one example, I was at one time fascinated with gemstones and pearls - for no good reason that I can recall, but I followed my pattern and read and bought everything I could find. Certainly, I acquired knowledge during that process. I can easily detect flaws in a cut stone or a string of natural pearls and I am competent to challenge Tiffany on the tepid color of what they sell as emeralds. Still, in the real world I am an amateur, perhaps knowing a bit more than an average layman, but of little or no consequence to anyone in the field. Again, it wasn't so much a search for knowledge as a quest for understanding. I wasn't so much looking to know everything as to "understand" the world of gemstones and pearls. Nevertheless, the process served its purpose and would qualify as research.

But there is a pitfall here. When we are researching the natural world, we are mostly in a context of fact. The sciences, geography, the physical and material manifestations of nature, are largely if not often entirely factual. They don't lie to us. There is little room for bias or opinion in what happens when we drop a bowling ball or in questions of the formation and growth of crystals or pearls. Thus, reading books written by experts or professionals can teach us all we want to know and give us all the understanding we desire.

However, things change when we enter the world of man, or at least that part affected by man, because we are no longer dealing with factual manifestations of nature but have entered a world of interpretation and opinion, perhaps as many different of these as there are men to express them. And now, the traditional method of research to acquire knowledge will fail us because we are no longer being taught but indoctrinated.

As an easy example, we can consider the book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer, published in 1960 by Simon & Schuster in the US, the winner of awards and promoted to the ends of the earth like few books in the history of publishing. There may be few people of at least two generations who haven't read this book, and for many it may be the only book they have ever read on the subject.

The problem is that we were not reading a book on the history of Germany and the Wars; we were instead reading an instruction manual of 1,249 pages telling us what William Shirer wanted us to think about Germany and the Wars. And that is not the same thing. Shirer's book is biased at best, with a story line scaffolding unrelated to Germany. It isn't quite a fairy tale because it does contain many facts, but it also twists many facts, omits many others of great consequence, weaves threads that barely exist into thick carpets, states idle opinion as fact, and interprets all of it to fit the pre-determined story line. It was Shirer who propagated the now-ridiculed idea that the Germans used Jewish fat to make soap, and he was almost entirely responsible for the delusion (obtained from Wiesenthal) that the Nazis claimed the Germans were a "Master Race", a claim he must have known was a complete lie. In some ways, it is closer to a work of fiction than to factual history and Shirer closer to a snake-oil salesman than an author.

This is not unique to Shirer. Every history book is guilty of these accusations to some degree, and virtually all interpretations are clouded by ideology or preference or simply personal belief. They needn't be deliberately dishonest to contain these flaws; being written by a human is often sufficient. If we consider Carroll Quigley's tome "Tragedy and Hope", we find the same issues. I have great respect for Quigley, and I would say that 75% of that book is accurate and valuable. But the remaining 25% is almost as bad as Shirer. It seemed to me that when directly addressing the issues of Germany and the Wars, an automatic pilot assumed control of Quigley's mind and inserted a framework of "Germany bad" into which all facts now required insertion. Similarly, Noam Chomsky, another individual with my respect, and who has written much of great value to humanity, also has great blind spots.

I have read many books that resemble a Master’s or Ph.D. thesis in that they are simply a survey of the available literature, telling us what many others have written on that subject, but in many cases contributing little to the store of knowledge or understanding. This wouldn’t be so bad if all the disputed elements were included along with many of the so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ butthis process is proscribed by the institutions. Thus, in a search for truth in history, these are the worst places to begin.

There is another complicating factor in that we humans often have a tendency to believe that if we know something, we know everything. We needn’t look very far to find a writer of one good article to suddenly believe he can write with authority on any topic. It works in reverse too, in that we too easily believe that if a person knows much on one subject, they must be an expert on everything. It is both ludicrous and painful to watch a news anchor sincerely requesting the opinion of a Steve Jobs on the Amazon rain forest – simply on the basis of the man having designed a cool mobile phone. And what does a 16 year-old Greta what’s-her-name know about anything?

What do we do now? If I am a beginner and want to learn about the history of Germany, where do I turn? Every accepted history book on the subject will have multiple serious flaws and I am in no position to know what they are or where they lie. Worse, if I read one book on any historical topic, Shirer's Third Reich, for example, I may be colored forever by what I first read and it may prove exceedingly difficult to change my mind later in spite of discovering irrefutable evidence that contradicts my early-formed opinions and beliefs. I have no way to defend myself.

