Implementing Geronticide

All Western democracies are welfare states to varying degrees, the most extreme versions being Germany and Sweden. An important component of the welfare state is its care for the aged. In recent decades life expectancy has increased, along with the cost of geriatric medicine. The cost increase is not linear — the last decade of life for those over 75 is, on average, very expensive, and governments are footing the bill.

Back in 2008 I posted about the coming demographic crisis and how various Western governments might decide to cope with it. It was clear that the Baby Boomers — my generation, the proverbial “pig in the python” — would eventually break the system as they entered retirement and became more and more expensive to maintain.

The current demographic debacle was foreseen long ago, all the way back in the 1960s and 1970s. The preferred solution back then was to import immigrants from the fecund Third World, who would become productive citizens, generating the tax revenues that would be crucial to supporting the Boomers in their dotage. In addition, Aisha and Mehmet would be trained to take jobs as nurses and medical technicians to staff the nursing homes that would eventually be bursting at the seams with the Aged of Aquarius.

Alas, the scheme failed to work out as planned: the newcomers tend to consume more in government benefits than they contribute in taxes. Furthermore, their occupational skills haven’t managed to reach the level of the natives they are supplanting, so that providing adequate care for the elderly becomes problematic. If the experience of the National Health Service in the UK is any indication, the on-the-job behavior of third-world immigrant caregivers goes beyond negligence to active abuse, and even becomes homicidal on occasion.

Raising the retirement age is one strategy to cope with the problem, but it is politically difficult to implement, and can even cause mass unrest. Besides, there’s a limit to how much it can be raised — just think of Joe Biden being employed as a bus driver or a store manager. We geezers tend to become less and less competent after attaining our allotted three score and ten.

By the time I wrote my post on the topic, it had become clear that the Powers That Be would have to do something fairly soon about the eldercare crisis. Projecting the situation a quarter-century into the future showed that it was catastrophically unsustainable. In 2017 I posted a follow-up, augmenting the gloomy prognosis with more detailed demographic data.

Obviously, it isn’t possible to increase the number of 20- to 50-year-olds in the population. There is, however, another way to increase the ratio of the young to the elderly; it’s just one that can’t ever be mentioned in public. Nevertheless, I’m sure it has been discussed extensively at closed-door meetings within the governing class, at both the national and the globalist NWO Davos-and-Bilderberg levels.

Geronticide has become an obvious necessity from the point of view of anyone who wishes to maintain the existing system in its current form. But how to accomplish it without generating mass unrest, rebellion, and systemic instability?

Half that quarter-century has elapsed since I first began making grim projections of geronticide. Back then I speculated about what form the culling of the aged would take, proposing several general strategies, beginning with triage and neglect. The latter was evident in care homes for the elderly in the UK. The quality of care varied by region, but overall the aged fared better if their families could afford something besides the NHS.

The NHS has also floated various schemes of triage, proposing to deny care to smokers, or the obese, or those with unhealthy eating habits.

Such actions, however, can only nibble away at the margins of the elderly population. To achieve a reduction that would lower costs significantly, more draconian measures would be required. Yet those would have to be implemented in a manner that the general public would not perceive as geronticide. How can that possibly be accomplished?

The past eighteen months of this extraordinary time we live in has allowed us to see the general outline of what is intended. The geronticide has now left the planning stages. The process of implementation has begun.

I’ve been waiting for the “vaccination” project to unfold completely before assaying an analysis of these momentous events. Enough data have now come in, however, to permit some educated guesses about what the man behind the curtain intends.

I’m making several assumptions. Firstly, all the actors in the process — Dr. Fauci, the Wuhan lab, the WHO, the CDC, the vaccine manufacturers, the media, various national governments, the pocket totalitarians among the mayors and governors who oppress their citizens with lockdowns — are being manipulated to serve the purposes of the architects of the geronticide.

The mayors and governors love their new despotic powers, but contrary to what many people think, that in itself is not the motive for the new totalitarianism. Those who designed the crisis understood well what a taste of tyrannical power would do to the progressives who rule our major urban conglomerations. Tyranny was indeed necessary to accomplish the ends of the project, so all those Li’l Hitlers were exactly what was needed.

The vaccine manufacturers and the patent holders for the mRNA treatments are making inconceivably large amounts of money from the rollout of the “vaccines”. Those players are surely motivated by profit, but their avarice is simply a tool that has proved useful to the Powers That Be.

The Red Chinese may be making what they consider to be a bioweapon derived from various animal-based coronaviruses and augmented by gain-of-function research. But the architects of the geronticide, by channeling the funding of the lab through the avaricious Dr. Fauci and his cronies, were able to direct the production of the exact pathogen required for their purposes.

Every bureaucrat at every stage of the process is gaining power and prestige from what is currently unfolding. Fiefdoms in medical bureaucracies are being enlarged and enhanced. The directors of corporations and state enterprises are getting richer and more powerful. Once again, they are all useful tools for those planners who never lose sight of the larger goals.

Continue reading

Thanks to Social Marketing, You Will Be Assimilated

They really, really, want us to get vaccinated.

Whom do I mean when I use the word “they”? Well, for starters, there’s the government. All Western governments, in fact, even that of Hungary. “They” also includes the major media, Big Tech, the MSM, the universities and secondary schools, and all major philanthropic organizations. All of them are pushing relentlessly for all citizens to submit to the injection of an experimental medical treatment that uses messenger RNA, and whose long-term side effects are completely unknown.

For as far back as I can remember, I have never experienced such a relentless full-court press by all social and political institutions in pursuit of a single goal. Perhaps the war effort from 1939-1945 was like this, but I wasn’t alive then, so I don’t know.

Before I started researching the propaganda push behind the vax, I had never heard of the term “social marketing”. It is an important concept in this dystopian age, so we would all be well-advised to learn more about it. The California STD/HIV Prevention Training Center — which is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and is a joint project of the California Department of Health Services, Sexually Transmitted Disease Control Branch, the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, and the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine — gives the following definitionof social marketing:

Social marketing is the use of commercial marketing principles and techniques to improve the welfare of people and the physical, social and economic environment in which they live. It is a carefully planned, long-term approach to changing human behavior.

