Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

China dumping American debt – US Treasury data

Samizdat | July 19, 2022

China’s holdings of US treasury securities dropped below $1 trillion in May for the first time in more than a decade, information released by the US Department of the Treasury shows. Official data is regularly published with a two-month delay.

China, the second largest foreign holder of US government debt, has reduced its holdings for six consecutive months from $1.08 trillion last November to $980.8 billion in May. That’s a decline of nearly $100 billion, or 9%. The last time China held less than $1 trillion of US treasury securities was in May 2010 ($843.7 billion).

Japan, the largest foreign holder of US government debt, has also decreased its holdings recently. In the six months from November to May, it dropped by nearly $116 billion to $1.212 trillion.

The total US national debt was just above $30.4 trillion as of last month. Washington has been struggling to contain skyrocketing inflation that hit a 41-year high at 9.1% in June. The US Federal Reserve hiked its benchmark interest rate by 0.75 of a percentage point in June, triggering warnings of a possible recession. Another increase could be introduced in an upcoming meeting next week.

According to CNBC, rising interest rates have made US treasury securities potentially less attractive, but the decline in China’s share could also be attributed to Beijing working to diversify its foreign debt portfolio.

July 19, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Nasrallah: If Lebanon is denied its oil and gas resources, we will shut down all Israeli platforms

Speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on July 13, 2022, on Biden’s visit to the Middle East and the border dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the Karish maritime gas field.

Source: almanar.com.lb Translation: resistancenews.org

Transcript:

[…] Now I come to the main point of my speech tonight. One of the results of the July (2006) war is the establishment of a balance of deterrence in the struggle against the Israeli enemy, between Lebanon and the enemy entity. These equations, this balance… Of course, I am not talking about a balance of forces in terms of the number of our respective soldiers, our respective naval power or our respective air forces. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a balance of deterrence, a balance of fear, a balance of terror. It’s a different kind of equation (than a strict balance of power).

For the past 16 years, that is, from 2006 to the present, Lebanon has enjoyed an excellent security situation with regard to the fight against the Israeli enemy, if we compare it to what used to happen before. The enemy has been unable to include Lebanon in its strategy of “the battle between wars” (conducting episodic strikes without starting a war, as it does in Syria), and Israel thinks a thousand times before taking any military action against Lebanon, knowing that there would be retaliation (from Hezbollah). That is why when Israel tries to do something (in Lebanon), it tries to carry out security operations (against Hezbollah) trying as much as possible not to leave any footprints, any traces (of its involvement). This achievement (of the Resistance) is still valid.

In this regard, before the episode of the drones (sent by Hezbollah over the Israeli gas platform in Karish), after my (last) speech about Israel’s exploitation of the Karish field (claimed by Lebanon; Hezbollah promised to prevent Israel from extracting gas from it, even if it means war), the enemy War Minister… Of course, all Israeli officials spoke out to threaten, promise (retaliation), etc, but in these days of commemoration of the 2006 war, I only want to comment on one sentence of the Minister of War [Benny] Gantz. He said, and I quote you his words, “We are ready for war, and if necessary, we will march again on Beirut, Sidon and Tyre.” I’ll just comment on that sentence before I continue. In short, Gantz knows very well that such words are pure mockery, and that he is lying to himself, to his people and to his peers. All Israelis know that this is just empty rhetoric that carries absolutely no weight. Yes, anyone in Israel can say that they are going to bomb, destroy Lebanon, etc. I am not saying that they are incapable of doing this: on the contrary, it is ALL they are capable of. In all the wars against Gaza, all they have done is air strikes, missile strikes, artillery strikes, nothing else. The only time they made a ground incursion into Gaza, they suffered a disaster, and even had prisoners taken (by Hamas)! And even in the recent military maneuvers they dubbed “Chariots of Fire”, the entire operation towards Gaza was based on firepower, not on a ground incursion.

So you (Israelis), who, faced with a Gaza under siege for 15 years, whose geography is flat, whose conditions are (so) difficult, and whose weapons are largely produced locally, do not even dare to take a few steps forward, you claim to invade Lebanon and reach Tyre, Saida and Beirut? You are completely mistaken if you make the same calculations as 20, 30 or 40 years ago, as if the situation (today) was the same (as when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982). In any case, I advise Gantz to review his case, and in particular to review the last days of the 2006 war, when the Israelis took the decision to enter the town of Bint Jbeil, which is very close to the international border (between Lebanon and Israel). Let him review in particular the number of elite troops that participated, the generals that participated, the tank battalions that participated, the size of the forces that participated, the artillery and aerial firepower, the missile strikes, the planes, the helicopters, etc. They destroyed most of the city, besieged it, and left only one exit route for the fighters to flee. But the fighters did not flee, and the opposite happened: more (Hezbollah) fighters entered Bint Jbeil. The situation was quite different (from what Israel imagined). And Israel’s goal may not even have been to occupy the whole city of Bint Jbeil, but only to reach the stadium where I gave the spider’s web speech (on May 25, 2000) and plant the Israeli flag there. And even that you were unable to do! And this during the last days of the war, when, in your eyes, the (Hezbollah) fighters would be exhausted and weakened by the bombing, with low morale, etc. But such is the experience of Bint Jbeil, the closest city to occupied Palestine (it was a resounding failure for Israel).

Therefore, to claim that Israel will reach Saida, Tyre and Beirut is a preposterous statement, and I believe that all Lebanese have laughed at this statement and these threats. Those days (when Israel could occupy our capital) are well and truly over. And that is why we need not fear anything on this side in the ongoing border dispute between Lebanon and Israel: Israel is threatening us with invasion, but what could it possibly invade? During the 33 days of the 2006 war, it remained at the gates of Ayt al-Chab and our other villages at the border, without being able to enter them. Israel tried to enter Maroun al-Ras for 3 days, despite the fact that there were only a small number of fighters there, (but failed).

I only want to confirm, regarding the lessons and teachings of the 2006 war for the future, especially regarding South Lebanon and the Israeli claim to carry out a ground incursion there, that today, the popular support (for the Resistance) is different from that of 1982: the masses overwhelmingly support the Resistance and embrace it (totally). The organization of the Resistance is very large, and has no comparable precedent, both in terms of its numbers and its military capabilities and power. Likewise, the will to fight, the spirit of resistance, and this is what counts most, is stronger and higher than ever before. Not to mention the (mountainous) geography of Lebanon (conducive to guerrilla warfare). The geography is with the Resistance, the people are with the Resistance, the capabilities are with the Resistance, the Resistance is with the Resistance, and first and last, God the Most High and Exalted is with the Resistance. It is He who has given it victory in the past, and it is He who will give it victory at any time in the future. God never fails in His promise, and He gives victory to those who fight in His way [Quran, XXII, 40].

The third point is the issue of oil and gas. One of the consequences of the 2006 war is that it demonstrated the power of the Resistance to protect Lebanon. A new equation (of deterrence) was imposed, I just mentioned it. The protection of Lebanon, its territory, its population, its national security —I’m not talking about the security of the Lebanese society, currently in crisis— in the fight against the Israeli enemy, its natural resources, etc. All this —and I am beginning to be very precise in my remarks— constitutes the only strength that Lebanon has in order to obtain its rights to the oil and gas deposits, to extract them and to sell them. There are several key points in this matter.

First, no Lebanese questions the fact that the golden opportunity to save Lebanon is to extract its oil and gas. When I talk about saving Lebanon, I am talking about saving the State, the majority of whose public services are suspended. Salaries and services are insufficient, but the State is unable to remedy this. Tomorrow, if the Central Bank’s reserves run out, even the salaries of civil servants may not be paid. There will be no more subsidies for medicines, flour, etc. The State is on the verge of collapse, and the country is heading towards an extremely difficult and even critical situation. What else? Even if reforms are carried out, I have already mentioned it but I want to repeat it, the conditions imposed by the IMF for the granting of a 3 billion dollar loan (are draconian), and such a sum cannot meet Lebanon’s (enormous) needs. Someone told me that it doesn’t matter if the IMF gives only $3 billion, what matters is that if this loan is granted, it will give more confidence in Lebanon, and then an international conference can be organized to help Lebanon. Very well, but what can we expect from it? $10, $11, $12 billion, like the CEDRE Conference, the majority of which will be loans, and therefore new debts for Lebanon, with very strict conditions. Will this solve Lebanon’s problems? Lebanon’s problems are much more important than that.

There is a second option, which does not bring $3 billion in debts, nor $11 billion in debts, but hundreds of billions of dollars that will be our property, with which we will be able to pay our debts, pay [and increase] the salaries of civil servants, subsidize medicines, flour, find financing to revive the economy, etc. Because in fact, the lifting of subsidies on gasoline and fuel has not revived anything. The only existing and dignified way of salvation for the Lebanese is the exploitation of our oil and gas: no other way has appeared until now.

The second point is that the golden opportunity is now. It is now, during these two months. And now there are less than two months left, what’s left of July and August, into September, early September, the first week of September —I’ll spell it out in detail. We have a golden opportunity now. Why do I say golden opportunity? If there was no war between Russia and Ukraine, there would not be this (urgent) need of Europe and the United States for gas and oil. I don’t mean that they will import gas and oil from Lebanon, because to install sea platforms, extract hydrocarbons and sell them, it takes years. But Lebanon’s strength is that it can be a problem, an obstacle to the Israeli enemy, to the Israeli entity, and create a problem in the whole region that will prevent the extraction of gas and oil (in the Mediterranean), and will prevent the sale of gas and oil to Europe. Because these people are in a panic situation, they have no choice and they have no time. And I explained that Biden came to the Middle East in the first place for that (to convince the Gulf countries to increase their oil and gas production). They absolutely need oil and gas now.

And that’s why Israel rushed to exploit the Karish field. Why do I say that everything is being played out in these two months? Because now is the time to find alternative oil and gas for Europe [before winter], and this is the time required by the company [Energean] to start extracting oil and gas from Karish. This is our window of opportunity. If this two-month period passes and Lebanon has not obtained its rights, the situation will be very difficult, and it will be infinitely harder to obtain our rights. If we have to get our rights after the extraction of oil and gas has started in Karish, it will cost us much more. It is up to you to understand what I mean. The price we have to pay will be much higher. That is why I said in my last speech that time is running out, that it is crucial to act as soon as possible (before it is too late), without specifying exactly how long. But now the Israelis themselves, and the world with them, say that the extraction of oil and gas in Karish will begin in September. This is the critical period we are facing. The Lebanese officials, the Lebanese State and all the Lebanese people must do everything to take advantage of this golden time, this golden opportunity.