Fortunately, my interest in history was oblique rather than frontal, and I accidentally acquired much of my early education not from reading all the accepted and politically-correct textbooks, but from browsing second and third-tier websites, reading brief articles - especially those with reader comments, and similar sources. Eventually I'd seen enough of that and began doing independent research on small specific topics that interested me - such as the possibility of prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, my interest awakened from the persistent references to that prior knowledge indeed existing at the highest levels but not communicated to Pearl Harbor. None of this information appeared anywhere in respected history texts, and probably not in disrespected ones either, yet it has proven to be true.

I followed this developed pattern from that point onward, deliberately avoiding the accepted textbooks on a subject of my interest and instead pursuing other sources first. I will admit quickly that many, or even most, of those sources are at least partially if not entirely rubbish, items written by flakes, conspiracy theorists, amateurs, the uneducated, the great unwashed, the simple-minded and others similar. As well, much of it, and especially including reader comments, consists of deliberate misinformation. But not all, and in this simple fact lies a great salvation.

From perusing all these secondary and tertiary sources, I would learn which historical facts were generally accepted, and which were in dispute, and on most "facts of history" I would also encounter multiple frames of reference, hundreds of differing opinions and interpretations, and some genuine gold nuggets. Often, these nuggets would consist of little more than a brief comment in passing from an interested reader, but they would awaken me to an aspect of an historical event that I didn't know existed.

And from all of this, it was eventually not difficult to identify the ideologues and trolls, and to sort out the rubbish from the rest. I might still not know the truth of an historical event, but I would have many facts, knowing which in dispute and which not, and I would generally know the framework of an event, one which had inadvertently been vetted by potentially thousands of people, the intelligent among them. Now, when I read Shirer's book, it becomes immediately evident to me that he mixes opinion and fact, that important accepted facts are simply omitted from his tale, and I can see quickly that, however learned the man may appear to be, I am in fact being propagandised instead of being taught history. I am now able to defend myself.

These comments may seem strange to an average reader, but their wisdom in application is well-proven. If we look at the comments on websites such as this one, probably 95% are either off the topic or badly-flawed in some way, but we can also recognise the few intelligent and reasoned comments that are free of bias and opinion and that add not only to our knowledge but our understanding.

This latter point deserves explanation. I categorise knowledge and understanding as two very different things, similar to one seeing the trees or the forest. There are many books written on Germany or the War in the Pacific where the author clearly has a great deal of knowledge of the subject but, equally as clearly,doesn't really understand anything about what happened or why it happened the way it did. As I wrote at the beginning, I was not so much on a search for knowledge as a quest for understanding. There are at least hundreds of thousands if not hundreds of millions of people who know more about Germany and the Wars than do I, but my overall understanding of those events might not surrender to so many of those people.

In this above context I could mention David Irving, an historian almost without equal, at least in some respects. And yet while his knowledge is admittedly extreme it is clear there are some things he didn't understand very well. I don't fault the man. He adhered rigidly to original documents, reporting faithfully what he discovered and documenting it beyond reproach, yet due to that same rigor he occasionally became so focused on the trees he was missing the forest.

As one example, from his documents, he concluded that about 150,000 to 200,000 people died in Dresden, but he missed many factors outside his 'original documentation' that should have led him to conclude the toll was many times higher. For one thing, the Americans bombed every town within traveling range of Dresden, driving refugees to that city, and bombed every alternative road and railroad that might have permitted passage in other directions. There is ample evidence that perhaps 600,000 German refugees flocked to Dresden in time for the final attack, and many reports not in Irving's original papers that they strafed every column of refugees heading to Dresden but didn't arrive, including ambulance convoys. They even strafed all the animals in the Dresden zoo. It is true that the final number of fatalities is in dispute, but it is arguably very much larger than Irving indicated. If he had dwelt more on the overall picture of the night-bombing and incineration-bombing, and consideredall the surrounding factors, he might have come to a very different conclusionalbeit one not so firmly documented as all his other pages. I would argue the man had, at least in some instances, knowledge without understanding.