So one group of people — presumably quite small — uses subtle manipulative techniques developed by behavioral psychologists to change the behavior of another group of people — presumably much larger — and make them conform to a standard of behavior which the first group has devised and considers optimal.

My instinctive reaction to such a practice is: What arrogance! What hubris!

We ordinary plebs think we know what’s good for us, but they know better. And they see nothing wrong with conning us into thinking the way they want us to think.

I bring all this up because of a paper that was published by The National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is part of the National Library of Medicine, which is a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH, as you may recall, is where Dr. Anthony Fauci rules over a little fiefdom known as NIAID, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The paper is entitled “Key Guidelines in Developing a Pre-Emptive COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Promotion Strategy” [pdf]. It was published in August of last year, but I didn’t find it until a few weeks ago.

It is beyond my level of analytical competence to peel back all the layers of manipulative strategy found in this paper, so I’ll just highlight a few significant points. I recommend reading the whole thing carefully, if you have the time and the stomach to work your way through all the sociological jargon.

First, a word on some of the terminology used. A person who receives an injection with the experimental mRNA treatment is said to engage in “vaccine uptake”. Those who decline to take the vaccine are said to experience “vaccine hesitancy”.

In the epistemological framework of the paper there is no acceptable rationale for not being “vaccinated”. Those who have not been vaxed are either vaccine hesitant — in which case they will eventually do their duty and get the jab — or they are malicious actors who have been convinced by evil anti-vax propaganda to resist the injection, and thereby put themselves and their loved ones at risk of contracting a dangerous and potentially lethal disease.

In the mindset of the authors of this paper — and all the official pro-vax propaganda — it is not conceivable that one could investigate the available facts, think carefully, and make a reasoned decision not to get the jab.

Citizens are expected to give their informed consent to the procedure, yet it is impossible to give informed consent. The long-term side effects of the mRNA treatment are unknown, and will remain unknown for at least five more years. Therefore no one can be fully informed about the treatment. Giving informed consent is simply not possible.

But none of that matters to those who are pushing the jab. My reasoning is considered fallacious and maliciously motivated, and my arguments would be removed from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other Big Tech platforms if I were to make them there.

There is only one possible outcome from the point of view of the vax pushers. You may be “hesitant”, but you cannot make a decision not to get the jab, and they will prod you and punish you until you do.

The first thing to notice about the NIH paper is that it’s not primarily an American document, despite its being published by an agency of the United States government. The spelling of certain words — for example, “sceptics” — serves as a clue. And it makes complete sense when you see the names and credentials of the four authors:

  • Jeff French of Strategic Social Marketing Ltd and the University of Brighton
  • Sameer Deshpande of Social Marketing @ Griffith, Griffith University in Australia
  • William Evans of George Washington University
  • Rafael Obregon of UNICEF in Paraguay

Mr. French is the lead author, so one may presume that it was his spell-checker that approved the spellings that no native American speaker would use.

Two of the authors list social marketing in their credentials, so we may deduce that the NIH has subcontracted with expert social marketers to produce strategies and guidelines to induce vaccine hesitant Americans to get the needle into their arm as quickly as possible.

The abstract outlines the techniques that will be recommended (emphasis added):

This paper makes the case for immediate planning for a COVID-19 vaccination uptake strategy in advance of vaccine availability for two reasons: first, the need to build a consensus about the order in which groups of the population will get access to the vaccine; second, to reduce any fear and concerns that exist in relation to vaccination and to create demand for vaccines. A key part of this strategy is to counter the anti-vaccination movement that is already promoting hesitancy and resistance. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a tsunami of misinformation and conspiracy theories that have the potential to reduce vaccine uptake. To make matters worse, sections of populations in many countries display low trust in governments and official information about the pandemic and how the officials are tackling it. This paper aims to set out in short form critical guidelines that governments and regional bodies should take to enhance the impact of a COVID-19 vaccination strategy. We base our recommendations on a review of existing best practice guidance. This paper aims to assist those responsible for promoting COVID-19 vaccine uptake to digest the mass of guidance that exists and formulate an effective locally relevant strategy. A summary of key guidelines is presented based on best practice guidance.

The paper’s introduction defines vaccine hesitancy:

Continue reading

The Apostasy of Hatun Tash

Last Saturday a young woman named Hatun Tash was attacked with a knife and slashed in the face by an as yet unidentified assailant at Speakers’ Corner in London. Ms. Tash is a former Muslim and convert to Christianity who regularly preaches the gospel to Muslims in Hyde Park. She was wearing a Charlie Hebdo t-shirt at the time of the attack.

As of this writing, her attacker has not been named, so there is as yet no Mohammed Coefficient for the incident, nor can we be certain that the assailant was a Muslim.

However, the knifeman was clearly attempting to cut her in the neck, and one may assume that he intended to slit her throat in the same manner as a beast is slaughtered at the festival of Eid Al-Adha. That act would have been followed by full beheading, if he were allowed to complete the task, because such is the punishment for kufr, or unbelief.

See this Breitbart article for a general account of what happened at Speakers’ Corner.

In the following video, David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics shows several clips with footage of the attack on Ms. Tash, and then explains its scriptural justification as found in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira:

Hatun Tash actually committed at least two “crimes” that carry the death penalty under Islamic law: apostasy and insulting the prophet.

The book ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English. This is an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.

From Book O, “Justice”, we learn that:

Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief and the worst. [o8.0]

Whoever voluntarily leaves Islam is killed.


When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. [o8.1]

The second capital count against Hatun Tash was defamation against Islam, also know as Islamic slander, or ghiba. It is considered an act of apostasy.

Consulting Book O, “Justice”, in Reliance of the Traveller, we learn that the following acts constitute leaving Islam (§o8.7):

Continue reading

Danish Days

Steen has posted an excellent selection of photos of Fjordman taken during the latter’s exile in Denmark.

Now that Fjordman has given permission for photos of him to be published, I dug through my image archives to see what I could find. I have a fair number of photos taken between 2007 and 2013, the last time I was in Europe. It fills me with a kind of nostalgic melancholy to look at them, since I know I’ll never see Denmark again, given that that I won’t be getting the “vaccination”. Even if I could somehow hop a catamaran to cross the Atlantic like Greta Thunberg, the Danish immigration authorities would still want to see my vaccine passport before they’d let me in.

