So far, the available data regarding ‘moneypox’ is vague, incomplete and contradictory. The world deserves access to accurate, up-to-date, coherent and complete data regarding the ‘moneypox’ PHEIC.
The data that is publicly available regarding moneypox (Mpox) clearly conflicts with many statements that have been made by public officials and organizations.
The problem appears to be that some of the available data refers to “confirmed” cases, some of the data refers to “probable” cases and some of the data refers to “reported” or “suspected” cases. (see CDC definitions)
Also, the data regarding the new “Clade 1b” has not been adequately detailed.
Will any valid, up-to-date, complete, coherent and accurate data ever be made available?
What is the truth?
If anyone has access to newer or more accurate and complete data, please post it in the comment section below:
The data below is from the African CDC:
August 13, 2024
At least 12 African countries, including previously unaffected nations like Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda, have reported Mpox outbreaks. So far in 2024, these countries have confirmed 2,863 cases and 517 deaths, primarily in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Suspected cases across the continent have surged past 17,000.
Since the beginning of this year and as of July 28, 2024 a total of 14,250 cases (2,745 confirmed; 11,505 suspected) and 456 deaths (CFR: 3.2%) of mpox have been reported from 10 AU MS: Burundi (8 cases; 0 deaths), Cameroon (35; 2), CAR (213; 0), Congo (146; 1), DRC (13,791; 450), Ghana (4; 0), Liberia (5; 0), Nigeria (24; 0), Rwanda (2; 0) and South Africa (22; 3). This represents a 160% and 19% increase in cases and deaths, respectively, in 2024 compared to the same period in 2023.
DRC accounts for 96.3% of all cases and 97% of all deaths reported this year. In addition, Chad has reported 24 suspected cases and no confirmed cases this year.
The data below is from The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control:
August 16, 2024
Since the beginning of the global mpox outbreak in 2022 and until the end of July 2024, 99,176 confirmed cases of mpox, including 208 deaths, had been reported by 116 countries.
In 2024, 14,719 suspected and 2,822 confirmed mpox cases (total 17,541) have been reported in the African continent, including 517 deaths (case fatality 3%), according to the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC).
In 2024, DRC has reported 16 789 cases (14 151 suspected and 2 638 confirmed) including 511 deaths (case fatality 3%) from all of the country’s provinces, representing the highest number of cases due to clade I in Africa.
Confirmed mpox cases have also been reported in five of the eight neighbouring countries to DRC in 2024, i.e.
Burundi (61 confirmed, 165 suspected),
Central African Republic (35 confirmed, 223 suspected),
Congo (19 confirmed, 150 suspected),
Rwanda (four confirmed), and
Uganda (two confirmed).
MPVX clade Ib, which was detected first in DRC and reported in April 2024, was also detected in confirmed cases in Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya.
In DRC, most cases and deaths reported are among <15-year-olds, representing 66% of the total cases and 82% of the total deaths. Males account for 73% of the cases in DRC.
The data below is also from the World Health Organization:
In South Kivu, between 1 January and 2 June 2024, 777 cases were reported through the national surveillance system after investigation of alerts. Following laboratory testing of samples from 426 out of 777 cases (55%), 373 cases were confirmed as positive (test positivity of 88%), including seven deaths (CFR 1.8% among confirmed cases).
Meets one of the epidemiological criteria and has a high clinical suspicion for mpox
Probable Case
No suspicion of other recent Orthopoxvirus exposure (e.g., Vaccinia virus in ACAM2000 vaccination) AND demonstration of the presence of
Orthopoxvirus DNA by polymerase chain reaction of a clinical specimen OR
Orthopoxvirus using immuno-histochemical or electron microscopy testing methods OR
Demonstration of detectable levels of anti-orthopoxvirus IgM antibody during the period of 4 to 56 days after rash onset
Confirmed Case
Demonstration of the presence of monkeypox virus (MPXV) DNA by polymerase chain reaction testing OR
Next-Generation sequencing of a clinical specimen OR
Isolation of MPXV in culture from a clinical specimen
Epidemiologic Criteria
Within 21 days of illness onset:
Reports having contact with a person or people with a similar appearing rash or who received a diagnosis of confirmed or probable mpox OR
Had close or intimate in-person contact with individuals in a social network experiencing mpox activity, this includes men who have sex with men (MSM) who meet partners through an online website, digital application (“app”), or social event (e.g., a bar or party) OR
Traveled outside the US to a country with confirmed cases of mpox or where MPXV is endemic OR
Had contact with a dead or live wild animal or exotic pet that is an African endemic species or used a product derived from such animals (e.g., game meat, creams, lotions, powders, etc.)
Exclusion Criteria
A case may be excluded as a suspect, probable, or confirmed case if:
An alternative diagnosis can fully explain the illness OR
An individual with symptoms consistent with mpox does not develop a rash within 5 days of illness onset OR
A case where high-quality specimens do not demonstrate the presence of Orthopoxvirus or MPXV or antibodies to orthopoxvirus
At least one of the Clade I Epidemiologic Criteria (below)
Probable Case, Clade I
Probable or confirmed mpox as defined above AND
At least one of the Clade I Epidemiologic Criteria (below) AND
Clade I and clade II MPXV-negative by polymerase chain reaction testing without Next-Generation sequencing of a clinical specimen to confirm clade
Confirmed Case, Clade I
Demonstration of the presence of clade I MPXV DNA by polymerase chain reaction testing or Next-Generation sequencing of a clinical specimen
Clade I Epidemiologic Criteria
Within 21 days of illness onset:
Traveled to an area with evidence of sustained human to human transmission of clade I mpox or where clade I MPXV is endemic, OR
Reports having contact with person with confirmed, probable or suspect clade I mpox, OR
Had close or intimate in-person contact with individuals in a social network currently experiencing clade I mpox activity, OR
Had contact with a dead or live wild animal or exotic pet that is a central African endemic species or used a product derived from such animals (e.g., game meat, creams, lotions, powders, etc.)
The laboratory diagnosis of mpox is predominantly based on the direct demonstration of the Orthopoxvirus monkeypox (MPXV) in a clinical specimen.
Real-time polymerase chain reaction (real-time PCR) on skin lesion materials (e.g. swabs, exudate, or lesion crusts) are used most frequently.
Viral throat swabs can be used for high risk contacts of confirmed or high-probable cases who have developed systemic symptoms but do not have a rash or lesions that can be sampled.
Several real-time PCR assays for the specific detection of MPXV, or for generic orthopoxvirus detection are available [31-36].
Over 80 MPXV laboratory tests are CE-validated, mostly based on PCR [31-36].
31. Maksyutov RA, Gavrilova EV, Shchelkunov SN. Species-specific differentiation of variola, monkeypox, and varicella-zoster viruses by multiplex real-time PCR assay. Journal of Virological Methods. 2016;236:215-20. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093416300672
32. Li Y, Zhao H, Wilkins K, Hughes C, Damon IK. Real-time PCR assays for the specific detection of monkeypox virus West African and Congo Basin strain DNA. Journal of Virological Methods. 2010;169(1):223-7. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093410002545
35. Luciani L, Inchauste L, Ferraris O, Charrel R, Nougairède A, Piorkowski G, et al. A novel and sensitive real-time PCR system for universal detection of poxviruses. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):1798. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81376-4
36. Li D, Wilkins K, McCollum AM, Osadebe L, Kabamba J, Nguete B, et al. Evaluation of the GeneXpert for human monkeypox diagnosis. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2017;96(2):405. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5303045/
If we apply Special Counsel Jack Smith’s interpretation of the “conspiracy against rights” statue included in the DOJ’s J6 indictment of Donald Trump, Biden and the Democrats have committed a crime.
On Monday night, Joe Biden will stumble his way through a farewell speech in bidding goodbye to politics after more than 50 years in public office.
Biden undoubtedly plans to offer the same schtick—a caption-necessary combination of self-pity and self-righteousness punctuated by expressions of rage and his signature creepy whisper—as he soaks in his final moments of glory in front of thousands of Democrats assembled at the United Center on the west side of Chicago.
But this is not what Biden wanted. Far from it.