It is very easy for us to find a history book on almost any topic that catches our interest, succumb to reading it and, for whatever reason, convince ourselves that we have read "the definitive work" on that subject and to then stubbornly close our minds to even the most glaring of contradictory facts, insisting to the death that we know everything about that topic when in reality much of what we "know" is either irrelevant or just plain wrong, and may omit some of the most important elements that entirely change the picture. It is not easy for any of us to maintain an open mind, especially on historical topics which evoke emotion - as most are prone to do.

I cannot end without admitting that what I have presented here is a digital image, a black and white portrait of information, while our real world is analogue - infinite shades of grey. The world of science is largely, but not entirely, factual. The world of physics, especially dealing with relativity, is sometimes overloaded with opinion and bias, as can astronomy be sometimes. And in the world of man we can identify works of minimal bias that provide trustworthy foundations for our knowledge and understanding.

Still, the generalisations hold, and for both readers and writers this requires caution. Neither can believe everything they read, but the onus is on the researcher and writer to do one's best to retain honesty and integrity, to not classify opinion as fact, to recognise and admit theories that are in dispute and, most importantly, to either search for truth or not search at all. In my view, it is unconscionable for an author or a respected media columnist (or a famous and admired actor) to then use that platform of respect as a shill to propagandise and indoctrinate trusting readers with tales that are factually false. I could name some very big names here, and they wouldn’t like it. And for readers, the task is to avoid the temptation to look only for articles or facts that agree with our predilections and to face the possibility that we think may be wrong. As someone wrote, "It would be better to not know so many things than to know so many things that are wrong."

Let’s close with one live example from the COVID-19 world:

Several authors have published articles on this platform eulogizing Sweden as the poster country for virus control, passionately praising the Swedes for their penetrating discernment and good sense in leaving the country open, and using this as irrefutable proof that quarantines and isolation are counter-productive. Simultaneously, a great many commenters offer Sweden as proof that lockdowns are detrimental to the public health.


But here are the facts:

Country   Population    Infections  Deaths

Sweden   10,000,000  350,000      8,000

Denmark   5,000,000  120,000      1,000

Norway     5,000,000     40,000        400

Finland     5,000,000      30,000        500

I have rounded off all the numbers for ease of reading; the roundings are inconsequential to the result. You can see clearly from the statistics that while Sweden has twice the population of the other three Nordic Countries, it has between 3 times and 10 times the number of virus infections and between 8 times and 16 times the number of deaths. The other three countries imposed quarantines and other measures while Sweden did not. So, on what basis can Sweden be used as an ideal for anything? It cannot be. On this basis of comparison, Sweden is a disaster.

What conclusions do we draw from this? Mainly that neither the writers nor the readers are interested in the truth, but are instead focused only on selling an ideological point of view on the uselessness of quarantines, undeterred by the fact that their premises are not only false but ridiculously so. Few are unaware of the true statistics, and none apparently care. And yet this is the kind of "research" that makes its way daily into the MSM and annually into the history books. It is all indoctrination, propaganda, and salesmanship, its relationship with the truth tenuous at best and often totally non-existent - as in this case.



Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 28 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English-language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. His full archive can be seen at  He can be contacted at:

LARRY ROMANOFF is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’.

Copyright © Larry Romanoff,Moon of Shanghai, 2020


Eric Zuesse -- The Top Owners of America’s President-Elect Joe Biden (billionaires plus the $902,000,000+ from the merely rich)



The Top Owners of America’s President-Elect Joe Biden

(billionaires plus the $902,000,000+ from the merely rich)

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at Strategic Culture


Some of the top owners of America’s President-Elect Joe Biden are entirely secret because a corrupt U.S. Supreme Court, in the infamous 2010 Citizens United case, encouraged not only corruption but corruption that’s entirely secret or “dark money.” However, most of the individuals who purchased Biden to become the U.S. President did so under the previously existing laws, which require public reporting of their donations.