A lot of the photos in my archive can’t be posted, because they contain other people who have yet to go public, and I don’t feel like trying to pixelate all of them out. However, I picked out a small selection to post here.

Steen took this photo of Fjordman and me in Copenhagen after one of our Counterjihad meetings in 2009:

Not all the photos are from Denmark. This one of Fjordman with Tommy Robinson was taken at an event in London in 2011:

Fjordman and Tommy Robinson, 2011

You can see Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in the left background.

As he mentioned in his post on Thursday, Fjordman spent some time in the USA in the spring of 2012 during the trial of Anders Behring Breivik. While he was here, he went to several wine tastings:

Fjordman at a wine tasting, 2012

In the process of digging through various folders, I came across a couple of screen shots of the letter that Anders Behring Breivik wrote and sent to major media outlets in the fall of 2013:

Continue reading

A Summer of Madness

Ten years ago I walked this street; my dreams were riding tall.
Tonight I would be thankful, Lord, for any dreams at all.

— Robert Hunter, from “Mission in the Rain”

Tomorrow is the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attack in Norway. On July 22, 2011, a man named Anders Behring Breivik detonated a truck bomb in central Oslo next to government headquarters, killing eight people. While police and emergency services were dealing with the aftermath, Mr. Breivik drove to the island of Utøya, where a summer camp for Socialist Youth was being held. There he methodically shot and killed sixty-nine teenagers with a high-powered rifle. When police finally arrived at the island, he calmly surrendered.

Anders Behring Breivik was a neo-Nazi, but that fact did not emerge until several years later, when he wrote a letter to multiple media outlets and admitted that his declared affiliation with the Counterjihad movement had been a strategic misdirection, to spare his Aryan nationalist comrades from persecution. That part of his letter to the media was widely ignored, and was never publicly reported by any major outlet. To this day he is widely identified as an anti-Islam ideologue.

Before he committed his atrocities, Mr. Breivik had arranged the media distribution of his manifesto, or as he preferred to call it, “the compendium”. It was a lengthy, rambling treatise. It contained some of his own writing, but most of it consisted of extensive quotes from various English-language writers, the most prominent of which were Fjordman and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.

Those writers and others mentioned in the manifesto became the focus of a media frenzy beginning the following morning. Progressive pundits applied their usual pseudo-syllogism to the Utøya massacre:

1.   Breivik admired Fjordman.
2.   Breivik massacred innocent people.
3.   Therefore Fjordman was at least partially responsible for the atrocity. Q.E.D.

As I mentioned above, the Butcher of Utøya did not really look up to Fjordman; his admiration was a feint. So even the pseudo-syllogism was wrong. But none of that mattered; any information to the contrary was ignored by the left-wing media. Fjordman became an object of universal loathing. In Norway he was Public Enemy #1, in some ways eclipsing Breivik himself.

Up until that time Fjordman had only published his essays under a pseudonym. Beginning on the morning of July 23, the press and internet sleuths began an intensive effort to unmask him. It was only a matter of time before his real identity was uncovered, so after retaining counsel and making himself known to police, he outed himself via an interview with the tabloid VG. After that he fled the country and went into hiding.

And it’s a good thing he did: there were calls for him to be arrested and tried as Mr. Breivik’s accomplice, despite the fact that the two had never met, and Fjordman had never advocated violence in any form. But Norwegian public opinion did not bother itself with such trivial matters as facts and the truth. The slaughter on Utøya required a scapegoat, and Fjordman was chosen for the role.

He lived outside of Norway for a number of years, and only returned when the risk of arrest had diminished. However, he was unable to find work. Any prospective employer who was aware of who he was would refuse to hire him, and if he somehow found a job, even a menial one, he would be discharged as soon as his employer became aware of his identity. Now, ten years after the attack, he is living outside the country again, since he is unemployable in his homeland.

And, regardless of Mr. Breivik’s admission that his admiration for Fjordman was a ruse, Fjordman is still widely known as “Breivik’s mentor”.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I won’t go into the Breivik affair in great detail, since this is primarily a reminiscence about the effect the atrocity had on Gates of Vienna and the Counterjihad in general. To learn more, check out the archives for the period from July 22, 2011 to ca. November 2011. Or look up the relevant items in the Fjordman Files. The trial of Anders Behring Breivik sucked up a lot of our blogging oxygen in the spring of 2012; see Circus Breivik for a relevant sample.

Because Gates of Vienna was the main venue for Fjordman’s writings, and was mentioned repeatedly in the killer’s manifesto, this site was put under the media’s klieg lights beginning the day after the massacre. We were thrust into a prominence we had never seen before (or since). It was a hideous kind of fame that I would never have asked for — they say there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but my experience in the summer of 2011 makes me vehemently disagree.

In the first few weeks we received hundreds (maybe thousands) of emails. Some of them were simply requests for information, but they were mostly hate mail, sometimes in Norwegian and Swedish. Various media outlets wanted to contact Fjordman, and I dutifully passed the messages on to him, but he didn’t respond to any of them.

The number of comments at Gates of Vienna (which was still on blogspot at the time) rose into the hundreds for each post, many of them from obvious trolls and provocateurs employed by one or another state intelligence service. They soon became unmanageable, so we reluctantly closed the blog to comments for a couple of months. When we reactivated them, we made them subject to moderation, and they’ve been that way ever since. It’s frustrating and annoying for commenters to have to wait to see their contributions appear, but otherwise Dymphna and I would have been unable to cope with all the trolls and provocateurs.

By the beginning of the week following the attack, media outlets started contacting me. They somehow managed to obtain my phone number, and I received calls from newspapers in Norway and the UK. Needless to say, I declined to say anything to them.

During our fifteen minutes of lurid fame we were mentioned in The New York Times and The Washington Post, among other illustrious publications. The following report from the NYT told its readers that Anders Behring Breivik had commented on Gates of Vienna several times:

What they said was quite true. Fortunately, I had already been alerted to the fact by a European contact, who told me the pseudonym that had been used by Mr. Breivik, so I was able to track down all his comments. Some people urged me to delete them, but that’s not the way we do business here at Gates of Vienna. First of all, nothing ever disappears completely from the Internet; it can always be found in the Wayback Machine or other web archives. But more importantly, I don’t believe in hiding the truth, whether it makes me look bad or not. So I collected all of the Butcher’s comments and reposted them.