Do not allow the Americans to fool you, to procrastinate and to play the game of temporization. I was very affected to hear (Lebanese) officials say that with the grace of God, the (maritime border agreement between Israel and Lebanon) will be concluded in September. It will be too late! In September, it will be too late. If you don’t get your rights before September, and if you don’t agree on the maritime border before September, and the US and the UN have not recognized Lebanon’s rights, after this two-month period, things will be much harder and the price will be much higher. Of course, we would not give up on the issue, but it will be very hard and very costly. That’s how you have to make your calculations. Maybe if you let these two months pass, you (Lebanese officials) will not get anything, except by paying a very high price (war). Don’t let the US fool you. Don’t give any credence to the honeyed words of the Americans. The proof is that it will soon be a year since I announced, on the tenth day of Muharram, the arrival of a cargo of fuel from Iran, and the American ambassador promised the Lebanese people gas from Egypt and electricity from Jordan, as well as a waiver on the (American) Caesar sanctions, as well as a loan from the World Bank to Lebanon. It will be a year next month. What have we seen of all this? Nothing. Delegations have come and gone, ministers have met, Lebanese, Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian signatures have been put on documents, thank you very much, but nothing happened. A few days ago, the Lebanese Minister of Energy came back from Egypt and said that the Egyptians are finally ready (to export their gas to Lebanon), thank God all this is over, but we are still waiting for the American waiver on Caesar sanctions and the World Bank loan. Nothing has progressed at this level, after a whole year! Egypt had no problem (selling us its gas), and never had any issue since the beginning, for years, just as Jordan has no problem selling us its electricity: the problem is the American veto. The problem is the American veto. It is clear what value the Lebanese people, drowned in crisis and shortage, have in the eyes of the Americans: they refuse to waive the Caesar sanctions and allow Egyptian gas to be exported to Lebanon via Syria, as well as Jordanian electricity. They have, however, made a waiver for Iraq, which imports gas from Iran while Iranian oil and gas are subject to US sanctions. Iraq is allowed to import Iranian gas for its electricity. When the US occupied Afghanistan, it granted a waiver to the Afghan government under its control, allowing it to buy oil, gas and oil derivatives from Iran. But nothing like that for Lebanon, after a whole year, when Lebanon needs more than ever even one (extra) hour of electricity, during this summer, this very summer. And winter is coming.

Those United States who are unable to waive their Caesar sanctions for Lebanon, why would they grant you your maritime rights, your borders, the Qana field, and allow Total and other (Western) companies to start extracting oil and gas from Lebanon? For whose sake would they do so? Should we rely on their ethics and good manners? This individual whom you call an American intermediary [Amos Hochstein], but whom we call judge and jury, because he works in Israel’s interest and puts pressure on Lebanon. The Americans came a long time ago, and even when [Hochstein] came recently, in my opinion, his attitude was inappropriate, both in terms of form and substance: in terms of form, during his meeting [with Lebanese officials], he was laughing, joking, and mocking, and in terms of substance, he did not recognize any rights for Lebanon. He considered that it was not a matter of rights, because (in his opinion) there is no way to enforce this right, but that it is only a matter of negotiations, of an agreement that must be reached according to what both parties will accept. He did not behave in a serious and promising manner either in substance or in form.

And basically, why did Hochstein come? When, a few years ago, the Americans came and established the Hof line, and then turned their backs on us for years, Lebanon stood by and waited (for an agreement on the maritime borders), while Israel explored (the maritime deposits), etc. Some (Lebanese) still tell us that Israel is exploring Karish: but my dear, the exploration in Karish is long over! They are now getting ready to extract gas from Karish. They are digging and getting ready (for extraction), while we sit around waiting for negotiations. Then Hochstein came along, and he proposed a line of demarcation. I don’t know what he called it, let’s call it the Hochstein line. He imposed it as something non-negotiable, and then turned around and ran off, telling the Lebanese officials that as soon as they had an answer, they should send it to him in writing. What brought Hochstein back for his recent visit? Two things. Let’s be specific. He did not come back for the sake of anyone in Lebanon, nor for the sake of the Lebanese State, nor for the sake of anyone else. He came for two reasons. First, the US need for oil and gas for Europe, as I just explained. Because the situation is very difficult and even critical due to the war between Russia and Ukraine, which has been pressing on their throats for several months. This is the first new point: the urgent need to get a replacement (for Russian oil and gas), and this is the point on which we can put pressure on the United States. I don’t want to describe it as a weak point, but as an urgent American-Israeli-Western need. And the second reason is the real point of strength in Lebanon: Hochstein came back because he saw the threats from Hezbollah. Listen to me: without the Resistance’s threats (to strike Karish), if there was no Resistance, if he did not know that the Resistance has drones, precision missiles, and air, sea and land (military) capabilities, if he did not know that the Resistance had the courage and audacity to threaten, act and do (what it promises), Hochstein would not have come: he would have said that he had already given us a line of demarcation, and that he was waiting for an answer (from Lebanon) that never came. This is the reason why Hochstein came because the oil and gas of Karish was threatened, and much more than that, as I will explain.

In sum, Lebanon is now facing an adversary, or rather an enemy that has a weak point, namely the pressing and urgent need for gas and oil that it wants to import from the (enemy) entity. For he cannot import oil and gas from Lebanon at the moment, but we can prevent Israel from extracting and exporting oil and gas, which is our point of strength. Lebanon’s strong point is that it has a Resistance, capable of preventing and prohibiting any extraction of gas and oil (in the Mediterranean). We are able to do this. When it goes to negotiations, like any country that goes to negotiations, Lebanon must have points of strength (to assert its rights). What are the main cards that Lebanon can play? What strengths can it bring to the table? Can it take advantage of the presence of the Arab League or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at its side [laughs]? The UN? The Security Council? From Europe? Whose support can Lebanon claim? Lebanon, like the Syrian, Palestinian and Yemeni peoples, is left to its own devices. This is the fate of all oppressed peoples. Lebanon must therefore seek its inside strength (and not an illusory external support). The only strength of Lebanon, with which I began my remarks, is Hezbollah. It is the only one. If someone claims that there is another one, let him present it to us: we are not stubborn and are willing to learn. The only strong point in Lebanon is the Resistance and the actions of the Resistance. Even the United States is not a neutral intermediary, it is judge and jury: all it wants is an agreement that will give maximum gains to Israel at the expense of Lebanon. This is their real goal. The personality of the intermediary is not important, it is the fundamental policy of the United States that Biden has come to pursue, as he announced as soon as he arrived at the airport (in Tel Aviv). This is our only point of strength, and it is on this basis that we must move forward.

I want to address the Lebanese leaders without commenting on everything that has been said so far. I want to be constructive. Some Lebanese officials are convinced —whether they have said so publicly or not, they say it during internal meetings— they are convinced that the strength of Lebanon is the Resistance and the threats of the Resistance. Some officials may not be convinced of this, or at least they are afraid to state it clearly. I do not want to go into these details. I only want to say to the Lebanese leaders: this single strong point in your hands, use it! I say to you myself, in the name of the Resistance, use us! Instrumentalize us! Take advantage of us! As you like! When you sit down with the Americans and the Europeans, with the UN and with the whole world, tell them what you want! Insult us if you want, but don’t totally dissociate yourself from us of course. Insult us, no problem! Tell them that this group (Hezbollah) doesn’t listen to anyone, is out of control, and can lead the whole region to the abyss! Say what you want [to get Lebanon’s rights, even if you denigrate us when you recall our threats]! I invite you publicly to do so! Say it! And this is not psychological warfare. The Americans and the Israelis know that we are not waging psychological warfare on this issue, but are deadly serious. Let me give you some details about this. We are very serious. The Lebanese negotiators have one trump card to play, and that is Hezbollah. When we sent the drones over Karish, you should have said, “You see? These people are out of control and capable of anything! They don’t listen to anyone and can lead the whole region to the abyss [if they don’t get what they want]! So please, solve this problem and give Lebanon its legitimate rights!” This is what I wanted to confirm tonight.

After the episode of the drones (sent by Hezbollah over the Karish field), which I will talk about a bit, I heard some officials say that this action violates the agreement (allegedly made between Hezbollah and the government). What agreement are you talking about? Who made an agreement with whom? If someone makes agreements without our knowledge, that’s his problem. But we, Hezbollah, have not made any agreement with anyone, nor have we promised anyone that we would not do anything and that we would wait for the outcome of negotiations. Not at all. And whoever tells the Americans or anyone else that Hezbollah will do nothing, that it will not take any action, neither in the past, nor in the present, nor in the future, whoever makes such promises is deceiving his interlocutors and lying to himself, while squandering Lebanon’s interests. Instead of giving them guarantees and trying to reassure them, you have to scare them! Because this is your only strong point! It is your only card to play! If you reassure them, they will turn their heels, waste our time, and stall for these two months, just as they have been laughing at you for a year with their promises of Egyptian gas and Jordanian electricity. On the contrary, we must not only scare them, but even make them shake with terror!

Secondly, some have asked how Hezbollah can take the initiative to send drones when it claims to stand behind the State? You have misunderstood us, my dear! We are behind the State in the demarcation of the maritime borders! This is a matter in which we do not want to interfere. This does not mean that if the State accepts such and such a demarcation line, we will also sign, no! We do not interfere in any way. We are neither with nor against. We do not want to participate in the demarcation of maritime borders, as I have already explained in the past, and I do not want to explain it again. We do not participate in it for reasons of principle, ideology, culture, morality and tactics. When we say that we are behind the State on the issue of the maritime borders, it means that we do not want to interfere in this issue. When we say we are behind the State, it means that it is the Lebanese State that is negotiating the borders, not us. Many have claimed that Hezbollah has intervened in the negotiations, and opened channels for negotiations, but these are baseless lies. We are not involved in any way. But we have never said that we [fail to] stand behind the State in terms of putting pressure on the enemy, in terms of initiatives that can serve the negotiations, etc. We have never said anything of the sort, on the contrary: we have said the opposite! I made it clear that we would not stand idly by! That is what I said. Don’t misunderstand: we have not made any commitments to anyone and will not make any commitments to anyone. We are following what is going on, and we have the right to carry out any action at any time that we deem appropriate, of the appropriate scale and in the appropriate manner to put pressure on the enemy in the interest of the negotiations and the Lebanese negotiators. Let this be clear, both for the past and for the future.

