Conscription is Coming Back to Europe, But Which EU Countries Have Re-Introduced Compulsory Military Service?
While several countries are reintroducing compulsory military service, some EU politicians would welcome a uniform reintroduction across the EU. Hungarian news portal Divány has rounded up the countries that have reintroduced conscription.
Professional armies are understaffed across the continent, as more and more European countries are recognizing. In recent weeks, not only EU leaders but also the leadership of the German Christian Democratic Party has brought up the idea of reintroducing compulsory military service.
At its party congress at the beginning of May, the CDU adopted a proposal that young people should be obliged to serve for a certain period either in the army or the social sector. Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party, made a similar statement recently, saying he would extend conscription to the whole continent.
Germany abolished conscription in 2011, and this is what would be gradually rebuilt. The former compulsory military service would be reintroduced as a year of community service, either in the Bundeswehr or a social institution. The initiative would also open up the possibility for women to enter the military. The German government would reintroduce conscription based on several scenarios, making it compulsory for all 18-year-olds.
The Swedish model is seen by many as an example, with all citizens in the Nordic country, both men and women, having to register and, at the same time, indicate their willingness to serve in the military. In Sweden, only a small proportion of those who are of age are actually conscripted into the army.
Germany is not the only country to revisit the idea of compulsory military service, with Denmark planning to introduce the recruitment of women in 2026.
Military service is compulsory in the following European countries: Cyprus, Greece, Austria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, Denmark and Sweden.
Latvia was the latest country to reintroduce the system, with all men aged between 18 and 27 having to re-enlist in 2023 for 11 months of compulsory service, just 16 years after its abolition, while military service is voluntary for women. The Baltic State’s decision was influenced by the Russian-Ukrainian war. Lithuania decided in 2015 to introduce compulsory military service, also in response to the geopolitical situation.
Finland has also just decided on compulsory military service, with periods of 165, 255, or 347 days. From the age of 18, all men can be called up, and military service is compulsory until the age of 30, after which Finns are considered reservists. The Swedish example, already mentioned, is a curiosity in Europe, where women, in addition to men, can also enlist on the basis of their declaration.
In Greece, military service is compulsory between the ages of 19 and 45, usually for 9-12 months, the length depending on the type of force, and in Cyprus it is compulsory for those over 18. In Denmark, the military service is similar to the abolished Hungarian system, with 18-year-olds having to serve for 4-12 months, which can be replaced by community service.
Those who wish to continue their education after secondary school can postpone their compulsory military service until the age of 25. In Austria, in a 2013 referendum, more than 59 percent of the population voted in favor of conscription, with all men having to serve for eight months, which can also be replaced by community service.
EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
Biden DOJ Files $50,000 FACE Act Lawsuit Against Another Group of Pro-Lifers
CLEVELAND, Ohio (LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Biden administration has announced a lawsuit against even more pro-lifers for supposed violations of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, as sentencing continues for nine pro-life advocates convicted last fall of the same.
DOJ is seeking “compensatory damages, monetary penalties and injunctive relief” against the groups Citizens for a Pro Life Society and Red Rose Rescue, as well as against Laura Gies, Lauren Handy, Clara McDonald, Monica Miller, Christopher Moscinski, Jay Smith, and Audrey Whipple, allegedly for “engaging in physical obstruction” at two Ohio abortion centers, according to a press release.
“Obstructing people from accessing reproductive health care [abortion] and physically obstructing providers from offering it are unlawful,” said DOJ Civil Rights Division Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, citing the FACE Act. “The Civil Rights Division is committed to enforcing federal law to protect the rights [sic] of those who seek and those who provide access to [abortion].”
Cleveland.com reports that the charges are based on two incidents, one in which pro-lifers entered Northeast Ohio Women’s Center in Cuyahoga Falls last June by falsely claiming to be patients, then began distributing roses to women in the waiting room and encouraging them to leave (five reportedly did so).
The next day, Miller and two others entered Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio’s Bedford Heights Surgery Center’s fenced parking lot, where one member distributed literature inside the building and others spoke to patients outside. One member allegedly knelt in front of the center’s entrance and refused to move. Police reportedly requested that the Planned Parenthood close for the day, as they lacked the manpower to handle the situation.
The feds are seeking $20,516 for first violations and $30,868 for repeat offenses, bringing the potential damages in excess of $50,000.