His address will be less curtain call and more live hostage video performed under duress by a man taken captive by his own party elites including longtime friends and allies who have essentially chained the ex-presidential candidate to his Delaware beach house to keep him from doing any more political damage.
Biden may speak the jumbo-sized words plastered on the teleprompter but all the while he’ll hear in the back of his head the voice of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
The easy way or the hard way.
And as Americans listen to Biden’s standard unhinged rants about Donald Trump’s so-called “threat to democracy,” it is important to recall that Biden was forced out of the race not by Trump but by top Democratic Party officials including Pelosi, Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
And aside from the unseemliness of it all, what happened to Biden could constitute a federal crime—at least according to Special Counsel Jack Smith.
“Rule of Law” for Everyone…Right?
One of four counts in Smith’s January 6-related indictment of the former president is 18 U.S. Code § 241, conspiracy against rights. The statute reads:
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States; they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years.”
Smith once again relied on the vague language of a federal statute to argue that Trump’s claims about voting fraud in the 2020 election and plans to delay the certification proceedings on January 6 denied the rights of the (haha) 81 million Americans who voted for Biden. Smith’s indictment accuses Trump of conspiring to “injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States—that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.” (Emphasis added.)
In announcing the indictment in August 2023, Smith described the conspiracy charge as Trump’s attempt to “disenfranchise voters.”
Well, well, well.
Using Smith’s logic, that law now should apply to Congressional Democrats, the corporate news media, and White House officials including Biden himself for violating the rights of 14 million voters who selected Biden during the Democratic primary. By every measure, those parties collectively “disenfranchised” voters by first freezing out potential Democratic primary opponents last spring and officially clinching the nomination in March only to later succeed in strong-arming Biden out of the race when it was clear he would not win.
The criminal conspiracy to violate the voting rights of 14 million Americans began shortly after Biden’s disastrous debate performance on June 27.
For three weeks, Biden, according to sources, vigorously rejected public and private calls for his ouster. One by one, loyal politicians and reporters turned on him. The short-tempered Biden “has been fuming at his Delaware beach house, increasingly resentful about what he sees as an orchestrated campaign to drive him out of the race and bitter toward some of those he once considered close, including his onetime running mate Barack Obama,” the New York Timesreported on July 19.
Nonetheless, Biden and his advisors spent the next 48 hours promising that he planned to continue seeking a second term, even announcing plans to return to the campaign trail after a (quesionable) bout with Covid.
Then in a Sunday afternoon surprise, with 107 days left before Election Day, Biden quit the race on July 21.
Unlike January 6, July 21 Successfully Disenfranchised Voters
In any other industry or sport, Biden’s decision represented nothing less than conceding victory to Donald Trump. After all, Biden did not say he dropped out due to health problems or other unexpected issues.
He quit because he was going to lose and take down other Democratic candidates with him in November.
His spokesman at the time portrayed his boss’s act as one of selfless courage. “The President has spoken to his decision to put country above self and unite his party, as well as the stakes of this moment.”
But that is not why Biden exited stage left. He got the hook.
“What happened was a number of my Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate thought that I was gonna hurt them in the races,” Biden told CBS News sycophant Robert Costa on August 7. “And I was concerned if I stayed in the race, that would be the topic. You’d be interviewing me about, ‘why did Nancy Pelosi say, why did so-and-so,’ and I thought it would be a real distraction.”
Not a distraction. A humiliation. It was all about party and politics and nothing about country. Further, Pelosi’s mob boss tactics also had nothing to do with protecting her friend of 40 years from a brutal campaign or “securing democracy” as she loves to say.
She ruthlessly booted Biden to prevent Trump from winning in what increasingly looked like a landslide victory.
“Her goal, she added, was simple: That Donald Trump would never set foot in the White House again,” the New Yorker magazine reported on August 8. “My concern was: this ain’t happening, and we have to make a decision for this to happen.”
We have to make a decision for this to happen.
Quite ironic for a woman who calls the four-hour disturbance at the Capitol on January 6 a plan by Trump to “overturn the election results.” Rather than risk a loss at the polls in November, Pelosi took the losing matter of Joe Biden’s candidacy into her own talons—and subsequently out of the hands of 14 million Americans.
Biden reportedly is still steamed about the “unprecedented mutiny” against him. He and Pelosi have not spoken since he bowed out.
Kamala Harris, the installed replacement who didn’t earn a single vote for president, now is poised to formally accept the party’s nomination on Thursday night. Her speech will represent the culmination of an unprecedented criminal conspiracy—and a successful one unlike what happened on January 6—to steal the Democratic presidential nomination from Joe Biden and deprive millions of voters their chosen candidate.
Where is the Department of Justice when it’s need it? For Conservatives that is.
An unidentified individual carrying a bag exited a police vehicle then walked toward the location where the device was “found” about 15 minutes later. There are no coincidences.
One reason the public should remain highly suspicious about the circumstances surrounding the so-called “pipe bombs” discovered on January 6 is the national media’s collective disinterest in the matter.
Major news outlets, including those with full time J6 beat reporters, have completely ignored the shocking findings recently confirmed by DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari related to the Secret Service’s role in the events of January 6. Cuffari determined Kamala Harris, the incoming vice president and U.S. Senator at the time and now Democratic candidate for president, came within 20 feet of the alleged explosive when she inexplicably left the Capitol at 11:22 a.m. to visit the Democratic National Committee headquarters instead of staying behind to relish her history-making moment.
Yet she has never discussed nor been asked about her near-assassination attempt. And perhaps for good reason.
Newly discovered video appears to justify the belief that the DNC “pipe bomb” scare was part of an inside job perhaps orchestrated by law enforcement or others to initiate panic in Washington on January 6.
This video, captured by a security camera outside the DNC building, shows an officer with Harris’s detail exit a DC Metro Police SUV at 12:51 p.m. The officer, carrying a bag of some sort, points toward and then walks in the direction of where the second pipe bomb was “found” just outside the building. (For unknown reasons, no video is available for the bench area that day.)
At 12:53 p.m., the man re-enters the frame carrying the bag as he approaches the Metro Police SUV in the driveway and gets back into the passenger side.
What exactly was he doing? Did he set the device? And if he was acting on the up-and-up, how in the world did he not see a pipe bomb sitting right there?
In fact, several instances earlier in the day undermine the idea that law enforcement simply “missed” the device planted underneath bushes between two benches on the outside of the building. The movements also suggest the device was not where the FBI claimed it had been planted the night before—or wasn’t there at all until several minutes before it was “discovered.”
The Official Timeline
Nearly two hours before Harris arrived at the DNC, a bomb-sniffing dog conducted a sweep outside the building at 9:29 a.m. in close proximity to where the explosive was later “found.” The canine did not detect the device—a bomb the FBI insists to this day was viable and deadly—and something Cuffari noted in his investigation of the matter.
Security camera footage edited here to track the movements of Harris’s detail—each marked with a different colored circle—captures the arrival of Harris’s motorcade, which was led by a D.C. Metropolitan Police (MPD) SUV, at the DNC.
As Harris’s motorcade enters the garage, the footage shows a member of the detail, tracked with a yellow circle, exiting the MPD SUV and pointing to the driveway apparently directing the other vehicles where to park. He then walks back to the MPD vehicle, opens the passenger side door, and appears to retrieve something from inside before walking away. The MPD vehicle leaves as the man walks out of frame toward the area where the pipe bomb would be “found” about 40 minutes later.
At 11:27 a.m., a Capitol Police car arrives and parks in the driveway next to the black SUV as the detail member tracked with the yellow circle re-enters the frame from the area where the pipe bomb supposedly was located. He then approaches the Capitol Police car and enters the passenger side.
At 12:03 p.m., the MPD SUV returns. The detail member with the yellow circle exits the Capitol Police car and approaches the MPD officer. The two approach the black SUV. Another member of Harris’s detail, tracked with a red circle, then exits the black SUV, and the three officers enter the MPD vehicle and leave at 12:05 p.m.
Another member of Harris’s detail, tracked with a white circle, appears to wander outside the building, walking out of frame in the direction of where the pipe bomb was located at 12:07 p.m.—yet he somehow missed it, too.