It is on this basis that we took the initiative to send the drones (over the Israeli gas platform of Karish). The goal was to gain time! There has been an (American-Israeli) response, which Lebanese officials are evaluating in different ways. There is no doubt that there is a positive step forward, I say this to be honest and factual, but it is not enough, because even what the Lebanese State asks for is not granted. We in Hezbollah are not asking for anything, because I have said that we do not interfere in this issue. They told Lebanon to wait until September. But it will be too late. And therein lies the American duplicity. That is the American duplicity. And that’s when the drones came in, the day after the response in which the duplicity and the delaying tactics were obvious: it was clear that they were fooling us. And we don’t want to be fooled. So we launched the drones, and I’m going to expand a little bit on the military aspect of this. As the Resistance statement said, we sent out 3 drones of different sizes, and unarmed. Of course, we purposely did not arm them. Even when we were discussing this decision with the brothers, we agreed that our goal was for Israel to shoot down these drones. And despite that, Israel had a hard time shooting them down, first sending in planes and then bringing in the navy, Barak (sea-to-air) missiles, etc. These are details, but I explain to you what our intention was, and this will also benefit Israel in the future. Our brothers told us that they were perfectly able to send a drone (over Karish) that would collect intelligence and return (unharmed). But we unanimously said that we wanted the drone to go over there, collect intelligence and then be shot down by Israel. Why did we want this? Because we wanted the warplanes to fire missiles. Quite frankly. We wanted warships to fire sea-to-air missiles. We wanted fire and explosions in that area, on their side, so that the ship, the engineers, the (Israeli and foreign) employees (on the Greek gas platform Energean) and everyone else knows that they are in a dangerous area, facing a real and serious threat (to their lives).

If we had sent only one drone that would have collected intelligence there and returned, we would have issued a statement to that effect, saying that a drone flew over Karish and returned unharmed with the sought-after information, but maybe some would have believed us, and others would not. But the important and undeniable event is that the drones went there and were shot down, and that Israel was forced to hit them with missiles and speak out about it. That’s why Israel spoke before us, we were waiting to see what they would say. And we sent 3 drones on purpose to make the incident more prominent, because one drone would not have made so much noise. By the way, this was the first time in the history of the Israeli entity that 3 drones were sent simultaneously. As for sending a single drone, Hezbollah has been doing this for a long time (the first known drone, named “Ayoub,” was launched over Israel in 2012) and continues to do so to this day, with Israel sometimes intercepting them. Gaza has also sent drones over occupied Palestine. Iran has also sent them once or twice, and so has Syria. But each time, the drones were sent one by one. This is the first time that 3 drones were sent simultaneously to the same target. So that’s the whole story. I should point out that we are able to send a very large number of drones simultaneously. We can send them armed or unarmed, with different types of weapons, different sizes, etc. We are capable of all of that, with God’s help. We don’t have any problem with that. We sent 3 not because we were unable to send 5 (or more), but because 3 were enough for the message we wanted to send. And we were ready for anything, depending on the reaction of Israel, we were ready to face any retaliation.

In sending these drones, our goal… There were military, security, tactical objectives, which I don’t want to talk about, but we wanted to send a message to the enemy and to the whole world. If anyone thinks (that we are bluffing)… And I say this to the Americans, because in Lebanon (and especially in the American Embassy), some stupid advisors may claim that (we are bluffing). Some may (reassure Israel and the United States) that there is nothing to fear because the situation in Lebanon is very difficult, people are choking (because of the crisis, hyperinflation and shortages), and that Hezbollah can talk and threaten, but it is only empty words, and Hezbollah will not do anything. We have read many statements, communiqués, discussions and interventions in this vein. It’s said on TV, then it’s repeated at the U.S. Embassy, and maybe the (US) officials will be fooled. But with the 3 drones, the message was clear, and it was received loud and clear. The message was clearly that we are serious, that we see this as a crucial issue, that we are not waging psychological warfare, and that we are taking actions in a progressive way (more and more serious), and we will do whatever is necessary without any hesitation. This message was well understood by Israel and the United States. Whether some Lebanese commentators have understood it or not is the least of our worries. What matters is that the enemy gets this message, because it is addressed to him in the first place. Secondly, this message is addressed to our friends, so that they know that they are in a strong position, that they do not have to be afraid or tremble. This message has been well received, and the proof is that there has been no reaction from Israel on the ground, despite the (blatant) violation of the entity’s airspace. For the issue of oil and gas is very sensitive and pressing for the Israelis, the Americans and the Europeans. And the second proof is the internal contacts that were established, and the messages that were transmitted to the Lebanese State and also to us (Hezbollah) after the drone operation. All this confirms that the message was well received and well understood.

What will happen now? I must also say two words clearly for the future. In terms of our (military) capability, the enemy must know, and they know it well, but I say this to reassure and help our friends, that our capability is multiple. By the Israelis’ own admission, they were taken aback by the drones, and had difficulty shooting them down. But we have a variety of options (to strike Karish): we have air options, sea options, and land options. All of these capabilities are effective and on the table. Playing the delaying game will not help (with us). We are capable of doing anything that will serve our cause, and we will do it every time with the right scale, at the right time and in the right way. And I repeat, Lebanon can boast of a real deterrent power (Hezbollah) capable of preventing (the extraction of Karish gas), whose existence and threats (it poses to the enemy) it must take advantage of, as well as its actions if necessary.

In this power, in these negotiations, in this issue, there are two issues (which I will clarify) so that people do not misunderstand what position to take towards them. The first issue is Lebanon’s maritime borders, on which the State is negotiating. It is expected that they will reach a result, which will be recognized by the United States and the UN. This is a first issue. But it is not enough on its own. I want to remind you that for the Israeli invasions of 1978 and 1982, the borders of Lebanon were not disputed: they were internationally recognized, by the UN and whatever you want (but it didn’t prevent Israel from invading). It is not enough to have international recognition for our maritime border and our exclusive economic zone. That is not enough. The second issue is the (American) permission that must be given to foreign companies like TOTAL, which have committed themselves to come and explore and extract Lebanese hydrocarbons. Without this, what will we have gained? If we are told that these are our maritime borders, but the American veto continues to prohibit us from exploring and extracting our resources for 10 or 20 years, we will only have a right on paper, and the maritime oil and gas will be plundered (by Israel). So the two issues must be linked and resolved together. It is not enough to be told “Here are your borders” and to forbid TOTAL and any other company in the world to come and prospect or extract Lebanese hydrocarbons. We would have gained nothing, and it would be a mockery of the world and of ourselves to claim the contrary. The (Lebanese) State would have achieved success only on paper, without it being translated into facts. Therefore, the choice that Lebanon has is to apply pressure. We must apply pressure. We must apply pressure. It is our fate that is at stake. I will now express the core of my statement and our position. This is a vital issue for us.

I want to tell our enemies and friends that we are not waging psychological warfare on this issue. We will not just talk, express our opinion and bade farewell, certainly not. We are very serious. In our eyes, this is the only way to save Lebanon as a nation, as a State with its institutions that is threatened with collapse, as a people, its present and its future. We are talking about an operation of salvation. Perhaps tomorrow someone will react to my words by saying that I am ruining the whole process of border demarcation. Someone will ask me if I want to lead the country to war. But if we continue like this, Lebanon is heading for a situation worse than war! A situation much worse than war! Just for once, let us Lebanese try to be brave, to stand up as one man and have one strong and courageous stand against the Americans and the Israelis, without evasion, without pretence and without misreading. Someone will claim that all this is aimed at influencing the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear issue. Since 1982, we have been hearing about Iran, Syria, etc. (to present Hezbollah as a mere satellite of Tehran or Damascus), but this is just empty talk. This has nothing to do with the Iranian nuclear issue, as the US itself has acknowledged. So let’s aim at achieving our goal (getting Lebanon’s maritime rights and saving the country), why would the Iranian nuclear issue matter to us? If we stand up as one to the Americans, both at the level of the (Lebanese) State, the people and the Resistance, and say to them, “If you do not give us the rights claimed by the State, and not by Hezbollah, and if you do not allow the companies to come and extract (our hydrocarbons), we will all cause (a terrible war) in the region. We may turn the tables on the whole world.”

There are people who want the Lebanese people to starve and kill each other in front of bakeries, gas stations, and kill each other for a bite to eat, because the Lebanese pound is worthless, as are salaries. There are people who want to destroy this country. But no (we won’t let them)! I say tonight in all frankness, if the choice is that Lebanon should not be helped —and the natural way to help it is its wealth in hydrocarbons—, and that Lebanon should be pushed towards collapse, starvation, the people killing each other, no, no, no, no (we will never allow it). War is more dignified, much more dignified. Whether it is the threat of war, or even the actual war! It is much more dignified and much more noble! The first way, which is to let things continue towards collapse, anarchy and people killing each other because of hunger, has no horizon. It has no way out. But war has a horizon. If we decide to go to war, there is a way out. It can make the enemy submit (to our demands). Maybe he will submit before the war, maybe he will submit at the beginning of the war, maybe in the middle, maybe at the end! He will submit and we will impose our conditions, and we will earn hundreds of billions of dollars (by selling our hydrocarbons), which will save the country! And whoever dies in such a war will die a martyr. It is better than dying because of a fight at the bakery, at the gas station, in a robbery or whatever. Let’s talk about it seriously. I know that tonight many voices will be raised (to denounce my speech), but I am speaking frankly.

And we have learned from experience… We hope that the national position of Lebanon will be strong and unanimous. But it is obvious that we do not expect unanimity. From 1982 to 2000, the experience of the Resistance, the parties of the Resistance and the factions of the Lebanese Resistance all declare that if we had waited for national unanimity (to fight the invader), Lebanon would still be occupied by Israel, and there would be settlements in the South, in the Western Bekaa, in Rachayya and in many other places. Lebanon would have been swallowed by Israel. We will not wait for unanimity, and we will not abandon the State. We cannot leave the State alone in such a difficult and sensitive matter.

That is why I say to the enemy tonight: let him not make a mistake in his calculations. Let the Americans and Hochstein not trick the Lebanese and try to deceive them. The Lebanese will not be fooled. The drone message is only a beginning, a modest beginning (which gives only a small glimpse) of all that we can do. If things go wrong, we will not just target Karish. We are on the anniversary of the 2006 war, so record the new equation: Karish, beyond Karish and far beyond Karish [referring to the 2006 equation promising to strike “Haifa, beyond Haifa and far beyond Haifa”]. Today, I asked the brothers concerned in Hezbollah to present me with a list of everything that is facing the Palestinian coast. We count and follow closely (the activity of) all the (oil and gas) fields, all the oil wells, all the maritime platforms, whose names we know, as well as their activity, those with operational status or not, those who are still in the exploration phase, etc. All these details are in our possession. All these details are in our possession. If you want to continue to choke Lebanon, I am not just talking about the Karish equation: the issue is much broader for us. If you want to continue to impose the equation that Lebanon is forbidden to save itself by exploiting its natural gas and oil resources, no one will be able to extract gas or oil, and no one will be able to sell gas or oil. Do you understand? Do you understand or shall I repeat myself, as they say? And this regardless of the consequences.

O Lebanese people, we have reached the end of the road. We have reached the end of the road. Whoever promises you something else, let him explain what he is promising (to save Lebanon). What is he promising? Who is going to save Lebanon? They don’t even want to give you an (extra) hour of electricity! When a simple signature of the Americans would be enough, they have nothing else to do and would not lose a penny. But they want this country to collapse, to starve, to give in and give up its rights, to be their slave. But this is impossible. Whoever wants to be a slave, good for him. But it is not for him who wants to be free to give in. In any people, in any country, in any nation, in any State, people must fundamentally have sovereignty, freedom, independence, they must enjoy their natural resources that will save their people from ignorance, illiteracy, disease, hunger… This is the situation we are in today.

