Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US is world’s ‘greatest propagator of disinformation’ – Senator Paul

Samizdat | May 5, 2022

Due to its long track record of disinformation, the US government has no right to tell the American people what the truth is, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has stated. He went to list a number of examples of where Washington had lied to its own people, and the rest of the world.

During a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Paul grilled Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas over the so-called ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ his agency has announced to supposedly help social media platforms filter out ‘fake news.’

“Here’s the problem: we can’t even agree what disinformation is,” the Republican Senator pointed out. “You can’t even agree if it was disinformation that the Russians fed information to the Steele dossier.”

He was referring to the controversial and largely discredited report that relied on info from anonymous sources to allege collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and Moscow ahead of the 2016 presidential election in the US.

“If you can’t agree to that, how are we ever going to come to an agreement on what is disinformation, so that you can police it on social media?” Paul wondered.

“Do you know who the greatest propagator of disinformation in the history of the world is? The US government!” he insisted.

In order to back his claim, the Senator mentioned several examples of false information being deliberately spread by Washington over the past decades.

Among them were the so-called Pentagon Papers, which revealed that the US government had been misinforming the public about the scale of its military operations during the Vietnam War. The documents were officially declassified in 2011, but the media had been reporting on them since 1971.

Paul also mentioned “George W. Bush and the weapons of mass destruction,” referring to American claims that Saddam Hussein’s regime had been in possession of WMD, claims that were used by the US to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but were never confirmed by findings on the grounds.

His other example was the Iran–Contra affair, which saw top US officials secretly organizing the sale of weapons to Iran in violation of an arms embargo between 1981 and 1986 in order to obtain money to fund the Contras insurgent group in Nicaragua.

“I mean, think over all the debates and disputes we’ve had over the last 50 years in our country. We work them out by debating them. We don’t work them out by the government being the arbiter,” the Senator said.

“I want you to have nothing to do with speech… You think the American people are so stupid they need you to tell them what the truth is?” Paul added.

The creation of the Disinformation Governance Board was announced in late April. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the new body would help counter disinformation, which is being spread by “foreign states such as Russia, China and Iran,” and by human traffickers operating on the US-Mexico border, among others.

The DHS gave assurances that it won’t be targeting US citizens. But critics were quick to nickname the board ‘The Ministry of Truth,’ after a fictional organization from George Orwell’s iconic dystopian novel ‘1984’.

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Is Australia a sovereign nation or just a state of Pfizerland?

Don’t mention the Australian vaccine: The TGA bans Aussie Professor from talking about his work

Australia has a mini Ministry of Truth already. It’s called the TGA.

JoNova | May 3, 2022

Australians can probably still get a Pfizer vaccine in chemists and carparks across Australia, but they still need to fly to Iran to get an Australian-made vaccine. The good news is that at least this week it’s legal for Australians to finally fly to Tehran without taking Pfizer or Moderna shot first — as long as they don’t fly on an Australian airline. (Not mentioning any names, Qantas!)

The people mostly responsible for this situation are the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Association). They’re supposed to be looking after Australians health but somehow all their decisions happen to be exactly what a Pfizer CEO would want. Spooky eh?  The TGA rushed the approval for the Pfizer vaccines, but still, millions of doses later, won’t release the procurement contracts, even under FOI. Signed on our behalf, and for our own good, yes? Did they even read the documents that Pfizer AND the FDA tried to hide for 75 years?

Now meet Professor Nikolai Petrovsky from Flinders University, Australia, who had already developed protein based vaccines against the original SARS in 2003 and MERS in 2012, so he was the obvious choice to develop an old fashioned protein based vaccine in Australia. (Hey, but it’s not like we want to develop our own vaccine industry, eh?).

So he went on to make a protein vaccine against SARS-2 and has got approval to use it in Iran. Last I heard (months ago) they had sold 6 million doses to Iran, apparently with great results.

With all the makings of a Great Banana Republic Australia promptly sacked Petrovsky for taking his own vaccine instead of one of the foreign ones approved by The Sacred T.G.A committee. We can’t have vaccine experts at uni picking their own vaccines can we?

