Former director of the FBI Los Angeles branch and second in line for the
Director of the FBI Ted Gunderson tells all on video. From the
Government's advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor to 9/11. Guy got so fed
up he went public. He later died from Arsenic poisoning. Claims the
Satanic illuminati have control of this country now.
How about the fact that New York released one of America's worst mass-shooters from prison in 2018 - a man who literally gunned down 10 women and children?
>Christina Rivera was just a baby when a cocaine-crazed addict walked into her two-family home in East New York, Brooklyn, packing two silencer-equipped .22-caliber handguns, and systematically shot everyone there but her.
>There were 10 dead in all — her mother, her two older brothers, six other children ages 4 to 14 and another young mother who was six months pregnant.
>Each one was shot in the head.
>It was April 15, 1984, a rainy Palm Sunday.
>Rivera, the massacre’s only survivor, was left blood-splattered and screaming in her dead mother’s lap.
>She was just 11 months old.
>“The baby had been sitting in her mother’s lap” as the mother was shot, retired Brooklyn Detective Joseph Hall remembered Saturday of the crime scene.
>Her mother, Carmen Perez, 20, had been feeding baby Christina from a can of chocolate pudding, when the addict, Christopher Thomas, a frequent visitor to the home, stormed inside.
>Thomas, now 68, was quietly let loose from an upstate prison nearly three months ago.
This demonic piece of shit was released into the wild again. And the media gave it very little coverage.
Ginsburg has been dead for TWO YEARS. See my blog posts on the witch. #thetruthaboutruth
want Hillary laws. You know, pedophilia is okay stuff, sanctuary open
door stuff, you name it. Satanists want laws that fulfill the DO WHAT
THOU WILT credo. Trump, not so much.
A Trump appointee would block that, like they tried to do with that freakish bitch who put on a little girl act to block Kavanaugh by lying about some event 30 years ago no one at the alleged party ever remembers seeing or hearing about.
They can no longer keep up the charade and finding a double for that hideous hag has proved out to be harder than finding the Hillary double. So...they are saying cancer, though she's been dead for near over a year now. That way they can keep her out of the public eye and in hospic, until after the 2020 elections, all the while tossing out the occasional puff piece about how the supreme is doing.
The hag is dead. Dead.
And Trump should out this, not sit on this lie. If I know it, he sure as heck knows it.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero
The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) is a shadowy group of government, military and media elites who have concocted a plan to spread mayhem and disinformation following the November 3 presidential elections.
The strategy takes advantage of the presumed delay in determining the winner of the upcoming election, (due to the deluge of mail-in votes.) The interim period is expected to intensify partisan warfare creating the perfect environment for disseminating propaganda and inciting street violence. The leaders of TIP believe that a mass mobilization will help them to achieve what Russiagate could not, that is, the removal Donald Trump via an illicit coup conjured up by behind-the-scenes powerbrokers and their Democrat allies. Here’s a little more background from an article by Chris Farrell at the Gatestone Institute:
“In one of the greatest public disinformation campaigns in American history — the Left and their NeverTrumper allies (under the nom de guerre: “Transition Integrity Project”) released a 22-page report in August 2020 “war gaming” four election crisis scenarios:….The outcome of each TIP scenario results in street violence and political impasse.
…Is it possible that the leadership of the American Left, along with their NeverTrumper allies, are busy talking themselves into advocating and promoting street violence as a response to a presidential election?
The answer is: Yes…. expect violence in the aftermath of the election, because now that is the new ‘normal.”
- (“How to Steal an Election”, Gatestone Institute)
Farrell is right. As we can see from the many articles that have recently popped up in the media, the American people are being prepared for a contested election that will fuel public anxiety and revolt. This all fits with the overall strategy of the TIP. Selected journalists will be used to provide bits of information that serve the interests of the group while the people will be told to expect a long and drawn-out constitutional crisis. Meanwhile, the media, the Democrat leadership, trusted elites and elements in the Intelligence Community will put pressure on Trump to step down while firing up their political base to take to the streets. TIP’s 22-page manifesto makes it clear that mass mobilization will be key to any electoral victory. Here’s an excerpt from the text:
“A show of numbers in the streets-and actions in the streets-may be decisive factors in determining what the public perceives as a just and legitimate outcome.”
- (“Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition” The Transition Integrity Project)
In other words, the authors fully support demonstrations and political upheaval to achieve their goal of removing Trump. Clearly, this scorched earth approach did not originate with Joe Biden, but with the cynical and bloodthirsty puppetmasters who operate behind the curtain and who will do anything to advance their agenda.
This is a full-blown color revolution authored and supported by the same oligarchs and deep-state honchoes that have opposed Trump from the very beginning. They’re not going to back down or call off the dogs until the job is done and Trump is gone. And when the dust settles, Trump will likely be charged, tried, sentenced and imprisoned. His fortune will be seized, his family will be financially ruined, and his closest advisors and allies will be prosecuted on fabricated charges. There’s not going to be a “graceful transition” of power if Trump loses. He will face the full wrath of the scheming mandarins he has frustrated for the last 4 years. These are the men who applauded when Saddam and Ghaddafi were savagely butchered. Will Trump face the same fate as them?
Trump has less than two months to rally his supporters, draw attention to the conspiracy that has is presently underway, and figure out a way to defend himself against the coup plotters. If he is unable to derail the impending junta, his goose is cooked.
It’s worth noting, that the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) has no legal authority to meddle in the upcoming election. They were not appointed by any congressional committee nor did any government entity approve their intrusive activities. This is entirely a “lone wolf” operation designed to exploit loopholes in campaign laws in order to undermine public confidence in our elections and to express their unbridled hostility towards Donald Trump. That said, there analysis will probably influence those who share their views. In the first page of their “Executive Summary” they say:
“We assess with a high degree of likelihood that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape. We also assess that the President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power.”