In the days to come, and while Biden is present in the region —it is said that Hochstein is also present with him—, and (Israeli War Minister) Gantz said “We don’t want war, and we are ready to go very far in the way of peace and to reach an agreement about the maritime border between us and Lebanon which must be agreed upon quickly.” I exhort you (O Lebanese leaders), talk to them, let them not stall and laugh at you and fool the Lebanese. No one will laugh at us, and we will not allow anyone to fool us.

I wanted to talk about other points, such as the economic and social situation, the bread, the government, but I have already gone on too long, and I will do so in a future speech.

May God’s peace be upon you, as well as His mercy and blessings.

July 19, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Media Matrix

Corbett • 07/18/2022

Media. It surrounds us. We live our lives in it and through it. We structure our lives around it. But it wasn’t always this way. So how did we get here? And where is the media technology that increasingly governs our lives taking us? This is the story of The Media Matrix.

Part 1 — The Gutenberg Conspiracy

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee or Download the video or audio

TRANSCRIPT

In the beginning, there was the word. The spoken word, that is.

This word, the written word, didn’t come along for countless generations.

And this word, the printed word, didn’t come along for thousands of years after that.

In fact, we’ve only had the movable type printing press for about 600 years, but without it our world would be unrecognizable.

From the Renaissance to the Reformation, from the fall of feudalism to the rise of capitalism, from the Scientific Revolution to the Industrial Revolution, from the way we order our thoughts to what we choose to think about, nothing survived the printing revolution intact.

Our world is the world that the printing press has created.

And that world started with this. [Holds up mirror.]

VOICEOVER: Media. It surrounds us. We live our lives in it and through it. We structure our lives around it. But it wasn’t always this way. So how did we get here? And where is the media technology that increasingly governs our lives taking us? This is the story of The Media Matrix.

PART ONE: THE GUTENBERG CONSPIRACY

You see, in the Middle Ages, mirrors—especially curved mirrors—were fiendishly difficult to make.

And pilgrim badges—elaborately designed lead or pewter plates with a curved mirror in the middle—were even more difficult to make. But in fifteenth-century Germany, they were in hot demand.

It all goes back to the year 800, when Emperor Charlemagne gifted four holy relics from Jerusalem to the Cathedral in Aachen in modern-day Germany: the swaddling clothes and loin cloth of Jesus, Mary’s robe, and the cloth that held John the Baptist’s decapitated head. The relics were thought to have miraculous restorative powers. And so, after the Black Death of 1349, they were removed from the Cathedral’s golden shrine and put on display for the public once every seven years, attracting tens of thousands of pilgrims from across Christendom.

Soon, the belief developed that a curved mirror could be held up to the relics to capture their miraculous powers and bring them back to the pilgrims’ home in whatever far-flung land they hailed from.

Now, the mirror was not a mirror like the ones we’re used to today. It was a pilgrim badge and it was one of the few mass-manufactured items of the Middle Ages. They were lucrative products to make. So lucrative, in fact, that the goldsmiths and stamp cutters of Aachen couldn’t keep up with the demand.

Enter Johannes Gutenberg. Born around the turn of the fifteenth-century to a wealthy family in Mainz, in modern-day Germany, Gutenberg—whose father was a companion of the ecclesiastical mint—had a background in goldsmithing, coinmaking and metalwork.

Arriving in Strasbourg in 1434, he thought to put his skills to work on a profitable venture: creating badges for the next Aachen Pilgrimage in 1439. There was only one problem: he didn’t have the capital to make the badges himself. So he entered into a cooperative with three business partners, each of whom ponied up a portion of the money required for Gutenberg to start producing the mirrors.

But just as the pilgrimage approached and it looked like the inventor was going to make a tidy profit for himself and his business partners, the Black Death struck again. An outbreak of the plague ravaged the Upper Rhine Valley in 1438, postponing the pilgrimage by a year. Gutenberg had already produced a number of the mirrors, but his capital was running out. And so he set his sights on a new venture—one so audacious, so revolutionary that he made his partners sign a contract swearing them to secrecy before he would let them in on it.

In fact, so secret was this project that the only reason we know anything at all about it is because one of the business partners died and his brother tried to take his place in the cooperative. But after the surviving partners refused to let him in on the plot, the would-be co-conspirator sued Gutenberg in Strasbourg court.

The court documents that survive are themselves cryptic—referring to the “adventure and art” of “the work” that Gutenberg and his partners were engaged in, but never specifying what that work was, exactly. We know that it involved presses fastened with screws and engraved “forms” supplied by a local goldsmith, that some quantity of metal had been purchased for the venture, that the work was expected to take five years and—above all—that the object of this undertaking be kept a secret.

Gutenberg and his partners had quite literally entered into a conspiracy.

And that conspiracy, resulted in this. Now this may not look like much to you . . . and you’d be right. This is a pencil sharpener. But the Gutenberg movable type printing press that it’s modeled after? Now that truly was a work of art. In fact, there’s a solid argument to be made that it was one of the most important inventions in human history.

There were many existing ideas and technologies that went into Gutenberg’s creation: the screw press, the manufacture of paper, the idea of woodblock printing, the development of ink. But it took years of careful experimentation to solve the puzzle of how to create a perfect print every time.

At first glance, it seems straightforward. The type is arranged in a rectangular container and then beaten with ink balls. The paper is placed in a leather-covered frame called a “tympan” and covered by a frisket. The tympan is then laid on the type and fed into a screw press, which is turned to press the type onto the paper.

Simple, right? Hardly.

In fact, every part of the printing process involved years of laborious experimentation: finding the right paper to print on, finding the right moisture levels for the paper to absorb the ink, finding the right way to dry the paper, finding an ink that wouldn’t run off the metal type, finding the right alloy for casting the type, and on and on and on. Each problem tested the limits of medieval technology and the limits of Gutenberg’s own skill and ingenuity.

And the result was nothing short of a revolution.

How so?

Here, look at this manuscript. What do you see?

If you lived before Gutenberg, you saw a page of text. A totality. A clump of information. But Gutenberg saw something different. His core insight was that a page of text was not a thing in itself, but a collection of letters that could be broken apart and rearranged into any other collection of letters.

From that deceptively simple observation came this. The printed page. Mechanically produced, perfectly identical characters that could be arranged into any configuration the printer desires to create any text imaginable.

And that insight birthed the modern world.

It birthed the era of mass communication. Pre-Gutenberg, there were no books, no pamphlets, no newspapers. In fact, in the 50 years before Gutenberg, all the scribes in all of Europe struggled to produce 20,000 laboriously hand-copied manuscripts. In the 50 years after Gutenberg? The printers that sprung up around the continent churned out 12 million printed books.

It birthed mass manufacture. Beyond pilgrim badges, there were very few mass-produced items in medieval life. Clothes, tools, shelter, manuscripts—everything was handmade. The book accustomed the medieval mind to the idea of identical, mechanically produced objects. And the printing press—with its mechanically perfect type—prefigured the advances of industrial production.

It birthed the Scientific Revolution. The widespread publication of data, the collection of knowledge in widely available reference books, the ability to exactly reproduce illustrations—things that we take completely for granted today—were a revelation when they appeared in the fifteenth-century and created the conditions for the rise of the empirical method.

It birthed the Reformation. We all know it was Luther and his 95 theses nailed to the church door that launched the Reformation, but it was the printing press that allowed Luther’s ideas to spread so far, so fast. (And, bonus fact: Those theses were addressed to the Archbishop of Mainz, birthplace of Gutenberg’s press.)

The printing press even birthed the nation-state.

INTERVIEWER: Yes, now how would you describe the the impact of the invention of the printing press? Give us some instances of what happened as a consequence of this

MARSHALL MCLUHAN: It created almost overnight what we call a nationalism, what in effect was a public. The old manuscript forms were not sufficiently powerful instruments of technology to create publics in the sense that print was able to do. Unified, homogeneous reading publics.

Everything that we prize in our Western world in matters of individualism, separatism and of a unique point of view and private judgment; all those factors are highly favored by the printed word and not really favored by other forms of culture like radio or earlier even by manuscript.

But this stepping up of the fragmented, the private—the individual, the private judgment, the point of view—all in fact our whole vocabularies underwent huge change with the arrival of such technology.

SOURCE: Marshall McLuhan 1965—The Future of Man in the Electric Age

The world that Gutenberg was born into was this world: the real world. If you learned anything at all about this world, you probably learned it from experience, or at least from someone who had that experience.

But the world that Gutenberg left behind was a world of mass communication. Books were no longer a rare and valuable thing, and it was increasingly likely that your information about the world came from someone you never met, someone who may have been long dead.

The movable type printing press didn’t just change the way people communicated; it changed what they communicated about.

In a very real sense, the printing press invented “the news.”

Before Gutenberg, “the news” was whatever you managed to gather from your neighbours, what you learned from travelers passing through your village, what you heard the town crier yelling through the streets or, at best, what you yourself read in the occasional proclamation or edict from the authorities.

But after the printing press, the news was for the first time collected, organized, printed on a regular basis and distributed far and wide.

In 1605, the world’s first newspaper was published in Strasbourg—the same city where Gutenberg was making his mirrors for the Aachen pilgrimage a century-and-a-half prior—and soon everyone and their dog was printing a newsletter or a pamphlet or a newspaper or a tract. And these ideas were spreading around the world like they never had before.

For the first time, someone could be reading the exact same news as someone in the next town over . . .

JAMES EVAN PILATO OF MEDIAMONARCHY.COM. . . or someone on the other side of the planet . . .

. . . at the exact same time.

The printing press united people like never before and the result was an explosion in the spread of ideas, the likes of which would not be experienced again for centuries.

But not everyone was excited about this free flow of information. Entrenched power structures of medieval society—the crown, the church, the feudal lords—had persisted for centuries by controlling information and suppressing dissent. But as the barriers to new ideas collapsed, so did the old feudal order.

It’s no surprise, then, that wherever the printing press traveled, wherever the new cadre of printers and booksellers set up shop, the censors were not far behind. When Lutheran books began appearing in England in 1520, Cardinal Wolsey was quick to declare that anyone caught with the texts would be subject to heresy laws. Not to be outdone, King Henry VIII’s proclamation “Prohibiting Erroneous Books and Bible Translations” of 1530 afforded him the power to try readers of these “blasphemous and pestiferous” books in his own dreaded Star Chamber.

Parliament dissolved the Star Chamber in 1641, but they weren’t about to give up censorship of the press. They just wanted to take the power for themselves, and that’s exactly what they did. The Licensing Order of 1643 outlawed the printing, binding, or sale of books, except by persons licensed under authority of Parliament.