Here, then, are the top ten publicly known donors to the Biden campaign, but these are all via some sort of Political Action Committee or PAC, and therefore most are in conjunction with other billionaires and centi-millionaires, instead of entirely solo donations:



Top Contributors, federal election data for Joe Biden, 2020 cycle

totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Contributor Total

Bloomberg LP [Michael Bloomberg] $56,796,137

Tuesday, December 15, 2020

EN -- LARRY ROMANOFF -- COVID-19 Un-Explained : Waves, Ripples and Surges -- December 14, 2020




COVID-19: Un-Explained

Waves, Ripples and Surges

By Larry RomanoffDecember 14, 2020


Let's examine the normal pattern for an outbreak of a typical infectious disease. According to the US CDC: (1)

"A common-source outbreak is one in which a group of persons are all exposed to an infectious agent or a toxin from the same source. If the number of cases during an epidemic were plotted over time, the resulting graph . . . would typically have a steep upslope and a more gradual downslope (a so-called “log-normal distribution”). A propagated outbreak results from transmission from one person to another [usually] by direct person-to-person contact . . ." Propagated outbreaks typically exhibit several peaks one or two weeks apart, the epidemic normally dying out after several of these generations.

"Some epidemics have features of both common-source epidemics and propagated epidemics. The pattern of a common-source outbreak followed by secondary person-to-person spread is not uncommon." The CDC states these also can produce several generations or peaks during the following few weeks. But in all of these instances of natural infectious agent outbreaks, the spread and timing follow essentially the same typical pattern, perhaps elongated but still with close timing of the peaks. Here are three graphs from the CDC to illustrate. You can see clearly that we have a rise (rapid if single-source, slow if propagated or mixed), then a peak, a gradual
tapering-off, and a cessation.

The Dreaded "Second Wave"


2007 Speech


Discurso do Presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin, na manhã do dia 24 de Fevereiro de 2022

Discurso do Presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin, Tradução em português

Presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin: Cidadãos da Rússia, Amigos,

Considero ser necessário falar hoje, de novo, sobre os trágicos acontecimentos em Donbass e sobre os aspectos mais importantes de garantir a segurança da Rússia.

Começarei com o que disse no meu discurso de 21 de Fevereiro de 2022. Falei sobre as nossas maiores responsabilidades e preocupações e sobre as ameaças fundamentais que os irresponsáveis políticos ocidentais criaram à Rússia de forma continuada, com rudeza e sem cerimónias, de ano para ano. Refiro-me à expansão da NATO para Leste, que está a aproximar cada vez mais as suas infraestruturas militares da fronteira russa.

É um facto que, durante os últimos 30 anos, temos tentado pacientemente chegar a um acordo com os principais países NATO, relativamente aos princípios de uma segurança igual e indivisível, na Europa. Em resposta às nossas propostas, enfrentámos invariavelmente, ou engano cínico e mentiras, ou tentativas de pressão e de chantagem, enquanto a aliança do Atlântico Norte continuou a expandir-se, apesar dos nossos protestos e preocupações. A sua máquina militar está em movimento e, como disse, aproxima-se da nossa fronteira.

Porque é que isto está a acontecer? De onde veio esta forma insolente de falar que atinge o máximo do seu excepcionalismo, infalibilidade e permissividade? Qual é a explicação para esta atitude de desprezo e desdém pelos nossos interesses e exigências absolutamente legítimas?

Read more


Ver a imagem de origem



(China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States)


manlio + maria




Read more at Moon of Shanghai

World Intellectual Property Day (or Happy Birthday WIPO) - Spruson ...

Moon of Shanghai

L Romanoff

Larry Romanoff,

contributing author

to Cynthia McKinney's new COVID-19 anthology

'When China Sneezes'

When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis


James Bacque


irmãos de armas

Subtitled in PT, RO, SP

Click upon CC and choose your language.



Before the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly.

The President of Russia delivered
the Address to the Federal Assembly. The ceremony took
place at the Manezh Central Exhibition Hall.

15, 2020


President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Address to the Nation

Address to the Nation.




PT -- VLADIMIR PUTIN na Sessão plenária do Fórum Económico Oriental

Excertos da transcrição da sessão plenária do Fórum Económico Oriental


The Putin Interviews
by Oliver Stone (



Um auto retrato surpreendentemente sincero do Presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin



Personagens Principais em 'Na Primeira Pessoa'

Parte Um: O Filho

Parte Dois: O Estudante

Parte Três: O Estudante Universitário

Parte Quatro: O Jovem especialista

Parte Cinco: O Espia

Parte Seis: O Democrata

Parte Sete: O Burocrata

Parte Oito: O Homem de Família

Parte Nove: O Político

Apêndice: A Rússia na Viragem do Milénio

contaminação nos Açores

Subtitled in EN/PT

Click upon the small wheel at the right side of the video and choose your language.

convegno firenze 2019