This short statement provides the basic justification for the group’s existence. It presents the participants as impartial observers performing their civic duty by objectively analyzing exercises (war games?) that indicate that Trump will challenge the election results in a desperate attempt to hold on to power. Not surprisingly, the group provides no evidence that the president would react the way they think he would. In fact, their hypothesis seems extremely far-fetched given the fact that Trump has no militia, no private army, and very few allies among the political class, the Intelligence Community, the FBI, the military or the deep state. Who exactly does the group think would help Trump hold on to power: Bill Barr, Larry Kudlow, Melania??
There is nothing “impartial” about this analysis. It is partisan gibberish aimed at discrediting Trump while creating a pretext for launching a coup against him. Here is another sample of TIP’s “objective analysis” from page 1 of the manuscript:
“The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) was launched in late 2019 out of concern that the Trump Administration may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transition process. TIP takes no position on how Americans should cast their votes, or on the likely winner of the upcoming election; either major party candidate could prevail at the polls in November without resorting to “dirty tricks.” However, the administration of President Donald Trump has steadily undermined core norms of democracy and the rule of law and embraced numerous corrupt and authoritarian practices. This presents a profound challenge for those –from either party –who are committed to ensuring free and fair elections, peaceful transitions of power, and stable administrative continuity in the United States.”
Got that? In other words (to paraphrase) “Trump is a corrupt dictator who hates democracy and the rule of law, but that is just our unbiased opinion. Please, don’t let that influence your vote. We just want to make sure the election goes smoothly.”
As we noted, the hatred for Trump permeates the entire 22-page document and that, in turn, undermines the credibility of the author to portray his project as an impartial examination of potential problems in the upcoming election. There is nothing evenhanded in the approach to these issues or in the remedies that are recommended. This is a partisan project concocted by malicious elites who despise Trump and who plan to remove him from office by hook or crook.
So, do we know who the leaders of this (TIP) group are?
Well, we know who their two main spokesmen are: Rosa Brooks– Georgetown law professor and co-founder of the Transition Integrity Project, and Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary, and chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to an article by Whitney Webb:
“(Rosa) Brooks… was an advisor to the Pentagon and the Hillary Clinton-led State Department during the Obama administration. She was also previously the general counsel to the President of the Open Society Institute, part of the Open Society Foundations (OSF), a controversial organization funded by billionaire George Soros. Zoe Hudson, who is TIP’s director, is also a former top figure at OSF, serving as senior policy analyst and liaison between the foundations and the U.S. government for 11 years.
OSF ties to the TIP are a red flag for a number of reasons, namely due to the fact that OSF and other Soros-funded organizations played a critical role in fomenting so-called “color revolutions” to overthrow non-aligned governments, particularly during the Obama administration. Examples of OSF’s ties to these manufactured “revolutions” include Ukraine in 2014 and the “Arab Spring”…..
In addition to her ties to the Obama administration and OSF, Brooks is currently a scholar at West Point’s Modern War Institute, where she focuses on “the relationship between the military and domestic policing” and also Georgetown’s Innovative Policing Program. She is a currently a key player in the documented OSF-led push to “capitalize” off of legitimate calls for police reform to justify the creation of a federalized police force under the guise of defunding and/or eliminating local police departments.Brooks’ interest in the “blurring line” between military and police is notable given her past advocacy of a military coup to remove Trump from office and the TIP’s subsequent conclusion that the military “may” have to step in if Trump manages to win the 2020 election, per the group’s “war games” described above.
Brooks is also a senior fellow at the think tank New America. New America’s mission statement notes that the organization is focused on “honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create.” It is largely funded by Silicon Valley billionaires, including Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric Schmidt (Google), Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn), Jeffrey Skoll and Pierre Omidyar (eBay). In addition, it has received millions directly from the U.S. State Department to research “ranking digital rights.” Notably, of these funders, Reid Hoffman was caught “meddling” in the most recent Democratic primary to undercut Bernie Sanders’ candidacy during the Iowa caucus and while others, such as Eric Schmidt and Pierre Omidyar, are known for their cozy ties to the Clinton family and even ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.”
- (““Bipartisan” Washington Insiders Reveal Their Plan for Chaos if Trump Wins the Election“, Unlimited Hangout)
Is it safe to say that Rosa Brooks is a Soros stooge overseeing a color revolution in the United States aimed at toppling Trump and replacing him with a dementia-addled, meat-puppet named Joe Biden?
Political analyst Paul Craig Roberts seems to think so. Here’s what he said in a recent post at his website:
“I have provided evidence that the military/security complex, using the media and the Democrats, intends to turn the November election into a color revolution… The evidence of a color revolution in the works is abundantly supplied by CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, NPR, Washington Post and numerous Internet sites funded by the CIA and the foundations and corporations through which it operates.. … All of these media organizations are establishing the story in the mind of Americans that Trump will not leave office when he loses or steals the election and must be driven out.
…With Antifa and Black Lives Matter now experienced in violent protests, they will be unleashed anew on American cities when there is news of a Trump election victory. The media will explain the violence as necessary to free us from a tyrant and egg on the violence, as will the Democrat Party. The CIA will be certain that the violence is well funded….
… What is a reelected President Trump going to do when the Secret Service refuses to repel Antifa and Black Lives Matter when they breach White House Security? …
American Democracy is on the verge of being ended for all times, and the world media will herald the event as the successful overthrowing of a tyrant.” (“America’s Color Revolution”, Paul Craig Roberts)
Another of the leading spokesmen for TIP is Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson who made this revealing statement in a recent interview:
“Let me just say some of the things that we’re putting out there. Among those things, one that is very important is the media, particularly the mainstream media. They cannot act as they usually act with regard to elections. They have to play a coup on election night. They can’t be declaring some state like Pennsylvania for one candidate or the other. When Pennsylvania probably has thousands upon thousands of votes yet to come in and count. So, the media has to get its act in order and it has to act very differently than it normally does.”
