GERMAN GOVT ADMITS COVID19 A SCAM

Germany’s federal government and mainstream media are engaged in damage control after a report that challenges the established Corona narrative leaked from the interior ministry

  • The dangerousness of Covid-19 was overestimated: probably at no point did the danger posed by the new virus go beyond the normal level.
  • The people who die from Corona are essentially those who would statistically die this year, because they have reached the end of their lives and their weakened bodies can no longer cope with any random everyday stress (including the approximately 150 viruses currently in circulation).
  • Worldwide, within a quarter of a year, there has been no more than 250,000 deaths from Covid-19, compared to 1.5 million deaths [25,100 in Germany] during the influenza wave 2017/18.
  • The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses. There is no evidence that this was more than a false alarm.

A reproach could go along these lines:

During the Corona crisis the State has proved itself as one of the biggest producers of Fake News.

So far, so bad. But it gets worse.

The report focuses on the “manifold and heavy consequences of the Corona measures” and warns that these are “grave”.

More people are dying because of state-imposed Corona-measures than they are being killed by the virus.

The reason is a scandal in the making:

A Corona-focused German healthcare system is postponing life-saving surgery and delaying or reducing treatment for non-Corona patients.

Berlin in Denial Mode. The scientists fight back.

Initially, the government tried to dismiss the report as “the work of one employee”, and its contents as “his own opinion” – while the journalists closed ranks, no questions asked, with the politicians.

But the 93-pages report titled “Analysis of the Crisis Management” has been drafted by a scientific panel appointed by the interior ministry and composed by external medical experts from several German universities.

The report was the initiative of a department of the interior ministry called Unit KM4 and in charge with the “Protection of critical infrastructures”.

This is also where the German official turned whistleblower, Stephen Kohn, work(ed), and from where he leaked it to the media.

The authors of the report issued a joint press release already on Mai 11th, berating the government for ignoring expert advise, and asking for the interior minister to officially comment upon the experts joint statement:

“Therapeutic and preventive measures should never bring more harm than the illness itself. Their aim should be to protect the risk groups, without endangering the availabilty of medical care and the health of the whole population, as it is unfortunately occurring”

“We in the scientific and medical praxis are experiencing the secondary damages of the Corona-measures on our patients on a daily basis.”

“We therefore ask the Federal Ministry of the Interior, to comment upon our press release, and we hope for a pertinent discussion regarding the [Corona] measures, one that leads to the best possible solution for the whole population”

At the time of writing, the German government had yet to react.

But the facts are – sadly – vindicating the medical experts’ worries.

On May 23 the German newspaper Das Bild titled: “Dramatic consequences of the Corona-Measures: 52,000 Cancer Ops delayed.”

Inside, a leading medical doctor warns that “we will feel the side-effects of the Corona crisis for years”.

Shooting the Whistleblower. Ignoring the Message.

As Der Spiegel reported on Mai 15th: “Stephen Kohn [the whistleblower] has since been suspended from duty. He was advised to obtain a lawyer and his work laptop was confiscated.”

Kohn had originally leaked the report on May 9th to the liberal-conservative magazine Tichys Einblick one of Germany’s most popular alternative media outlets.

News of the report went mainstream in Germany during the second week of Mai – but already in the third week media and politicians alike stopped discussing the issue by refusing to comment upon it.

Emblematic was the approach taken by Günter Krings, the representative for Interior Minister Horst Seehofer – the whistleblower’s boss:

Asked it he would treat the document seriously, Krings replied:

“If you start analyzing papers like that, then pretty soon you’ll be inviting the guys with the tin foil hats to parliamentary hearings.”

Men in tin foil hats – Aluhut in German – is a term used to describe people who believe in conspiracy theories.

Indeed one article by Der Spiegel adressing the Corona protest movement and the consequences of the leaked report contained the word “conspiracy” no fewer than 17 times!

And no discussions of the issues raised by the report itself.

The Protest Movement – or “Corona-Rebellen”.

Germans begun demonstrating against Lockdowns as early as April.

And thousands of citizens keep showing up at demos every week-end, even as the government is easing the restrictions.

The demos are not merely against restrictions, which have actually been comparatively mild compared to many other Western countries.

The demos question the entire Corona Narrative, and even more its principals, especially the role Bill Gates is playing, as the WHO second biggest donor (the first one since Trump suspended U.S. contribution).

Indeed the biggest such demos took place in Stuttgart on May 9th, where tens of thousands people assempled to say no – to the NWO.

Germans are saying no to any orwellian solution the government might one day impose out of a questionable “emergency status”, from mass surveillance Apps to mandatory vaccinations.

The leaked report has proved their fears to be well founded.

At least as far as the fake nature of the “Corona pandemic” is concerned.

