Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Anarchists & ‘antifa’ occupy Seattle police station abandoned by ‘regime’ forces, set up ‘Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone’

File photo
RT – June 9, 2020

Six blocks of downtown Seattle have been declared the ‘Free Capitol Hill Zone’ or ‘Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone’ (CHAZ), according to area activists that have taken control of Seattle PD’s East Precinct, on 12th Avenue and E. Pine Street.

Journalist Julio Rosas tweeted out photos from the ‘Zone,’ including flyers demanding that Seattle PD be defunded, and declaring that police “will always be racist because capitalism requires inequality.”

Journalist Andy Ngo described the group in control of the area as “Antifa,” and cited tweets to suggest there were armed guards among them.

The report of armed personnel seems to have been confirmed by another activist, who said that members of the John Brown Gun Club – a leftist militia also known as Redneck Revolt – “showed up to offer help, some armed.”

Sympathizers have described the atmosphere inside the zone as “wonderful” and peaceful, more like a concert than anything else.

“Police want you to think that without them there will be chaos. But what if without them there was peace?” mused Resistance activist Joshua Potash, holding up Seattle as an example of what Democrat demands to ‘defund police’ might result in.

Police Chief Carmen Best confirmed that her department evacuated the precinct on Monday evening as an exercise in “trust and deescalation.”

Two days earlier, Seattle PD used flash-bangs and pepper spray to push back demonstrators at 11th Avenue and Pine Street, just a block away, after they had moved a security barricade and allegedly threw objects at the officers. Protesters insisted that tear gas had been used, but police denied it, saying they had not violated the 30-day moratorium on the substance declared by Mayor Jenny Durkan, a Democrat.

City authorities may be expecting the activists to disperse, but the barricades and the content of their social media suggest they intend to stay. Local businesses and residents have “agreed to disaffiliate from Seattle basically,” in the words of one activist, who called it a “flux state in the making” – a reference to an anarchist commune from the fiction series Shadowrun.

Maps of the zone apparently made by the activists refer to ‘Captured Regime East Precinct’ and also use ‘regime’ to refer to reported police positions.

Democrats have ruled Seattle for almost 50 years. The current city council has eight Democrats and one socialist.

June 9, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | | 1 Comment

BBC Brags About Hornsea Wind Farm–But Forgets To Mention The Cost

Hornsea Wind Farm

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | June 9, 2020

In his puff piece for renewable energy today, the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt noted that:

Now the UK has the biggest offshore wind industry in the world, as well as the largest single wind farm, completed off the coast of Yorkshire last year.

Nothing could sum up the moronic obsession with renewable energy better than this statement. There is in fact a good reason why we have the biggest offshore wind industry – we are the only country daft enough to pay the exorbitant bill for it.

The largest wind farm, of course, is Hornsea, a 1200MW project. It may be the biggest, but it also happens to be one of the most expensive sources of electricity in the world.

The contract price for Hornsea is £162.47/MWh, which under CfD is a guaranteed price, which will be index linked for 15 years. In short, a licence to print money.

https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds/hornsea-phase-2

The current market price for electricity is below £20/MWh, so Hornsea is getting eight times what it would get if it had to trade in the market.

https://www.energybrokers.co.uk/electricity/historic-price-data-graph

At current prices, Hornsea will receive an annual subsidy of about £600 million. OK, if prices recover to more normal levels of around £40/MWh, once economic activity recovers, the subsidy will be slightly less.

But here’s the rub. Whether prices are high or low, Hornsea’s owners will receive their guaranteed price anyway. The system even allows them to sell every single unit of electricity they generate, and if there is a surplus of power in the market, they will get paid NOT to produce.

In other words, there is no commercial risk for Hornsea at all. A licence to print money, all at the expense of bill payers.

Hornsea, by the way, is joint owned by Oersted (formerly DONG) and Global Infrastructure Partners LLP, a global wealth fund. I find it hard to understand how sending hundreds of millions of pounds every year to either of those companies can possibly benefit the UK economy.

Maybe Justin Rowlatt might be able to explain?

June 9, 2020 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Now Comes the Davos ‘Great Reset’

By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 09.06.2020

For those wondering what will come after the Covid-19 pandemic has successfully all but shut down the entire world economy, spreading the worst depression since the 1930s, the leaders of the premier globalization NGO, Davos World Economic Forum, have just unveiled the outlines of what we can expect next. These people have decided to use this crisis as an opportunity.

On June 3 via their website, the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) unveiled the outlines of their upcoming January 2021 forum. They call it “The Great Reset.” It entails taking advantage of the staggering impact of the coronavirus to advance a very specific agenda. Notably enough, that agenda dovetails perfectly with another specific agenda, namely the 2015 UN Agenda 2030. The irony of the world’s leading big business forum, the one that has advanced the corporate globalization agenda since the 1990s, now embracing what they call sustainable development, is huge. That gives us a hint that this agenda is not quite about what WEF and partners claim.

The Great Reset

On June 3 WEF chairman Klaus Schwab released a video announcing the annual theme for 2021, The Great Reset. It seems to be nothing less than promoting a global agenda of restructuring the world economy along very specific lines, not surprisingly much like that advocated by the IPCC, by Greta from Sweden and her corporate friends such as Al Gore or Blackwater’s Larry Fink.

Interesting is that WEF spokespeople frame the “reset” of the world economy in the context of the coronavirus and the ensuing collapse of the world industrial economy. The WEF website states, “There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19.” So the Great Reset of the global economy flows from covid19 and the “opportunity” it presents.

In announcing the 2021 theme, WEF founder Schwab then said, cleverly shifting the agenda: “We only have one planet and we know that climate change could be the next global disaster with even more dramatic consequences for humankind.” The implication is that climate change is the underlying reason for the coronavirus pandemic catastrophe.

To underscore their green “sustainable” agenda, WEF then has an appearance by the would-be King of England, Prince Charles. Referring to the global covid19 catastrophe, the Prince of Wales says, “If there is one critical lesson to learn from this crisis, it is that we need to put nature at the heart of how we operate. We simply can’t waste more time.” On board with Schwab and the Prince is the Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres. He states, “We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.” Note his talk of “sustainable economies and societies”—more on that later. The new head of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, also endorsed The Great Reset. Other WEF resetters included Ma Jun, the chairman of the Green Finance Committee at the China Society for Finance and Banking and a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China; Bernard Looney, CEO of BP; Ajay Banga, CEO of Mastercard; Bradford Smith, president of Microsoft.

Make no mistake, the Great Reset is no spur-of-the moment idea of Schwab and friends. The WEF website states, “COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. There is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable.” The WEF sponsors have big plans: ”… the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.” This is big stuff.

Radical changes

Schwab reveals more of the coming agenda: “… one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office.” These are supposed to be silver linings?

He suggests that those radical changes be extended: “The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination… and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy…” It would include “changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.”

The second component of the Great Reset agenda would ensure that, “investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability.” Here the WEF head states that the recent huge economic stimulus budgets from the EU, USA, China and elsewhere be used to create a new economy, “more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building ‘green’ urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.”

Finally the third leg of this Great Reset will be implementing one of Schwab’s pet projects, the Fourth Industrial Revolution: “The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.” The Fourth Industrial Revolution includes gene-editing biotech, 5G telecommunications, Artificial Intelligence and the like.

UN Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset

If we compare the details of the 2015 UN Agenda 2030 with the WEF Great Reset we find both dovetail very neatly. The theme of Agenda 2030 is a “sustainable world” which is defined as one with income equality, gender equality, vaccines for all under the WHO and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) which was launched in 2017 by the WEF along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In 2015 the UN issued a document, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The Obama Administration never submitted it to the Senate for ratification knowing it would fail. Yet it is being advanced globally. It includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals, extending an earlier Agenda 21. The 17 include “to end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions… to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change…“ It calls for sustainable economic growth, sustainable agriculture (GMO), sustainable and modern energy (wind, solar), sustainable cities, sustainable industrialization… The word sustainable is the key word. If we dig deeper it is clear it is code-word for a reorganization of world wealth via means such as punitive carbon taxes that will dramatically reduce air and vehicle travel. The less-developed world will not rise to the developed, rather the other way, the advanced civilizations must go down in their living standards to become “sustainable.”

Maurice Strong

To understand the double-speak use of sustainable, we need to go back to Maurice Strong, a billionaire Canadian oilman and close friend of David Rockefeller, the man who played a central role back in the 1970s for the idea that man-made CO2 emissions were making the world unsustainable. Strong created the UN Environment Program, and in 1988, the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) to exclusively study manmade CO2.

In 1992 Strong stated, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” At the Rio Earth Summit Strong that same year he added, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

The decision to demonize CO2, one of the most essential compounds to sustain all life, human and plant, is not random. As Prof. Richard Lindzen an MIT atmospheric physicist puts it, “CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”

Lest we forget, the curiously well-timed New York pandemic exercise, Event 201 on October 18, 2019 was co-sponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation. It was based on the idea that, ”it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes “Event 201,” would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.” The Event 201 Scenario posited, “outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.”

The declaration by the World Economic Forum to make a Great Reset is to all indications a thinly-veiled attempt to advance the Agenda 2030 “sustainable” dystopian model, a global “Green New Deal” in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic measures. Their close ties with Gates Foundation projects, with the WHO, and with the UN suggest we may soon face a far more sinister world after the Covid19 pandemic fades.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University.