Other things published by major media outlets, particularly the British tabloids, were not as accurate. The Washington Post published my name and something about me that was completely, factually false. I sent them an email demanding that they retract and correct their error, but I knew that nothing would happen. All I could do was post about what they did and ridicule them. If I had been a famous movie actress or best-selling novelist who could afford to retain high-powered lawyers, I might have had more success. But the WaPo knows it has nothing to fear from minnows like me.

Other papers, especially the tabloids, published even more ludicrous falsehoods about Gates of Vienna — who we were associated with, where we got our funding, etc., etc. And they asserted various bogus things about other people in the Counterjihad whom I knew personally — so-and-so is funded by the Koch Brothers, or the Mossad, or whatever. Just absolute nonsense.

That summer taught me not to believe ANYTHING that I read in the media unless it is corroborated by multiple independent sources and has a breadcrumb trail that leads back to verifiable facts. Which doesn’t leave much. Reading media news reports has become a form of entertainment for me, like reading mystery novels or watching The Simpsons.

The general effect on the Counterjihad was catastrophic. A lot of sites, especially those in Europe, closed down for good. A number of Counterjihad activists I knew personally soiled their breeches and fled the field at the first whiff of grapeshot. I must admit that I became exasperated with them — I said, “You knew how serious this work was when you got into it. What did you think we were doing, playing tiddlywinks??”

However, in retrospect, I’ve had to acknowledge that they did what they had to do. Unlike me, most of them had day jobs. They stood to lose a lot if they were exposed. Some of them had families to support. I can’t judge them. They dropped out of sight, and I haven’t heard from them since.

A few people urged me to shut down Gates of Vienna. But my Scots blood comes to the fore at such times, and my natural response is defiance. I said, “F**K THAT S**T!” [emphasis in the original] and soldiered on. It was a rough time, and I didn’t get much sleep for the first couple of months. But we weathered the storm.

On the whole, however, it was a major setback from which the Counterjihad never fully recovered. The resistance to Islamization has never returned to the level of July 21, 2011. Freedom of speech has been eroded even further, and sharia is now de facto in force in much of the West.

Dymphna and I always thought that Anders Behring Breivik’s machinations had been guided and assisted by a certain three-letter agency with the assistance of Norwegian intelligence. His “compendium” was obviously in large part not his own work, and his selection of “mentors” was exquisitely chosen to do maximum damage to those who opposed Islamization, at the exact time when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the thick of collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood in what eventually became known as the “Istanbul Process”. Resistance to Islam was a thorn in her side, and Anders Behring Breivik helped remove it.

I don’t think mass slaughter was part of the plan, however — the Norwegians would never have co-operated with such an operation. I think the intention was to let Mr. Breivik put together his scheme, and then roll it up at the last moment before it was executed. There would have been a prominent arrest, followed by maximum media publicity for his manifesto.

However, just before the plans matured, Wikileaks released a damaging series of documents showing some of the things [agency name redacted] had been up to in Europe, which forced them to shut down their presence in the American embassy in Oslo and withdraw Mr. Breivik’s handlers. The Butcher of Utøya was then let off his leash, and the rest is history.

Whether mass slaughter was intended or not, the plan was a great success. The Counterjihad was hobbled, the spread of sharia proceeded apace, and the Obama administration became a servant of the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Biden administration is, in effect, Obama’s third term.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Before I close these remarks, I’d like to address an appalling issue that has emerged surrounding the mass murder committed by Anders Behring Breivik. When it first came up it was very distressing, but I’ve had ten years to get used to it. Now it’s just something that I have to endure whenever the topic is broached on this site.

In those early days I was shocked by the number of people who supported Mr. Breivik and considered him a hero for what he did. And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and Aryan supremacists, but more mainstream people who oppose mass immigration and hate socialism. Every time I post something about the Butcher of Utøya they pop up again and express their admiration for him.

I’m not going to tolerate such comments, and will delete them when they appear. You might as well spare yourself the effort. If you want, you can visit Storm Front and similar sites and make your remarks there, where you’ll get a sympathetic reception and find a lot of people who agree with you.

I’m familiar with the arguments that people make to justify their opinion: Mr. Breivik was targeting future socialists, who would otherwise have grown up and entered politics and invited even more of the Third World into Norway. But that’s a specious line of reasoning, in my opinion. The mass slaughter only hardened public opinion against those who oppose mass immigration, and made it even more difficult to restrain such immigration. Killing all those kids inspired no sympathy for the Aryan cause; it had the opposite effect.

But that’s just the practical, utilitarian argument against it.

Mr. Breivik’s strategy was a recapitulation of one of the major trends of the 20th century: the mass extermination of entire classes of people. For him it was Young Socialists. For Hitler it was Jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and the feeble-minded. For Stalin it was counter-revolutionaries, “wreckers”, the bourgeoisie, kulaks, and Ukrainians. For Pol Pot it was the intellectuals. For the Hutus it was the Tutsis. For Muslims it was Jews, Christians, Hindus, and other infidels.

What all the architects of those atrocities have in common is that they considered it morally justifiable, and even laudable, to engage in the mass slaughter of people based on their membership in a particular class — a race, a social class, an occupation, a nationality, etc. Individuals meant nothing. Those who engineered the massacres were not required to determine whether their victims were guilty of any crimes, or even subscribed to a particular ideology. They were members of a class, and for that reason they deserved to die. Men, women, children, invalids, the elderly and enfeebled — all had to go.

That is a pernicious mindset, and I’ll have none of it. It was the bane of the 20th century, and we’ve no business extending it into the 21st.

I know the counter-arguments — we’re in a war, and war sometimes requires us to do horrible things, etc., etc. If we want to win, we have to grit our teeth and do what is necessary.

Well, if that’s what it takes to win, then I don’t want to win. I’ll go down to defeat rather than jump into that particular boxcar to hell.