At 12:08 p.m., the MPD SUV returns and the man tracked with the white circle re-enters the frame from the area of the pipe bomb, approaching the vehicle. The officer driving the MPD SUV exits, followed by the detail member tracked with the yellow circle, who exits from the passenger side.
The man with the yellow circle opens the SUV’s trunk and three officers shuffle items inside the vehicle. The man tracked with the white circle, who had been posted outside the building, enters the back driver’s side door of the MPD SUV. The driving officer re-enters through the driver’s door and the man tracked with the yellow circle enters the front passenger side door. The man tracked with the red circle, who earlier entered the MPD SUV at 12:05 p.m. after exiting the black SUV, is possibly still inside. Assuming that’s the case, the four members of Harris’s detail leave the DNC in the MPD SUV at 12:10 p.m.
At 12:47 p.m.—two minutes after officers arrived at the Republican National Committee headquarters to respond to the first device—the MPD vehicle returns.
(Additional officers from the Capitol Police Protective Services Bureau were sent to canvas the DNC in response to the RNC device discovery, which the Capitol Police command center had been alerted to at 12:42 p.m., reportedly diverting resources from the Capitol just as the first wave of protesters arrived.)
The detail member tracked with the red circle exits the MPD SUV and re-enters the black SUV. The MPD SUV leaves again at 12:48 p.m., before returning minutes later at 12:51 p.m.
Shortly after the individual who had exited the DC Metro SUV at 12:51 and returned to the vehicle at 12:53, the device allegedly was found at 1:05 p.m. by a plainclothes officer from the Capitol Police.
Footage shows this officer approaching the driver’s side of the Metro Police SUV, pointing in the direction of the pipe bomb, and then walking around to the passenger side, where the man who had pointed toward the pipe bomb 15 minutes earlier was seated. The passenger door opens, and the plainclothes officer appears to take something from the man inside. The officer is then seen carrying a backpack as he walks away and approaches the driver’s side of the black SUV.
Despite being alerted to the explosive device, there is no immediate response from the officers while two pedestrians casually stroll across the street toward the pipe bomb’s location. The plainclothes officer then walks away from the black SUV, exiting the frame, as a third pedestrian walks toward the pipe bomb at 1:06 p.m.
The officers finally begin to slowly exit their vehicles at 1:07 p.m. with the driver of the Metro Police SUV casually strolling toward the area of the pipe bomb at 1:08 p.m. This is followed by another pedestrian entering the frame from the direction of the device, appearing unconcerned and unaware of any threat.
At 1:09 p.m., a fifth pedestrian does the same, also appearing totally unaware and unconcerned. The camera then pans over to where the pipe bomb was located, just next to a bench where an empty disposable coffee cup appears to have been left—possibly by someone who had occupied that bench with the bomb sitting right next to their feet, assuming it had been planted when the FBI claims it was.
At 1:17 p.m., Harris was evacuated from the building, twelve minutes after her detail was alerted to the device.
Perfect Timing
The DNC pipe bomb threat coincided with other key events—the discovery of the RNC pipe bomb (more on that soon), the Ray Epps-led breach of exterior barrier of western side of the Capitol, the release of Vice President Pence’s memo rejecting the idea of denying electoral votes in contested states—just minutes before the 1:00 p.m. start of the joint session of Congress.
It is merely impossible at this point to believe in coincidences related to January 6.
The government also inexplicably misled the courts about Harris’s whereabouts on January 6. The Department of Justice claimed in hundreds of charging documents against J6ers that Harris was at the Capitol during the protest, lending credence to charges that the area was off limits. The DOJ later had to confess that wasn’t true.
Harris has never discussed her brush with death publicly. Her silence makes no sense since she routinely compares the four-hour disturbance to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.
The Secret Service also appears to be involved in concealing the truth related to the DNC pipe bomb. Cuffari’s report also revealed that the Secret Service never reported Harris’s evacuation from the DNC due to the bomb threat as an “unusual protective event,” as required by its policies.
Why?
Even more disturbing is the fact that text messages belonging to at least two dozen Secret Service officials and agents including now disgraced former USSS director Kim Cheatle were deleted and never recovered, adding to the very suspicious surroundings of the pipe bomb mystery.
Self-appointed J6 truth seekers also ignored the pipe bomb threat. In February, Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of now defunct January 6 Select Committee, said his investigators did not look into the pipe bombs.
Kamala Harris is refusing to give any interviews or press conferences while regime media takes the lead in her “reimaging” effort to help her defeat Donald Trump.
Ghosting her whereabouts on January 6 appears to be another way in which the media is rewriting her history.
A new DHS IG report confirms Harris came within 20 feet of an explosive on January 6–but regime media, J6 truth seekers, and even Harris herself continue to disregard the findings. Why?
Confirmation last week by the Department of Homeland Security that Vice President Kamala Harris came within several yards of an explosive device on the afternoon of January 6, 2021 should be one of the hottest stories right now.
The fact that the installed Democratic candidate for president barely escaped an attempt on her life by an alleged MAGA terrorist during what she compares to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor makes for ripe clickbait. Further, her stoicism in the face of such a grave threat—she has never discussed the matter publicly—not just to herself but to her staff and police officers protecting her that day at the DNC is the stuff heroes are made of.
Just imagine a campaign video for Team Harris: grainy footage of a hoodie-wearing Trump goon placing explosives outside the DNC on January 5 followed by clips of the arrival of Harris’ motorcade the next morning and her swift evacuation almost two hours later when the bomb was discovered by police.
Then her triumphant return to the Capitol in the wee hours of January 7 as Harris defeated both Trump and the MAGA bomber in one fell swoop!
Harris also could easily leverage her own attempted assassination to contrast what happened to Donald Trump on July 13, creating a political version of “Survivor.”
“I was a victim of an assassination attempt way before Donald Trump!” Harris could indignantly claim. Adding to the mystery is that the so-called MAGA bomber to date has not been caught.
But oddly, neither Harris nor regime media demonstrate any interest in covering one of the most pivotal moments of an event both Democrats and the media have obsessed over for more than three-and-a-half years.
As stated, Harris hasn’t been asked about what happened to her that day. Regime media, with the exception of a few articles, barely mentions the pipe bomb incident in coverage of the events of January 6 even though the threat prompted the first wave of panic. And for almost a year, the Department of Justice lied in charging documents that Harris was at the Capitol on January 6 to support trespassing charges against hundreds of individuals before fessing up in court that whoops she was not there at any point during the four-hour disturbance.
This collective cover up raises many red flags. But now that Harris is the Democratic nominee for president and amid worries the Secret Service is failing to adequately defend the agency’s protectees, the ongoing memory holing of the DNC pipe bomber grows more suspicious.
Confirming What the Right has Exclusively Reported for Years
According to the inspector general for the DHS, the motorcade for the then-U.S. Senator from California drove right past a pipe bomb hours before Harris was set to make history as the first woman of color elected vice president. Harris had left the U.S. Capitol around 11:15 a.m. following a Senate intelligence briefing and arrived at the DNC with her Secret Service detail roughly ten minutes later. “The pipe bomb was approximately 9 feet from the building’s exterior wall and 20 feet from the center of the driveway to the garage entrance where the Vice President-elect, traveling in an armored vehicle with her motorcade, entered the building on January 6,” Inspector General Joseph Cuffari disclosed in his report on the Secret Service’s role in the events of January 6.
A plainclothes Capitol Police officer found the device around 1:05 p.m. after law enforcement was alerted about the discovery of a pipe bomb outside the Republican National Committee building a few blocks away.
Harris was evacuated from the DNC around 1:17 p.m.
But most Americans have never heard of this incident because regime media has completely ghosted the story, leaving the heavy lifting to a few journalists, Congressmen, and influencers on the Right.
Reporters have pored over videos and documents to determine how numerous law enforcement agencies could have missed the crude device placed under a shrub between two exterior benches near the DNC entrance. One also noted not just the presence of several police officers including Secret Service agents that day but passersby who also remarkably failed to notice the pipe bomb.
Earlier this year, a video was found of bomb-sniffing canines conducting a search on two separate occasions a few hours before Harris’ arrival, but the dogs also failed to detect the explosive, which the FBI insisted was viable and deadly. Cuffari also dinged the Secret Service for not providing an explosives expert team on the site, which allegedly contributed to the security lapse.