This prompted John Milton to write the Areopagitica, still recognized today as one of the most influential and passionate defenses of freedom of speech in history:

“Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God’s image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye.”

But even the loftiest language of Milton had little effect in swaying the censors. The Licensing Order was not overturned for half-a-century, when the Parliament chose not to renew the act.

Those in positions of power had good reason to fear the printing press. Gutenberg’s invention turned their world on its head. Suddenly, people who had been kept apart and largely in ignorance of the world around them had been brought into a community of readers; a gigantic societal conversation began, empowering radicals who sought to overturn the order that had existed for centuries and helping them to spread their dangerous new ideas faster and farther than they ever could have with pen and paper.

Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that these new ideas would come to their dramatic fruition in one of the most literate places on the planet: colonial America.

By the end of the 18th century, literacy rates in the colonies were upwards of ninety percent, and there were 180 newspapers being published on the Eastern Seaboard, twice as many as in England, a country with twice the population.

The colonists’ appetite for books and learning was celebrated far and wide. In 1772, the Reverend Jacob Duché wrote of the colonies: “Almost every man is a reader. [. . .] The poorest laborer upon the shores of the Delaware thinks himself entitled to deliver his sentiment in matters of religion or politics with as much freedom as the gentlemen or scholar [. . .] such is the prevailing taste for books of every kind.”

Just four years later, in 1776, Thomas Paine would publish Common Sense, a 47-page pamphlet that was to take those colonies by storm. In the first three months of its publication, a staggering 120,000 copies of the book had been sold; by the end of the year, it had sold 500,000 copies, or one pamphlet for every five men, women and children in the colonies. To put that in perspective, adjusted for population, Common Sense would be the thirteenth best-selling book of all time.

But this wasn’t any ordinary bestseller. This was a revolution.

At the beginning of 1776, before Common Sense, the average colonists believed themselves to be Englishmen engaged in a civil war; after Common Sense, they were revolutionaries engaged in a War for Independence. And that war was waged on the power of the printed word. That is the power of print.

The pen may be mightier than the sword, but the printing press is mightier than entire armies.

By the end of the nineteenth century, a new creature had emerged to capitalize on this new instrument of power: the press baron.

In America, William Randolph Hearst . . . that is, William Randolph Hearst inherited the San Francisco Examiner from his wealthy father, built it up into the biggest paper in town and plowed the profits into the purchase of the New York Journal. With the Journal and a growing number of dailies across the country under his belt, Hearst became a full-fledged press baron, taking on Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World in a circulation war, pioneering the eye-catching layouts and sensational stories that would come to define his brand of yellow journalism, and helping to gin up support for the Spanish-American War, among many other dubious causes.

In England, Alfred Harmsworth picked up the yellow journalism idea from Hearst and Pulitzer and used it to build his own press empire around The Daily Mail. From a lower caste of British society, Harmsworth found himself in the center of political power in Britain, using his influence to gin up public hatred of the Huns ahead of World War I, becoming director of propaganda for the government in 1918 and earning himself the title of Lord Northcliffe in the process.

In a sense, the Lord Northcliffes and the William Randolph Hearsts and the other press barons of that era were the end stage of the Gutenberg Revolution. The invention that had given a voice to the masses and started a conversation that would topple institutions, dethrone monarchs and reorder empires had now catapulted people at the fringes of power into its very heart. With the power of the press, these men were able to sway the minds of entire nations of people.

Naturally, the old tension between the ruling elite and the masses, empowered by the press, was still there. But censorship hadn’t proven to be an effective tool for keeping the masses in ignorance. There had to be another way.

That way, it turned out, was another conspiracy.

On February 9, 1917, Oscar Callaway, a US Representative from Texas’ 12th District, exposed that conspiracy in the Congressional record:

“In March, 1915, the J. P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship-building, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States. [. . .] They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”

The news was extraordinary, but it almost didn’t get reported at all. Callaway had not been given time to make his charges on the floor of the House; instead, they were “buried in the Record.” It wasn’t until another congressman demanded a full congressional investigation into the charges that the newspapers even bothered to cover the story at all.

Perhaps it is no surprise that the Gutenberg conspiracy ended up here, at the Morgan conspiracy. That a revolutionary step toward freeing man from the bonds of ignorance was met with a revolutionary counteraction designed to place those chains around him all the more tightly. That, at the zenith of the print revolution, the oligarchy finally found a way to control the free flow of information.

Ironic, then, that within the space of a few short years, the print revolution that Gutenberg had started was about to be overturned by another technology.

The Media Matrix

Part 1: The Gutenberg Conspiracy

Transcript and links: corbettreport.com/media

Next week: What Hath God Wrought

July 19, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

This is one of the emails I received the other day. I get hundreds daily, and I am hearing you all.

This particular note spoke loudly to me and this lovely person gave me permission to share her words

By Jessica Rose · Unacceptable Jessica · July 17, 2022

“Dear Jessica,

I have been following your work for some time now. I thank God for you and your truth telling during this dark day of medical experimentation.

I’m sending this email to you to add colour to your work analyzing data. I know the trends and the data are vitally important but so are anecdotes and stories.

I have a 3 year old daughter and gave birth to my son in November. He’s almost 8 months now and, thank God, very healthy. I live in Fort Warrior.

[JUST FOR CONTEXT] I am unvaccinated (or un-injected is maybe what we should say). I knew I wanted to get pregnant in early 2021 and decided in advance that I wouldn’t take the jab based on the precautionary principle. I tend to be more skeptical of doctors and pharma than most — I favour nutrition and lifestyle interventions first but I know a lot of people feel “safe” going to their doctor for a pill/pharmaceutical that ails them. I kept a lot of my opinions to myself.

Fast forward to my first OB appointment in June of 2021. They were all over me about getting the COVID-19 jab at my appointment. I never brought it up, they did. The nurse practitioner fielding intake questions advised me of the following:

– the vaccine was highly recommended by the College of Obstetrics and Gynecology;

– the vaccine stays in the arm, and generates an immune response through antibodies that will also protect the baby (and do cross the placenta);

– pregnant women are at an especially high ICU risk and there have been bad outcomes;

– I’m at higher risk of infection because I have a child in daycare;

– they don’t have “long-term” safety data but they have no reason to believe that the vaccine is unsafe;

– pregnant women have priority on the vaccine.

I am a rule-follower so even though I had made the decision in advance to not take this death jab, it was a rattling appointment. It honestly caused me so much stress throughout the pregnancy because I felt they made it seem like you were doing something wrong if you didn’t get this death jab. Every doctors’ appointment had me so stressed and worried. You have this guilt about not doing “as the doctor told” and then worrying that if you got COVID and something did happen, they’d all be rolling your eyes and treating you like shit. I gave birth in a mask, but thank God everything went well and my son is healthy.

Since these jabs rolled out, I know of one woman who had a stillbirth a month before her due date. Devastating. I also have a good friend whose baby is having many health problems. Her first baby was born the same time as my first and didn’t have any of these problems. I notice too that doctors are not connecting the dots. One of the issues my friend’s baby has is a heart murmur. I’m no expert on this but she said to me that the cardiologist told her that up to 1/3rd of babies have murmurs and they just go away on their own. That didn’t sound right to me but I don’t know. She also said the baby had to go to physio and had a virus (and got COVID). It just seemed like there were so many issues and she never even raised the possibility that it might be related to taking the vax during pregnancy. Another colleague of mine who got the jab and booster while she was breastfeeding said her daughter had green poop for a week after the booster and that she lost her supply. She actually took her baby to Sick Kids and they told her she was basically crazy.

My cousin also didn’t get the jab and gave birth around the same time as me. Her baby is doing good. Got Covid at 2 months old and recovered faster than my cousin’s whole family who got it at the same time. Seems to fit the trend in the data.

I have so much rage and anger over this because I was so close to putting my baby at risk because of intense pressure from the OB office and from the mandates they rolled out at my work. I was able to get an “accommodation” because I started the job in March and had been working entirely from home and was about to take a leave. But it was gross listening to the head of HR at my job talking about the news related to “pregnant people” (ugh) and how vulnerable they were as she condescendingly implied that I was a moron for not doing more to protect my son.

Babies are being maimed; harmed. Women are being gaslighted. Breastmilk, which is literally medicine for a growing baby, is contaminated and causing harm because of these disastrous injections. This is evil. My heart is breaking every day. Every time I breastfeed my son with my milk I am so emotional. I want more kids but I’m terrified of the medical system. They doctors are in on this crime and are deliberately ignoring obvious data. I don’t even want to take my son back to the doctors for anything. It feels like going to a crime scene. I think of all the women I know who got this shot but want kids one day. They don’t even know what they’re in for and for their sake I hope I’m wrong, but damn.

I still don’t get the feeling people are waking up in Fort Warrior. I have a few friends who are aware, but they oppose all vaccines (and the more I read, so do I) so they were already for sure never going to get this experimental one. It feels really repressive here. People want to forget the medical tyranny and apartheid rolled out in the fall and pretend like we can just move on from the darkness.

I don’t know where things will go from here, but I’m so very grateful for your courage. I also appreciate the way you explain scientific findings in interviews. It’s really helpful.

Sending you so much love, mental, physical and spiritual health as you do this work. I am sure it’s so taxing to comb through these tragedies, but you are performing a vital human service.”

In gratitude, I stand. With mighty power.

July 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Chinese military issues warning to US

Samizdat | July 19, 2022

The foreign and defense ministries in Beijing issued harsh statements on Monday condemning the Biden administration’s approval of a new US arms sale to Taiwan. The deal is worth an estimated $108 million and includes armored vehicle parts and technical assistance.

Beijing “demands” that the United States “immediately withdraw the above-mentioned arms sales plan to Taiwan,” as well as halt all other arms deals and cut military ties with the island, said Defense Ministry spokesman Colonel Tan Kefei. “Otherwise, the US side will be solely responsible for undermining the relationship between China and the US and the two militaries and the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait.”

“The Chinese People’s Liberation Army will take all necessary measures to firmly defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and resolutely thwart any form of external interference and separatist attempts for ‘Taiwan independence’,” the colonel added.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin echoed this sentiment, saying that Washington’s arms supplies “gravely undermine China’s sovereignty and security interests, and severely harm China-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

“China will continue to take resolute and strong measures to firmly defend its sovereignty and security interests,” Wang added.

The Pentagon revealed on Friday that the US State Department had greenlit the transaction, which is valued at up to $108 million. It has yet to receive congressional approval, however. The military aid package will include parts for tanks and other combat vehicles, as well as technical and logistical support services provided by the US government and its contractors, in order to enhance the Taiwanese military’s interoperability with American forces and other allies, according to the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

State Department spokesman Ned Price dismissed China’s concerns, claiming later on Monday that the US has certain obligations to supply Taiwan with the necessary means to “defend itself.”