(NOTE: In other words, Wilkerson does not want the media to follow the normal protocols for covering an election, but to adjust their reporting to accommodate the aims of the coup-plotters. Does that sound like someone who is committed to evenhanded coverage of events, or someone who wants reporters to shape the news to meet the specifications of his own particular agenda? Here’s more from Wilkerson:)
“Second, ….we also have learned that poll workers have to be younger. And we’ve started a movement all across the country to train young people. And we’ve had really good luck with the volunteers to do so, to be poll workers. Because we found out in Wisconsin, for example, poll workers are mostly over 60. And many of them didn’t show up because they were afraid of COVID-19. And so Wisconsin went from about one 188 polling places, to about 15. That’s disastrous.” (“This ‘War Game’ Maps out what happens if the President contests the Election”, WBUR)
Why is Wilkerson so encouraged by the young people he’s trained to act as poll workers? Doesn’t that sound a bit fishy, especially from a dyed-in-the-wool partisan who’s mixed up with a group whose sole aim is to beat Trump? And why are the authors of the TIP manifesto so eager to reveal their true intentions. Take a look:
“There will likely not be an “election night” this year; unprecedented numbers of voters are expected to use mail-in ballots, which will almost certainly delay the certified result for days or weeks. A delay provides a window for campaigns, the media, and others to cast doubt on the integrity of the process and for escalating tensions between competing camps. As a legal matter, a candidate unwilling to concede can contest the election into January.…..”
So, that’s the GamePlan, eh? The coup plotters want a contested election that drags on for weeks, deepens divisions among the population, undermines confidence in the electoral system, instigates ferocious street fighting in cities across the country, and gives the Biden camp time to mobilize its political resources in Congress to mount a Constitutional attack on Trump.
Can we at least call this treachery by its proper name: Treason - “the crime of betraying one’s country by trying to overthrow the government?”
If the shoe fits...
In response to criticism that CNN is continuously praising mass gatherings when they are BLM organised, but condemning Trump campaign rallies for breaking COVID restrictions, the network seriously attempted to argue that the Trump rallies are scientifically more likely to spread the virus than BLM gatherings.
On Wednesday, Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh called out CNN’s hypocrisy on this matter, noting that “if people can protest in the streets by the tens of thousands, if people can riot, if people can gamble in casinos, then certainly they can gather peaceably under the First Amendment to hear from the president of the United States.”
Butthurt from this exchange, CNN Newsroom drafted in “medical analyst” Leana Wen, who happens to be a former Planned Parenthood president, to explain why science means COVID doesn’t affect BLM protests as much as Trump rallies.
“It does not care why it is that people are gathering but it does care about the conditions under which they’re gathering,” Wen argued, adding “outdoors much safer than indoors and wearing masks obviously much safer than not wearing masks.”
“I would also in this case would distinguish between the behavior of the participants while at protests versus rallies,” she continued, arguing that BLM protesters are more “aware” of the risks than Trump supporters.
“At protests many people are aware of the risks and doing everything they can to reduce that risk versus at many of the rallies we are seeing people going in defiance,” Wen claimed.
“It’s their behavior during those events. I also worry about what they do after the events. They may not be self-quarantining and testing as then getting tested as they should be,” Wen baselessly conjectured.
She even cited a study carried out in June that found “[T]here have not been surges of infections that have been tied” to protests.
Of course, there is no evidence that Trump rallies are tied to any surges of infections either, but that doesn’t seem to matter because the orange man is bad.
Host Jim Sciutto thanked Wen for “breaking through the fog of confusion and disinformation to lead us back to the facts.”
Diligent viewers were left wondering exactly what facts they’d been ‘led back to’ and questioning why the ‘fog of confusion bullshit’ appeared thicker than ever at the end of this segment.
WE CAN'T LET THIS OPPORTUNITY GO TO WASTE.
Over the past two weeks, dozens of wildfires have raged across western
states coinciding with wall to wall news coverage on climate change,
curiously similar to the Brazil farm-clearing fires news coverage at the
exact same time last year. Video evidence has begun to leak out
exposing Antifa militants stalking into tree-lined neighborhoods and
public forests setting massive fires, sometimes getting caught
red-handed. Below are some of this week's confirmed cases:
Late Monday night, an Oregon woman caught a Muslim trespasser on her yard with a box of matches but curiously no cigarettes. After a tense altercation at gunpoint, it was made clear that she stopped the extremist moments before he could set a deadly fire that would have engulfed the neighborhood and potentially spread to other areas. This is just the latest arsonist caught in the act setting fires on the west coast. There has been no media coverage thus far.
WATCH: https://youtu.be/Qy5VpLYSJZY [Embed]
Bitchute mirror: https://www.bitchute.com/video/9E0XiDPlfA8r/
20/09/not-climate-change-oregon-wom an-catches-arsonist-property-matche s-holds-gunpoint-police-arrive-vide o/
In the middle of the night last night, an Antifa militant stalked into the quiet residential streets of Kelso, Washington and set at least one nearby park forest completely up in smoke. The crime was captured on video thanks to a home security system. When the perp realized he was being filmed, he immediately darted away. The Antifa arsonist is at this time still on the loose thanks to Washington state lax policing and bail laws. Washingtonians sleep afraid tonight.
WATCH: https://youtu.be/pgNB0WZh6ZI [Embed]
Bitchute mirror: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Xjms
20/09/not-climate-change-arsonist-c aught-video-starting-brush-fire-kel so-washington/
THE EISEN COLOR PLAYBOOK IN ACTION!
"Norm Eisen is a key architect of nearly every effort to censor, sue, impeach and overthrow the President. He is the author of in fact a color revolution playbook, literally called "the playbook", and one of the items he calls for in his playbook to overthrow regimes overseas he doesn't like, is engineering election fraud scenarios, using election fraud to engineer mass protest to question the legitimacy of the target leader."