Somehow the Australian government spent something like $6 billion on foreign vaccines but asked the small Australian company to pay $300,000 to get approved here. So Petrovsky ran a GoFundMe, and it was so popular it raised a million dollars.  Finally he has permission and funding to run Australian trials, but now he doesn’t have permission to talk about it. Who knew he needed that? Apparently the TGA says it will fine him $13,000 or maybe one million (convenient, eh?) if he does. (Updated: I hear it’s an $11m threat now).

If only Australians were smart enough to hear the words of Professors without “protection” by unaccountable committees?

Unfortunately, Australians can’t take the Australian vaccine in Australia, and if they fly to Iran to get it, they still can’t return to their jobs in Victoria or WA. Who voted for the TGA? This committee controls what every doctor and medical professor can say in Australia. But doctors don’t even vote for them.

For those who are interested —  Petrovsky’s “Spikogen” vax has no RNA or DNA — just protein, and there’s no Furin cleavage site, or TMP (Trans Membrane Protein) either. Those are two parts of the spike that might make it less likely to get into our cells, or to stick in the cell-membrane of our cells  and poke out. (When our cells have those viral spikes displayed they will attract the attention of wayward immune cells and thus increase the risk of myocarditis and other autoimmune reactions). As to how well it works, we hear there are very few side effects. I’ve seen no data yet. If only the Australian Government was trying to help Australian researchers?

The Ministry of Medical-Truth are the same agency that also banned all doctors in Australia from prescribing ivermectin  for Covid, because it might reduce the sales of Pfizer, I mean — because “people might not get vaccinated”.  They actually said that. They also said they banned doctors from using it because some people who weren’t doctors on social media were getting the doses wrong. Like that makes sense. And apparently we were running out of one of the most common drugs on the planet, and still are, because no one in government thought to order any more from Indiamart?

Just in case you wonder who your rulers are Australians

The links:

The TGA Advisory Committee on Vaccines

“The Committee is established under Regulation 39F of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 and the members are appointed by the Minister for Health.” The ACV was established in January 2017…

Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling (ACMS)   The committee that banned ivermectin.

But make no mistake, the man responsible for the TGA (at least for a few more weeks) is Greg Hunt, Minister of Health. Once upon a time he was Director of Strategy at the World Economic Forum (2000–2001). Curious.

The TGA is a disgrace. It’s time to shut it down.

If it were completely captured by Big Pharma, which decisions would it have made differently?

Being slow to approve competing drugs might be exactly what it was set up to do?

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

The Return to the Good Old Days of Ignoring CDC Recommendations

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | May 5, 2022

It has been two weeks since a United States district court struck down President Joe Biden’s mandate, imposed through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that people wear masks when traveling via public transportation, or by taxi or ride-share service, as well as when at related locations, such as airports. After the court decision, most transportation companies and locations have been quick to make clear that people are free to leave their faces uncovered. Many people have been very happy to do just that.

The CDC, however, has not given up on hectoring people to “wear your mask.” On Tuesday, the CDC released a “media statement” titled “CDC Recommendation for Masks and Travel.” Starting off, the media statement declares that the CDC “recommends that everyone aged 2 and older – including passengers and workers – properly wear a well-fitting mask or respirator over the nose and mouth in indoor areas of public transportation (such as airplanes, trains, etc.) and transportation hubs (such as airports, stations, etc.).” Further, the CDC states that it encourages “operators of public transportation and transportation hubs to support mask wearing by all people, including employees.”

Fortunately, the response of many individuals and businesses to this advice ranges from “whatever” to “leave me alone.” More and more people have gotten over inflated fear of coronavirus that never posed a threat of major sickness or death to most people. People have also progressively become aware of the absurdity and destructiveness of forced business closures, “social distancing,” ubiquitous coronavirus testing, experimental coronavirus “vaccines,” mask mandates, and other pseudoscience actions the CDC has pushed since 2020.