“Red Roses Rescues DO NOT violate the FACE Act,” Monica Miller, the head of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society who oversees Red Rose Rescue, responded in a statement to LifeSiteNews. “In an RRR pro-lifers never block anything or anyone – and if the Department of Justice is coming after us for our peaceful life-saving efforts it’s because they will simply play fast and loose with the FACE language having to do with ‘physical obstruction’ that prevents ‘freedom of movement.’”
“There have been 37 RRRs. We have NEVER been charged with FACE, and indeed, the RRR we did at the PP in Bedford Heights, June 5, 2021, one of the two that involves this DOJ accusation, all charges were dropped!” she added. “We have every confidence that through our great attorneys we will prevail over this bogus attempt by the weaponized DOJ to drag even RRR under its persecution of those who seek to defend the unborn from violence!”
News of the new lawsuit follows a series of FACE Act convictions last fall against Handy, who is also named in the new case, and eight other pro-lifers in Washington, D.C.
READ: Jailed pro-lifer held in prolonged solitary confinement suffers stroke
As LifeSiteNews has extensively reported, the activists stood trial for blocking accessto the scandal-plagued Washington Surgi-Clinic late-term abortion facility in downtown D.C., in a “traditional rescue” in October 2020. Pro-life “rescues,” of which there were many in the early days of the pro-life movement before the FACE Act became federal law, involve physically entering abortion centers and refusing to leave in an effort to convince women to choose life for their babies.
Washington Surgi-Clinic is also where five late-term aborted babies were discoveredwho may have either been killed by illegal partial-birth abortion procedures or after live-birth.
Sentencing began in May for the “D.C. Nine,” in which Handy was sentenced to four years in prison and the rest of the sentences so far have ranged from one year to 34 months. Pro-lifers criticize these and other prosecutions as forming a pattern of the pro-abortion Biden DOJ weaponizing the criminal justice system to crush its political enemies.
Since May 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s intention to overturn Roe v. Wade was first leaked, “there have been at least 236 attacks on Catholic churches and at least 90 attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers,” the Daily Signal reports. Yet the DOJ “charged only pro-life activists with FACE Act violations in 2022, and has since charged only five individuals with violating the FACE Act by targeting pregnancy centers.” At the same time, it has zealously pursued incidents involving pro-lifers, from the D.C. defendants to Philadelphia sidewalk counselor and Catholic father of seven Mark Houck.
EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
Controversial Lead Candidate Kicked Out of AfD’s Party Leadership
The scandal splitting the Brussels’ right-wing populist bloc is exploding as more member parties have distanced themselves from the German Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), demanding either its lead candidate, MEP Maximilian Krah, be kicked out or the party itself leave the Identity and Democracy (ID) group following Krah’s statements attempting to relativize Nazi crimes.
Following the example of the French Rassemblement National, the Italian Lega party as well as the Danish People’s Party also distanced itself from Krah and AfD, threatening an implosion of the entire ID group if the matter is not solved quickly.
As a result, AfD’s federal leadership decided on Wednesday (May 22nd) morning, that Krah must leave the party’s presidential board, effective immediately, as well as to bar him from having any public appearance “by whatever communication channel,” a senior AfD official confirmed to The European Conservative.
Minutes after the meeting ended, Krah tweeted his own slightly more positive version. He began by saying that he was anticipating that his “factual and nuanced” statements about the Waffen-SS would be used against him, but, he added, the last thing AfD needs right now in the final stage of the EU election campaign is a controversy around the lead candidate. Therefore, he is resigning from the party’s executive board and foregoing any further campaign appearances.
Man kann nie tiefer fallen als in Gottes Hand. Ich nehme zur Kenntnis, dass sachliche und differenzierte Aussagen von mir als Vorwand missbraucht werden, um unserer Partei zu schaden. Das Letzte, was wir derzeit brauchen, ist eine Debatte um mich. Die AfD muss ihre Einigkeit…
— Dr. Maximilian Krah MdEP (@KrahMax) May 22, 2024
AfD’s regional delegations are also meeting later on Wednesday to weigh in on the issue, but the saga is far from over.
ID’s internal crisis began on Tuesday, May 21st when Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) announced it would not sit with AfD in the next mandate after Krah, the German party’s lead candidate, appeared to relativize the crimes committed by the Waffen-SS, the Nazi regimes’ infamous elite commando.
Specifically, Krah said that not every SS soldier can be automatically declared a criminal, citing examples like Günter Grass, a Nobel Prize-laureate member of the organization. “Among the 900,000 SS, there were also many peasants: there was certainly a high percentage of criminals, but not only that,” Krah said in an interview published on Saturday.