It is treason. Obama was the worst thing that ever happened to America.
this lays out the playbook schematics
In our report on Never Trump State Department official George Kent, Revolver News first drew attention to the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United States government employs in so-called “Color Revolutions” and the coordinated efforts of government bureaucrats, NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump.
Our recent follow-up to this initial report focused specifically on a shadowy, George Soros linked group called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), which convened “war games” exercises suggesting the likelihood of a “contested election scenario,” and of ensuing chaos should President Trump refuse to leave office. We further showed how these “contested election” scenarios we are hearing so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework sketched out Revolver News’ first installment in the Color Revolution series.
This third installment of Revolver News‘ series exposing the Color Revolution against Trump will focus on one quiet and indeed mostly overlooked participant in the Transition Integrity Project’s biased election “war games” exercise—a man by the name of Norm Eisen.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against President Trump.
Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the United States – is a tale that winds through nearly every facet of the color revolution playbook. There is no purer embodiment of Revolver’s thesis that the very same regime change professionals who run Color Revolutions on behalf of the US Government in order to undermine or overthrow alleged “authoritarian” governments overseas, are running the very same playbook to overturn Trump’s 2016 victory and to pre-empt a repeat in 2020. To put it simply, what you see is not just the same Color Revolution playbook run against Trump, but the same people using it against Trump who have employed it in a professional capacity against targets overseas—same people same playbook.
In Norm Eisen’s case, the “same people same playbook” refrain takes an arrestingly literal turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change manual, and conveniently titled it “The Playbook.”
Just what exactly is President Obama’s former White House Ethics Czar (yes, Norm Eisen was Obama’s ethics Czar), his longtime friend since Harvard Law School, who recently partook in war games to simulate overturning a Trump electoral victory, doing writing a detailed playbook on how to use a Color Revolution to overthrow governments? The story of Norm Eisen only gets more fascinating, outrageous, and indispensable to understanding the planned chaos unfolding before our eyes, leading up to what will perhaps be the most chaotic election in our nation’s recent history.
“I’d Rather Have This Book Than The Atomic Bomb”
Before we can fully appreciate the significance of Norm Eisen’s Color Revolution manual “The Playbook,” we must contextualize this important book in relation to its place in Color Revolution literature.
As a bit of a refresher to the reader, it is important to emphasize that when we use the term “Color Revolution” we do not mean any general type of revolution—indeed, one of the chief advantages of the Color Revolution framework we advance is that it offers a specific and concrete heuristic by which to understand the operations against Trump beyond the accurate but more vague term “coup.” Unlike the overt, blunt, method of full scale military invasion as was the case in Iraq War, a Color Revolution employs the following strategies and tactics:
A “Color Revolution” in this context refers to a specific type of coordinated attack that the United States government has been known to deploy against foreign regimes, particularly in Eastern Europe deemed to be “authoritarian” and hostile to American interests. Rather than using a direct military intervention to effect regime change as in Iraq, Color Revolutions attack a foreign regime by contesting its electoral legitimacy, organizing mass protests and acts of civil disobedience, and leveraging media contacts to ensure favorable coverage to their agenda in the Western press. [Revolver]
This combination of tactics used in so-called Color Revolutions did not come from nowhere. Before Norm Eisen came Gene Sharp—originator and Godfather of the Color Revolution model that has been a staple of US Government operations externally (and now internally) for decades. Before Norm Eisen’s “Playbook” there was Gene Sharp’s classic “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” which might be justly described as the Bible of the Color Revolution. Such is the power of the strategies laid out by Sharp that a Lithuanian defense minister once said of Sharp’s preceding book (upon which Dictatorship to Democracy builds) that “I would rather have this book than the nuclear bomb.”
It would be impossible to do full justice to Gene Sharp within the scope of this specific article. Here are some choice excerpts about Sharp and his biography to give readers a taste of his significance and relevance to this discussion.
Gene Sharp, the “Machiavelli of nonviolence,” has been fairly described as “the most influential American political figure you’ve never heard of.”1 Sharp, who passed away in January 2018, was a beloved yet “mysterious” intellectual giant of nonviolent protest movements, the “father of the whole field of the study of strategic nonviolent action.”2 Over his career, he wrote more than twenty books about nonviolent action and social movements. His how-to pamphlet on nonviolent revolution, From Dictatorship to Democracy, has been translated into over thirty languages and is cited by protest movements around the world. In the U.S., his ideas are widely promoted through activist training programs and by scholars of nonviolence, and have been used by nearly every major protest movement in the last forty years.3 For these contributions, Sharp has been praised by progressive heavyweights like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times, compared to Gandhi, and cast as a lonely prophet of peace, champion of the downtrodden, and friend of the left.4
Gene Sharp’s influence on the U.S. activist left and social movements abroad has been significant. But he is better understood as one of the most important U.S. defense intellectuals of the Cold War, an early neoliberal theorist concerned with the supposedly inherent violence of the “centralized State,” and a quiet but vital counselor to anti-communist forces in the socialist world from the 1980s onward.
In the mid-1960s, Thomas Schelling, a Nobel Prize-winning nuclear theorist, recruited 29-year-old Sharp to join the Center for International Affairs at Harvard, bastion of the high Cold War defense, intelligence, and security establishment. Leading the so-called “CIA at Harvard” were Henry Kissinger, future National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and future CIA chief Robert Bowie. Sharp held this appointment for thirty years. There, with Department of Defense funds, he developed his core theory of nonviolent action: a method of warfare capable of collapsing states through theatrical social movements designed to dissolve the common will that buttresses governments, all without firing any shots. From his post at the CIA at Harvard, Sharp would urge U.S. and NATO defense leadership to use his methods against the Soviet Union. [Nonsite]
We invite the reader to reflect on the passages in bold, particularly their potential relevance to the current domestic situation in the United States. Sharp’s book and strategy for “non violent revolution” AKA “peaceful protests” has been used to undermine or overthrow target governments all over the world, particularly in Eastern Europe.