June 9, 2020 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , , | Leave a comment

UK Rates ‘Worst’ National COVID-19 Response, Vietnam Best

By Tyler Durden – Zero Hedge – 06/09/2020

The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic has affected countries varies vastly, connected in part to the respective government’s handling of the situation. As Statista’s Martin Armstrong shows below, these national responses can be worlds apart – both in terms of efficacy and as survey data from YouGov shows, the subsequent level of public approval, too.

Infographic: The Best and Worst Rated National COVID-19 Responses | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

In the UK, where the government’s response has been heavily criticised, the net approval rating (calculated by subtracting ‘handling badly’ from ‘handling well’ responses) is the joint-lowest of all countries surveyed.

Also with a rating of -15 is Mexico, where President López Obrador originally downplayed the severity of the pandemic and is now struggling to find the right balance between prioritizing public health and protecting the economy.

At the other end of the scale, Vietnam has so far recorded just over 300 cases and zero deaths.

In contrast to Mexico, Vietnam’s ‘overreaction’ to the crisis is thought to be the reason for the astonishing results achieved so far.

To compare to the countries at the bottom of the ranking, Our World in Data figures have the number of deaths per million people for the UK and Mexico at 596.07 and 104.79, respectively.

Countries included in the survey were: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, UK, USA, Vietnam.

June 9, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

International collusion with Israel is what real ‘political terrorism’ looks like

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | June 9, 2020

Israeli media outlets are trying to create a furore over a possible move by the Palestinian Authority to submit a resolution at the UN General Assembly condemning Israel’s annexation plan. “The solution to the conflict will come through direct negotiations in Jerusalem and not through political terrorism in New York,” declared Israel’s outgoing Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, about a non-binding resolution which will have no impact whatsoever on the looming land theft.

“Political terrorism” by Israel and the UN is actually what brought Palestinians to their current predicament. The UN’s willingness to disseminate the Zionist narrative that Palestine was a wasteland before Jews went there, and “a land without a people for a people without a land” has been much in evidence throughout the years, and the UN’s flawed Resolution 194 does not even begin to be preliminary compensation for what the Palestinians have lost since the 1948 Nakba. Indeed, “political terrorism” sums up the complicity between Israel and the UN; in particular the collusion in disseminating Israel’s security narrative as the pretext for the perpetual displacement of the indigenous population. Palestine, by the way, was never barren when Palestinian farmers worked their land.

“Political terrorism” against the people of Palestine was also normalised through the two-state compromise, which contributed to the permanent prevention of the legitimate return of Palestinian refugees. As the US-Israeli annexation plan draws closer, the UN will, undoubtedly, collaborate in finding ways to normalise the latest colonial expansion. The PA’s efforts to elicit anything more than verbal condemnation will, once again, be futile.

Israel Hayom described the possible PA move as a “battle”. The PA is just following perfunctory steps that have been proven worthless in terms of garnering diplomatic and political support for Palestine at an international level. There is thus no battle unless the PA alters its entire framework, swaps dependence upon the international community for Palestinian political involvement, and starts utilising its platform at the UN as an anti-colonial opportunity. As things stand, the PA is fulfilling international expectations by seeking recourse through non-binding resolutions. Palestine’s demise has been fuelled by non-binding resolutions alongside political violence.

Israel will lobby the international community for diplomatic support, yet whether this is forthcoming or not will make little difference to the annexation plan. As long as the world refrains from taking punitive measures, and not just against the annexation of Palestinian land, the PA’s recourse to the UN General Assembly presents no risk to the colonial-settler state. For the sake of its purported security concerns, Israel will, of course, play its perpetual victim card and pretend that it is facing an existential threat and opposition, or at least anti-Israel bias, from an institution that has consistently upheld and protected Zionist colonisation.

“The international community needs to know that legitimising Palestinian provocations rewards Abu Mazen’s [PA President Mahmoud Abbas’] refusal to hold dialogue with Israel,” claimed Danon. The truth is that the international community has only ever legitimised Israel and its colonial actions.

Moreover, there is no dialogue with Israel because complicity between colonialism and the international community has replaced Palestinians’ political rights with their subjugation. The US is now simply amplifying what the UN has intended since the 1947 Partition Plan.

Abbas and the PA pose no threat to Israel, and nor will yet another UN Resolution; Israel will just ignore it in any case, and get  away with doing so as it has done on countless occasions before. It is the Palestinian people themselves who have the potential to lead a legitimate anti-colonial struggle. That is why the real priority of the international community on this issue is the persistent dissociation between Palestine and the Palestinian people, with the sole aim of protecting the destructive agenda upon which Israel was founded and continues to exist. That is what real “political terrorism” looks like, Ambassador Danon.

June 9, 2020 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , , | 1 Comment