“Under the Taiwan Relations Act, we make available to Taiwan defense articles and services necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. This is something that successive administrations have done. It is entirely consistent with our One China policy,” said Price.

Taiwan has been ruled by the nationalists who fled to the island in 1949 after losing the civil war on the Chinese mainland. Beijing considers the island of 23.5 million a part of its own territory, under the One China policy.

China has recently increased its maritime and aerial military activity around the island, saying that this was needed to deter “collusion activities” between “Taiwan independence forces” and the US government.

While agreeing with the One China policy on paper, Washington maintains strong unofficial ties with Taipei, selling weapons to the island and tacitly encouraging its push for sovereignty. Beijing has repeatedly decried such contacts as provocations and as meddling in China’s internal affairs.

July 18, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Why the BBC’s new “anti-vaxxer documentary” is a complete farce

The BBC is either the worst media organisation on Earth or the best, depending upon your perspective. On the one hand it is a truly world-class propaganda machine. On the other it is completely incapable of challenging government narratives or power because it is effectively a branch of the UK government and is itself beholden to power.

As an agency of the state, the BBC has actively sought to destabilise overseas governments around the world. It is a master of propaganda and frequently lies to the public, either overtly or by omission, with the goal of convincing the people to accept whatever falsehood or agenda it has been tasked to sell.

From top to bottom, the BBC’s commitment to journalistic integrity is missing. It is simply a mouthpiece for the ruling cartel. It comprehensively fails to deliver the most crucial social function of journalism: holding power to account.

According to the corporation’s published values, “trust is the foundation of the BBC.” The Oxford English Dictionary offers a pejorative meaning of the word “trust”: “acceptance of the truth of a statement without evidence or investigation.”

This definition of “trust” seems appropriate for the BBC. While it declares itself to be “independent, impartial and truthful,” it routinely trots out claimed “facts” that lack supporting evidence and produces investigative reports absent any real investigation. Indeed, the BBC broadcasts appalling lies as a matter of course.

And so it is with a certain degree of mirth that we now learn from the BBC that it intends to air a “documentary” about a phenomenon it has already opted to call “vaccine hesitancy.” (Bear in mind: A “documentary” is “a film or television or radio programme that gives facts and information about a subject.”)

The producer of the upcoming programme, due to air on the 20th of July, Craig Hunter, explains:

Moving beyond the often misrepresented debate, this programme reveals why some people remain vaccine hesitant.

The deprecatory word “hesitant” means “tentative, unsure, or slow in acting.” There is no room in the programme-maker’s minds for the possibility that people who chose to remain “unvaccinated” have considered the risk-benefit of these shots, have looked at the available evidence and have decisively concluded that they don’t want a COVID-19 jab.

Hunter’s statement absolutely “misrepresents” the debate. As Craig is the producer of the forthcoming BBC documentary, it seems the chance of the programme delivering a balanced exploration of the issue is remote to non-existent. There is little reason to expect the BBC to provide anything that is “independent, impartial and truthful.”

Indeed, objectively discussing any facet of the alleged pandemic is way beyond the reach of the BBC. As a state propaganda operation, all it can do is parrot the official narrative spouted by the government and its partners, who are, in this instance, the pharmaceutical corporations.

In its press release announcing the documentary, the BBC claims that the programme will focus on:

. . . confronting the latest science and statistics to emerge in the field and dissecting how misinformation spreads on social media.

The BBC cannot succeed in this task because the science and the statistics rarely support the disinformation it has been commissioned to spread. Consequently, it must deceive and misdirect its audience to make sure they believe its propagandist tripe. More to the point, the BBC is itself one of the most prolific distributors of online misinformation.

For example, in its press release the BBC says:

After multiple lockdowns and more than 197,000 deaths, experts are warning we’re now entering a fifth wave of the pandemic. So why are five million adults in the UK still yet to receive a single dose of the vaccine?

Putting aside for the moment that there are actually more than eleven million UK adults yet to receive a single dose of the vaccine and the fact that the BBC itself reported that there were just three million less than a week later, the rest of this claim assumes, without good reason, that there was a “pandemic” in the first place. We now know there is very little evidence that a genuine pandemic ever occurred, yet the BBC keeps up its charade by omitting key facts.

Here is one such key fact: In 2009 the World Health Organisation (WHO) suddenly and radically changed its long-time definition of the word “pandemic.” It removed the defining phrase “several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness,” replacing it with reference to a disease for which “most people do not have immunity.” Under this definition, practically any new disease can be declared a pandemic. But the BBC won’t inform its audience of the WHO’s changed definition nor the fact that under the original, and more valid, definition, COVID-19 disease could never have been described as a pandemic.

The BBC has left its audience in the dark about a number of other important facts: (1) as of the 19th of March 2020, UK public health authorities did not consider COVID-19 to be “a high-consequence infectious disease” due to its low mortality; (2) all-cause mortality (the overall death rate) in 2020, the year of the so-called “outbreak,” ranked as only the 9th highest death rate in the first two decades of the 21st century; (3) people with injured limbs and stomach pain were being admitted to hospital as registered COVID-19 patients, thus giving an entirely false impression of a severe pandemic disease; (4) there is no statistical evidence of any beneficial effect from any supposed COVID-19 vaccine; and (5) many deaths have been caused, not by any single disease, but by the policy response to an alleged pandemic.

In the press release for its upcoming “documentary,” the BBC refers to the figure of 197,000 UK deaths from COVID-19 as if that figure is scientifically or statistically indisputable. Not only can it be questioned, it has been! So why doesn’t the BBC mention this?

By deliberately using the largest possible figure, the BBC is attempting to elicit an emotional reaction to the highly questionable number of supposed COVID deaths. The BBC is playing on people’s emotions in order to avoid any objective analysis of the data. Its intention is to manipulate its audience into unquestioning acceptance of a story about a severe pandemic which does not stand up to scrutiny.

Let’s pause to make an important point: The collection, analysis and reporting of COVID-19 mortality data has been deliberately altered and manipulated by governments around the world, all of which worked and continue to work in partnership with the WHO. Nowhere has this manipulation been more pronounced than in the UK, where the engineering of COVID-19 mortality statistics has been quite remarkable.

Mainstream media outlets, especially the BBC, have perpetuated baseless fearmongering. For example, for the first time in the history of reporting deaths from a respiratory disease, propagandists like the BBC are reporting cumulative deaths instead of the annual mortality rates or the more common seasonal variation in these figures. If the same were done for, say, influenza, total flu deaths would be measured in millions, depending on the chosen start date for the accumulation of the mortality data.

Another example: The BBC has chosen to report what the government claims to be “deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate.” While some of these likely were genuine COVID-19 deaths, the expansive, all-encompassing methodology that the government and the WHO created to attribute as many deaths as possible to COVID-19 renders the bulk of these statistics virtually meaningless. In truth, we don’t know how many people in the UK have died as a direct consequence of COVID-19, though estimates in the region of 20,000 – 25,000 seem reasonable.

The BBC never questions the mortality statistics. It simply takes the figures from the government and reports them without any investigation or analysis. This is essentially the BBC’s purpose: to report whatever it is told to report.

In announcing its faux documentary, the BBC says:

In this timely, eye-opening investigation [. . .] Professor Hannah Fry seeks to understand why eight percent of the population remain unvaccinated against Covid-19.

In reality, more than twenty percent of adults in the UK are “unvaccinated.” The BBC can’t even write a press release for its forthcoming documentary without publishing deceptive statistics. So it is safe to say the “documentary” itself will be little more than a marketing promotion for the jabs.

Statistics from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) on vaccine coverage in England show that the actual percentage of the “unvaccinated” population is very close to thirty percent, not the eight percent the BBC alleges. The English figures are broadly representative of the UK as a whole and can be extrapolated.

Jab uptake increases with age. Thus, if we exclude children under 18, then more than twenty percent of the UK adult population are unvaccinated.

The subsequent uptake of booster jabs has declined markedly from the one-and-two dose uptake. Millions of Brits decided, for whatever reason, that two shots was their limit. Only fifty-two percent have elected to have the first booster (the third jab).

Speaking in December 2021, then-Health Secretary Sajid Javid said that, in order to be considered fully vaccinated for the proposed “covid pass,” one would need to have three jabs. If three becomes the definition of “fully vaccinated,” which seems unlikely given the lack of interest, then currently forty-eight percent of the total UK population, and more than thirty-five percent of the adult population, are not “fully vaccinated.”

The BBC launched its “documentary” by trying to deceive its audience into believing that there is only a tiny fringe minority of indecisive folk who don’t want the COVID jabs. In point of fact, it is nearly half of the UK population.

Not only has the BBC lied about the statistics in its press release, it has even misrepresented the debate it proposed to examine by calling the millions of people who made an informed decision not to have the jabs “hesitant.” But that’s because the BBC is all about propaganda, not journalism.

When some diligent independent researchers did what real journalists are supposed to do and picked up on the BBC’s deception, the BBC simply changed its press release. Since citing real statistics was a bit too tricky for the BBC—after all, it only has an annual budget of around £5 billion—the revised web page now reads:

In this timely, eye-opening investigation [. . .] Professor Hannah Fry seeks to understand why a portion of the population remain unvaccinated against Covid-19.

Despite there being no reason to trust anything the BBC ever says, the broadcaster implores its viewers to “trust” it simply by pronouncing its own trustworthiness. For the BBC, your “trust” demonstrates your “faith,” allowing it to tell you stories without the need for investigative journalism or even supporting evidence. By contrast, the evidence invariably reveals that the BBC is completely untrustworthy.

According to BBC, its so-called “documentary” is going to be based on bombarding seven hapless unvaccinated lay people with a barrage of pro-vaccine “experts.” Once browbeaten into submission by these authoritative opinions, the victims will then be subject to the BBC’s logical fallacy tactic of appeal to authority. In other words, these high priests of “the science” will explain how the BBC’s seven victims have been misled by “anti-vaxxer” propaganda.

It is highly likely that even if the seven subjects cogently explain why they have decided not to be injected with experimental concoctions, the BBC will edit out any and all valid points they make—and/or deny whatever evidence they cite. We can make these predictions with relative ease, simply by noting the extraordinary level of deceit already present in the BBC’s press release announcing its “programme.”

We can make still further forecasts about the BBC’s alleged “investigation.” For one thing, it won’t honestly report on the current status of the vaccine trials.

Namely, it will neglect to inform its audience that the NCT04368728 trial of the Pfizer-BioNTech jab isn’t finished. And it will not reveal that neither the NCT04470427 trial of Moderna’s mRNA jab nor Johnson & Johnson’s NCT04614948 Jansen trials have posted any results, because these trials, too, are incomplete. Moreover, the BBC will strenuously avoid pointing out the implication of these facts—probably by not reporting them.