Gene’s color revolution playbook was of course especially effective in Eastern Bloc countries in Eastern Europe:
Finally, there is no shortage of analysis as to the applicability of Sharp’s methods domestically within the USA in order to advance various left wing causes. This passage specifically mentions the applicability of Sharp’s methods to counter act Trump.
Ominous stuff indeed. For readers who wish to read further, please consult the full Politico piece from which we have excerpted the above highlighted passages. There is also a fascinating documentary on Sharp instructively titled “How to Start a Revolution.”
This is all interesting and disturbing, to say the least. In its own right it would suggest a compelling nexus point between the operations run against Trump and the Color Revolution playbook. But what does this have to do with our subject Norm Eisen? It just so happens that Eisen explicitly places himself in the tradition of Gene Sharp, acknowledging his book “The Playbook” as a kind of update to Sharp’s seminal “Dictatorship to Democracy.”
And there we have it, folks—Norm Eisen, former Obama Ethics Czar, Ambassador to Czechoslovakia during the “Velvet Revolution,” key counsel in impeachment effort against Trump, and participant in the ostensibly bi-partisan election war games predicting a contested election scenario unfavorable to Trump—just happens to be a Color Revolution expert who literally wrote the modern “Playbook” in the explicitly acknowledged tradition of Color Revolution Godfather Gene Sharp’s “From Dictatorship to Democracy.”
Before we turn to the contents of Norm Eisen’s Color Revolution manual, full title “The Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic Backsliding,” it will be useful to make a brief point regarding the term “democracy” itself, which happens to appear in the title of Gene Sharp’s book “From Dictatorship to Democracy” as well.
Just like the term “peaceful protestor,” which, as we pointed out in our George Kent essay is used as a term of craft in the Color Revolution context, so is the term “democracy” itself. The US Government launches Color Revolutions against foreign targets irrespective of whether they actually enjoy the support of the people or were elected democratically. In the case of Trump, whatever one says about him, he is perhaps the most “democratically” elected President in America’s history. Indeed, in 2016 Trump ran against the coordinated opposition of the establishments of both parties, the military industrial complex, the corporate media, Hollywood, and really every single powerful institution in the country. He won, however, because he was able to garner sufficient support of the people—his true and decisive power base as a “populist.” Precisely because of the ultra democratic “populist” character of Trump’s victory, the operatives attempting to undermine him have focused specifically on attacking the democratic legitimacy of his victory.
In this vein we ought to note that the term “democratic backsliding,” as seen in the subtitle of Norm Eisen’s book, and its opposite “democratic breakthrough” are also terms of art in the Color Revolution lexicon. We leave the full exploration of how the term “democratic” is used deceptively in the Color Revolution context (and in names of decidedly anti-democratic/populist institutions) as an exercise to the interested reader. Michael McFaul, another Color Revolution expert and key anti-Trump operative somewhat gives the game away in the following tweet in which the term “democratic breakthrough” makes an appearance as a better sounding alternative to “Color Revolution:”
Most likely as a response to Revolver News’ first Color Revolution article on State Department official George Kent, former Ambassador McFaul issued the following tweet as a matter of damage control:
Autocrats have demonized the phrase, "color revolutions." (& revolution generally has a negative connotation for many.) Instead, I use the term "democratic breakthroughs."
— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 23, 2020
What on earth then might Color Revolution expert and Obama’s former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who has been a key player agitating for President Trump’s impeachment, mean by “democratic breakthrough?”
Being a rather simple man from a simple background, McFaul perhaps gave too much of this answer away in the following explanation (now deleted).
With this now-deleted tweet we get a clearer picture of the power bases that must be satisfied for a “democratic breakthrough” to occur—and conveniently enough, not one of them is subject to direct democratic control. McFaul, Like Eisen, George Kent, and so many others, perfectly embodies Revolver’s thesis regarding the Color Revolution being the same people running the same playbook. Indeed, like most of the star never-Trump impeachment witnesses, McFaul is or has been an ambassador to an Eastern European country. He has supported operations against Trump, including impeachment. And, like Norm Eisen, he has actually written a book on Color Revolutions (more on that later).
Norm Eisen’s The Democracy Playbook: A Brief Overview:
A deep dive into Eisen’s book would exceed the scope of this relatively brief exposé. It is nonetheless important for us to draw attention to key passages of Eisen’s book to underscore how closely the “Playbook” corresponds to events unfolding right here at home. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that regime change professionals such as Eisen simply decided to run the same playbook against Trump that they have done countless times when foreign leaders are elected overseas that they don’t like and want to remove via extra-democratic means—“peaceful protests,” “democratic breakthroughs” and such.
First, consider the following passage from Eisen’s Playbook:
If you study this passage closely, you will find direct confirmation of our earlier point that “democracy” in the Color Revolution context is a term of art—it refers to anything they like that keeps the national security bureaucrats in power. Anything they don’t like, even if elected democratically, is considered “anti-democratic,” or, put another way, “democratic backsliding.” Eisen even acknowledges that this scourge of populism he’s so worried about actually was ushered in with “popular support,” under “relatively democratic and electoral processes.” The problem is precisely that the people have had enough of the corrupt ruling class ignoring their needs. Accordingly, the people voted first for Brexit and then for Donald Trump—terrifying expressions of populism which the broader Western power structure did everything in its capacity to prevent. Once they failed, they viewed these twin populist victories as a kind of political 9/11 to be prevented by any means necessary from recurring. Make no mistake, the Color Revolution has nothing to do with democracy in any meaningful sense and everything to do with the ruling class ensuring that the people will never have the power to meddle in their own elections again.
The passage above can be insightfully compared to the passage in Gene Sharp’s book noting ripe applications to the domestic situation.