The fallout between ID’s two largest parties is further complicated by the follow-up announcement from Matteo Salvini’s Lega, the group’s third-largest member party, saying that it and RN are “perfectly aligned in agreement” that there’s no future for AfD in the ID group.
The Danish People’s Party’s MEP Anders Vistisen, ID’s unofficial Spitzenkandidat also came out against Krah in a tweet, demanding AfD get rid of him if it wants to remain part of the ID.
EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
Against a National Loyalty Divorced from the Sacred
In the UK, genuine conservatives hate the Conservative Party. The Party will lose the next election not because of the popularity of the Labour Party, but because of the contempt in which the Conservative Party is held by its own traditional voters. The Reform Party, which will pick up a good number of those voters, is—as populism goes—remarkably uninspiring. Many thoughtful small-c conservatives are growing aware of just how dangerous populism can be in any case. The fleeting success of Boris Johnson marked the Tories’ flirtation with the populist paradigm and just look at what the country suffered under that unprincipled oaf. Had a Labour leader botched Brexit like that and then placed the country under house-arrest, he would have been accused of advancing a socialist experiment and hounded into hiding. Johnson—‘the people’s Prime Minister’—got away with it simply because of the populist mythos that had been created around him. “He must be on our side,” so many thought, but he never was.
The old conservatism is on its way out; populism can’t get a foot in. If it were no more complicated than that, perhaps a simple solution could be found to the crisis of conservatism, at least in these isles. But increasingly conservatives are questioning what it is they’re meant to conserve, when so much seems to have been swept away by relentless social repudiation. Then, of course, there are the subdivisions of ‘civilisational conservatives,’ most prominently the ‘Christendom conservatives,’ the ‘Enlightenment values conservatives,’ and the ‘individualist, free-marketeer conservatives,’ all of whom hold utterly irreconcilable conceptions of conservatism. So, what is the future of conservatism to look like?
Among younger conservatives, I’ve noticed two camps emerging as some workable vision of a future conservatism is sought. Loosely speaking, there are those who look to ethnic identity on which to build the conservative case of the future, and there are those who look to the land itself. The former emphasises ethnic bloodline, homogeneity, and the importance of recognising the dynamics of human tribalism; the latter emphasises the land, shared territory, and the sense of belonging that dwelling together in a single locality brings about. Making such principles into exhaustive foundations for a future small ‘c’ conservatism will, I suspect, lead what is left of such conservatism down a dead end.
But what the new conservative debate, which is largely a Gen Z debate—mostly online—has revealed is that one is expected to side with one or the other of these camps. The former think that the kind of shared territory we have is largely an effect of the ethnic community that has dwelt there for centuries, if not millennia. The latter think that if you dwell in a certain locality for long enough, it will shape you, and certainly it will shape the generations of whom you will be just one ancestor. At bottom, these budding conservative visions attribute to different sources a certain causal power for the establishment of something approximating nationhood.
Those who look to the land think that those who emphasise a shared ethnic identity are going to ruin any future for conservative arguments in the public arena by tarnishing them with what is, in their view, basically racism. And the former equally think that the latter are going to ruin any future conservative case by rooting it in non-scientific, empirically flimsy sentiments that amount to a belief in “magic dirt”—a phrase coined by the so-called ‘alt-right’ pseudonymous writer Vox Day. I myself have been concerned for some time about conservatism going down the path of racism, and have attempted a more personalist case for national identity; it has long been my hope that conservatives would help to bring an end to the 20th century, and not perpetuate it ad infinitum.
It seems to me that both groups are actually appealing to some sort of providentialism. Both think that as a nation comes about, it develops a kind of value—or to use the 18th century term, a genius—that is precious and must be protected. This emergence of nationhood should be seen as a gift, and induction into its ways should be viewed as the sort of initiatory passage from which our very sense of selfhood arises. Both groups are anxious about defending something that they deem to have intrinsic value.
Probably much to the annoyance of some of my conservative allies, I am inclined to sympathise more with those who look to the land. Anyone who has rambled across the English landscape with a pack of hounds knows that the earth itself possesses a kind of sacrality that emanates forth into the souls of those attuned to its frequency. Unashamedly, I believe in ley lines and other cosmic energies that run through the earth, I believe that certain places have spirits that guard and protect them, and I also think that the saints—whilst beholding the face of God—dwell in the very places that they consecrated with their prayers and sacrifices during their lifetimes.