Unless the recipients of these drugs were told that the jabs they were about to receive were experimental, they couldn’t possibly have given their informed consent. Consequently, whenever they weren’t informed, administration of the jab contravened nearly every known medical ethic, including those outlined in the Nuremberg Code. But the BBC won’t mention this, either.

It is also safe to say that the BBC will not tell its audience that AstraZeneca concluded the NCT04516746 trial of its AZD1222 adenovirus jab more than a year before schedule by not bothering to conduct a quality control review, rendering its so-called vaccine trial results practically meaningless.

The BBC will not tell anyone that the British Medical Journal (BMJ) disclosed that both Moderna and Jansen (J&J) confirmed that they had given the jabs to their placebo control groups, ending any prospect of their trials ever meeting the basic standards for randomised controlled studies. When the BMJ asked Pfizer if it had done the same, Pfizer declined comment.

Instead, the BBC will almost certainly claim that the jabs have been through extensive clinical trials. It will just omit the part about them having failed to properly complete any.

The BBC will not acknowledge the freedom of information requests and subsequent court ruling in the US that overturned the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to delay release of Pfizer’s primary safety monitoring data for 75 years. The Federal Court forced the FDA to release the damning results of Pfizer’s own early monitoring of adverse reactions following the jab rollout in the US and Europe.

In the space of just a couple of months, there were approximately 42,000 adverse reactions to the Pfizer mRNA jab alone, with just over 25,000 of those confirmed by medical exam and the other 16,000+ unconfirmed. Of these, more than 1,200 injuries resulted in death. More than 11,000 of the injured had not recovered from their serious adverse event at the time of reporting.

The BBC certainly won’t report the Israeli study, the results of which indicate that the Pfizer jab prompts a marked decline in male fertility.

Nor will the BBC mention that Pfizer’s own research shows that, contrary to all of Pfizer’s marketing claims, the corporation knew during the trial phase that the lipid nanoparticles used in its jabs found their way into the liver, adrenal glands and spleen and, in particular, accumulated in female recipients’ ovaries.

The BBC may well have to acknowledge the more-than-38,000 possible vaccine deaths reported to the US VAERS system, the 2,200 deaths reported in the UK and the 46,000 deaths recorded by the European Medicines Agency. Its “experts” will point out that there is no evidence that these deaths are caused by the vaccines and will say that the risk of the disease COVID-19 is far higher than any known risks from the COVID-19 jabs.

The BBC will almost certainly make extraordinary and extremely silly claims about how many lives the jabs have allegedly saved. Again these claims will be based upon nothing but baseless assumptions about what could have happened according to some spurious “predictive model.” Rather like claiming your anti-unicorn spray has stopped a million unicorns from grazing your lawn because you don’t have any unicorns in your garden.

As we have just discussed, the risks of harm from COVID-19 claimed by the government and its propaganda outlets—the BBC foremost—are so implausible they verge on absurd. Yet the BBC will not inform its audience that, to date, not one of the regulators has produced a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis for any of the jabs. So the inevitable BBC claims that the jab benefits outweigh the risks will literally be based upon nothing at all.

Something else that the BBC won’t mention is that none of the respective regulatory agencies have done anything to investigate any reported vaccine deaths.

The BBC will not go anywhere near reporting the findings of a team of eminent German pathologists who performed autopsies on 40 corpses of people who died within two weeks of vaccination—and who identified the vaccine as the likely cause of death in one-third of the cases.

Nor will the BBC report statements like those from the UK regulator, the MHRA, that adverse reactions, including deaths, are significantly undereported, with just ten percent of serious reactions and between two percent and four percent of non-serious reactions recorded.

What the BBC will do instead is rely upon carefully cherry-picked scientific papers, a narrow band of selected “expert opinion,” speculative statistics and emotionally charged anecdotes to convince its audience that the seven victims of its hit piece, though well meaning, are all hopelessly deluded due to the scourge of online disinformation. It may well try to squeeze in reference to the proposed Online Safety Act and suggest that this government policy is essential to tackle the disinformation problem fabricated in its documentary.

Of course, if the BBC were serious about its professed wish to “fully explore this complex and deeply divisive debate,” it wouldn’t simply subject a group of ordinary men and women to a tirade of unchallenged claims from its hand-picked group of “experts.” If it really wanted to tackle the debate with any objectivity or journalistic integrity, it would also report the views of some of the many eminently qualified scientists and physicians who do question the COVID-19 narrative and the alleged safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

It would be genuinely interesting to see people like Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, Dr. Mike Yeadon, Professor Carl Heneghan and Professor Arne Burkhardt explain some of their reservations. Perhaps other scientists, physicians and experts who have questioned the vaccines and the COVID-19 pandemic could be heard.

Maybe the statistician and Nobel Laureate Professor Michael Levitt; epidemiologists like Professor John Ioannidis or Professor Knut Wittkowski; experts in clinical drug development such as Alexandra (Sasha) Latypova; or physicians such as Dr. Peter McCullough or Dr. Roger Hodkinson could be invited to challenge the BBC’s preferred experts.

The audience and the seven subjects of the BBC’s attack could then hear both sides of the argument. But that won’t happen.

Alas, many won’t get to see the BBC’s vaccine marketing programme because they have already decided that they will no longer pay for its propaganda to be beamed into their heads. These numbers are swelling all the time, hence the deceptive plan to allegedly end the BBC license fee while a desperate workaround is conjured up to make sure the BBC’s coffers remain stuffed with gargantuan amounts of public money.

Still, we might get to watch “Unvaccinated, with Professor Hannah Fry” when it finds its way on to Odysee, BitChute, Rumble or some other worthy video-sharing platform. If so, it will perhaps be interesting for some to see how accurate or inaccurate this article is.

In the meantime, let’s give the Beeb the benefit of the doubt and hope this post is way off the mark. Instead of the awful propagandist drivel we might expect, let’s hope the BBC proves that these suspicions are born of nothing but unfounded, anti-BBC bias.

Bet they aren’t.

July 18, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine plots partnership with Big Tech, a cashless society, and the use of AI to assess criminals

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | July 18, 2022

Ukraine hopes to team up with Big Tech for some big plans to make the war-torn country “digitally indestructible,” reports citing statements made by officials during recent conferences suggest.

The main goal is to move towards a cashless society by introducing non-crypto digital money, and use AI systems even for purposes like producing “pre-trial and pre-sentencing reports assessing the risk of a suspect re-offending.”

An initiative, called “Digital4Freedom” was presented by Ukraine’s Deputy PM and Minister of Digital Transformation Mykhailo Fedorov in Switzerland. Fedorov is described as long-time friend of President Volodymyr Zelensky and a fellow enthusiast in ushering it ever greater levels of digitalization.

The initiative appears very ambitious, and optimistic: it is to make Ukraine “the most digital state in the world,” and that has been the pitch made to the audience in Lugano, who were asked to contribute funds and cooperate on forging a “digital Marshall plan” for Ukraine.

The general promise is that in the future, the Ukrainian government and Big Tech will be “closely interlinked,” while turning the country into “a European Israel.”

The push presented by Fedorov is to make Ukraine 100 percent digital, and he has a lot of faith in storing data on Amazon’s and Microsoft’s severs, which he says “cannot be destroyed by missiles.”

The plan is to allow Ukrainians to use digital services for all administrative tasks, like car, property, and land registration, paying customs duties and starting businesses.

More sectors slated for similar transformation, other than the payments system that is supposed to completely do away with paper money, are education and healthcare.

In his own appeals made on several occasions, Zelensky made it clear he expects Big Tech to build this infrastructure. According to reports, Fedorov left out mentioning Big Tech by name as he asked for donations and funding.

Even though appearing to address an eager audience, one part of the plan that was viewed with some apprehension is the judiciary using AI in risk assessment.

Fedorov’s name for this portion of the presentation was, “Judge Dredd.” Fair Trials seems to agree that’s what it might turn into, and expressed concern, saying that using AI for this purpose should be banned, as it “undermines the fundamental right to be presumed innocent.”

Ukraine, meanwhile, already has pilots that “produce pre-trial and pre-sentencing reports assessing the risk of a suspect re-offending,” the reports say.

July 18, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | | Leave a comment

Facebook introduces encrypted links to hinder privacy efforts

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | July 18, 2022

Facebook is actively fighting back the attempts by browsers to provide their users with better protection against unwanted tracking on the web.

And for all the talk about using encryption to ensure privacy and improve security in its apps, Facebook seems to have managed to find a way to turn encryption against internet users’ best interest.

In order to prevent browsers like Brave and Firefox from deploying URL stripping that removes tracking parameters added to links by Facebook and others, like Amazon, Facebook is reportedly turning to encrypting links.

Instead of changing tracking parameters in URLs, they are now encrypted and cannot be automatically removed. This means that browsers at this time cannot do anything to prevent tracking via Facebook URLs.

One recourse is to stop using Facebook, and another not to sign into it and delete site data and cookies often – since URL tracking alone is not as efficient a tracking tool for Facebook if not paired with the latter two.

For now at least, the URL stripping functionality is still useful in a large number of other cases where parameters are appended in order to track users across the internet when they’re not on the sites that are tracking them, Ghacks reports.

Until now, Facebook used its “click identifier” (fbclid): Google’s version is known as “gclid,” while Microsoft has “msclkid.” These added parameters have only one purpose – to track users, and are not needed for sites to operate correctly. Unless, that is, the personal data-hungry sites like Facebook make it impossible to remove them.

In that case, a link to a post will lead to the main Facebook page of an account, rather than the post itself.

Brave Browser has been stripping tracking from URLs by default for several years now, while Firefox introduced it (“Query Parameter Stripping”) with the version rolled out this June.

In Firefox, the feature is on by default only in so-called private browsing mode. Users can also activate it by going to the settings and choosing “strict” Tracking Protection, or via the configuration page (“about:config”).

Or they can use an add-on, like the open-source ClearURLs that automatically removes tracking elements from URLs to protect privacy.

July 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Nations Fail to Restrain Surveillance Industry 1 Year After Pegasus Revelations

Samizdat | July 18, 2022

The international scandal over Pegasus spyware, used by the Israeli authorities to spy on “terrorists,” broke in July 2021 after a joint media investigation unveiled that the spyware had also been used by private company NSO Group to conduct unlawful surveillance on politicians, businessmen, activists, journalists and opposition figures around the world.

Following the disclosures, human rights watchdogs have been repeatedly calling for the surveillance industry to be regulated, with some steps made “in the right direction,” yet governments’ action has been insufficient, Amnesty International said in a statement.

“The Pegasus Project offered a wake-up call that action was urgently needed to regulate an industry that is out of control. Shamefully, governments worldwide are yet to step up and fully deal with this digital surveillance crisis,” Deputy Director of Amnesty International – Technology Danna Ingleton said.