Paul Weston on the Great Reset

In the following video Paul Weston discusses the Great Reset, the grand scheme for a New World Order as proposed by Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum. Digital currencies, universal surveillance, and universal digital IDs (a.k.a. “health passports” or “vaccine passports”) are integral components of the plan.

Paul Weston is a British-based writer who focuses on the damage done to Western Civilisation by the hard Left’s ongoing cultural revolution, which seeks to destroy the Christian, capitalist and racial base of the West. For links to his essays, see the Paul Weston Archives.

Hat tip: Steen.

The Worst Emperor in History

Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan presents a historical overview of the man who did so much to usher in the Great War.

The worst emperor in history

by H. Numan

Who’s that? Though one to answer, what? So many choices. Was it Nero? Caligula? Perhaps a Chinese emperor? Nope. None of those. The very worst emperor in history was German. It was the last German emperor, Wilhelm II. He inherited a stable empire, well on its way to becoming a dominant economic power of Europe. When he was forced to abdicate, his empire lay in tatters. Not only his own empire, mind you. His fall was accompanied and preceded by the empires of Russia, Austria and the Ottomans. His rule influenced current world affairs enormously. Because of his actions the British empire fell a few decades later. And we can thank him for the demise of Western civilization. Due to his actions Hitler was able to rise to power, and in the east Lenin was put in charge. The latter was on his direct orders. Without his personal support Lenin could never have gained power in Russia. Without a communist Russia the People’s Republic of China was not possible.

It all began so well. When Wilhelm ascended his throne, Germany was a well-respected country. The world was (mostly) at peace. Germany was managed very capably by Bismarck. It was allied with Austria and Russia in the Three Emperors’ League. The three countries had a lot in common: none of them was democratic. All of them were ruled by autocrats, and they all were extremely conservative. If one political league was a natural one, this was it. When Austria couldn’t control socialist uprisings in 1848, the Russian Empire sent troops to its aid. Not because they had to. Not because they could grab some Austrian territories. But because the czar felt he was morally obliged to help his colleague ward off evil.

France was recovering from the Franco-Prussian war, but in no position to do something about it. There was no Franco-British alliance. More the opposite: France and England fought for centuries against one another. England’s position on Germany was somewhat indifferent: it wasn’t a naval superpower, that was all that mattered to England. They saw Wilhelm as a sort of clown, who excelled in one thing only: gigantic gaffes. The German foreign affairs department had to work overtime to defuse them.

Broadly speaking, the world was at peace. Colonialism worked. Yes, there were some uprisings here and there, but no national liberation movements. Some colonies became self governing countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada) within the British empire.

That more or less peaceful world changed completely when Wilhelm II took control. His first act was to get rid of Bismarck. Who needs a competent if not the best chancellor Germany ever had? Certainly not Wilhelm II. Who needs a league of emperors? So he got rid of that too. Wilhelm II was related to every monarch in Europe. Let’s keep it all in the family!

Wilhelm II fancied yachting. Then and now, a sport for the very rich. That made him an admiral, or so he thought. He read the book by Alfred Mahan, and decided Germany should become a naval superpower. Being Willy 2, he didn’t fancy becoming a naval super power, but of course the naval superpower.

He was in luck. The British made the same mistake as the French before them. The French built La Gloire, the first ocean-going all-steel warship. “Jolly good,” said the British, “we can do that too!” The French capacity to produce steel and warships was not nearly as developed as the British, so they didn’t even bother to try to compete. They knew they were beaten.

Later, the British built the first modern real battleship, HMS Dreadnought. Just as revolutionary as La Gloire, if not a good deal more so. At a stroke, all capital ships of every navy were obsolete, including those of the Royal Navy. Hey, said the emperor. Here’s our (= my) chance. Let’s build a lot of dreadnoughts. We’re gonna be the world’s naval superpower! Yes, openly. It was Germany’s destiny, after all. You don’t make friends that way. There was only one tiny little problem. Like France, Germany lacked the capability to outproduce Britain. Unlike France, Willy 2 refused to accept that fact. He tried to out-build the Royal Navy. In vain and at great cost to his nation.

Continue reading

Eric Clapton Discusses the Vax and the Narrative

I’ve been a fan of Eric Clapton since Cream recorded the song “Badge”* in (roughly) 1969. I consider him one of the four all-time great electric guitarists (the other three being Jimi Hendrix, Jerry Garcia, and Bill Nelson).

I’ve never been very interested in biographies of or interviews with celebrities, so I had no real acquaintance with Mr. Clapton’s personality and character until I watched the interview below, which was conducted and published by Oracle Films. He seems like a really nice guy, and a man of integrity, especially considering his position in the lofty empyrean of rock music celebrity.

However, his amiable personality did him no good when he ran up against the Narrative concerning COVID-19 and the “vaccine”. His interest in alternative therapies for the disease and his public mention of the adverse effects of the experimental mRNA treatment (which he experienced personally) put him beyond the pale of polite discourse and invited his cancellation from the pantheon of Guitar Gods. He and Van Morrison became the Evil Twins of the music world, and are now reviled by the bien pensants who control the Narrative and decide who is allowed to prosper and who gets squashed.

I recommend watching the entire interview:

Hat tip: Arutz Sheva

*   Yes, I know George Harrison co-wrote the song with Clapton.

The Destruction of Louis Duxbury

Louis Duxbury was a university student in the UK at the time of the London Bridge terrorist attack in June of 2017. His girlfriend was in the area of the attack that day, and he was unable to make contact with her (it later turned out that she was OK). Frantic with worry, he recorded a video rant against Muslim extremists and uploaded it to Facebook. If he had not been so worried about his girlfriend, he might have been more prudent in his choice of words — everyone in Britain is well aware of what can happen to ordinary citizens who say unkind things about Muslims and the Religion of Peace.

Mr. Duxbury was subsequently tried and convicted for his thoughtcrime, and served time in prison. Now, via the labyrinthine machinations of Her Majesty’s justice system, he is facing re-sentencing tomorrow, and may spend yet more time in durance vile.