America is largely back to the good old days of most people ignoring for the most part when government “public health officials” and people in the media relate CDC guidance that people do this or that. Plus, given the horrid track record of the CDC through the coronavirus scare, more people are now aware of the charade of CDC guidance than ever before. Instead of just ignoring CDC recommendations, many more people than before will feel the urge to research the recommendations and publicly challenge the recommendations when they are found wanting. There should now hopefully also be much more steadfast resistance from the start to any new effort to morph recommendations from the CDC or other so-called health experts into mandates.

Still, the CDC’s media statement this week and the US government hanging on to other coronavirus crackdown measures, including coronavirus shots and testing mandates, to the extent the measures have not been struck down by courts, show that the threat of grand scale tyranny in the name of countering a new purported health crisis remains. In addition, some state and local governments are both holding on to the remnants of coronavirus tyranny and remaining ready to jump back into much more expansive action suppressing freedom in the name of public health.

People must remain vigilant. People must spread the message that the lesson from the coronavirus crackdown is that government violations of individual rights in the name of advancing public health objectives or countering the new disease of the day must be resisted resolutely and vociferously.

People should also keep in mind that, in a variety of circumstances, doctors and other people working the medical field may provide advice that is grounded in the CDC’s priorities and runs counter to the best medical course.

The lure of evil remains strong. To ensure that respect for freedom regained from the coronavirus crackdown tyrants does not fade away, people must remain on guard against and adamantly refuse to accept new encroachment efforts. To keep what has been regained of the good old days, and even expand upon it, people must take action, starting with saying “no” to the health authoritarians at the CDC and elsewhere.

Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Do the Pfizer “data dumps” really mean anything?

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | May 5, 2022

The latest batch of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine files just dropped. 80,000 pages of patient files and “trial data” and so and so on.

You can read them all here.

The question is, do they really tell us anything we don’t already know?

The big revelation doing the rounds at the minute is that the vaccines were never trialled with, and were specifically not recommended for, pregnant women.

But is this new information?

When governments started “recommending” the Covid vaccine to pregnant women in the Summer of 2021, everybody who had been paying attention knew that position was not backed up by any data at all.

OffG got temporarily banned from twitter for pointing this out.

More broadly speaking: Of course the vaccines were never tested on pregnant women, they were never properly tested on anybody.

It takes 10 years to safely produce and trial a vaccine, not 18 months. And what “trials” they claim to have done in that year and a half were a complete sham.

In a way, the “not recommended for pregnant women” disclosure is actually good for Pfizer.

Behind a facade of being legally mandated to publish these files, it’s now become public knowledge that Pfizer (allegedly) told people not to give the vaccine to pregnant women, but many countries did it anyway.

This shifts the blame (and potential legal liability) away from Pfizer and onto the governments in question.

A good example of how “forced disclosure” can be used to reinforce and direct a narrative, through a pretence of reluctance.

Going further, shouldn’t we be asking: Can we trust anything in these documents at all?

Just because Pfizer has been (apparently) legally “forced” to release them doesn’t mean they are important, relevant or even real. Who’s verifying the documents? Who’s auditing Pfizer to make sure they release everything? The US government? Some other government or agency?

Do you trust them?

The real damning documents – if such ever existed – have likely been shredded, burned and buried in 20 feet of concrete by now…and that doesn’t matter, because we already know everything we will ever need to know about these Covid “vaccines”:

  1. They were not subject to proper long-term testing.
  2. They have totally unknown long-term side effects.
  3. They allegedly “treat” a “disease” with a 99.85% survival rate.
  4. They don’t prevent infection.
  5. They don’t prevent transmission.
  6. The manufacturers are legally protected from being sued in the event they kill you.

Pfizer can release all the documents they want, nothing will change these facts…only distract from them.

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Is the West at war with disinformation or dissent?

By Rachel Marsden | Samizdat | May 5, 2022

When US President Joe Biden announced on April 27 that a new Disinformation Governance Board would serve the Department of Homeland Security, it was just the latest turn of the screw on freedom. This time, it’s an affront to citizens’ right to a diversity of information.