It is instructive to compare the passage in Eisen’s Color Revolution book to the passage in Michael McFaul’s Color Revolution book
First off, it is absolutely imperative to look at every single one of the conditions for a Color Revolution that McFaul identifies. It is simply impossible not to be overcome with the ominous parallels to our current situation. Specifically, however, note condition 1 which refers to having a target leader who is not fully authoritarian, but semi-autocratic. This coincides perfectly well with Eisen’s concession that the populist leaders he’s so concerned about might be “illiberal” but enjoy “popular support” and have come to power via “relatively democratic electoral processes.”
Consulting the above passage from McFaul’s book, we note that McFaul has been perhaps the most explicit about the conditions which facilitate a Color Revolution. We invite the reader to supply the contemporary analogue to each point as a kind of exercise.
On point number four, which is especially relevant to our present situation, Eisen has an interesting thing to say about the role of a contested election scenario in the Orange Revolution, arguably the most important Color Revolution of them all.
Finally, let’s look at one last passage from Norm Eisen’s Color Revolution “Democracy Playbook” and cross-reference it with McFaul’s conditions for a Color Revolution as well as the situation playing out right now before our very eyes:
A few things immediately jump out at us. First, the ominous instruction: “prepare to use electoral abuse evidence as the basis for reform advocacy.” Secondly, we note the passage suggesting that opposition to a target leader might avail itself of “extreme institutional measures” including impeachment processes, votes of no confidence, and, of course, the good old-fashioned “protests, strikes, and boycotts” (all more or less peaceful no doubt).
By now the Color Revolution agenda against Trump should be as plain as day. Regime change professionals like McFaul, Eisen, George Kent, and others, who have refined their craft conducting color revolutions overseas, have taken it upon themselves to use the same tools, the same tactics—quite literally, the same playbook—to overthrow President Trump. Yet again, same people, same playbook.
We conclude this study of key Color Revolution figure Norm Eisen by exploring his particularly proactive—indeed central role—in effecting one of the Color Revolution’s components mentioned in the Eisen Playbook—impeachment.
The Ghost of Democracy’s Future
We mentioned at the outset of this piece that Norm Eisen is many things—a former Obama Ethics Czar (but of course), Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, participant in the now notorious Transition Integrity Project, et cetera. But he earned his title as “legal hatchet man” of the Color Revolution for his tireless efforts in promoting the impeachment of President Trump.
The litany of Norm Eisen’s legal activity cited at the beginning of this piece bears repeating.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as DNC co-counsel for litigating the Ukraine impeachment…
If that resume doesn’t warrant the title “legal hatchet man” we wonder what does? We encourage interested readers or journalists to explore those links for themselves. By way of conclusion, it simply suffices to note that much of Eisen’s impeachment activity he conducted before there was any discussion or knowledge of President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian President in 2018—indeed before the call even happened. Impeachment was very clearly a foregone conclusion—a quite literal part of Norm Eisen’s Color Revolution playbook—and it was up to people like Eisen to find the pretext, any pretext.
Despite their constant invocation of “democracy” we ought to note that transferring the question of electoral outcomes to adversarial legal processes is in fact anti-Democratic—in keeping with our observation that the Color Revolution playbook uses “democracy” as a term of art, often meaning the precise opposite of the usual meaning suggesting popular support.
Perhaps the most important entry in Eisen’s entry is the first, that is, Eisen’s participation in the infamous David Brock blueprint on how to undermine and overthrow the Trump presidency.
The Washington Free Beacon attended the retreat and obtained David Brock’s private and confidential memorandum from the meeting. The memo, “Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action,” outlines Brock’s four-year agenda to attack Trump and Republicans using Media Matters, American Bridge, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Shareblue.
The memo contains plans for defeating Trump through impeachment, expanding Media Matters’ mission to combat “government misinformation,” ensuring Democratic control of the Senate in the 2018 midterm elections, filing lawsuits against the Trump administration, monetizing political advocacy, using a “digital attacker” to delegitimize Trump’s presidency and damage Republicans, and partnering with Facebook to combat “fake news.” [Washington Free Beacon]
This leaked memo was written before President Trump took office, further suggesting that all of the efforts to undermine Trump have not been good faith responses to his behavior, but a pre-ordained attack strategy designed to overturn the 2016 election by any means necessary. The Color Revolution expert who suggests impeachment as a tactic in his Color Revolution “playbook” was already in charge of impeachment before Trump even took office—-Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is run by none other than Norm Eisen.
But the attempt to overturn the 2016 election using Color Revolution tactics failed. And so now the plan is to overthrow Trump in 2020, hence Norm Eisen’s noted participation in the Transition Integrity Project. Looking around us, one is forced to ask the deeply uncomfortable question, “transition into what?”
To conclude, we would like to call back to a point we raised in the first piece in our color revolution series. In this piece, we noted that star Never Trump impeachment witness George Kent just happens to be running the Belarus desk at the State Department. Belarus, we argued, with its mass demonstrations egged on by US Government backed NGOS, its supposed “peaceful protests” and of course its contested election results all fit the Color Revolution mold curiously enough.
One NGO called the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (TDWG) was bold or reckless enough to draw the parallels between the Color Revolution in Belarus and the events playing out against Trump explicitly. In response to a remark by a twitter user that the TDWG’s remarks about Belarus suggested parallels to the United States, the TDWG ominously replied:
Let's hope that is not what we see in Nov. We can say this is the Ghost of Democracy's Future if we don't take a stand.
— Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (@BipartisanTDWG) August 10, 2020
Now, would the reader care to take a guess as to who runs the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group? If you guessed Norm Eisen, you would be correct.
Stay tuned for more in Revolver.news’ groundbreaking coverage of the Color Revolution against Trump. Be sure to check out the previous installments in this series.
ig Tech has spoken. Independent thoughts and unsanctioned voices are not to be heard. Those that dare to speak out are to be labeled as "false", silenced, and suppressed.
Dr. Li did not parrot the official narrative on the CCPVirus. For this she was sanctioned, suppressed, and silenced.
She has not been the only one.