In the extensive interview below Louis Duxbury explains what happened to him, and what he is likely to be facing. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for conducting the interview and uploading the video:

Below is the introduction to a post about Mr. Duxbury’s case at Crime Bodge:

Persecution and Prosecution of Louis Duxbury

by Rob Warner
June 16, 2021

In November 2019 Louis Duxbury, a 22 year old university student from York, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for ‘inciting religious hatred’ under section 29E of the Public Order Act 1986. The prosecution was brought as a result of a 17 minute monologue that Duxbury uploaded to Facebook.

I can’t show you the video because the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts have effectively outlawed it as religious blasphemy. They don’t call it that of course. The preferred neologism is ‘inciting religious hatred’.

In my opinion the most offensive thing about the monologue is how boring it was. Not a single part of it could be described as a call to arms. It was an expletive riddled, unrehearsed and unsophisticated rant about muslim extremists. Duxbury knew what he was saying was likely to be regarded as offensive and bigoted, and that it could arouse the attention of the thought police, who spend more time patrolling social media than they do the streets. But being an offensive, bigot is not a crime. Nor is spouting hate. And I feel duty bound to defend his right to be an offensive, bigot. The state sees it otherwise. Regardless of whether you think Duxbury deserved to be punished for what he said — and that’s all this is about what he said, and not something he did — there is nothing that justifies the massively disproportionate penalty he has paid for his recklessness.

Continue reading

Microbiology is a Risky Business

A few days ago I posted MissPiggy’s timeline of events related to SARS, gain-of-function research, the Wuhan Coronavirus, and the “vaccines”.

Hellequin GB left a comment in which he suggested additional avenues of research:

Suspicious deaths

The sudden and suspicious deaths of eleven of the world’s leading microbiologists.

Who they were:

1.   Nov. 12, 2001   Benito Que was said to have been beaten in a Miami parking lot and died later.
2.   Nov. 16, 2001   Don C. Wiley went missing. Was found Dec. 20. Investigators said he got dizzy on a Memphis bridge and fell to his death in a river.
3.   Nov. 21, 2001   Vladimir Pasechnik, former high-level Russian microbiologist who defected in 1989 to the U.K. apparently died from a stroke.
4.   Dec. 10, 2001   Robert M. Schwartz was stabbed to death in Leesburg, Va. Three Satanists have been arrested.
5.   Dec. 14, 2001   Nguyen Van Set died in an airlock filled with nitrogen in his lab in Geelong, Australia.
6.   Feb. 9, 2002   Victor Korshunov had his head bashed in near his home in Moscow.
7.   Feb. 14, 2002   Ian Langford was found partially naked and wedged under a chair in Norwich, England.
8. & 9.   Feb. 28, 2002   San Francisco resident Tanya Holzmayer was killed by a microbiologist colleague, Guyang Huang, who shot her as she took delivery of a pizza and then apparently shot himself.
10.   Mar. 24, 2002   David Wynn-Williams died in a road accident near his home in Cambridge, England.
11.   Mar. 25, 2002   Steven Mostow of the Colorado Health Sciences Centre, killed in a plane he was flying near Denver.

Our longtime reader and commenter Acuara sent this note after reading Hellequin’s comment:

I read the timeline and the list of the deaths of the microbiologists that preceded the timeline. My somewhat suspicious sense caught a whiff of something. May I politely request that you contact Hellequin, Gentleman Bastard, and request a compendium of the articles, theses, and/or dissertations that were written by the people that Gentleman Bastard listed.

My sense of things is that these people who died would have provided a credible challenge to what Messrs. Fauci, Gates, et al were planning to proceed with. We know from their increasingly defensive posture that they are running scared while trying to regroup. I would think that the Klieg Light of Public Awareness would result in the lot of them swinging from the gallows as they deserve, not that I am looking for vengeance as that is the Lord’s property, but rather and end to this chicanery and a return to responsible and ethical governance.

I passed Acuara’s message on to Hellequin, who applied himself to the task requested. He sent the list below, with an introductory note:

I think to go through all of these papers and understand the nitty-gritty of this, we need someone who can actually “READ” them, and not just the words. Because I don’t know enough to correlate this and connect the dots here, if there actually are any dots to connect in the end.

A list of the eleven with links to scholarly writings:

Continue reading

Dr. Michael Yeadon: “Withdraw Your Consent”



Dr. Michael Yeadon is a virologist and former Pfizer executive who has gone public with his opposition to the central narratives of the Coronamadness. He says that the Wuhan Coronavirus is not the ultra-deadly virus that it is made out to be, and that there is no need for masks and lockdowns, and especially no need for an antibody-generating mRNA “vaccine” against it. He makes a point of warning against the dangers of the proposed “booster” COVID vaccines are already being touted as necessary.

Dr. Yeadon believes that we have been systematically lied to concerning COVID-19 by the media, major medical foundations, and our elected leaders. His hypothesis is that the goal of “vaccination” is long-term population reduction.

It goes without saying that the following talk by Dr. Yeadon is not available on YouTube. This copy was posted on Rumble by Planet Lockdown:

Full Video

Update: Here’s a Bitchute embed, hat tip Vlad:

If you have bandwidth issues, as I do, you probably have trouble getting Rumble or Bitchute videos to play for more than a few seconds at a time. Fortunately, Anne-Kit (who some years ago did Danish translations for Gates of Vienna) has gone to immense trouble to transcribe the entire talk. We owe a debt of gratitude to her for undertaking this enormous task.


Hi, my name is Dr. Mike Yeadon. I’m a qualified life science researcher, really. I have a First Degree in biochemistry and toxicology, and I have a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology, and I’ve worked for 32 years, mostly in big pharmaceutical companies and 10 years in the biotechnology sector. So, in my last job in Big Pharma, I was the Vice President and Chief Scientist of Allergy and Respiratory Research. I left Pfizer in 2011 and after that I founded, grew, and sold a biotech company called Ziarco, to Novartis. That was 2017 and so before that and afterwards an independent advisor to over 30 startup biotechnology companies. So, you would expect from that that I am pro-new medicines of all kinds — our goals always were to address unmet medical needs, and to do so with acceptable safety given the medical context. And I’m in favour of all new medical treatments, whether they are biologicals or vaccines, small molecule creams, sprays ointments, whatever.