The rest might soon follow.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/german-official-leaks-report-denouncing-covid-19-global-false-alarm

New Zealand: Woman stalked by sandwich server via her COVID-19 contact tracing info

Mayo? Mustard? Creep who takes your sandwich order plus the personal details you handed over for contact tracing?

That’s not what I ordered, said a woman in Auckland, New Zealand, whose trip to a Subway fast-food shop led to a restaurant worker reaching out to pester her on Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and via text.

As the local news outlet Newshub tells it, the worker has been suspended after the woman – who, understandably enough, declined to give her name and was only identified as “Jess” – complained to the restaurant chain.

Jess told Newshub that Subway required her to put her contact details on a contact-tracing form so as to place her food order. She didn’t think anything about it: we all want to stop the spread of the pandemic, after all. The form asked for her name, home address, email address and phone number, all of which she put down.

She’s feeling pretty queasy about that Subway visit now, after the guy who took her order used Jess’s contact information to repeatedly, persistently hit her up:

I felt pretty gross. He made me feel really uncomfortable.

He’s contacting me. I didn’t ask him to do that. I don’t want that.

I’m lucky that I live with quite a few people because if that was me by myself at home—he knows my address, you know?—I’d feel really, really scared. Even now I feel a bit creeped out and vulnerable.

Who can blame her? There are good reasons why we should hand out our personally identifying information (PII) as sparingly as possible. When crooks, lechers and governments get our details, it sets us up to be preyed on by a rogues’ gallery of horny creeps, burglars, rapists, surveillance-happy governments, targeted-advertising outfits run amok, spear phishers, spammers, and other physical and/or virtual stalkers.

More to the point, there are good reasons why companies and governments should be paying excruciating attention to how to protect privacy as countries and states gradually retreat from lockdown and institute ways to do so safely. At this point, it’s all over the map.

That was evidenced by a survey done last month by PwC, which has developed a contact-tracing app to help employers identify workers who may have been exposed to the virus. The survey found that, as of April, governments around the world had issued more than 60 directives regarding protecting data privacy while responding to the pandemic.

You may well ask how you do contact tracing without collecting people’s PII. Countries have certainly asked, and, fortunately, they’ve found what will hopefully turn out to be an approach that leaves people’s privacy intact. Late last month, Germany embraced a coronavirus tracking tool from Apple and Google that implements a decentralized Bluetooth-based approach instead of the more invasive location-tracking proposed in other tracing technologies.

The approach – called Exposure Notification – relies on Bluetooth to keep data local on people’s phones instead of being stored in a centralized database that could be used for mass state surveillance or to track people. It’s supported by Apple and Google as well as by various European countries.

Where does a process of tracing people by having them hand over their PII in a form fit into all this?

We don’t know much about the form, but it sounds like it was paper, as opposed to digital, given that Subway told Newshub that starting on Wednesday, it will have installed a new digital contact tracing system at all restaurants.

Guests will electronically enter their details, and the information will be held securely, for the sole purpose of contact tracing. Newshub reports that the information “can only be accessed in response to government contact tracing requests.”

It should go without saying that there are plenty of ways to screw up when it comes to securing stored digital data. Just because Subway is switching to digital and away from what I assume was its previous, analog data storage doesn’t mean that employees won’t be able to use customers’ PII in place of a dating app.

Kind of like, say, when police use their access to personal data – think state driver’s license databases – to snoop on fellow officers, public safety personnel, and justice professionals. A court case was recently settled over abuse of such access when a jury awarded Minnesota police officer Amy Krekelberg $585,000, including $300,000 in punitive damages from two defendants who pawed through her personal data to ogle her photograph, address, age, height, and weight after she allegedly rejected their romantic advances.

Subway told Newshub that it’s spoken to Jess and that the employee has been suspended, pending the outcome of an investigation. The employee will reportedly be “disciplined” if the investigation finds that they misused personal data.

Newshub spoke with Privacy Commissioner John Edwards, who said that businesses should only be custodians of the information they’re given for public health purposes. Doing otherwise could leave the public with a strong distaste for handing over their details, he said:

It’s absolutely essential that businesses treat this information exclusively for pandemic management. If they let it be abused by staff members it’s going to undermine the whole system, and that can put people at risk.

What he said. Readers, what are your organizations doing to protect employee, citizen and/or customer privacy as we try to negotiate this pandemic? Please do feel free to share in the comments section below, and please do stay as safe as possible, both from viruses and from other, data-related dangers.

Philipine History: David Fagen

David Fagen was the most celebrated of the handful of African American soldiers who defected to the Filipino revolutionary army led by Emilio Aguinaldo during the Filipino American War of 1899-1902.  Fagen was born in Tampa, Florida around 1875. Details of his life remain sketchy. His father was a merchant and a widower. For a time he worked as a laborer for Hull’s Phosphate Company.