All that is to say, I believe that the world is a magical realm that theurgically participates in the celestial liturgy of the Godhead, but that this cannot be known by some intellectual ascent out of the world of experience. Rather, it can be known only by encountering reality in its most concrete, gritty actuality. In short, I believe in the enchantment of the skylark’s song and the night-time constellations, in the dance of the spheres and the upward hanging fungal fruits that might nourish or kill you. I believe that the interpretation of the earth that belongs to the desert cultures of the Middle East, however noble, is different to that which gave rise to Piers Ploughman and the works of Shakespeare. I believe in magic dirt because I believe in both magic and dirt, but I also believe that we are formed by that magic dirt—that it possesses a very potent causal power—and having been so formed we have become something unique and precious.
A French Jesuit named Charles Bourgeois reported a conversation he had witnessed in the 1920s on Poland’s eastern border between a Polish nobleman and a Belorussian priest, the former being Roman Catholic and the latter Orthodox. The nobleman opined that in the life of the Christian what mattered was the learning of catechism and the habit of personal prayer; the Orthodox were, in his view, too attached to ritual and liturgy. Fr. Bourgeois recounted the reply of the Orthodox priest:
Among you it [the liturgy] is indeed only an accessory. Among us Orthodox (and at these words he blessed himself) it is not so. The liturgy is our common prayer, it initiates our faithful into the mystery of Christ better than all your catechism. It passes before our eyes the life of our Christ, the Russian Christ.
I do not introduce this anecdote to suggest that there is some necessary Christian case for any future conservatism, even if at bottom I do in fact think precisely that. Here, though, is not the place for that argument. The point of this anecdote—for my purposes, anyway—is that for the priest, his source of meaning did not spring from a set of abstractions or concepts, but from the traditions that incarnated his source of meaning in the place in which he lived. The only Christ he knew was the Russian Christ. So too, the only Christ the English should know is the English Christ, the Irish Christ among the Irish, the Polish Christ among the Polish, and likewise and so forth for any given people.
And it seems to me that it is the underlying assumption of the Belorussian priest that should be that in which any future conservatism ought to be rooted, namely that a nation and its territory are correlative principles that together make up a corporate person—who can truly make the claims of a person. And just as the life of any person is sacred, so too the national life of this corporate person is sacred. As with any sacred thing, it can be desecrated.
Last year, when I flew to the U.S. for a debate, I watched on the aeroplane a documentary entitled Lakota Nation vs. United States. In many ways, it was a terrible film, with all sorts of garbage drawn from half-baked critical race theories (the climactic moment of the film was a Lakota Nation march of witness, in which the viewer is shown the ridiculous spectacle of Native Americans in traditional dress waving rainbow and trans flags). Nonetheless, the film’s merit was in its presentation of the historical struggle for the Black Hills that stretch from western South Dakota into Wyoming, and the intense feeling that this most sacred of mountain ranges for the Lakota Nation had been directly desecrated due to the greedy appropriation of it by the U.S. government. Well, equally, I want to suggest that the transformation of England by mass immigration and the colonisation of ancient cities and towns by people who want England’s spires to stand in the shadow of minarets should be felt by the English to be a desecration of something both gifted and holy.
This is where, it seems to me, the conversation should be had: given that a nation is a natural good, that emerges providentially down the centuries, and may be considered a ‘sacrament of nature’ (in the idiom of Aquinas), should it be treated as possessing a kind of sacrality of its own? If so, I submit that all discussion of the good of the nation should be centred on this principle. Such a principle is not eccentric, for even the most reductionist, materialist right-winger raises concerns about unregulated or badly regulated immigration and the rapid transformation of his culture because his nation is at least sacred to him. All I am suggesting is that we treat such a sentiment as reasonable communally.
And this, I suggest, is the real problem with the type of leader we have today. Take a look at Whitehall. Listen to what they say. Take time to listen to their speeches and interviews. These people think exclusively in terms of efficiency, outcome, and productivity—if they think of anything besides their own private ambitions. Nothing to them is sacred in itself, and that is why, according to my analysis of where the conversation about the future of nations should rest, generally speaking such people have absolutely no business being political leaders.
Ever since David Cameron launched his ‘Well-Being Report’ in the early 2010s, according to the Report’s criteria Northern Ireland has been consistently the happiest place in the UK. Yes, you read that right: the UK’s most economically deprived, religiously divided, war-torn region is also the happiest. How can that be? Well, Northern Ireland is a patchwork of extremely tight-knit communities living amid a spectacular landscape, and over 50% of the people attend church every Sunday (compared with 4% in England). Essentially, the Northern Irish are still sufficiently traditional, rooted, and communitarian enough to be happy, and they still renew those attachments in a covenant with God each week. Hence, the UK government’s own report on well-being condemns the entire individualist, efficiency-based paradigm of ‘human flourishing’ that our politics perpetuates.