But I’m fervently against unsafe medicines or medicines used in inappropriate contexts, and so some of the things I am going to say are not favourable to the current crop of gene-based vaccines, and it is for that reason: That they are being inappropriately used and I don’t think they have sufficient safety profiles to be used as a sort of wide spectrum public health prophylactic.

As a result of that background in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology … I am pro-new medical entities that treat and meet a need and do so safely, and that is true whether the entity is a vaccine or a biological … like an antibody, or if it’s what I would call a small molecule therapy like a pill or a tablet.

But I am anti-unsafe medicines regardless of what format they are. And so, my criticisms sometimes fall onto unsafe small molecule substances and sometimes on unsafe vaccines. But I’m generally pro-new medicines as long as they are safe and effective and used appropriately, and I’m anti the opposite of those things.

A few things, I think, have allowed me to spot what’s going on in the world at the moment. I do have, I would say, two big advantages: One: I’ve loved biology since I was little, and this year marks the 40th year I’ve been studying, continuing to learn and to apply biology broadly, whether it’s pharmacology, biochemistry, microbiology, or toxicology. And so, I’ve got a very broad grounding in all things to do with life science in terms of health and disease. One of my former supervisors said that I had a remarkable facility that stood out above ordinary things you’d have to do to be a vice president or a CEO. And he said that I was able to spot patterns in sparse data earlier than my peers did. So, when there was not enough data for most people to judge what was going on I would often be able to see it — I could see a pattern forming when there wasn’t quite enough information. And really, I guess I was running a lot of simulations in my head and trying to work out: What could these small bits of information mean? Rather than waiting for more data, it’s … “my word, I think I know what’s happening here!”. And that sometimes could be applied to, say, target selection industry or how we should prosecute a program or what the competition was doing.

But on this occasion, it allowed me quite quickly to work out that what we were being told about this virus and what we needed to do in order to stay safe was simply not true. For example, early on in the UK there were enormous changes made in attribution of causes of death. So, we’ve never had anything as absurd as the rule that is now used, so if you should die within 28 days of having a positive result [of Covid?] in an inappropriate test using microbiology, then you would be declared to have died of Covid-19. That’s just wrong! It’s not just a matter of disagreeing professionally, it’s just complete nonsense and we can certainly talk about the unreliability and untrustworthy nature of PCR testing. But also, things like “lockdown”, I mean just the phrase of it and the fact that it was completely unprecedented, and that basically we were to minimize contact with one another and that that was going to save us. I knew quite early on that that was rubbish, and the reason why is simple: that only people who are ill and have symptoms are really strong, infectious risks to other people, and those people who are not walking around in the community. Because if you are full of virus and symptomatic you are also ill, and ill people tend to stay at home or in bed, or if they are very serious, they end up in hospital or die. And so, the idea that if you cut normal contact at work and just civic society in your normal economy — that that would slow the epidemic spreading — I was fairly sure early on that that was bunk. Unfortunately, it took several months before that was clear, by which time the idea that lockdown is what you need to do had been pretty much cemented in most of the world.

So basically, everything your government has told you about this virus, about everything you need to do to stay safe is a lie. Every part of it, and I’ll be challenged on that. Literally there are none of the key themes that you hear talked about, from asymptomatic transmission to top-up vaccines: Not one of those things is supported by the science. Every piece is a cleverly chosen adjacency to something that probably IS true, but is itself a lie, and has led people to where I believe we are right now. And I don’t normally use phrases like these, but I think we are standing at the very gates of Hell.

Yeah, when I first heard the phrase “lockdown”, for example, I — I hope like most people — I thought “this is a phrase you’d use in relation to controlling people like unruly prisoners — it’s a control measure”. And pretty much all that has happened since is to do with control. This myth about asymptomatic transmission, this is simply not true. As I mentioned earlier, in order to transmit a virus, to be a good source of transmission of infection you have to have a lot of virus, and if you have a lot of virus in you the virus is attacking you and you are fighting back. That process produces symptoms inevitably. Not just occasionally, it must always happen. So, all the people who are very good sources of the infection are ill. So, the whole idea of asymptomatic transmission — I would think that if it occurs at all it’s like 1% or 0.1% as good as a strong infectious case.

So, by the time we got to the third main theme of this virus and how to control it I knew I was being lied to all the time by government, scientists — their advisers — by ministers, people on TV. And I’m afraid that impression has simply firmed up as time has gone on. And so, it’s all about control. Obviously, I have my own thoughts about what that control is going to be used for, and I certainly want to communicate that to your listeners and viewers.

Continue reading

From Dot to Dotty

Bearing in mind the universal propaganda push for “vaccination”, and the evident preparation for a new “pandemic”, MC endeavors to connect dots of the various elements of the COVID crisis in order to discover the underlying pattern of events.

From Dot to Dotty

by MC

We hear a lot these days about gun laws and gun control. Yes, guns in the hands of criminals and the insane are a hell of a problem, but taking guns from citizens of repute just leaves all the guns in the hands of those of disrepute. Those who have not a care for the laws of the land and the rights of the people around them to live in tranquility.

People with guns kill perhaps thousands a year, but it seems gain-of-function virus research kills millions. Democrats raise Cain over gun control, but ignore the considerably more lethal gain-of-function research. Is this yet more Progressive hypocrisy? Or is everything linked to emasculating We the People?

The whole SARS2 picture presents us with lots of dots which need to be linked together to form a picture. I start right back at the time that GoV was accused in being complicit in the Breivik bombings and shootings where the evidence actually pointed to what the Baron called the X-factor, a mysterious entity pulling the strings of credibility. The Rule of Law was abandoned in favour of a traditional ‘witch hunt’ in which Fjordman was an innocent victim and had to flee Norway.

It has been apparent for many years that some shady entity is wielding a huge global influence across the entire political spectrum, maybe as if a band of ultra-rich Satan worshippers had combined forces to squeeze Yahovah out of the world and replace him with Allah/Ba’al as master.

Gates and Soros are the public faces that seem to buy the influence and shut down the liberty, but who is behind them?