On June 4, 1898 at the age of 23, Fagen enlisted in the 24th Infantry, one of the four black regiments of that time that was coincidentally based in Tampa. Fagen would see combat a year later as he shipped off from San Francisco, California to Manila on June 1899. By then, the Filipino American war had been raging for four months, as Filipino patriots sought to defend their newly established Republic which they had won in a revolution against Spain. Fagen was soon in combat against Filipino guerillas in Central Luzon. Reports indicate that he had constant arguments with his commanding officers and requested to be transferred at least three times which contributed to his growing resentment of the Army.

On Nov. 17, 1899, Fagen defected to the Filipino army. Winning the trust of the Filipinos he took sanctuary in the guerilla-controlled areas around Mount Arayat in Pampanga province. Fagen served enthusiastically for the next two years in the Filipino cause. His bravery and audacity were much praised by his Filipino comrades. Fagen was promoted from first lieutenant to captain by his commanding officer, General Jose Alejandrino on Sept. 6, 1900. Such was his popularity that Filipino soldiers often referred to him as “General Fagen.” His exploits earned him front page coverage in The New York Times which described him as a “cunning and highly skilled guerilla officer who harassed and evaded large conventional American units.”

Clashing at least eight times with American troops from Aug. 30, 1900 to Jan. 17, 1901, Fagen’s most famous action was the daring capture of a steam launch on the Pampanga River. Along with his men, he seized its cargo of guns and swiftly disappeared into the forests before the American cavalry could arrive. White officers were frustrated at their inability to capture Fagen whose exploits by now had begun to take on legendary proportions both among the Filipinos and in the U.S. press. Fagen’s success also triggered the fear of black defections (of which there were actually only twenty).

By 1901, American forces captured key Filipino leaders including Alejandrino and by March, Aguinaldo himself. Filipino leaders tried to secure amnesty for Fagen, but the Americans refused, insisting that he would be court-martialed and most likely executed. Hearing of this, Fagen, by now married to a Filipina, refused to surrender and sought refuge in the mountains of Nueva Ecija in Central Luzon. Branded a “bandit,” Fagen became the object of a relentless manhunt, with a $600 reward for his capture, “dead or alive.” Posters of him in Tagalog and Spanish appeared in every Nueva Ecija town, but he continued to elude capture.

On Dec. 5, 1901, Anastacio Bartolome, a Tagalog hunter, delivered to American authorities the severed head of a “negro” he claimed to be Fagen. While traveling with his hunting party, Bartolome reported that he had spied upon Fagen and his wife accompanied by a group of indigenous people called Aetas bathing in a river. Recognizing him from the wanted posters, the hunters attacked the group and allegedly killed and beheaded Fagen, then buried his body near the river. But this story has never been confirmed and there is no record of Bartolome receiving a reward.  Official army records of the incident refer to it as the “supposed killing of David Fagen,” and several months later, Philippine Constabulary reports still made references to occasional sightings of Fagen.

To this day, it remain unclear what exactly became of David Fagen. His life after the war continued to be as mysterious as his existence before it. But his actions, largely forgotten in the United States, continue to be remembered in the Philippines as that of an African American man who heroically cast his lot with the Filipino revolutionaries to resist the injustice of American imperial designs.

Liberal Racism: The woman who called 911 on a black birdwatcher is a Obama/Clinton Democrat

Amy Cooper was asked to put her pet on a leash, in accordance with city ordinance. Rather than simply complying with the rules, Ms. Cooper tried to sic the police on the person who pointed out her violation — feigning to be in imminent danger from an “African American man.”  Fortunately, the man accused of threatening Ms. Cooper recorded the incident. His sister later uploaded the video to social media, where it went viral; it has already been viewed tens of millions of times.  

It is unclear what the appropriate consequences for something like this should be, given how dire the consequences of her actions could have been (as recent events in Minneapolis sadly confirm). However, Ms. Cooper has already paid a high price for her transgression: She has been publicly shamed and terminated from her position as a VP and Head of Investment Solutions at Franklin Templeton Investments. She has surrendered custody of her dog (whom she dragged around by the neck for most of the confrontation). Some lawmakers have called for her to be charged with making a false report to police.

A lot of ink has been spilled over this incident and others like it. One thing that has been largely missing from these stories is the political orientation of the white people who behave in this manner. It may be tempting to view this question as a distraction from the “core” issue at hand — however, I will argue, this component may actually be essential for understanding how many of these stories play out.

Consider Ms. Cooper’s threat against the person who told her to leash her dog: She was going to call the cops and “tell them there’s an African American man threatening” her life.  It seems taken as a given  that the police are racially biased — that they will act with overwhelming force, and without regard to the actual facts of the case, to defend a white person who appears to be in danger from a black man. Even though she was the one breaking rules, she assumed the police would target him, precisely on the grounds that he was an “African American man.”