She will not be the only one.
All who dare speak out are slowly being smothered.
Welcome to the New World Order.
On Saturday we reported that Dr. Li-Meng Yan - a Chinese virologist (MD, PhD) who fled the country, leaving her job at a prestigious Hong Kong university - appeared last week on British television where she claimed SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, was created by Chinese scientists in a lab.
On Sunday, Li-Meng joined Twitter - and on Monday, just hours ago, she tweeted a link to a paper she co-authored with three other Chinese scientists titled:
Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route
She also posted a link to her credentials on ResearchGate, revealing her (prior?) affiliation with The University of Hong Kong and 13 publications which have been cited 557 times.
Cutting to the chase:
"The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months.
Here is the extended punchline:
The receptor-binding motif of SARS-CoV-2 Spike cannot be born from nature and should have been created through genetic engineering.
The Spike proteins decorate the exterior of the coronavirus particles. They play an important role in infection as they mediate the interaction with host cell receptors and thereby help determine the host range and tissue tropism of the virus. The Spike protein is split into two halves (Figure 3). The front or N-terminal half is named S1, which is fully responsible for binding the host receptor. In both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections, the host cell receptor is hACE2. Within S1, a segment of around 70 amino acids makes direct contacts with hACE2 and is correspondingly named the receptor-binding motif (RBM) (Figure 3C). In SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, the RBM fully determines the interaction with hACE2. The C-terminal half of the Spike protein is named S2. The main function of S2 includes maintaining trimer formation and, upon successive protease cleavages at the S1/S2 junction and a downstream S2’ position, mediating membrane fusion to enable cellular entry of the virus.
Similar to what is observed for other viral proteins, S2 of SARS-CoV-2 shares a high sequence identity (95%) with S2 of ZC45/ZXC21. In stark contrast, between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21, the S1 protein, which dictates which host (human or bat) the virus can infect, is much less conserved with the amino acid sequence identity being only 69%.
Figure 4 shows the sequence alignment of the Spike proteins from six β coronaviruses. Two are viruses isolated from the current pandemic (Wuhan-Hu-1, 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1); two are the suspected template viruses (Bat_CoV_ZC45, Bat_CoV_ZXC21); two are SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GZ02, SARS). The RBM is highlighted in between two orange lines. Clearly, despite the high sequence identity for the overall genomes, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 differs significantly from those of ZC45 and ZXC21. Intriguingly, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 resembles, on a great deal, the RBM of SARS Spike. Although this is not an exact “copy and paste”, careful examination of the Spike-hACE2 structures37,38 reveals that all residues essential for either hACE2 binding or protein folding (orange sticks in Figure 3C and what is highlighted by red short lines in Figure 4) are “kept”.
Most of these essential residues are precisely preserved, including those involved in disulfide bond formation (C467, C474) and electrostatic interactions (R444, E452, R453, D454), which are pivotal for the structural integrity of the RBM (Figure 3C and 4). The few changes within the group of essential residues are almost exclusively hydrophobic “substitutions” (I428àL, L443àF, F460àY, L472àF, Y484àQ), which should not affect either protein folding or the hACE2-interaction. At the same time, majority of the amino acid residues that are non-essential have “mutated” (Figure 4, RBM residues not labeled with short red lines). Judging from this sequence analysis alone, we were convinced early on that not only would the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein bind hACE2 but also the binding would resemble, precisely, that between the original SARS Spike protein and hACE223. Recent structural work has confirmed our prediction.
As elaborated below, the way that SARS-CoV-2 RBM resembles SARS-CoV RBM and the overall sequence conservation pattern between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual. Collectively, this suggests that portions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have not been derived from natural quasi-species viral particle evolution.
The paper then makes two critical observations for those who claim that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin: its RBM could have only been acquired in one of the two possible routes: 1) an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution or 2) a natural recombination event that occurred fairly recently.
She first dismisses option 1:
"this convergent evolution process would also result in the accumulation of a large amount of mutations in other parts of the genome, rendering the overall sequence identity relatively low. The high sequence identity between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 on various proteins (94-100% identity) do not support this scenario and, therefore, clearly indicates that SARS-CoV- 2 carrying such an RBM cannot come from a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus through this convergent evolutionary route."
She then dismisses option 2:
In the second scenario, the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would have to have recently recombined and swapped its RBM with another coronavirus that had successfully adapted to bind an animal ACE2 highly homologous to hACE2. The likelihood of such an event depends, in part, on the general requirements of natural recombination: 1) that the two different viruses share significant sequence similarity; 2) that they must co-infect and be present in the same cell of the same animal; 3) that the recombinant virus would not be cleared by the host or make the host extinct; 4) that the recombinant virus eventually would have to become stable and transmissible within the host species.
In regard to this recent recombination scenario, the animal reservoir could not be bats because the ACE2 proteins in bats are not homologous enough to hACE2 and therefore the adaption would not be able to yield an RBM sequence as seen in SARS-CoV-2. This animal reservoir also could not be humans as the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would not be able to infect humans. In addition, there has been no evidence of any SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2-like virus circulating in the human population prior to late 2019. Intriguingly, according to a recent bioinformatics study, SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak.
Which leaves just one option:
Only one other possibility of natural evolution remains, which is that the ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM could have recombined in an intermediate host where the ACE2 protein is homologous to hACE2. Several laboratories have reported that some of the Sunda pangolins smuggled into China from Malaysia carried coronaviruses, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of which is almost identical to that of SARS-CoV-227-29,31. They then went on to suggest that pangolins are the likely intermediate host for SARS-CoV-227-29,31. However, recent independent reports have found significant flaws in this data40-42. Furthermore, contrary to these reports27-29,31, no coronaviruses have been detected in Sunda pangolin samples collected for over a decade in Malaysia and Sabah between 2009 and 201943. A recent study also showed that the RBD, which is shared between SARS-CoV-2 and the reported pangolin coronaviruses, binds to hACE2 ten times stronger than to the pangolin ACE22, further dismissing pangolins as the possible intermediate host. Finally, an in silico study, while echoing the notion that pangolins are not likely an intermediate host, also indicated that none of the animal ACE2 proteins examined in their study exhibited more favorable binding potential to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein than hACE2 did. This last study virtually exempted all animals from their suspected roles as an intermediate host, which is consistent with the observation that SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans from the start of the outbreak. This is significant because these findings collectively suggest that no intermediate host seems to exist for SARS-CoV-2, which at the very least diminishes the possibility of a recombinant event occurring in an intermediate host.