Soros historically had contact with SS officials when the Jews of Hungary were shipped to Poland and the Holocaust. Gates just ‘happened’ to land the contract to build the DOS operating system for the IBM PC, when a perfectly good (dare I say better) op system was already in operation on the z80/8080/6502 chips of the time. These are dots number 1 and 2.

IBM itself was one of many corporations (Ford, GM etc.) that assisted the Nazis, supplying punch card business processes to catalogue Jews for round-up, ghettoization, transport and extermination — the famous tattooed numbers were those allocated at the time of identification from local records and entry into the IBM process. These techno-corporates may well be another dot that we need to consider.

Then there is I.G. Farben, broken up after the war, but still closely involved in ‘Big Pharma’:

The Allies seized the company at the end of the war in 1945 and the US authorities put its directors on trial. Held from 1947 to 1948 as one of the subsequent Nuremberg trials, the IG Farben trial saw 23 IG Farben directors tried for war crimes and 13 convicted. By 1951 all had been released by the American high commissioner for Germany, John J. McCloy. What remained of IG Farben in the West was split in 1951 into its six constituent companies, then again into three: BASF, Bayer and Hoechst. These companies continued to operate as an informal cartel and played a major role in the West German Wirtschaftswunder. Following several later mergers the main successor companies are Agfa, BASF, Bayer and Sanofi. In 2004 the University of Frankfurt, housed in the former IG Farben head office, set up a permanent exhibition on campus, the Norbert Wollheim memorial, for the slave labourers and those killed by Zyklon B.

It was in collusion with Farben that John Rockefeller and Carnegie bought into the medical educational establishment and forced the Pasteur/Koch ‘Germ Theory’ exclusively into the curriculum, excluding the maybe more appropriate ‘Terrain Theory’. Terrain Theory has been censored for decades, and is seen as ‘quack medicine’ because its adoption into the mainstream would seriously impact the Big Pharma bottom line. This is another dot.

Continue reading

Get Ready for COVID-21

Bill Gates and his cronies announced what became the COVID-19 “pandemic” long before it first sneezed its way out of the lab in Wuhan. We are now getting clear signals that another deadly epidemic is in the works. My guess is that it will begin this fall, when the seasonal flu and COVID begin to tick up as the cold weather arrives.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from the German-language

In the spirit of Bill Gates: WHO is already announcing the next pandemic

Attempts are still being made to artificially maintain the so-called Corona pandemic: After all, the vaccination campaigns are in full swing and ensure that pharmaceutical entrepreneurs earn a golden nose. But it is becoming more and more difficult to frighten the world’s population. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is therefore already warning of the next terrible danger on behalf of the WHO.

Because: The next pandemic is almost just around the corner. The next virus will come — and it will be easier to transmit and more deadly than SARS-CoV-2:

It is an evolutionary certainty that there will be another virus with the potential to be even more transmissible and deadly than this one.

History repeats itself Well, it is a fact that viruses mutate and there will always be new strains and variants. However, it is also a sad fact that the WHO is using every opportunity to redistribute billions in taxpayers’ money on the basis of a mass panic. For example, consider the following excerpt from a 2010 article from the British Medical Journal:

“The world should of course be grateful that the 2009 influenza A / H1N1 pandemic proved to be a huge blow. With so much fewer deaths than predicted, it seems almost ungrateful to rant about the cost. But we have to grumble because the costs were enormous. Some countries — Poland in particular — refused to join the panic buying of vaccines and antivirals that was sparked when the World Health Organization declared the pandemic a year ago this week. Countries like France and the UK that have stocks of medicines and vaccines are currently busy terminating vaccination contracts, selling unused vaccines to other countries, and sitting on huge piles of unused oseltamivirs. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies have made huge profits — $7 billion (£4.8 billion; €5.7 billion) to $10 billion from vaccines alone, according to the investment bank JP Morgan.”

Source: BMJ 2010; 340: c2947, doi: 10.1136 / bmj.c2

That sounds strangely familiar, doesn’t it? The only difference is that profits of 10 billion US dollars seem downright ridiculous when you look at the profits of the pharmaceutical giants behind the Covid vaccines: As early as April, there was talk of 152 billion. And that only a few months after the start of the vaccination campaigns, which, if the pharmaceutical companies have their way, should at best be continued until Sankt Nimmerleins Tag [Saint Never Never Day]. But the resistance in the population is great — and it is growing steadily. Governments are once again sitting on their vaccines. In many countries the destruction of vaccine doses has already taken place. What is also not mentioned in the article is that — as is the case today — the vaccines in question were associated with critical side effects that caused lasting damage to people.

Continue reading

Vax Not Recommended for Pregnant Women

Based on data from the UK, women would be well-advised to avoid the mRNA “vaccine” when they are pregnant, or will become pregnant soon.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from PolitikStube:

UK: Number of women who have had miscarriages after vaccination increases 2,000 percent

From the outset, the UK government has expressed its doubts about the impact of coronavirus vaccines on pregnant women: “Pregnancy: There is no or limited data on the use of the vaccine Covid-19 BNT162b2 mRNA. Reproductive toxicity studies in animals have not been performed. The Covid-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine is not recommended during pregnancy. In women of childbearing potential, pregnancy should be excluded prior to vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing potential should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least two months after the second dose.”

The note also includes comments on breastfeeding and fertility: “It is not known whether Covid-19 BNT162b2 mRNA is excreted in breast milk. A risk to newborns / infants cannot be ruled out. The Covid-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine should not be used during lactation “.

As for fertility, the UK government admitted: “It is not known whether the vaccine Covid-19 BNT162b2 mRNA has any effect on fertility.”

Despite the warnings, the panic reached such proportions that many pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers were vaccinated.

Boris Johnson’s government has issued weekly reports on the harmful effects of vaccines. The first report ran from December 9, 2020 to January 24 of this year. The last one runs from December 9, 2020 to May 5 of this year. There are 14 weeks in between.

In the case of the Pfizer vaccine, the official records show 66 miscarriages, one case of premature infant death, three cases of fetal death and two cases of stillbirth. The increase is 1,700 percent since January 24th.

In the case of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the harm is similar. From January 24th to May 5th, 50 pregnant women miscarried and in two other cases the babies were stillborn. That is an increase of 2,500 percent.