Cuffari’s report disclosed other scandals related to January 6, particularly the criminal deletion of text messages belonging to two dozen Secret Service officials that have never been recovered.
J6 Truth Seekers Turn a Blind Eye
However the self-appointed truth seekers of J6 have ignored the report. A search for “Kamala Harris DNC Pipe Bomb,” “DHS Inspector General,” and “Joseph Cuffari” at the New York Times website did not produce a single recent article.
Ditto for CNN and MSNBC; in fact, the last time either outlet bothered to mention Kamala Harris and the DNC pipe bomb was back in 2022 during the height of the January 6 Select Committee’s hearings. One MSNBC reporter at the time said the committee planned to investigate the near-miss at the DNC; that, of course, never happened.
NBC News, which has a full-time reporter dedicated to all things January 6, has zero coverage of Cuffari’s report. A search on the website for CBS News, which also has a full-time reporter covering January 6, came up empty, too. Of the big three networks, only ABC News covered the details of Cuffari’s report related to the DNC bomb, describing the Secret Service’s failure to detect the device on several occasions with a protectee nearby as “potentially dangerous mistakes.”
And only one article appeared in the Washington Post on Cuffari’s report. Harris is mentioned in one sentence— “the explosive did not detonate, but Kamala Harris, then the vice president-elect, had walked within 20 feet of the device”—despite describing January 6 as “an assault on the Capitol by supporters of Trump, who were attempting to overthrow the 2020 election.”
Members of Congress purportedly dedicated to uncovering all the “facts” about January 6 similarly ignored the findings. Representative Bennie Thompson, chairman of the J6 committee, did not post a comment or response; neither did committee chairwoman Liz Cheney.
So, what could possibly explain the collective snub? It’s not as if the Biden regime, Democratic Party, and the media have moved on from January 6—to the contrary, the Capitol protest was supposed to be a major campaign theme this year.
Is it because a more sinister answer exists that could tell of the missing texts and absent security video—somehow the most surveilled city in America did not have a camera aimed at the outside area where the bomb was found—and by Harris herself? As many others have wondered, was Kamala’s still unexplained presence at the DNC—which coincided with the pipe bomb discovery at the RNC, the Ray Epps-led exterior breach, and the start of the joint session—part of a larger plan to initiate the fedsurrection?
Loren Merchan, owner of Authentic Campaigns, nearly doubled her business from this same time two years ago. Having daddy preside over the New York trial of Donald Trump sure does help!
Democrats have paid the company owned by the politically active daughter of compromised Judge Juan Merchan at least $12.7 million in the first half of this year.
Federal election reports show Authentic Campaigns, the consulting firm owned by Loren Merchan, raked in the windfall between January 1 and July 1, 2024. Her father currently presides over Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Donald Trump in New York City.
Declassified with Julie Kelly is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The sum represents an 86 percent increase in Authentic Campaigns receipts from the same time period in 2022. Democratic elected officials, candidates, and PACs reported $6.8 million in payments to Merchan between January 1 and July 1, 2022, the last general election cycle.
The boom in business coincided with Trump’s six-week trial in Merchan’s Manhattan courtroom, which began on April 15. Prior to the start of the jury trial, Merchan repeatedly sided with Bragg while demonstrating open hostility to the former president. Merchan imposed a gag order early on and then proceeded to deny nearly every defense motion.
Two weeks into the trial, Merchan held Trump in contempt for violating the gag order.
Merchan, of course, should never have been near the case but he thwarted every legal attempt to get him removed.
Last year, amid details of Loren Merchan’s financial ties to top Democrats including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the judge’s own small donations to Democrats, Trump asked Merchan to step aside. “Your Honor’s daughter’s close connection to President Trump’s political adversaries and her work at, and financial interest in, a firm which is deeply engrained with Democratic politics raises real and legitimate concerns about this Court’s impartiality,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in May 2023 shortly after Merchan was assigned to handle the case. “The financial well-being of Your Honor’s daughter depends at least in part on the success of Authentic. And Authentic’s business model is one that requires it to attack President Trump and support individuals and causes in direct competition with President Trump.”
A few months later, Merchan denied Trump’s request to recuse himself. Accusations his daughter stood to profit off the case, Merchan stated, was “speculative and hypothetical.”
Once again, the Columbian-born Merchan was wrong.
A Client List or Trump Enemies List—or Both?
Some of the former president’s biggest foes are on Merchan’s growing client list. Representative Adam Schiff’s campaign has paid Merchan’s firm roughly $8 million so far this year; the Trump-Russia collusion hoaxster currently is running against former MLB player Steve Garvey to replace the late Dianne Feinstein in the U.S. Senate.
Schiff arguably is Merchan’s most lucrative client dating back to the start of Authentic Campaigns in 2019. During his role in leading the impeachment of Trump in 2019 and 2020, Schiff paid Merchan’s firm $4 million for digital consulting and various services.
Freshman New York Congressman Dan Goldman has paid Authentic Campaigns $57,000 this year to place digital ads. Goldman, an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, in November 2023 said Trump “has to be eliminated” and “cannot see public office again.” Before winning his seat in Congress, Goldman served as a lawyer on the first impeachment trial of Trump.
Other big-name clients include Democratic senators Jon Tester, Corey Booker, Tina Smith, and Tammy Baldwin; all have paid Merchan at least six figures so far this year.
After a jury convicted Trump in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the case, Booker called the verdict, “a moment of justice.”
It appears fake kidnapping victim and Trump antagonist Gretchen Whitmer is a new Authentic Campaigns client. “Fight Like Hell,” the PAC the Michigan governor launched in 2023, is paying Merchan’s firm an $8,000 per month retainer for “digital consulting.” The first recorded payment in the amount of $76,035 from Whitmer’s PAC to Merchan is dated July 2023, three months after Judge Merchan got the case.
Another Bite of the Apple?
Trump’s sentencing was originally scheduled for this month, but Merchan postponed that proceeding until September pending consideration of a motion to vacate the conviction based on the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.
While the move may appear magnanimous, no doubt Merchan has ulterior motives in delaying the historic event until the height of the 2024 campaign season.
After all, another appearance before Trump a few months
I saw that the AP Stylebook was urging us not to use the word “Popsicle,” because “Popsicle” is “a trademark for a brand of flavored ice on a stick. Use ice pop or frozen pop as the generic.”
Sure, AP Stylebook. Sure.
“Hey, kids, want a frozen pop?”
Yeah, that’s not happening.
But then it occurred to me: I’ll bet the AP Stylebook is unsound on more than just popsicles. And having looked through its Twitter account, I can report that the old man’s instincts were once again sound.
Several years ago, for example, we were treated to this little gem:
“We now say not to use the archaic and sexist term ‘mistress’ for a woman in a long-term sexual relationship with, and financially supported by, a man who is married to someone else. Instead, use an alternative like companion or lover on first reference. Provide details later.”
Well, alrighty, then.
Then we learn that we really ought to avoid the words “riot” and “rioting.” Why, you ask? Here’s why:
Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice, going back to the urban uprisings of the 1960s.
Unrest is a vaguer, milder and less emotional term for a condition of angry discontent and protest verging on revolt.
Super.
So you can call something a riot as long as the AP disapproves of the motivations of the people involved.
I did recall the AP Stylebook taking a unpopular but very sound stance back in 2012 when it removed words like “homophobia” and “Islamophobia.”
The suffix “-phobia” refers to “an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness,” and thus should not be used “in political or social contexts,” said the Stylebook.
“Homophobia especially — it’s just off the mark,” said AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn. “It’s ascribing a mental disability to someone.” My thoughts exactly. Someone who disagrees with you or dislikes you does not have a clinical disorder, even if the left likes to treat dissidents as if they do.
Well, that didn’t last long. By 2017 the Stylebook was saying that “homophobia” and “homophobic” were “acceptable in broad references or in quotations to the concept of fear or hatred of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.”
Now of course it’s normal for new words to come into use, or older words to acquire new shades of meaning over time. This is all part of the organic development of a language. But there is nothing organic about what the political class wants to do to the English language.
Just think of what’s been done to the word “violence.” We’re told that unkind words are “violence.” We’re told that “silence is violence.” Or bigotry is “violence.”
“White supremacy” doesn’t mean anything at all at this point. Punctuality, professionalism, eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and dozens of other positive goods have been condemned as white supremacist or racist.
How can we talk to each other when crucial words we need to use carry weird and ever-changing ideological baggage? Will the word ‘weird’ be next? Stay tuned guys and gals. Stay tuned!
For the fourth time in the past year, a team of leading scientists has proven that the theory of manmade climate change is completely fake. The “science” that underpins the unproven theory of global warming is deeply flawed and cannot be replicated in any laboratory. If you believe that global warming is real, you should start seeing a cult deprogrammer; you have been brainwashed by a religious movement that does not have your family’s best interests at heart. If you’re interested in real science as it applies to the contained atmosphere on planet Earth and you’re open to the possibility that global warming is fake, keep reading.
A team of physicists at the Institute of Optoelectronics at the Military University of Technology in Warsaw just published their latest research in the journal Science Direct. Their published and peer-reviewed study is titled, “Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases.”
The scientists looked at the addition of manmade carbon dioxide (CO2 emissions) and analyzed the effects of the gas on radiation (heat) absorption within a contained atmosphere. What they found is that CO2 blocks heat on a spectrum. After a certain point, CO2 reaches a saturation limit and is incapable of trapping any heat beyond that.
A simple example of the saturation effect is the insulation in your home’s attic. When you apply one layer of insulation, it helps to trap heat in your home and keep it warmer during the winter. If you apply a second layer of insulation, it might make a small bit of additional difference. If you apply five, ten, or more layers of insulation, it eventually doesn’t trap any more heat because it has reached the saturation point.
This is exactly how the researchers say that carbon dioxide functions in the atmosphere. It reaches a saturation point when carbon dioxide is around 300 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. What this means in practical terms is that if we dug up every last ounce of coal and sucked every last drop of oil from the earth, put them in a big pile, and lit them on fire, the CO2 emissions could not cause the temperature of the Earth to increase one iota.
The Earth’s atmosphere reached 300 ppm of carbon dioxide way back in 1950—around 74 years ago. Today, the CO2 level in the atmosphere is around 430 ppm. None of the carbon pumped into the atmosphere since 1950 has made any difference in global temperatures.
This is the fourth time in the past year that physicists have applied their principles to carbon dioxide to determine whether it is impacting global temperatures or climate. All four independent teams of physicists have reached the same conclusion, meaning that this research is replicable and therefore is most likely scientifically true.
One of the main principles of science is that your hypothesis must be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny from other researchers. If they conduct the same experiments and come to the same conclusion, your theory (hypothesis) is likely true. No prediction that has ever been made by the climate alarmists has ever come true. Research into the saturation effect of CO2 has come to the same conclusion every time. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions cannot impact global temperatures or the Earth’s climate.
The theory of manmade global warming is fake. Check your child’s science textbook at school. It likely says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that if we do not “act now,” we’ll all die from hot weather at some mysterious point in the future. Parents should demand that school districts teach real science to their kids, which is that CO2 cannot impact temperatures and that global warming is fake.
A whirlwind of conjecture continues to swirl around the circumstances of the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump during a July 13 campaign rally at the Butler Farm Show Grounds near Butler, Pennsylvania.
Official reports indicate that twenty year old Thomas Matthew Crooks, killed by a Secret Service sniper immediately after firing the shots, was the sole gunman involved in the failed assassination attempt, and that he apparently acted alone.
Yet the precise details of the case remain prohibitively hazy and are likely to remain so, even as law enforcement, professional journalists, and citizen investigators probe the scant body of information presently available on the planning, motivations, and potential associations of the perpetrator.
A host of troubling irregularities around the conduct of law enforcement and Secret Service agents prior to the shooting have naturally generated a large amount of plausible but still tenuous conspiracy theories in which shadowy deep state actors prominently feature.
The ostensible involvement of the CIA in the Kennedy assassination offers the most obvious precedent for the framing of emergent theories on the recent attempt on Trump’s life. Even so, the historical involvement of the American intelligence community in political assassinations, particularly of American citizens and most especially of high profile American politicians, is unsurprisingly shrouded in a high degree of secrecy. The very nature of political assassinations by intelligence agencies by definition necessitates as many degrees of separation as possible between state actors and the perpetrators of said killings, such that we cannot and should not expect to find a clear body of evidence, much less a paper trail, linking high level conspirators with the actual assassination.
Yet we are not entirely without documentation of assassination protocols originating from the official records of intelligence agencies. A 1953 CIA document titled “A Study of Assassination” helps illuminate the long history of the involvement of the intelligence agency in political killings.
Authored in the broader context of the CIA’s covert operations in Guatemala between 1952 and 1954 (under the codenames PBFORTUNE and PBSUCCESS), which culminated in a coup against Guatemalan president Juan Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, “A Study of Assassination” details protocols for the assassination of political targets by intelligence operatives and their associates.
While the document does not explicitly reference assassinations carried out against targets in the US, the protocols detailed therein could apply equally to the elimination of foreign and domestic targets alike. Let’s delve into the details of the document:
“A Study of Assassination” opens with an etymology of assassination, tracing the linguistic origins of the word to the hashshashin, agents of medieval Islamic military leader Hasan-Dan-Sabah who were reputed to use intoxicants to enhance their ability to kill surreptitiously:
“Assassination is a term thought to be derived from ‘hashish,’ a drug similar to marijuana, said to have been used by Hasan-Dan-Sabah to induce motivation in his followers, who were assigned to carry out political and other murders, usually at the cost of their lives.” (p1)
The next section of the document introduces crucial distinctions between types of assassination, classifying modes of political killings along three axes.
The first distinction is between “simple,” “chase,” and “guarded” assassination:
“[A]ssassinations in which the subject is unaware [of his danger] will be termed “simple”; those where the subject is aware but unguarded will be termed “chase”; those where the victim is guarded will be termed “guarded.” (p2)
The second distinction is made between “lost” and “safe” assassination:
If the assassin is to die with the subject, the act will be called “lost.” If the assassin is to escape, the adjective will be “safe.” It should be noted that no compromises should exist here. The assassin must not fall alive into enemy hands. (p2)
Finally, the document distinguishes between “secret,” “open,” and “terroristic” assassination:
A further type division is caused by the need to conceal the fact that the subject was actually the victim of assassination, rather than an accident or natural causes. If such concealment is desirable the operation will be called “secret” ;; if concealment is immaterial, the act will be called “open”; while if the assassination requires publicity to be effective it will be termed “terroristic.”
If we grant, for argument’s sake, that the July 13 assassination attempt on Donald Trump was not the work of a lone wolf but was executed in service of a broader conspiracy by malicious state actors, the circumstances surrounding the failed assassination compel us to classify the attempt as “guarded,” “lost,” and “terroristic.”
Considering recent events, perhaps the most pertinent part of the document is the fate of the assassin described for “lost” assassinations. Several questions present themselves:
How is such an assassin to be recruited? What is the nature of the communications between the assassin and high level conspirators, and of the relationship between the high level conspirators behind the killing and the assassin himself? And finally, who are the parties responsible for eliminating the assassin after the deed is done?
The document specifies in no unclear terms that “no assassination instructions should ever be written or recorded” and states that “decision[s] and instructions should be confined to an absolute minimum of persons […] ideally, only one person will be involved.” (p1) It is also recommended that the perpetrator of the assassination
“[…] should have an absolute minimum of contact with the rest of the organization and his instructions should be given orally by one person only […] It is preferable that the person issuing instructions also conduct any withdrawal or covering action which may be necessary.” (p3)
In “lost” assassinations, moreover, it becomes even more vital that any contact between the assassin and the broader conspiracy is kept to an absolute minimum. This is doubly important due to the ideal profile specified for a perpetrator who is recruited to carry out a “lost” assassination. The document states:
“In lost assassination, the assassin must be a fanatic of some sort. Politics, religion, and revenge are about the only feasible motives. Since a fanatic is unstable psychologically, he must be handled with extreme care. He must not know the identities of the other members of the organization, for although it is intended that he die in the act, something may go wrong.” (p3)
In such a case, the psychological profile of the assassin clearly makes him a liability. But on a deeper level, the “unstable” psychology of the assassin can also be seen as an asset, since an unstable individual can more easily be recruited to carry out political violence at risk of their own life, and the neurotic character of the assassin serves as an effective cover for the broader operation. Consider that media coverage of Thomas Matthew Crooks quickly pegged him as something of an awkward loner and a social outcast who had been bullied throughout his childhood – essentially, a profile matching that of notorious school shooters. In the absence of a clear picture of Crooks’ personal ideologies, confounded by his seemingly contradictory political alignments, the subtle implication is that his motivations were more akin to those of a neurotic than those of a political radical. Whatever profile of Crooks’ political leanings emerges in the days and weeks to come, the initial insinuation that he acted as a mentally unstable “lone wolf” serves well to distract from the question of whether the shooting was part of a broader conspiracy. Furthermore, in light of the well-documented history of the use of psychotropics by intelligence agencies for mind control purposes, we cannot discount the possibility that Crooks’ apparent psychological profile made him a prime target of brainwashing by malicious factions trying to turn him into a sort of Manchurian candidate. If Crooks was in fact recruited to be the perpetrator of a “lost” assassination, it would follow that the party responsible for his subsequent killing could be connected to the party responsible for recruiting him as an assassin initially.
“A Study of Assassination” goes on to explore in detail various methods and strategies for the killing of political targets. Techniques considered range from hand-to-hand combat and edge weapons to improvised bludgeoning devices, drugs and poisons, explosives, automobile accidents, and even orchestrated falls into bodies of water or open elevator shafts. (p5-20)
The preferred method, and that given the most extensive consideration, is the use of different firearms at various ranges. Crucially, the document states that “public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion” (p11) and advises “the subversion of a unit of an official guard at a ceremony.” (p12)
Close scrutiny of the conduct of Secret Service and law enforcement agents charged with protecting Donald Trump strongly suggests that the assassination attempt may in fact have involved such a subversion. By any standard it was a patently disastrous security failure for which no satisfactory explanation has been given.
More details will surely emerge on the assassination attempt, but the information available thus far clearly points toward the likelihood of a broader conspiracy. Because the high level conspirators are likely to remain hidden in the shadows, we will likely remain hard pressed to identify a particular faction of the deep state responsible for the incident. Yet it is hard to deny that the attempt on Trump’s life resembles something straight out of the CIA assassination playbook.
The left’s view of slavery as a uniquely Western evil is a product of deep historical ignorance.
Modern histories tend to rely heavily on the new ideological pieties of left-wing activists. First among these is the belief that we live in a totally corrupt and oppressive society – in fact, in the world’s most oppressive and corrupt society. Feeding this belief is the widely accepted claim – at least, within the modern Western world – that slavery is the United States’ ‘original sin’ and alleged to be uniquely evil as practiced within the US.
One major American textbook, Traditions and Encounters, appears to describe the Western-dominated slave trade as the largest and most brutal in history, calling even the full sweep of Arab / Islamic slavery ‘smaller than the Atlantic slave trade of modern times’. Elsewhere, the 1619 Project’s Nikole Hannah-Jones argues bluntly: ‘America’s brutal system of slavery [was] unlike anything that had existed in the world before. Enslaved people were… property that could be mortgaged, traded, bought, sold, used as collateral, given as a gift and disposed of violently.’
This take has become increasingly prominent within the modern American educational environment. The 1619 Project – which insists that 1619, the year that 20 Africans arrived in the English colonies, and not 1776, was ‘the true founding’ of America – has a formal curriculum. Underpinning this view that slavery in America and the West was uniquely brutal are several unexamined assumptions. Modern Americans tend to project our positive values back into the past while thinking that our sins are uniquely bad. What we don’t understand is that contemporary Western beliefs about human dignity, inalienable rights, a right to freedom, etc, are the exception, not the norm. If they seem like the norm today, that is largely because we have remade much of the world in our image. In reality, as conservative éminence grise Thomas Sowell writes in Black Rednecks and White Liberals (2005), it is probably fair to say that most Westerners think of historical slavery almost entirely in the context of Western white oppression of blacks during what is technically known as the Atlantic Slave Trade. Almost nothing could be further from empirical truth: American slavery was not unprecedented, it was not uniquely brutal and it did not invent any new oppressive systems. It was terrible, but talking about it as if it came out of nowhere means we understand less about history and about global norms. Slavery was ubiquitous throughout the ancient and historical world – often the step of human ‘development’ after simply killing and eating one’s defeated foemen.
Slavery in historical perspective
Leaving aside Rome, Greece and Babylon as examples of the horrors of historical slavery, we find that the more familiar African slave trade also stretched back over millennia, involving conflicts and emancipations that have often been forgotten for centuries in the West. Roughly 1,200 years ago, for example, the Zanj wars were fought (largely) between Arabs and slaves from civilised regions of West Africa and devastated much of modern-day Iraq. Broadly speaking, the Zanj rebels were members of Black African tribes who had been captured in Africa following military defeats or raids by Arab slave traders and who were subsequently forced to labour for Arab masters in blistering southern Iraq.
Even by Mississippi standards, a plantation in the Iraqi south was a miserable place to work shirtless in the summer. Zanj workers were frequently given Sisyphean tasks like removing and replacing all the over-salinized topsoil on large farms; others worked in 110-to-120-degree conditions to drain the salt marshes near the modern city of Basra. Contemporary sources, along with historical Arab ones, state the obvious: ‘Their conditions were extremely bad. Their labor was hard and exacting, and they received only a bare and inadequate keep consisting of – according to the Arabic sources – flour, semolina and dates.’ (1) Under a variety of charismatic and soon-dead leaders, the captured African warriors tried to rebel against these ‘appalling conditions’ at least twice (via organized raids from AD 688 to 690, and a more organized rebellion under ‘the Lion of the Zanj’ in 694) before the conflict generally called the Zanj War but were broken and shoved back into the salt marshes on both occasions.
The Zanj War caused destruction on a truly epic, modern scale. Contemporary estimates of the death toll during the 14-year conflict generally range between 500,000 and 2.5million. There seems general agreement that the war devastated much of the countryside through which it was fought: ‘Its consequences must long have continued to be felt, and it can hardly be doubted that the cities and regions of the lower Tigris never entirely recovered from the injuries which they at that time suffered’, reads one summary (2).
Remarkably, the story of this massive and bloody war, which lasted more than 14 years and killed perhaps a million human beings, is little more than a footnote to the full tale of the millennium-long Arab slave trade. As one academic puts it, the Arab trade in enslaved Africans ‘can be traced back to antiquity’. The trade became widespread in the 7th century as Islamic power grew in the Middle East and North Africa, ‘seven centuries before Europeans explored [Africa] and 10 centuries before West Africans were sold across the Atlantic to America’, and it endured until the modern era.
By almost every metric, the Arab slave trade was larger in scale than the white-dominated Atlantic slave trade. The well-regarded Senegalese scholar, Tidiane N’Diaye, has argued that at least 17million Africans were sold into Arab slavery, with eight million or so shipped from Eastern Africa to the Islamic world ‘via the Trans-Saharan route to Morocco or Egypt’, and nine million more ‘deported to regions on the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean’ – then both largely Arab lakes.
While it is difficult and a bit tasteless to compare these things, the Arab trade was by all accounts as brutal or more so than its Western counterpart. Academics have concluded that ‘about three out of four slaves died’ before ever reaching their destination and being sold into bondage, from causes including starvation, sickness and plain ‘exhaustion after long journeys’. It was also longer lasting than Western slavery, with slavery not being (formally) banned in the fairly typical Arab port of Zanzibar until 1873 and not abolished across Muslim East Africa until 1909.
Some Arab and Afro-Asiatic slave traders achieved legendary status during their eras and are remembered today. Probably most notable among these merchants of life was Hamad ibn Muhammad ibn Jum‘ah ibn Rajab ibn Muhammad ibn Sa‘īd al Murjabī – better known as Tippu Tip. A black man himself, in any normal sense of that term, Tip was also the most powerful and widely known slave trader in Africa for most of the period between his birth in 1832 and death in 1905, supplying much of the world with black slaves.
Tippu Tip (far right) sits besides Arab dignitaries and a colonial official. (Date unknown).
Born in Zanzibar to parents of Arab and Bantu heritage, and later nicknamed after the ‘tip-u-tip-u-tip’ sound that his guns made during a war against the Chungu tribe, Tip began raiding into the African interior as a young man – by the 1850s at latest. Living a full and adventurous life, if not a good one, he became one of Africa’s most notable historical figures. The famous trader met explorers Dr Livingstone and Henry Stanley, and built up a private army that included thousands of men and drew frequent allegations of cannibalism. At one point he conquered the entire eastern Congo region in his own name and that of the sultan of Zanzibar.
Tip had no particular problem doing business with, fighting, or indeed selling Europeans as well as blacks: no bigot, he. Following an agreement between his own Sultan – Barghash bin Said of Zanzibar – and the mad European king Leopold of Belgium, he served briefly as governor of the Stanley Falls sub-district in Belgium’s Congo Free State. He was also involved in the bloody Congo-Arab War, where Europeans and Arabs fought primarily by means of African proxy forces. When he finally retired, he wrote a darkly hilarious autobiography: one of the first prominent African examples of that genre and apparently the first ever written in Swahili. By 1895, Tip had already come to control seven large plantation farms and thousands of slaves, in addition to his force of fighting men. He died in 1905 in the ‘Stone Town’ core of Zanzibar – old, famous, very rich, evil and beloved.
The ‘Tippu Tip’ story of powerful whites and blacks working together to sell less powerful people of all shades would have struck almost no one as unusual for the large majority of the history of the slave trade. There was in fact – for centuries – a regional slave trade focussed entirely on the sale of white battle captives to Arab and black Muslim masters: the Barbary slave trade. Ohio State’s Robert Davis estimates that Muslim ‘Barbary’ raiders from the North African coast enslaved ‘about 850,000 captives over the century from 1580 to 1680’, and ‘easily’ as many as 1.25million between 1530 and 1780 (3).
Interestingly, these figures probably represent significant underestimates of the white slave population in the Near East. Davis analyses primarily the impact of slave raiding from modern Algeria, Libya and Tunisia, and his numbers apparently do not include Europeans seized in the Mediterranean or Black Seas by other Muslim naval powers. Using imperial Turkish customs records, The Cambridge World History of Slavery estimates that between two and three million mostly European slaves were shipped into the Ottoman Empire from the Black Sea region alone between the mid-1400s and the start of the 18th century. In this context, it is hard to avoid agreeing with Davis that – for whatever reason – many historians today ‘minimise the impact of Barbary slaving… [and] the scope of corsair piracy’.
Barbary slavers were famously ruthless and daring – launching military-scale raids on European cities on more than one occasion. In 1544, legendary Caucasian Muslim Hayreddin Barbarossa (‘the Red Beard’) captured both the sizable island town of Ischia and the city of Lipari, enslaving approximately 1,500 Christian Europeans in the first strike and between 2,000 and 3,000 in the second. Just seven years later, in 1551, another Muslim raider – Dragut or ‘Turgut Reis’ – conquered the island of Gozo and sold the entire population as slaves: shipping 5,000 to 6,000 Europeans into the Ottoman Empire as chattels.
During just the years 1609 to 1616, ‘no fewer than 466’ British merchant vessels were boarded and taken over by Barbary pirates during maritime battles or slashing longshore raids, with almost all captured sailormen and passengers sold as slaves. Even the US, half a world away, suffered at the hands of these slavers: the phrase ‘to the shores of Tripoli’ in the Marine Corps Hymn refers to a punitive mission launched by President Jefferson following repeated and brutal North African attacks on Yankee shipping.
The totals from the Barbary era represent only a small percentage of those white Europeans enslaved by Muslim or African oppressors throughout history. Even leaving racially diverse Rome and her hordes of unfree people and the million-plus western European victims of Barbary raiders aside, the very word ‘slave’ derives from ‘Slav’ – the ethnic demonym for proud but historically ‘backward’ whites occupying eastern Europe, millions of whom were sold into bondage over the centuries by Muslims and others. Across the sweep of time, from Athens to Istanbul, it is far from impossible that more whites than blacks have been enslaved.
Slavery in America
Even inside the future US in, say, the year 1619, the picture of human bondage was more complex than is generally recognised. Importantly, slave ownership was not a vice confined to Old World peoples (of whatever colour). Native North American and Mesoamerican tribes also all enslaved captured Native opponents – and later came to extend the same courtesy to white battle captives and purchased African Americans. While some of these individuals were treated almost as replacement members of the tribe, others were tortured to death after a few months or years of brutal captivity. Further, plain chattel slavery of a variety more recognisable to Westerners existed across today’s Alaska, most of Canada and the Pacific Northwest states, practised by powerful tribes like the warlike Haida.
When captured Africans began to arrive in North America, many tribes – notably the ‘Five Civilised Tribes’ of the American Southeast – transitioned rapidly from intra-Indigenous to black slavery. The US’s preeminent Native slaveholders were probably the members of the powerful Cherokee (Keetoowah) Nation, which increased its slave population from 600 in 1809 to 1,600 in 1835 and roughly 4,000 by 1860-61. While these numbers might strike a casual observer as low, it is worth recalling that the population of the US was below 5.5million people in the census year of 1800, and that the same-year figures for the entire Cherokee population were respectively 12,400 (1809), 16,400 (1835) and 21,000 (1860). It seems fair to describe the Cherokee Nation as having been at least as much of a slave state as the white-led Confederacy: 19 per cent of all persons living in Cherokee territory by 1860 were enslaved blacks, and approximately 10 per cent of all families there ‘held others in slavery’.
Even the official Constitution of the Cherokee Nation, ratified in 1827, mentions black slavery several times and imposed harsh restrictions on enslaved people. According to scholar Tony Seybert, ‘the 1827 Cherokee Constitution disallowed [among other things] the ownership of property by the enslaved’ or their multiracial children, ‘the buying of goods from enslaved people’, and allowing slaves to consume alcohol (masters were fined heavily when this happened). It also forbade all marriages between black slaves and whites or Natives, and barred even free black residents of Cherokee lands from voting in any local or national election. It seems that these Native North Americans understood human bondage quite well.
The Cherokee were hardly alone. The other mighty Civilised Tribes exploited the slave system to nearly the same extent, with the Choctaw and their Chickasaw allies alone ‘hold[ing] over 5,000 blacks in slavery by 1860’. This plain historical fact of common, brutal Native American slaveholding is so undisputed that some writers have argued it ‘complicates’ the standard narratives around anti-Native atrocities like the Trail of Tears. ‘When you think of the Trail’, says Smithsonian magazine’s Ryan P Smith, in a piece on a symposium at the National Museum of the American Indian, you probably envision ‘a long procession of suffering Cherokee Indians forced westward by a villainous Andrew Jackson’. The symposium, which focussed on ‘intersectional African-American and Native American history’, posited that this imagined vision was too simplistic. A historically literate observer of the same imaginary tableau might guess that the Indian removal policy ‘was not simply the vindictive scheme of [then president] Andrew Jackson, but rather a popularly endorsed, congressionally sanctioned campaign spanning the administrations of nine separate presidents’.
What you most likely do not imagine, the Smithsonian summarised, ‘are Cherokee slaveholders… [and] the numerous African-American slaves, Cherokee-owned, who made the brutal march themselves, or else were shipped en masse to what is now Oklahoma… by their wealthy Indian masters’. However, that ugly latter image would have depicted one of the most obvious and striking realities of the Trail of Tears: Civilised Tribes Natives owned tens of thousands of slaves, and most of them were frog-marched to the Middle West by their owners. Comanche author and museum curator Paul Chaat Smith, quoted in the Smithsonian piece, points out that the ‘tribes were deeply committed to slavery, established their own racialised black codes, immediately reestablished slavery when they arrived in Indian territory, rebuilt their nations with slave labour and enthusiastically sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War’.
John Ross, a Cherokee chief. Lithograph by John T Bowen and published by Daniel Rice and James G Clark in 1843.