Until the conversation shifts into one that orbits the sacrality of what Roger Scruton simply called ‘homecoming,’ we will be stuck where we are, namely with a politics of empty promises about immigration in the face of widespread frustration, on which nothing will be delivered because one eye is kept on GDP. The frustration with which such politics must contend will continue to oscillate between a now dichotomised ‘blood or soil’ narrative, both of which seem a dead end. Neither GDP, nor ethnicity, nor material conditions should be our primary focus, however important they may be as secondary considerations. Rather, the public conversation of the future must centre on the sacrality of place and the particular people who dwell there, and in turn the possibility of desecrating that place, against which there is a moral duty to be on our guard. All the politics of the future must become, and necessarily will become, mystical, for the alternative is oblivion.
EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
EU Commission VP: “We Believe Our Fact-Checking is Already Influencing User Behavior”
The European Parliament (EP) elections are taking place next month and, considering that the president of the European Commission (effectively, “the EU government”) and all its commissioners are confirmed by the EP, no wonder many of them are currently on a campaign trail.
One is European Commission Vice President for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova, and she is toeing the line the EU has taken ahead of this election: fear mongering about misinformation, AI, and Russia.
This is then used to make sure current, contested, and controversial policies remain at a minimum unchanged, and best-case scenario, from the EU bureaucrats’ point of view – ramped up.
What those policies amount to is succinctly demonstrated in just one recent statement by Jourova: not only is the bloc embracing “fact-checking”, and not only is this supposed to take car2 of “misinformation” – the intent seems far more profound, and threatening to democracy : fact-checking is already influencing user behavior, bragged Jourova.
“We believe our fact-checking is already influencing user behavior. We see that when people realize something is wrong with the material, they often refrain from sharing it with friends on social media,” she said.
To promote current EU leadership policies, Jourova talks up all those things that have put the EU and its understanding of democracy and freedom of expression under so much scrutiny over the last years: various new regulations that allow for mass censorship and/or surveillance, and continued reliance on “fact-checkers.”
So far, so good, as far as Jourova is concerned – she shared that fact-checking is managing to steer public opinion in the desired direction.
“Reeducation of the population” would be another way of putting it.
EU studies are quoted which reveal as many as 70 to 80 percent of people in the EU are “are aware of the problem (of misinformation.)”
And it doesn’t stop there: “We believe our fact-checking is already influencing user behavior. We see that when people realize something is wrong with the material, they often refrain from sharing it with friends on social media,” the EU commissioner said, regarding what concrete effect that “awareness” is producing.
But even so, Jourova and those like her are unwilling to declare victory in the “war on misinformation” – unless it actually produces their victory in the polls.
“Only after the election will we be able to assess whether our measures have been effective,” said Jourova.
EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
U.S. Government ‘Cartel’ Paid CVS, Walgreens Billions to Reject Ivermectin Prescriptions, Push COVID Shots
A “cartel” led by the U.S. government allegedly bribed large pharmacy chains like Walgreens and CVS with billions of dollars in contracts to promote COVID-19 vaccines and not fill prescriptions for ivermectin.
Dr. James Thorp and attorney Maggie Thorp on Monday published an article in America Out Loud News exposing the government’s scheme to suppress the Nobel prize-winning drug using some of the nearly $200 billion in “provider relief funds” allocated to hospitals and pharmacies during the pandemic.
The article highlights the controversy surrounding ivermectin, a drug that was “baselessly maligned” by the government, media and medical establishment despite its demonstrated efficacy against COVID-19.
The authors noted former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s recent disclosure that he was taking ivermectin for long COVID — or for his COVID-19 vaccine injury, which he implied but didn’t confirm.
Cuomo admitted, “We were given bad information about ivermectin,” and asked, “The real question is, why?”