Fast-forwarding to the smoking gun:
Given that RBM fully dictates hACE2-binding and that the SARS RBM-hACE2 binding was fully characterized by high-resolution structures (Figure 3)37,38, this RBM-only swap would not be any riskier than the full Spike swap. In fact, the feasibility of this RBM-swap strategy has been proven. In 2008, Dr. Zhengli Shi’s group swapped a SARS RBM into the Spike proteins of several SARS-like bat coronaviruses after introducing a restriction site into a codon-optimized spike gene (Figure 5C). They then validated the binding of the resulted chimeric Spike proteins with hACE2. Furthermore, in a recent publication, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 was swapped into the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARSCoV, resulting in a chimeric RBD fully functional in binding hACE2 (Figure 5C)39. Strikingly, in both cases, the manipulated RBM segments resemble almost exactly the RBM defined by the positions of the EcoRI and BstEII sites (Figure 5C). Although cloning details are lacking in both publications39,47, it is conceivable that the actual restriction sites may vary depending on the spike gene receiving the RBM insertion as well as the convenience in introducing unique restriction site(s) in regions of interest. It is noteworthy that the corresponding author of this recent publication, Dr. Fang Li, has been an active collaborator of Dr. Zhengli Shi since 201049-53. Dr. Li was the first person in the world to have structurally elucidated the binding between SARS-CoV RBD and hACE238 and has been the leading expert in the structural understanding of Spike-ACE2 interactions. The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation."
It gets better, because the Chinese scientists then presciently tried to cover their tracks:
Although it may be convenient to copy the exact sequence of SARS RBM, it would be too clear a sign of artificial design and manipulation. The more deceiving approach would be to change a few nonessential residues, while preserving the ones critical for binding. This design could be well-guided by the high-resolution structures (Figure 3)37,38. This way, when the overall sequence of the RBM would appear to be more distinct from that of the SARS RBM, the hACE2-binding ability would be well-preserved. We believe that all of the crucial residues (residues labeled with red sticks in Figure 4, which are the same residues shown in sticks in Figure 3C) should have been “kept”. As described earlier, while some should be direct preservation, some should have been switched to residues with similar properties, which would not disrupt hACE2-binding and may even strengthen the association further [ZH: i.e., the virus was weaponized and enchanced]. Importantly, changes might have been made intentionally at non-essential sites, making it less like a “copy and paste” of the SARS RBM.
Yan also discusses the infamous furin-cleavage site:
... a close examination of the nucleotide sequence of the furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 spike has revealed that the two consecutive Arg residues within the inserted sequence (- PRRA-) are both coded by the rare codon CGG (least used codon for Arg in SARS-CoV-2) (Figure 7).
In fact, this CGGCGG arrangement is the only instance found in the SARS-CoV-2 genome where this rare codon is used in tandem. This observation strongly suggests that this furin-cleavage site should be a result of genetic engineering. Adding to the suspicion, a FauI restriction site is formulated by the codon choices here, suggesting the possibility that the restriction fragment length polymorphism, a technique that a WIV lab is proficient at, could have been involved. There, the fragmentation pattern resulted from FauI digestion could be used to monitor the preservation of the furin-cleavage site in Spike as this furin-cleavage site is prone to deletions in vitro. Specifically, RT-PCR on the spike gene of the recovered viruses from cell cultures or laboratory animals could be carried out, the product of which would be subjected to FauI digestion. Viruses retaining or losing the furin-cleavage site would then yield distinct patterns, allowing convenient tracking of the virus(es) of interest.
And another critical allegation: once again, the Wuhan Researchers were doing everything in their power to weaponize and boost the "enhancement of the infectivity and pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus":
The evidence collectively suggests that the furin-cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein may not have come from nature and could be the result of genetic manipulation. The purpose of this manipulation could have been to assess any potential enhancement of the infectivity and pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus.
Summarizing the above:
Evidence presented in this part reveals that certain aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 genome are extremely difficult to reconcile to being a result of natural evolution. The alternative theory we suggest is that the virus may have been created by using ZC45/ZXC21 bat coronavirus(es) as the backbone and/or template. The Spike protein, especially the RBM within it, should have been artificially manipulated, upon which the virus has acquired the ability to bind hACE2 and infect humans. This is supported by the finding of a unique restriction enzyme digestion site at either end of the RBM. An unusual furin-cleavage site may have been introduced and inserted at the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein, which contributes to the increased virulence and pathogenicity of the virus.
These transformations have then staged the SARS CoV-2 virus to eventually become a highly-transmissible, onset-hidden, lethal, sequelae-unclear, and massively disruptive pathogen.
Evidently, the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 could have been created through gain-of-function manipulations at the WIV is significant and should be investigated thoroughly and independently.
Finally, those curious how the virus could have been created synthetically in Wuhan, here is a diagram proposed by Dr. Yan explaining all the required steps:
Her full paper is below:
And for those who missed it, here's Li-Meng's interview on UK television:
As a reminder, Zero Hedge was banned from Twitter on Jan 31 for making just this allegation, following a hit-piece written by an alleged pedophile (who was later fired for plagiarism) and countless so-called "scientists" screaming that our take was fake news and nothing but propaganda. Five months later Twitter admitted it had made a mistake, stating "we made an error in our enforcement action in this case."