It’s one thing to correct inaccurate information, but this new entity seems more oriented towards narrative-policing that cracks down on the interpretation of information rather than the accuracy of it. Headed by a former communications advisor to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Nina Jankowicz, one of the board’s first responsibilities will be to address “disinformation coming from Russia as well as misleading messages about the US-Mexico border,” according to CBS News. Interesting that these two issues – immigration and foreign conflicts – are currently viewed as two of Washington’s most significant failures, which have given rise to populist dissent. Make no mistake, it’s the dissent that’s the ultimate target.

The fact that a former Ukraine government spin doctor was viewed as the best person to head up the new initiative tells you everything you need to know about its true purpose. Jankowicz published a book in 2020 whose title suggests that she believes the West to be in an online war with Russia. ‘How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News, and the Future of Conflict,’ portrays Western narratives as truthful and Russian narratives as “fake news.” Doing so obscures the fact that the mainstream Western media has not been immune to propagating narratives peddled by the state that could retroactively be considered fake news or war propaganda. Meanwhile, Russian media has often provided a platform for those seeking to express – or access – dissenting analysis or information that falls outside of the Western media bubble. Clearly, there are some ‘democracies’ that are bothered by this.

The appetite of Western nations to ensure that their citizens are only fed information that they control through their own highly concentrated government or corporate subsidized media isn’t new. It’s just getting more voracious. Perhaps it’s because the more authoritarian their agenda becomes, the more populist sentiment increases and gives rise to events such as Brexit or the election of Donald Trump, as well as trends such as opposition to US-backed conflicts, the rise in popularity of various populist political parties in Europe, and demonstrations against pandemic mandates, which just happen to be associated with government-issued QR codes.

Dissent is the enemy of authoritarian ambition. Supposedly free countries have manipulated their citizens into believing that censorship of certain views is for people’s own safety and security – hence why the military in Canada, the UK, and France, and now Homeland Security in the US, are involved in narrative policing. In reality, their efforts seem to be more about ensuring citizens’ compliance with their own agenda.

The fusion of domestic security and disinformation came to light as early as 2016, when the European Parliament grotesquely conflated Islamic terrorist propaganda with Russian media, in what seemed to be itself a propaganda effort to undermine the Russian media by equating these two totally unrelated things. But one by one, Western governments have placed free speech under national security control.

France, for example, handed off responsibility for online information arbitration to its domestic intelligence agency (the DGSI) and has reportedly considered involving defense-funded startups in the effort.

Canada has also turned to its security apparatus to shape Canadians’ information landscape – at least twice. The Communications Security Establishment, the country’s electronic spying agency, has been tweeting its own interpretations of disputed events occurring in the fog of the conflict in Ukraine as indisputable fact, while routinely denouncing Russia’s interpretation as invalid.

But Canada’s security establishment isn’t at its first rodeo in attempting to prevent citizens’ thinking from deviating from the state’s messaging. Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the country’s armed forces deployed a months-long, military-grade propaganda campaign, which employed tactics honed during the war in Afghanistan, to mind-bend unsuspecting Canadians towards Trudeau’s Covid narrative, CBC News reported last year.

Not to be outdone, the psychological warfare specialists of the 77th brigade of Britain’s armed forces have also worked to shape messaging both in favor of the government’s Covid policies and against anything contrary out of Russia. “One current priority is combating the spread of harmful, false and misleading narratives through disinformation. To bolster this effort, the British Army will be deploying two experts in countering disinformation. They will advise and support NATO in ensuring its citizens have the right information to protect themselves and its democracies are protected from malicious disinformation operations used by adversaries,” Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said last year.

The fact that public safety and disinformation have suddenly become routinely conflated should be worrisome to defenders of whatever remnants of democracy that we still have left. Terrorism, health and now disinformation have all served as pretexts for the rapid erosion of our freedoms – all under the guise of protecting us from bad actors. But are we really safer? Or are we just increasingly less free?

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Popular Ukrainian Zelensky critic arrested in Spain

Samizdat | May 5, 2022

Prominent blogger and critic of the Ukrainian government, Anatoly Shariy, has been detained by Spanish police as part of an international operation, the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) announced on Thursday.

Shariy was arrested on Wednesday in a joint operation by Spanish and Ukrainian cops, as well as international “partners”, the SBU said in a statement.

The agency, Kiev’s successor to the Soviet KGB, said that the opposition figure is wanted on charges of treason by Kiev, among other things. Shariy has been infringing Ukraine’s national security through his activities in the media realm, while allegedly acting on behalf of “foreign” forces, it insisted. The case against the YouTuber with almost 3 million subscribers was launched in February 2021.

Shariy’s arrest “is more proof that every traitor of Ukraine will sooner or later receive his well-deserved punishment. It is inevitable,” the SBU claimed.

The Ukrainian announcement was confirmed by the Spanish police, who told RIA-Novosti that Shariy was detained in the coastal city of Tarragona on May 4 on an international arrest warrant.

Shariy had been granted political asylum in the EU by Lithuania back in 2012. Back then, he said that he was fleeing persecution by the government of Viktor Yanukovich, whom the Western media branded pro-Russian.

Yanukovich was deposed after the Maidan coup in 2014, but the blogger remained a harsh critic of authorities in Ukraine, be it President Petro Poroshenko or his successor Volodymyr Zelensky.

He condemned Russia’s military operation in Ukraine after it was launched in late February but kept pointing out what he saw as flaws in Kiev’s conduct during the ongoing conflict.

The blogger’s political asylum was cancelled by Lithuania in January this year.

Shariy was absent from social media on Wednesday, but on Thursday he took to Telegram to share a photo of his wife feeding parrots in Barcelona, accompanying it with a comment reading: “This really is a comedy.”

According to media reports, the blogger was released from Spanish custody and placed under travel restrictions. He’s to remain in Barcelona where he has a home pending a decision on his extradition to Ukraine.

President Zelensky’s representative at the Constitutional Court has already expressed confidence that Shariy will “face a Ukrainian court and will be held liable in line with Ukrainian laws.”

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

US invasion threats over Solomon Islands deal expose Western hypocrisy in Ukraine

By Drago Bosnic | May 5, 2022

When Ukraine announced it will join NATO after the CIA-orchestrated Orange Revolution in 2004, it prompted Russia to respond by voicing its strong condemnation, which later culminated in Vladimir Putin’s historical 2007 Munich Security Conference speech. Still, just a year later, Ukraine was invited to join NATO. The former Soviet republic officially applied to integrate within a framework of a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008. However, plans for NATO membership were shelved following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych triumphed, coming back to power after spending over half a decade in the political opposition.

Before the 2010 election, Russia’s concerns were completely ignored and every time Russia stated Ukraine’s NATO ascension would severely undermine and weaken its security, leading members such as the US and the UK stated that it’s Ukraine’s “sovereign right” to choose which alliances it wants to join and that Ukraine’s NATO membership wasn’t aimed against Russia. These claims were put to the test after the 2010 election, because Yanukovych preferred to keep the country non-aligned. A little over 4 years into his presidency, he was ousted in yet another CIA-orchestrated coup, this time the infamous Maidan Revolution, also known as the so-called “Revolution of Dignity” in recent years. So much for Ukraine’s “sovereign right” to choose alliances or worse yet in this case, to stay neutral.

Even if there was any notion of respect for the sovereignty of nations by the US and NATO before 2014, it became glaringly obvious that wasn’t the case. Soon, anti-Russian violence erupted all across the country, which was now firmly in the grip of its NATO (primarily US) overlords and openly Neo-Nazi groups which were promptly integrated into various security institutions, including the military and intelligence services. Again, Ukraine’s “sovereign right” to choose alliances was back on the table during various Russia-US security talks, including the Geneva summit in 2021. The rest is history which we are witnessing as we speak.