This is not a set of assumptions that most conservatives would likely hold. They are generally skeptical of claims of racial bias in policing. While some acknowledge a few “bad apples,” they assert that law enforcement officers typically discharge their duties in a restrained and fair manner, with their responses to situations dictated by the pertinent facts of the case.

In other words, Ms. Cooper’s assumption that the cops would respond in a forceful manner against a black man without asking too many questions, strictly in virtue of his race as compared to hers — this is the kind of belief that liberals tend to hold about cops.

Indeed, based on her demographic characteristics — urban, white, female, highly-educated, of an upper-socio-economic status — it is statistically highly probable that Ms. Cooper voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election. Campaign contribution information reinforces this picture: According to the Independent, she has been a consistent supporter of Democratic politicians, including John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Pete Buttigieg.

The peculiar intersection of race, class, and ideology that Ms. Cooper embodies is hardly unusual for cases like these. Consider: in areas of concentrated poverty that are being gentrified or that lie adjacent to wealthier areas (as is often the case in urban settings), policing tends to be much more frequent and aggressive — even for small crimes. Those calling the cops on people of color for things like taking shelter from the rain, failing to wave at a white passerby while leaving their AirBnB, sitting in their car waiting for yoga class to start, accidentally brushing up against a white person in a store, etcetera — the people regularly seeking out law enforcement for things like loud music, loitering, “suspected” criminal activity, or domestic disturbances  — these are often relatively well-off, highly-educated, liberal, white denizens eager to “clean up” or “protect” the neighborhoods they choose to live in.

Moreover, it is liberals who go out of their way to embed themselves in communities of color — especially young and highly-educated professionals or artists. Granted, rents tend to be cheaper in these areas. However, many are also drawn to such neighborhoods, quite explicitly, because they are “historic,” “cultured” and “diverse.” In so doing, they put themselves in situations where they more frequently come into contact with minorities. If misunderstandings or conflicts arise (as they inevitably will in multi-cultural and gentrifying urban neighborhoods), many reflexively look to local authorities to resolve these disputes on their behalf. Like Ms. Cooper, this is often done in confidence that the police will align themselves with the white person making the call. In practice, then, they are attempting to use police to punish people of color who are insufficiently deferent to their own demands or preferences. However, it is extremely difficult for most white liberals to understand their actions in this way due to a phenomenon social scientists call “moral credentialing.”

Research in the cognitive and behavioral sciences suggests that when whites explicitly denounce racism or affirm their commitment to racial equality, they often — paradoxically — grow more likely to act in ways that favor other whites; simultaneously, they grow more confident that their actions were not racially-motivated.

A similar effect holds when they observe others from their “in-group” making gestures towards antiracism: it convinces them not only that their peers are egalitarians but that their own actions and interactions are non-biased as well. Conversely, blaming or criticizing “others” for a particular moral failing reduces one’s own sense of guilt for that same moral failing.

Consequently, for whites who inhabit social circles where people go around denouncing racism to one another constantly — painting themselves as staunch advocates for social justice — it would become almost impossible for these people to see the role that they play in perpetuating systemic inequality.

Under the sway of moral credentialing, people can take actions that they would recognize in others as “racist” without understanding themselves to be racist when performing those same actions. These dynamics are quite clear in Ms. Cooper’s apology: She acknowledged how someone might perceive her actions to be racist but she insisted nonetheless that her behaviors were not racially motivated and that she never meant to harm anyone.

Put another way, it is not merely the case that liberals and leftists are capable of being dangerously entitled around people of color, they are probably more likely to engage in these sorts of behaviors than non-leftists. Precisely because they view themselves as “allies” to members of historically marginalized and disadvantaged groups, they often feel justified in taking liberties they would deny to other whites — confident that their actions are not racist, that they are merely giving an appropriate response to the situation at hand.

Indeed, Ms. Cooper herself may well have been outraged had she witnessed some other white woman calling the cops on a black man for telling her to leash her dog. She may have even joined the chorus against “BBQ Becky,” “Permit Patty” et al. during previous viral incidents.

However, these exercises in ritual purification do precious little to help people from historically marginalized or disadvantaged groups. They don’t even meaningfully raise awareness, as they circulate primarily among those who are already the most “aware.” More than anything else, these campaigns are a form of catharsis for white elites. With each op-ed and retweet, they reassure themselves that they are “different” from those other whites, the ones who are ignorant, unenlightened, fearful of diversity. They are the good whites and they would never resort to such tactics were they to somehow find themselves in a dustup with a black person.

And perhaps they wouldn’t. But there’s a good chance they would.

Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University. Readers can connect to his research and social media via his website, musaalgharbi.com.