Currently, there are open investigations against NSO Group in France, India, Mexico, Poland and Spain. In November 2021, the United States designated the NSO Group as an entity engaged in “in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests.” In March, the European Parliament set up the PEGA Committee to probe the misuse of Pegasus and other spyware across Europe. Nonetheless, most states have failed to mount a robust response to unlawful surveillance, Amnesty International noted.

“One year after the Pegasus spyware revelations shocked the world, it is alarming that surveillance companies are still profiting from human rights violations on a global scale… We continue to call for a global moratorium on the sale, transfer and use of spyware until human rights regulatory safeguards that govern its use are in place,” Ingleton added.

Under international law, states are not only obliged to uphold human rights, but also to protect them from abuse by third parties, including private companies, the watchdog said, stressing that unlawful surveillance infringes on the right to privacy as well as the rights to freedom of expression, belief, association, and peaceful assembly.

July 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lack of Air Conditioning, Not Climate Change, Is the Real Summer Heat Wave Threat

By Ben Lieberman | CEI | July 11, 2022

Climate change policies often pose a greater risk than climate change itself, and that is especially true during summer heat waves. Each new heat wave invariably brings media coverage drawing overstated links to climate change, but the bigger threat to public health comes from climate activists’ war on affordable air conditioning.

It has always been the case that summer heat can be deadly, especially during heat waves, and the evidence points away from any appreciable increase attributable to anthropogenic climate change. In fact, the data show much worse heat waves in 1930s than today, though there has been a smaller uptick since the 1960s.

Far more important is access to air conditioning, which greatly reduces heat-related deaths where available. Studies show that widespread air conditioning use in the United States has considerably negated the health impact of high temperatures and prevented an estimated 18,000 heat-related deaths annually. The benefits would be even greater if and when the rest of the world acquires air conditioning, especially the nearly 3 billion people who live in tropical nations where residential air conditioning is still relatively uncommon.

That is where the cure-worse-than-the-disease part comes in. Climate activists have targeted air conditioning in numerous ways, all of them compromising affordability.

Congress passed production quotas on refrigerants called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) on the grounds that they contribute to climate change. Most residential systems use one such HFC for which the price has skyrocketed to the point that replacing refrigerant lost from a leak costs several hundred dollars more than it did last year. New systems designed to use one of the supposedly environmentally friendly alternative refrigerants will also carry a hefty premium, which is why their producers, including Honeywell and Chemours, joined environmentalists in lobbying Congress to push the cheaper HFCs out of their way. Thus, both repairs of existing systems or purchases of new ones have been adversely impacted.

The Kigali Amendment, a United Nations climate treaty, imposes overlapping global restrictions on these affordable HFCs. The Senate may soon decide whether or not to ratify the Kigali Amendment, adding yet more environmental red tape to air conditioning.

Operating costs have also shot up thanks to climate policy. The war on coal and natural gas has contributed to electric rate increases—up 12 percent in the last year alone. Thus, low-income (and even some not so low-income) households now need to be careful about how much they run their air conditioners.

Overall, both owning and running an air conditioning system has gotten costlier in 2022, and that trend will very likely continue for as long as the climate agenda does.

Thanks to climate change, a future that is slightly warmer than today is quite possible. But thanks to climate change policy, a future with less air conditioning to counter the effects of summer heat is more likely.

July 18, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Germany’s Energy Crisis About To Get Even Worse As Rhine Water Levels Plummet

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | July 18, 2022

What has already been a year from hell for Germany, which is suffering energy hyperinflation as a result of Europe’s sanctions on Russia, and which is “facing the biggest crisis the country has every had” according to the president of the German employers association, is about to get even worse as the declining water level of the Rhine river, which has historically been a key infrastructure transit artery across Germany, continues to fall and as it does, the flow of commodities to inland Europe is starting to buckle threatening to make an already historic crisis even worse.

The alarming lack of water is contributing to oil product supply problems in Switzerland and preventing at least two power plants in Germany from getting all the coal they need, and what’s more, the continent’s sizzling summer temperatures are forecast to climb even higher in the coming week, leading to even lower water levels.

The 800-mile (1,288-kilometer) Rhine river runs from Switzerland all the way to the North Sea and is used to transport tens of millions of tons of commodities through inland Europe. But with water levels at their lowest for the time of year in 15 years, there is a limit how much fuel, coal and other vital cargo that barges can carry up and down the river.

Low water levels on the Rhine River mean that barges hauling middle distillate-type oil products – typically gasoil/diesel – past Kaub in Germany, are limited to loading about 30% of capacity, according to maritime brokerage services firm Riverlake.

A barge loading in the energy hub of Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (or ARA), which can haul 2.5k tons when fully laden, is restricted to taking on about 800 tons if sailing to destinations beyond Kaub. The water level at Kaub has fallen in recent days and is at its lowest on a seasonal basis since at least 2007. According to Riverlake, further decreases in loading volumes for barges hauling middle distillates from ARA to inland destinations beyond Kaub are expected in coming days.

This – coupled with capacity issues on German railways – has meant that Switzerland is struggling with supplies of oil products, mainly diesel/heating oil, according to Avenergy Suisse, the landlocked country’s organization for fuel importers.

Low Rhine water level combined with capacity problems on German railways are the reasons, managing director Roland Bilang told Bloomberg, adding that supply problems mainly concern diesel/heating oil.

“It has happened from time to time in the past that temporarily not enough mineral oil products could be transported to Switzerland and therefore the compulsory stocks had to be tapped.” Biland recommends private households fill their heating oil tanks early.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that power plants at Mannheim and Karlsruhe in Germany, operated by Grosskraftwerk Mannheim and EnBW, have been struggling to source coal because of the shallow water – just as the country frets that Russia won’t restart flows on a key gas pipeline. The companies said their generation operations aren’t currently affected.

Because of the tight coal market and low Rhine levels making it hard to deliver the fuel, only 65% of Germany’s coal capacity will be available in coming months, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights analyst Sabrina Kernbichler. This is bad news for a country whose biggest energy utilities are starting to drain natgas reserves as a result of the halt in Nord Stream 1 shipments, jeopardising millions of Germans with freezing should the country fail to restock fully ahead of the winter.

Germany also imports oil products up the Rhine, including fuel and heating oil. There’s currently no shortage of gasoline or diesel in the country, according to Herbert Rabl, spokesman for Tankstellen-Interessenverband e.V., which represents fuel station leaseholders and owners in Germany.

Shell – which owns the Wesseling and Godorf refineries along the Rhine – is monitoring the situation, according to a spokesperson.

July 18, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

UK testing drone swarms in Ukraine might lead to escalation

By Drago Bosnic | July 18, 2022

Air superiority is how the political West wages war. US and UK air power has been instrumental in all wars waged by the two leading Western imperialist thalassocracies since the Second World War to this day, although it existed doctrinally since at least the 1920s. This is so ingrained in their concept of warfare that it’s considered nearly impossible for them to lead a successful military campaign without it. This stands in stark contrast to most other comparable military doctrines, particularly the Russian one.

The Nazi onslaught destroying much of their air force before it got the chance to take off forever changed the way Russians see air power. Realizing (over)reliance on it can have a detrimental effect, coupled with the devastating consequences of American and British firebombing of German cities, which in some cases had an effect no less destructive than nuclear weapons (minus the radiation), Russia’s post-WWII military doctrine adopted a distinct and (up until recently) unique focus on advanced air defenses. Since then, Russia has been developing top-notch SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems, some of which are so advanced they effectively nullify the entire Western air dominance concept. And although Western state-run mass media love to downplay this, the very fact US legislation directly and very specifically targets these systems with sanctions speaks volumes.

The proliferation of these systems is a strategic nightmare for aggressive Western planners, who can’t simply bypass them without incurring “unacceptable losses”. In order to counter Russian SAMs, Western Military-Industrial Complexes have been working on a plethora of new systems. Some prominent examples include advanced drones, particularly miniature ones, which are also planned to operate in swarms, saturating hostile air defenses and paving the way for the more traditional aviation to bomb its way through enemy ground forces.

RAF (Royal Air Force) experiments with drone swarms show “they can overwhelm enemy defenses” and the concept would be ready for action in a war, according to the UK military service’s Chief of Staff. Air Chief Marshall Sir Mike Wigston told the Global Air and Space Chiefs’ Conference 2022 in London last week that the RAF’s 216 Test and Evaluation Squadron and the Rapid Capabilities Office trialed five drone types in 13 experiments with various payloads and equipment over three years. According to Wigston, this yielded enough insights for the service to declare an “operationally useful and relevant capability,” using its current fleet of drones.

“We are exploring new models of capability delivery and accelerated production ‘when we need them’ rather than ‘in case we need them,’ from the twin jet 3D-printed Pizookie, to commercially available large drones fitted with novel payloads, to large quadcopters,” Wigston stated.

“The problem of overcoming air defenses is a key obstacle to employing [air] power. Planning for air operations increasingly entails ensuring that planes can fly safely in the first place, putting at risk untold amounts of money that militaries have pumped into beefing up their fleets to fourth- and fifth-generation technology. That conundrum is on display in Ukraine, where Ukrainian and Russian air-defense capabilities are effectively canceling out the other side’s air power arsenal,” according to Justin Bronk, a defense analyst with the London-based Royal United Services Institute.

“The fact air power has been mutually denied, relatively speaking, in Ukraine by both sides has far more serious implications for us than for either [Russians or Ukrainians]. That’s because both militaries are ultimately dependent on massive land manpower and artillery, whereas joint forces of the UK and other Western powers are critically dependent on having air access and air superiority,” Bonk said at the London conference on July 13.

“Swarming, which means throwing enough expendable drones at a defensive radar and interceptor position so as to overwhelm them, can be effective, but only to a point. The idea of small and cheap drones attacking air defenses by way of swarming may not be feasible because those drones lack the requisite range and speed. If you want things to go fast and far, they’re going to be jet-propelled and they’re going to cost a fair bit. Getting drone swarms close enough to sophisticated air defenses with a range of hundreds of kilometers requires risky and potentially pricy insertion tactics that negate the widely cited cost benefit of cheap, small drones,” he added.

Western strategists are closely following their latest proxy war against Russia, trying to devise new strategies to fight the Eurasian giant. The deployment of never-before-seen ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets around Russia’s borders is a testament to that. In addition, increasing reliance on unmanned systems isn’t just the result of Western militaries trying to adopt new technologies. With NATO having severe manpower problems, drones might be the only way for members to have functional militaries in the near future. The UK itself is faced with this issue, having a very limited ground force with barely a few combat-ready brigades, to say nothing of other micro-satellites carved up after the dismantling of post-socialist federal states.

What’s truly dangerous at this point is the possible deployment of these systems to Ukraine. Most NATO weapons deliveries happened weeks or months before they were officially announced. Thus, it’s highly likely the same is true in this case. How Russia might react is up for debate, but it most certainly won’t take it kindly, which opens up new possibilities for escalation, particularly in the context of the latest controversial statements coming from the UK.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

July 18, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment