Jesse Smith

The gauntlet has been cast by the media-censorship complex. Just prior to this year’s annual globalist confab in Davos, the World Economic Forum (WEF) announced that misinformation and disinformation are currently the greatest threats to humanity, with the release of its Global Risks Report 2024.

From a list of 34 risks, the WEF report identifies mis- and disinformation as the top threats to global stability over the next two years and the fifth most dangerous threats over the next 10 years. Of particular concern is false information that could affect elections, democratic processes, and social cohesion in various countries worldwide, as well as sentiment contradicting the “consensus” narrative about climate change.

Echoing these same concerns, the United Nations (UN), its strategic partner in advancing the climate-focused 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, has previously stated much of the same.

In Information Integrity on Digital Platforms, a June 2023 UN policy brief recommending a code of conduct for digital platforms, Secretary-General António Guterres stated:

The ability to dissem­inate large-scale disinformation to undermine scientifically established facts poses an exis­tential risk to humanity (A/75/982, para. 26) and endangers democratic institutions and funda­mental human rights. These risks have further in­tensified because of rapid advancements in tech­nology, such as generative artificial intelligence. Across the world, the United Nations is monitor­ing how mis- and disinformation and hate speech can threaten progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. It has become clear that business as usual is not an option.”

All the UN’s 2030 Agenda plans, activities, and expenditures are based on the belief that we face an existential climate crisis caused by human activity and dangerous greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO₂). This conviction is clearly outlined in a fact sheet produced by Verified, a joint initiative of the United Nations and Purpose, launched in 2020 to respond to mis- and disinformation about “intersecting crises like COVID-19 and climate change.” The document states unequivocally that:

1. Climate change is happening.
2. Climate change is caused by human activity.
3. Scientists agree that humans are responsible for climate change.
4. Every fraction of a degree of warming matters.
5. The climate is changing faster than humans, plants, and animals can adapt.
6. Climate change is a major threat to people’s health.
7. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, not a clean source of energy.
8. Clean energy technologies produce far less carbon pollution than fossil fuels.
9. Entire countries already rely 100 percent on renewable electricity.
10. Renewable energy will soon be the world’s top source of electricity.
11. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.
12. Solar panels and wind turbines make good use of land.
13. The transition to clean energy will create millions of jobs.

By stating that disinformation is undermining these supposed scientific facts, Guterres rests his entire argument on the premise that each of the above statements is absolutely, indisputably, and undeniably true. Like Guterres, all who espouse this climate narrative have no tolerance for any opinion, theory, or evidence that runs contrary to this dogged notion.

Verified is backed by powerful globalist NGOs including the Rockefeller Foundation and Omidyar Network. It has an extensive list of major media collaborators such as Al Jazeera, Clear Channel, Facebook, Reddit, Spotify, TikTok, and Twitter. Melissa Fleming, Verified co-founder and current UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, has made it known that social media is a huge threat to climate science and other UN initiatives and is particularly bothered by Twitter/X for allowing rampant disinformation.

It is clear from these reports that any dissent from the established climate narrative threatens the advancement of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Now, urgent calls to extinguish these threats have been issued so they can proceed with transforming the world unimpeded.

While many of the issues expressed in the Information Integrity report are legitimate and concerning, the UN via the World Health Organization (WHO) participates in disinformation by continuing to promote COVID-19 vaccines as safe and effective, when they have largely been proven to be ineffective and cause much harm. Their stance regarding climate change could also qualify as disinformation to the thousands of scientists who oppose this view but are being discredited as mere conspiracy theorists.

[…]

Globalists want conformity regarding climate change and will go to extreme lengths to marginalize, censor, and discredit dissenters. They talk a good game about enforcing universal freedom of expression, but on climate and other issues vital to their agenda, free speech is not tolerated. Though they readily acknowledge that controlling information may lead to greater levels of authoritarianism, surveillance, censorship, and the erosion of human rights, it seems they are willing to overlook these offenses to protect their precious climate agenda.

If they can successfully shut down debate about climate change, then soon any topic that threatens their aims will be off limits. The UN deems itself a protector of human rights but plays a major role in the media-censorship complex. Its attempts at crushing opposition to the climate narrative betrays their mission and reveals authoritarian tendencies.

Countering Digital Hate or Advocating Suppression?

A recently released report issued by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) claims that new forms of climate denial have emerged. These new arguments don’t deny that the climate is changing and is caused by human activity, but instead contend that:

• The impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless.
• Climate solutions won’t work.
• Climate science and the climate movement are unreliable.

The basis for their report stems from use of “an AI based model called CARDS,” short for Computer-Assisted Recognition of Climate Change Denial and Skepticism. CARDS is designed to identify and categorize climate denialist claims in text. The researchers used CARDS to analyze YouTube video transcripts from 96 mostly right-wing, conservative leaning channels including prominent ones like BlazeTV, Jordan Peterson, and the Heartland Institute.

CCDH has a big gripe with social media companies they believe are not doing enough to stem the tide of rising climate denial. They want to eliminate the ability for any “climate denier” spreading “conspiracy theory statements” to financially benefit from their content . . .

[…]

The CCDH is a sketchy, UK-based, advocacy group that has produced various reports inciting censorship against those they disagree with. Their efforts against “anti-vaxxers” culminated in several reports that led to the deplatforming, demonetizing, and discrediting of many individuals and organizations exposing pandemic-related fraud and COVID-19 vaccine falsehoods.

CCDH’s The New Climate Denial report has been promoted through mainstream outlets like CNN, MSN, Yahoo, and USA Today. It could impact the cited individuals and organizations the same way it affected those targeted in its Disinformation Dozen reports a few years ago. Though their stated mission is to “protect human rights and civil liberties online,” they practice the opposite by advocating the revocation of these rights for climate and vaccine narrative challengers.

How The Media-Censorship Complex Plans to Tackle Climate Dissent

Two things are very clear from the recent reports issued by the WEF, UN, and CCDH. One, is that climate skepticism is on the rise. The second, is that they are threatened by the very existence of those who dare to refute their narrative. Many strategies to stem the tide of climate cynicism have already been employed with new ones currently being tested.

[…]

Each of these organizations are fueled and funded by many of the entities responsible for advancing the climate agenda, especially as it relates to the UN SDGs. This globalized amalgamation of media watchdogs, fact checkers, and disinformation regulators is powered by billion-dollar corporations, democratic and undemocratic governments, influential foundations, and powerful NGOs.

[…]

By treating climate change as a national security threat, the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence agencies have also been enlisted in the fight against mis- and disinformation.

In addition, individuals within both the left and right wings of the two-party paradigm collude to curtail free speech. It is a grave mistake to believe that calls for censorship from either side of the political spectrum are beneficial. They are both integral to perpetuating the media-censorship complex.

Why Has Climate Science Become Nondebatable?

If it wasn’t apparent before, it should now be crystal clear that there is a vast empire united against those questioning the climate narrative. They are determined to perpetuate the myth that there is universal consensus on the facts.

The truth is there is no real consensus on climate science. The UN and its network of public-private partnerships (PPP) just make it seem that way. In this regard, the UN climate stance is akin to Anthony Fauci’s claim that questioning him was like questioning science itself. Honest and open debate on the issue should be continued by allowing opponents opportunities to present their case without fear of censorship, harassment, exclusion, or cancellation. Instead, there is constant reinforcement of a fictional consensus while divergent opinions are labeled as dangerous conspiracies.

Climate consensus figures as high as 97 and even 99.9 percent have been touted by former US Presidents, researchers, and media outlets in the past. But is this claim true? If it were, then why would there be so much effort to silence a mere one to three percent who deviate from the scientific echo chamber? Would all these battles be worth the time, energy, and money being spent on just a few dissidents, as they claim?

Past research has demonstrated claims of scientific consensus on climate change to be fraudulent. In a paper published in 2023, a team of researchers disproved the conclusions reached in a 2021 study claiming there was greater than 99% consensus on climate science in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

The claims were refuted by demonstrating that studies expressing neutral opinions were misclassified and papers communicating skepticism were ignored. This clear case of academic malfeasance is not the only example where scientists used falsified research and conspired to silence those contradicting the alleged consensus. Even if the 99% consensus assertions were valid, the notion of consensus-as-truth does not pass the test for authentic scientific validation. The majority can still be wrong.

A recent article posted by The Good Men Project, which “exposed” the climate deniers behind the recent farmer protests in Europe, proclaimed that “Scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is equivalent to that on evolution.” This statement came in response to a request from protest organizer James Melville for a national debate on climate and net zero policies. Never mind that evolution is not a proven fact. Equating climate change to evolution shows it is also unproven and can be argued against. Again, the majority can still be wrong!

Remember when Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson made claims that their COVID vaccines were all well over 90% effective in stopping transmission? As evidenced in the following video, those proclamations did not hold up very well, did they?

A massive army has been assembled to ensure that rival claims will not see the light of day for long. But why is it that the powers that be would rather falsify research, smear dissenters, and spend billions of dollars to silence critics rather than continuing to debate the issues?

[…]

Via https://off-guardian.org/2024/04/01/climate-con-and-the-media-censorship-complex-part-1/

Kit Klarenberg

Contrary to their mainstream portrayal, as inspired purely by religious fundamentalism, Daesh are primarily guns for hire.

Within just 24 hours of the horrific mass shooting in Moscow’s Crocus City Hall on March 22nd, which left at least 137 innocent people dead and 60 more critically wounded, US officials blamed the slaughter on ISIS-K, Daesh’s South-Central Asian branch. For many, the attribution’s celerity raised suspicions Washington was seeking to decisively shift Western public and Russian government focus away from the actual culprits – be that Ukraine, and/or Britain, Kiev’s foremost proxy sponsor.

Full details of how the four shooters were recruited, directed, armed, and financed, and who by, are yet to emerge. The savage interrogation methods to which they have been, and no doubt continue to be subjected are concerned with prising this and other vital information from them. The killers may end up making false confessions as a result. In any event, they themselves likely have no clue who or what truly sponsored their monstrous actions.

Contrary to their mainstream portrayal, as inspired purely by religious fundamentalism, Daesh are primarily guns for hire. At any given time, they act at the behest of an array of international donors, bound by common interests. Funding, weapons, and orders reach its fighters circuitously, and opaquely. There is almost invariably layer upon layer of cutouts between the perpetrators of an attack claimed by the group, and its ultimate orchestrators and financiers.

Given ISIS-K is currently arrayed against China, Iran, and Russia – in other words, the US Empire’s primary adversaries – it is incumbent to revisit Daesh’s origins. Emerging seemingly out of nowhere just over a decade ago, before dominating mainstream media headlines and Western public consciousness for several years before vanishing, at one stage the group occupied vast swaths of Iraqi and Syrian territory, declaring an “Islamic State”, which issued its own currency, passports, and vehicle registration plates.

Devastating military interventions independently launched by the US and Russia wiped out that demonic construct in 2017. The CIA and MI6 were no doubt immensely relieved. After all, extremely awkward questions about how Daesh were comprehensively extinguished. As we shall see, the terror group and its caliphate did not emerge in the manner of lightning on a dark night, but due to dedicated, determined policy hatched in London and Washington, implemented by their spying agencies.

‘Continuingly Hostile’

RAND is a highly influential, Washington DC-headquartered “think tank”. Bankrolled to the tune of almost $100 million annually by the Pentagon and other US government entities, it regularly disseminates recommendations on national security, foreign affairs, military strategy, and covert and overt actions overseas. These pronouncements are more often than not subsequently adopted as policy.

For example, a July 2016 RAND paper on the prospect of “war with China” forecast a need to fill Eastern Europe with US soldiers in advance of a “hot” conflict with Beijing, as Russia would undoubtedly side with its neighbour and ally in such a dispute. It was therefore necessary to tie down Moscow’s forces at its borders. Six months later, scores of NATO troops duly arrived in the region, ostensibly to counter “Russian aggression”.

Similarly, in April 2019 RAND published Extending Russia. It set out “a range of possible means” to “bait Russia into overextending itself,” so as to “undermine the regime’s stability.” These methods included; providing lethal aid to Ukraine; increasing US support for the Syrian rebels; promoting “regime change in Belarus”; exploiting “tensions” in the Caucasus; neutralising “Russian influence in Central Asia” and Moldova. Most of that came to pass thereafter.

In this context, RAND’s November 2008 Unfolding The Long War makes for disquieting reading. It explored ways the US Global War on Terror could be prosecuted once coalition forces formally left Iraq, under the terms of a withdrawal agreement inked by Baghdad and Washington that same month. This development by definition threatened Anglo dominion over Persian Gulf oil and gas resources, which would remain “a strategic priority” when the occupation was officially over.

“This priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war,” RAND declared. The think tank went on to propose a “divide and rule” strategy to maintain US hegemony in Iraq, despite the power vacuum created by withdrawal. Under its auspices, Washington would exploit “fault lines between [Iraq’s] various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts”, while “supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran”:

“This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces…The US and its local allies could use nationalist jihadists to launch proxy campaigns to discredit transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace…This would be an inexpensive way of buying time…until the US can return its full attention to the [region]. US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict…by taking the side of conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”

[…]

Via https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/how-cia-and-mi6-created-isis

In theory, despite the CIA’s constitutional prohibition on domestic activities – which the Agency regularly breaches with impunity in any event – there is nothing necessarily suspicious about its covert presence in Washington DC on January 6th. As an official factsheet notes, Langley’s “K9 unit” has been routinely deployed to “external events” on US soil, including Super Bowls, Miss Universe Pageants, Major League Baseball Games, and the Olympics. Moreover, there were numerous pipebombs secreted in the US capital, requiring expert removal.

However, the factsheet reveals bomb disposal isn’t the CIA K9 Unit’s sole, or even prime responsibility. Its avowed “mission” is to: “protect the worldwide assets and personnel of the CIA [emphasis added]. K9 teams are trained to detect all types of explosives by searching delivery trucks, buildings, vehicles, packages, and assisting CIA police officers [emphasis added].” When one considers that whoever laid pipebombs in DC remains at large, suspicions about clandestine federal machinations on January 6th can only multiply.

Phantom Bomber

The FBI announced that it had difused “viable” pipebombs left at the Democratic and Republican National Committee buildings in DC mere hours after the Capitol’s breach on January 6th, and before the National Guard arrived on the scene. The Bureau subsequently published “images and video of the suspect, the suspect’s backpack, the suspect’s shoes, the explosive devices, and a map of the route the suspect walked the night the pipe bombs were placed.”

A $500,000 reward was offered for information leading to the suspect’s prosecution. Fast forward three years, and the sum remains unclaimed. A renewed call for witnesses issued by the FBI January 4th 2024 noted that in the intervening time, “a dedicated team of FBI agents, analysts, data scientists, and law enforcement partners has worked thousands of hours conducting interviews, reviewing physical and digital evidence, and assessing tips from the public.” These leads reportedly helped the Bureau “advance the investigation.”

It is unclear how, given the culprit hasn’t been caught. Why pipebombs were placed at the DNC and RNC is likewise uncertain. Then-Capitol police chief Steven Sund, and several US lawmakers, have speculated that the purpose was to divert law enforcement from the site of the looming “insurrection”. As it was, three separate police teams posted there were dispatched to the RNC, leaving just one squad at the Capitol building, right when Trump supporters were massing at barricades.

Curiously, the RNC pipebomb was, apparently, found via pure happenstance. A local US Department of Commerce employee working remotely decided to use her lunch hour to do laundry. Her apartment block’s laundry room was situated at the back of the building, accessible via an alleyway shared with the RNC. Having dropped her clothes off and returned home at noon, she went back to use a dryer at around 12:45pm, when she spotted the device, 20 minutes before its allegedly timed detonation.

Once alerted, police arrived almost immediately, a crew of ATF and FBI agents in tow. If the bomber’s objective truly was to divert law enforcement from the Capitol, this can only be considered miraculous timing, given at 12:54pm, heavily surveilled Proud Boys activist Ryan Samsel breached the barricades, leading to a deluge of Trump supporters following suit, and the subsequent “insurrection”. Were it not for a US government employee’s chance find minutes before, January 6th may have proceeded rather differently.

‘Proper Outcome’

The DNC pipebomb was discovered at roughly 13:15pm, authorities having had the foresight to check that building’s grounds too, on a whim. Given it didn’t explode in the intervening minutes, its timer was apparently set later. The FBI states the two devices were laid “between approximately 7:30pm and 8:30pm” on January 5th. This lack of clarity is peculiar, given extensive footage of the suspect planting the pipebombs, and the Bureau mapping their movements to and from the area with precision.

Washington DC is the second-most CCTV-saturated US city by some margin, which is remarkable given its small size. There are 35,082 local surveillance cameras in total, or 55.5 cameras per 1,000 citizens. Evidently, the feeds are not monitored in real-time, for the suspect made no attempt whatsoever to conceal their activities. A hooded and masked individual openly secreting something at two highly sensitive, well-protected political sites in succession would surely arouse some suspicion if so.

That the pipebomber placed highly destructive payloads at the DNC and RNC so brazenly on January 5th 2021 without incident, entirely unnoticed, before disappearing into the ether is extraordinary. With Trump’s “Save America” rally scheduled for the next day, DC was filling up with his supporters. That evening, they staged a demonstration in Freedom Plaza, which turned violent when Antifa and Black Lives Matter counter-protesters arrived, producing clashes, broken up by police. The city was already on high alert.

Over the prior week, the FBI and its field offices consistently warned of armed protests in every state, and plans by Trump supporters that included violence. On January 5th, the Bureau’s Norfolk, Virginia HQ emailed Capitol police an internal Situational Information Report, subject line: “potential criminal activities in the Washington DC area planned for tomorrow.” It contained multiple social media posts indicating some “Save America” attendees had unambiguously malign intentions. One boldly declared:

This FBI warning may account for why, according to mainstream media reports published in the immediate aftermath of January 6th, Capitol Hill staffers were urged by supervisors not to attend work that day, due to greatly heightened risk levels. But it does not explain DC authorities simultaneously failing to deploy basic precautions, such as frozen zones and hardened barriers, commonly used for major events in the area.

By contrast, it seems the outgoing administration was highly security conscious on January 6th. In January 2022, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato told House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack investigators that his superior, Mark Meadows, pressured DC Mayor Muriel Bowser to request a sizeable National Guard presence on the day, in the event of violent clashes with counterprotesters erupting again. He claimed Trump suggested up to 10,000 peacekeepers would be necessary.

Ornato also revealed Trump administration frustration with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of the National Guard on the afternoon of January 6th. Once the Capitol was breached, Meadows ordered Miller, “get them in here, get them in here to secure the Capitol now.” Ornato’s exculpatory testimony was concealed until March 8th this year. Two months earlier, Committee chair Liz Cheney falsely claimed there was “no evidence” Trump ordered the Capitol to be protected.

[…]

Via https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/secret-cia-presence-on-january-6th?r=83qir

By Pierre Duval – Continental Observer – 26.03.2024

The populations from immigration are not interested in the military uniform to lead the wars of the Occident, nor are the other young people of these countries. Most migrants support Russia. Calls by NATO leaders to recruit soldiers in a crusade against Russia are shunned by recruits who have begun to flee.

French Army Minister Sebastien Lecornu, unveiled his plan to end the increase in departures in the French army. «It is no longer a question of recruiting new soldiers so much as of persuading existing troops not to resign», states Politico. «These conversations now exist in all capitals, in all democracies that have professional armies without conscription», emphasizes the English-speaking media. Western armies can no longer recruit and lack soldiers.

Even Germany is affected. A recent annual report submitted to the German Parliament showed in 2023, some 1,537 soldiers left the Bundeswehr, reducing it to 181,514 troops. Europeans do not want to die for a war their elites want. This reflects the resistance of the populations in Europe against the WAR of the EU against Russia.

In France, according to official data, the military recruit remains in the armed forces for a year on average, less than before the outbreak of the military conflict in Ukraine. In the UK, the annual shortage of personnel is 1,100 men, equivalent to two infantry battalions. The British government signed a recruitment contract with a private company Capita, but this did not succeed.

“The problem is not in being recruited, but in the retention of soldiers, we must also preserve their families’, chief of naval operations of the US Navy,” admiral Lisa Franchetti announced at a conference in Paris. “It appears that the wives of military personnel have begun asking for divorce more often.”

“To train and retain the right people once they have been recruited has become the great challenge of an army without conscription,” stressed the Minister at a seminar of those responsible for all military services. In 2023, the French military finished with 3,000 unfilled posts.

The French plan provides assistance to military personnel in finding housing, access to health care and childcare services’. Married couples in which the husband and wife both work in the Defence Ministry, even if one of them is a civilian, will be able to change their position, i.e., by mutual consent.

One of the main measures of the French plan aims to increase the attractiveness of military service is to increase pensions and wages. «But the problem is that the conditions of employment are simply not so attractive, with chronic overtime, absences of several months from home and missed recovery periods», adds Politico.

The new Polish government recently announced a 20% increase in military salaries, seeking to maintain at least the current level of troops. The minimum monthly salary of the soldier will increase from 1,150 euros to 1,394 euros.

By the end of the year, the number of the Polish military is expected to increase to 220,000 people, as reported par Rzeczy Do in reference to the statement by Polish defence minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz. Thus, the overall objective is to increase the number of the Polish military to 300,000 people. But even the wage increase is not motivating the average Pole to shed his blood on the fields of Ukraine.

In Germany, the Scholz government wants to increase the number of its armed forces to 203,000 by the early 2030s, but recruitment is increasing very slowly, warns Politico. Eva Hogl, Bundestag Military Commissioner, stated that it was necessary to restore conscription to military service, and that it is better to attract more women to the military  Last year’s legislation aims to make military conditions more attractive for women, especially with regard to the increase in support for children.

In Denmark, the population is so adverse to serving in the army that the government has decided to extend compulsory military service to women and to increase its service from 4 to 11 months.

The UK has also recently admitted that it is having difficulty finding recruits. The UK Defense Journal reports that the British army has not met its recruitment targets every year since 2010. According to a recent YouGov survey, 38% of Britons under the age of 40 say that they will refuse to serve in the armed forces in the event of a new world war, and 30% say they will not serve even if their country is threatened with an imminent invasion.

“The problem is common to all European countries, including France, Italy and Spain,” stated Vincenzo Bove to Euronews, professor of political science at University of Warwick in the UK. “I do not think only one country is spared by this situation. ”

[…]

Bove referred to recent polls that show that the youth of the European Union is massively opposed to wars, against the increase in military spending and against military operations abroad’. They are also more individualistic and less patriotic than ten years ago. And the population in Europe is aging and shrinking. The armies of NATO have also decreased to adapt to these changes: the British, Italian and French armies are now almost half of what they were 10 or 20 years ago.

[…]

Via https://www.observateurcontinental.fr/

Moscow’s defiance of Western elements, particularly the economic sanctions and the military aid to Ukraine, has not only set an example for other nations to follow but also eroded the legitimacy of the West’s ideological supremacy.

On March 18, Vladimir Putin emerged as the winner of Russia’s presidential elections, marking his fifth term as President of Russia. This occurred despite complications. While it is common for Russia to be the target of cyber-attacks, this year has witnessed record levels of such breaches on the country’s electronic voting platform, with most attacks stemming from the US.

Putin’s landslide victory solicited positive reactions from many across the Global South. Leaders from multiple countries, including Iran, China, South Africa, Belarus, the DPRK, members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and several Latin American nations have welcomed his reelection.

The Collective West, on its part, has been eerily silent about the win. A few exceptions surfaced on the X platform, with, for instance, President of the European Council Charles Michel reiterating the standard accusation that Russian elections are undemocratic. “No opposition. No freedom. No choice,” the tweet read. So much for being disgruntled. Nevertheless, the bloc has obvious reasons for displaying such dismay.

Ukraine war

Two years into the war in Ukraine, discussions on a potential peace deal involving the withdrawal of Russian troops in exchange for retaining territory have begun to pick up speed. The costs of this war were paramount for both the West and Russia, but particularly for the EU. The de-industrialization accompanying sanctions on Russia has resulted in disastrous outcomes for the Euro economy, pushing millions into financial insecurity, while the bloc grapples with efforts to restore economic growth.

More concerning is a decline in US support which has placed the EU in an awkward position. Although the White House recently unveiled a stopgap aid plan for Ukraine valued at $300 million, prior delays in aid delivery, fueled by congressional disputes over the border crisis, have left NATO allies questioning the US’s commitment to the conflict.

During a recent address before Western leaders at a Ukraine-focused event, French President Emmanuel Macron echoed these concerns by questioning the wisdom of entrusting Europe’s future to the American electorate. “Should we entrust our future to the American electorate? My answer is no. Let’s not wait for the outcome,” he said.

When Macron mentioned the possibility of deploying NATO forces in Ukraine, some perceived his statement as controversial or bold, only for reports to later emerge and reveal that NATO forces are already in Ukraine. But given the fact that the Ukraine war is not considered a de facto war from the Russian perspective, one can only speculate about the potential scale of a full-fledged conflict with the NATO alliance.

Western Hegemony

From a Global South perspective, the true achievement lies in Putin’s defiance of NATO. It lies in challenging the forces that for years have kept the masses in a state of social, ideological, and historical paralysis. Where the West sees aggression and destabilization, the South sees retribution. The fact is that Russia was deceived by the West over the Minsk agreement.

If one finds it peculiar that the Ukraine war garners very little to no support in the South, the case is far from mere coincidence. The extensive legacy of the West spanning hundreds of years serves as a testament to the destructive nature of its foreign policy. In the Global South, where the collective memory of millions who perished under the weight of imperialism and military aggression remains vivid and lucid, the realities at play are crystal clear.

The Ukraine war is not merely a war for the preservation of Russia’s national security but also a war for the thousands of mothers who gave birth to malformed babies due to contamination from NATO’s use of depleted uranium ammunition in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Serbia, a type of shell which has been shown to increase cancer rates and other forms of disease in targeted countries. It is a war for those thousands of people who succumbed to their illnesses as a result of sanctions that prevented the entry of crucial medical aid. It is also a war for the comrades in Iran, Indonesia, and several countries across Latin America and Africa who died resisting injustice and oppression at the hands of imperialist stooges.

Though it may be the case that Ukraine emerged victorious in the propaganda game, that victory is primarily recognized in the West. Russia, on the other hand, is emerging not only as a victor in the military conflict but also as a trailblazer in shaping a new world order.

Moscow’s defiance of Western elements, particularly the economic sanctions and the military aid to Ukraine, has not only set an example for other nations to follow but also eroded the legitimacy of the West’s ideological supremacy. Russian economic resilience has effectively demonstrated that sanctions can be mitigated and that capital control measures, along with a basket-based currency, can be far more effective than the neoliberal charlatans preached by the West.

With the establishment of new transaction mechanisms and the ingenuity that accompanies sanction evasion, the fear of sanctions no longer seems to weigh as heavily as it once did.

The Ukraine war marks a pivotal moment in history as it signals the transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar world order. The gradual formation of an alternative financial market by the BRICS organization further compounds these developments. Nothing can better convey the end of US-EU financial hegemony than the sense of panic surrounding the use of Russia’s frozen assets.

Asset Seizure

Approximately $300 billion in Russian securities and cash have been frozen by the EU, G7 nations, and Australia since the start of the war — with the majority of funds held in the EU. While there was a belief that these funds should remain inaccessible to Russia unless it assists in Ukraine’s reconstruction, there was disagreement over the legality of outright asset seizure.

To resolve this dispute, Western leaders sought guidance from a team of international law experts and practitioners, who unanimously agreed in a joint letter issued in February that the seizure of assets is entirely legal, citing Russia’s ongoing special military operation in Ukraine.

Just a day after the joint letter, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that plans to seize Russia’s assets could pose a significant threat to the global monetary system and entail unforeseen risks, which include “risks of litigation, risks of countermeasures, and risks to the international monetary system.” This implies that if the confiscation is carried out, it could push the Global South further away from reliance on the dollar.

Similar sentiments were echoed by Florian Philippot, the leader of the French Patriots party, who openly stated that the use of Russia’s frozen assets is “illegal and foolish,” noting that Russia possesses more Western assets, and cautioned that if the EU proceeds with seizing Russian assets, it could prompt Russia to retaliate in kind.

Other senior officials have expressed the pressing need for Brussels to establish an “emergency mechanism” in case the initiative to support Kiev through the use of Russian funds encounters unforeseen consequences. They warned that Euroclear Bank, which hold Russian funds and holds over €37 trillion in assets globally, could face liquidity issues if overwhelmed by a multitude of lawsuits.

The US, on its end, has voiced some uncertainties regarding the issue but has not displayed any signs of concern. At a recent press conference in Brazil, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen acknowledged that the West’s unfreezing of Russian assets is likely to pose a threat to global financial stability, but downplayed the significance of the matter.

Yellen further noted that the global economy lacks viable alternatives to the financial architecture centered around the dollar, euro, and yen, and underscored the necessity for collaborative efforts within the G7 to examine different approaches with regard to the use of Russian assets.

US Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo likewise rebuked such risks, stating that the strength of the US economy prevents it from being undermined by the implementation of sanctions.

Balancing Risks

Despite all odds, the EU eventually agreed to access Russian funds but opted only to tap into the windfall profits accrued from interests. Of the sum seized by Euroclear, which roughly accounts to €191 billion ($205 billion), the funds have accrued over €4.4 billion in interest over the past year. The bloc intends to use this money in order to purchase weapons for Ukraine.

The decision to utilize only the profits instead of the full amounts reflects genuine concerns regarding potential repercussions. These concerns extend beyond legal ramifications to include significant military implications.

Currently, Russia produces three times more artillery shells than both the EU and the US combined, and this occurs despite facing a barrage of sanctions. If Russia were to access Western funds in its Central Bank and allocate these resources to expand its military operations, it would inevitably result in a substantial shift in the balance of military power.

[…]

Via https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/putin–a-champion-of-the-global-south

Episode 47 Emerging Political Battles

Living the French Revolution and Age of Napoleon

Dr Suzanne M Desan

Film Review

According to Desan, our most important political labels date from the French revolution. The terms “left” and “right” stem from the seats assigned to the revolutionary Jacobins and the more monarchist Girondins in the National Assembly.* Likewise early concepts of conservatism and liberalism also date from the French revolution. Louis XVI’s brother the Count of Artois (who succeeded Louis XVIII as Charles X) and his supporters were instrumental in the emergence of conservatism on the world stage. Prior to the French revolution, there was no need to define conservative beliefs because they were taken for granted.

In the early 19th century thee included a belief in

• divine providence as a force underpinning social cohesion and morality (in the eyes of the Catholic church, revolution was a sin).
• the necessity of preserving traditional values and beliefs (through uniform religious beliefs) to guarantee cultural integrity
• a need for hierarchical power because men were too wicked to be free.

Contrariwise 19th century French liberalism supported a constitutional monarchy working in concert with a legislature elected by men with property. Lafayette (exiled during the revolution for supporting a constitutional monarch) returned to Paris under the restoration and resumed leadership of the National Guard. Lafayette and other liberal leaders represented elite elements of the middle class. They rejected full equality because they blamed the lower classes and their rabble rousing for the terror.

Louis XVIII tried to work with the liberals until the assassination of a relative who was second in line for the throne. In response, the king fired the moderates in his government, introduced heavily press censorship electoral reforms that increased the power of the ultra-royalists.

Louis XVIII died in 1824. When Charles X took the throne, he paid emigres for land they lost during the revolution, closed down newspapers and reduced the power of the Chamber of Deputies.

This forced liberals, republicans and Bonapartistes (including Lafayette) to practice their politics in secret underground organizations. Ironically this occurred simultaneous with a revival of Napoleonism and the ubiquitous appearance of medals, plates and snuff boxes with his image – along with rumors he was about to make a comeback. In 1823, Count Emanuel De Las Cas, Napoleon’s companion in St Helena, published a 16-volume memoir of the emperor’s life.

Ongoing Revolutionary Struggle in France

France would go on to have three more revolutions in 1830, 1848 and 1871.*

Following 1814, the rise of a new middle class enabled a class-based society to replace feudalism, even though France was much slower at industrializing than Britain. In 1815, nobles still owned one-fifth of French land.

Under Louis XVIII, France enjoyed a constitutional monarch with the king appointing an upper Chamber of Peers and male property owners electing a Chamber of Deputies. Out of France’s total population of 35 million, only 100,000 men qualified to vote and only 10,000 qualified to run as deputies.

Royalists in the south of France unleashed the White Terror to harass and murder (300 total) republicans and supporters of Napoleon. Louis XVIII purged more than 56,000 pro-Napoleon troops and put more that 5,000 on trial. More than half of them were convicted. The general who supported Napoleon’s return from Elba faced the firing squad.

During the 1830 revolution, the king fled, and eventually the liberal constitutional monarch Louis-Phillipe I took the throne.

Following the 1848 revolution, the French people elected Napoleon’s nephew Louis Napoleon-Bonaparte as president, but he abolished the republic to declare himself emperor.

*See French Revolution: The Thermadorian Revolution and the Gilded Youth

** Timeline

• 1814-1830 Restoration of French monarchy
• 1830-1848 Liberal constitutional Monarchy
• 1848-1852 Second Republic
• 1852-1870 Second Empire

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/149323/149417

Highwire with Del Bigtree | March 28, 2024

Internist & Board-Certified Nephrologist, Suzanne Humphries, MD, shares details on the 10th Anniversary Edition of the groundbreaking book she Co-Authored, Dissolving Illusions, and how the vaccine safety space has changed in a post-COVID world where doctors are speaking out in droves over controversial topic of vaccine injury.

Via https://www.bitchute.com/video/WLo7VJHVBboQ/

Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | March 22, 2024

Your bite-size dose of immunity against vaccine misinformation. Spread the truth.

Do the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccines used in the United States stop infection and transmission of the pertussis bacterium?

“Yes” or “No”?

When picking an answer, keep in mind that the pertussis vaccine is part of a combination vaccine (DTap or Tdap) mandated to attend grades K-12 in every U.S. state – it is the “P” in DTaP and the “p” in Tdap – and the justification for this rights-crushing mandate is the belief that the vaccine prevents transmission of pertussis in the school setting.

The answer is “No”! In 1999, the CDC recommended “exclusive use of acellular pertussis vaccines for all doses of the pertussis vaccine series” and that vaccine does not prevent transmission. This is explained in an FDA study titled “Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model” and confirmed in a consensus paper explaining that:

“aPVs [pertussis vaccines] … cannot avoid infection and transmission. … aPV pertussis vaccines do not prevent colonization. Consequently, they do not reduce the circulation of B. pertussis and do not exert any herd immunity effect.”

The CDC and FDA, in formal responses to the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), confirm the foregoing, as does this paper explaining:

“That vaccination does not prevent B. pertussis infection in humans, nor the circulation of the organism in human populations in any important manner, comes from the observation that the inter-epidemic intervals have not changed in a major way since the implementation of mass vaccination.”

Incredibly, the immunity provided by pertussis vaccines, while potentially reducing symptoms of the disease, actually renders those receiving these products susceptible to repeated infection with pertussis; meaning, it increases the potential to spread this bacterium because it renders those vaccinated repeat-asymptomatic-carriers. (See this study, “Lack of mucosal immune responses after aPV administration favor infection, persistent colonization, and transmission of the pathogen”, and this study, “Because of linked-epitope suppression, all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.”)

In any event, immunity from the pertussis vaccine wanes rapidly, even after six doses in childhood! As the CDC explains, a study of pertussis vaccine immunity found that four years after five doses of DTaP and one of Tdap “vaccine effectiveness was 8.9%.” Nonetheless, the CDC makes additional doses of the pertussis vaccine optional in adulthood.

[…]

Via https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/do-the-pertussis-vaccines-used-in