That last line is worth repeating, for the 1619-educated innocents of today: at least part of the reason the US government was so ruthless with the great Southeastern Native nations during the 1850s and 1860s was that many of them spoke openly in support of the Southern cause – and fought with the Confederacy when the Civil War began. Given the earlier removal campaigns, the Natives of the Five Civilized Tribes somewhat understandably hated the US government, so any revolt against it would have struck many of them as good. But they also probably aligned with the Confederacy’s pro-slavery goals. And while the highly intelligent chiefs of these tribes had few illusions about the Confederacy, all sources so far indicate that they saw this much smaller and less cohesive potential nation as easier to manipulate and work within.
Human behavior of this kind is often driven by complex amoral motives, a point that the experts cited in the Smithsonian piece make over and over again. They note that Native slaveholding was not generally accompanied by complex rationalizations or agonies of guilt. Native masters owned slaves for the same reasons white ones did: because they could, and they thought they would gain a practical advantage from doing so. Cherokee slave buyers were not somehow confused or misled: ‘They were willful and determined oppressors of blacks they owned, enthusiastic participants in a global economy driven by cotton.’
Following this point, the Smithsonian piece goes on to make an absolutely essential observation about history and historical analysis: ‘American history is explained poorly by modern morality but effectively by simple economics and power dynamics.’ This thesis, while true, often seems nearly taboo to express in public. However, as Paul Chaat Smith points out, it is indisputable that human beings have been imperfect and incentive-driven in every era of history and that the generally accepted ‘moral’ rules in the past were very different from those today. This makes it not merely silly but bizarre to judge rationally behaving historical figures by the standards of today.
‘Andrew Jackson had a terrible Indian policy and radically expanded American democracy’, Smith points out. Similarly, the great Cherokee chief John Ross ‘was a skillful leader… but also a man who deeply believed in and practiced the enslavement of black people’. For almost all of history, an understanding of rather brutal rules of engagement governed the behavior of virtually all human beings alive on Earth – and Arabs, West Africans, East Africans, Asians and Native Americans were no more an exception to this than were white Europeans.
So what made the modern Western world unique when it came to slavery? The simple if unpopular answer is: ending the practice of slavery. It was not keeping captured enemies or plantation serfs in bondage that made the West stand out historically – those practices were universal – but rather letting them go.
With all due respect to the brave slave rebels of Haiti or the occasional philosopher within the long Chinese and Indian intellectual traditions, ’emancipation’ – the widespread belief that people who are not themselves enslaved should vigorously oppose the entire institution of slavery – seems to have been a distinctively and almost uniquely Western idea. Whether it reflected relatively early European industrialization or a rare but genuine escape from human amorality, the freeing of most of the slave population of the Earth was a Western (and Christian) triumph. As historian Philip D Morgan puts it:
‘Unlike other previous forms of slavery, the New World version did not decline over a long period but came to a rather abrupt end. The age of emancipation lasted a little over one hundred years: beginning in 1776 with the first anti-slavery society in Philadelphia, through the monumental Haitian Revolution of 1792, and ending with Brazilian emancipation in 1888. An institution that had been accepted for thousands of years disappeared in about a century.‘
While US history is today often described as an essentially unending sequence of white abuses of blacks, an American abolitionist movement dates back literally to the nation’s founding. By the late 1770s, black American veterans of the Revolutionary War – and more than a few of their white former bunkmates – began a petition-writing campaign that targeted Northern state legislatures and demanded an end to slavery. This and similar techniques were essentially successful: by 1795, 10 US states and soon-to-be-state territories, including Connecticut, the Indiana Territory, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, all of the Northwest Territory, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont, were free land by law. Combined, these contained well over 50 per cent of the free population of the US. And what I and others have called the anti-slavery upswell continued from there. In 1794, Congress formally barred all American ships from participating in the Atlantic slave trade.
Just 14 years later, in 1808, the same body passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, which made it illegal for any ship from any country to bring enslaved people into the US for sale. Finally, following some fascinating incremental steps and a big war, slavery was formally declared illegal throughout the US in 1865.
It is well worth remembering the price we paid to reach that point: the shockingly bloody American Civil War – where men and boys not infrequently charged dug-in cannon manned by their brothers – killed 360,222 lads in Union blue, and another 258,000 or so in Confederate Feldgrau. Roughly one in every 10 American men of fighting age died during the war: 23 per cent of Southern white men in their twenties were killed. In some Southern states, the majority of buildings over two stories high were burned; one Union soldier died for every nine to 10 slaves who were set free. The war also boosted the national debt of the US from less than $70million to $2.77 billion – an increase of many tens of billions in 2022 dollars. As I have noted elsewhere: ‘If the US owed a bill for slavery, we have quite arguably already paid it in blood.’
While a bit less drastic, the history of the abolitionist movement across the early modern Western world reads similarly. Following the 1787 establishment of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, Britain moved along with the US to outlaw international slave trading in 1807 to 1808 and then deployed the British Navy around the world to sink slave ships and blockade notorious trading hubs. Not long after, slavery was eliminated across the British Empire (notably excepting India) by the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.
On the continent, France abolished the practice of slavery throughout the French Empire in 1794, briefly brought it back under Napoleon in 1802, but then permanently re-abolished it throughout the colonial system in 1848 – and sent slaver-hunting French warships to patrol the oceans alongside England’s. Between France’s abolition of the practice in 1794 (or Haiti’s in 1804, if you prefer) and Brazil’s in 1888, every major Western nation legally barred slavery.
Many other nations did not. While it is considered wildly politically incorrect to point this out, in powerful Muslim and black African countries where the writ of the West never ran, chattel slavery quite often still exists today. A 2017 report from the International Labour Organization recently found that, ‘as of 2016’, more than 40million people currently ‘perform involuntary servitude of some kind’ in situations that they cannot leave. In other words, they are slaves. Per one widely read commentary on the report: ‘Today, there could be more people enslaved than at any time in human history. Chattel bondage still happens today – particularly in Africa.’
The details provided by the ILO and the scholars analyzing its data are striking. According to one standard estimate, ‘between 529,000 and 869,000’ human beings – most of them black Africans – are currently ‘bought, owned, sold and traded by Arab and black [masters]’ within just five countries in Africa. Global sources estimate that there are currently 700,000 to one million desperate black African migrants living in Libya alone, and that roughly 50,000 of them have been forced into physical or sexual slavery by Arab Libyans.
An African migrant with his hands chained, protesting in Brussels against the slavery of migrants in Libya, 2 December 2017
Even a few open slave societies continue to exist today. In the Islamic republic of Mauritania, ‘the very structure of society reinforces slavery’. A racialized caste system still exists, where – in roughly this order – Berbers, lighter-skinned Arabs known as ‘beydanes’, and Islamized free blacks called ‘haratin’ completely dominate a group of black chattel slaves referred to as ‘abid’ or ‘abeed’. This, like ‘Slav’, is an old Arabic word used to denote a slave – in this case, generally a black one.
Mauritania’s slave population is sizable: the US State Department has estimated it at ‘just’ 30,000 to 90,000 people, but deep-cover research by CNN in 2011 placed the real number at between four and seven times the highest estimate. CNN reporters and analysts claimed that between ’10 per cent to 20 per cent of the [Mauritanian] population lives in slavery’.
Mauritanian slaves live very much as slaves always have: their yoke is not a light one. Perhaps because of the backlash to this practice in Libya or Algeria, few if any open markets exist, but all slaves are held as chattels, and most are born out of forced intercourse (read: rape). Slaves are often used as a crude form of currency, serving as substitutes for money to settle gambling debts, being privately traded between masters in exchange for other people or goods like rice, and often being available for short-term rental for whatever purpose. Like unfree people everywhere, they have no say in any of this, and can be (and often are) beaten or killed for attempting to escape their state of bondage.
Interestingly, sources almost invariably describe Mauritania as one of the countries in the world furthest from the West, an ‘endless sea of sand dunes’ where the cuisine, dominant religion and daily patterns of life show little if any European influence. And that may be the problem. When analyzed by serious people, across the sweep of history, slavery is revealed to have been not a ‘Western’ practice but rather a universal one largely ended by Western arms. Where those arms reached never, or only briefly, it often continues to this day.
fox files 
Recent Comments