While Cuomo fell short of taking responsibility for his role in quashing the drug and shaming vaccine refusers, his reversal on ivermectin sparked a new round of debate about the broad conspiracy to suppress effective and inexpensive therapeutics during the pandemic.
https://t.co/AgSNkAy4Rm
— James Thorp MD (@jathorpmfm) May 20, 2024
To see other Publications by Maggie Thorp JD and Jim Thorp MD Published on the America Out Loud News platform check us out here below. You want to see the systemic corruption and FRAUD in every sector of our society in the last four years? Check it… pic.twitter.com/H91jR7XiRl
The Thorps’ exposé comes as Steve Kirsch shared on X (formerly known as Twitter) today that California healthcare facilities and other organizations received a total of $9.2 billion from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Provider Relief Fund to “push the jabs on everyone.”
Pharmacies ‘brazen in their refusal to fill ivermectin prescriptions’
In their article, the Thorps quoted Dr. Pierre Kory’s book, “The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic,” describing the suppression of therapeutics occurring at the height of the pandemic.
“In the wake of the global horse-dewormer propaganda campaign, hospitals started pulling ivermectin from their pharmacies,” Kory wrote.
Kory, a pulmonologist and co-founder and president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, described hospital health systems threatening to fire employees if they prescribed the drug and pharmacies becoming “even more brazen in their refusal to fill ivermectin prescriptions.”
Some of these same pharmacies claim they are still prohibited from filling ivermectin prescriptions as a COVID-19 treatment, according to the Thorps.
According to Kory, the results of over 100 trials show that ivermectin could have effectively treated the virus and saved countless lives.
Paying pharmacies not to fill ivermectin prescriptions was only one element of a multi-prong strategy that included threats against doctors, ranging from shaming to loss of hospital access.
The Thorps cited the case of Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, who had her hospital privileges suspended for speaking out about her success treating patients with ivermectin.
Despite the suppression of ivermectin, credible sources reported U.S. Congress members in 2021 were taking the drug for COVID-19.
Never forget that members of Congress, their staffers, and family members were taking ivermectin in 2021 and stayed out of the hospital while the FDA and the media smeared ivermectin as “horse dewormer” and attacked anyone who publicized ivermectin as a cheap, safe, and effective… https://t.co/hJhmEW0RHk
— David Hamilton, School Board Trustee (@Hamilton4TX) May 21, 2024
‘Trusted’ sources chose ‘profit over people’
CVS and Walgreens are the two largest pharmacies in the U.S., with nearly 18,000 locations between them.
One contract from 2022 shows CVS potentially receiving over $2.1 billion for a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) program called ICATT, or “Increasing Community Access to Testing for COVID-19,” that funded more than 19,000 testing sites targeting the uninsured and underinsured.
Walgreens, another recipient of provider relief funds, in 2022 ran a “public relations propaganda piece” featuring a trusted “Walgreens healthcare supervisor” expressing his “big relief” at finally being able to give his 3-year-old daughter a COVID-19 shot.
The Thorps also cited examples of these pharmacies running propaganda pieces featuring high-profile figures — like then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci and then-director of the CDC Dr. Rochelle Walensky — receiving their COVID-19 boosters at Walgreens and CVS locations.
.@CDCDirector Rochelle Walensky visited a CVS Pharmacy today to get her bivalent COVID-19 booster. The bivalent vaccine provides added protection against COVID-19 and the Omicron variant and is available at CVS Pharmacy locations nationwide. https://t.co/wXDZYrmMyd pic.twitter.com/BQojEnRpl4
— CVS Health (@CVSHealth) September 22, 2022
The Thorps suggested that if the public became aware of ivermectin’s potential effectiveness against COVID-19, the market for the government’s mRNA vaccines might have collapsed, jeopardizing the prospective profits of the “medical-industrial complex.”
“Why in the world would any supplier want to promote or prescribe a cheap and readily available drug — like Ivermectin — if doing so would throw a wrench into potential billion-dollar cash-cow contracts with the federal government?” they asked.
“The U.S. government targeted and paid off ‘trusted’ sources to purposefully spoon-feed bad and even dangerous information to everyday Americans,” they wrote. “These ‘trusted’ sources chose profits over people.”
The article contains links to government contracting sites and other sources for those who want to do their own research.
Investigation ‘likely to be far darker’ than most could imagine
As more information comes to light about the potential efficacy of ivermectin and the alleged financial incentives that may have influenced the actions of major pharmacies, the Thorps called for accountability and further investigation.
However, they cautioned against half-hearted efforts to take responsibility, citing The New York Times’ recent article about COVID-19 vaccine injuries as an attempt to “admit mistakes were made and play dumb while trying to frame the human carnage as limited.”
However, they warned that what an investigation would uncover is “likely to be far darker and run far deeper than most Americans want to imagine.”
EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War