However, the Ukraine crisis isn’t the only one unfolding in the context of a broader “the West vs the Rest” clash. The political West doesn’t only bring “peace, stability, freedom and democracy” to Europe and Russia’s near abroad. There are many other such places. While Russia is allegedly being “aggressive” in its own backyard, so is China in the South and East CHINA sea, Iran (previously known as Persia) in the PERSIAN Gulf, etc. Because in the mind of the “indispensable” NATO planners, only other countries can be “aggressive” mere miles away from their coasts, at their borders or even inside their own sovereign territories. NATO, on the other hand, brings only “peace, stability, freedom and democracy” no matter how many thousands or even tens of thousands of kilometers away from its borders, regardless of how negatively that affects any country. And if any of the small vassal countries is to try and get the shackles of “freedom and democracy” off, the reaction is almost immediate.

The most recent such example is the tiny island country called the Solomon Islands. It’s safe to assume most people haven’t even heard of this peaceful Pacific island state, a former UK colony situated some 2000 km northeast of Australia. In late April, the Solomon Islands had the “audacity” to sign a security agreement with China, which would allow Beijing to send military and police personnel to the island country, as well as open the door to a Chinese naval presence in the South Pacific. Or at least that’s what the United States, Australia and New Zealand claim the agreement is all about. My esteemed colleague Uriel Araujo wrote an excellent analysis with a more in-depth focus on the agreement, its causes and possible consequences.

The strategic implications of this agreement might be too soon to evaluate in a precise manner, but it does expose the sheer hypocrisy of the political West, primarily its Anglo-American portion. The Solomon Islands are around 2,000 km away from the Australian coast, over 5,500 km from the US State of Hawaii and nearly 10,000 km away from the US mainland. The Pacific island country was not on the US and Australia’s radar for decades. US embassy in Honiara, the country’s capital, was closed in 1993, nearly 30 years ago. Australia seemed equally uninterested up until just a few weeks ago. And yet, both the US and Australia are now fuming over even the slightest notion that the Solomon Islands could make such an agreement with China.

“We won’t be having Chinese military naval bases in our region on our doorstep,” Australian PM Scott Morrison said, calling it a “red line” both for his government and Washington DC. A US envoy that visited the Honiara in late April said that his government would have “significant concerns and respond accordingly” to any “permanent military presence, power-projection capabilities, or a military installation” by China. After ignoring the country and its security and economic problems for decades, the increasingly belligerent AUKUS allies have now suddenly decided to renew their geopolitical interest in the Solomon Islands by openly threatening the island country.

The question is, why do the US and Australia think they have the right to interfere or even intervene in the affairs of another country which is thousands of kilometers away? Why is the US allowed to conduct so-called “freedom of navigation” naval patrols in the immediate vicinity of Chinese waters in the South China Sea, but it’s “problematic” when China signs agreements with sovereign nations which have nothing to do with the United States and its vassals? After all, isn’t this the “sovereign right” of the Solomon Islands? Why is the legitimate government of the island country being threatened and denied the actual sovereign right to choose allies, but a puppet coup regime in Kiev isn’t?

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Slovakia rejects Russian oil ban proposal

Samizdat | May 5, 2022

Slovakia warned on Wednesday that it will not be able to agree to the European Commission’s proposal for a ban on Russian oil, and has called for more time to find alternative fuel suppliers.

The proposed embargo is part of the latest Ukraine-related sanctions against Moscow that would see crude imports from Russia phased out within six months and refined products by the end of the year. An exemption was drafted for Slovakia and Hungary, which are heavily dependent on Russia, giving them until the end of 2023 to comply.

The proposed time frame “is unfortunately not enough,” Slovakia’s deputy economy minister in charge of energy policy told internet publication Politico on Wednesday. “We are expecting at least three years,” Karol Galek added, explaining that a key refinery in the country requires heavy Russian oil and that it’s impossible to secure alternative supplies within the proposed time frame. Last year Slovakia got 96% of its oil from Russia.

Galek stressed that the current proposal “will destroy our European economy,” as it will not only hurt energy supplies in his country, but also in Austria, the Czech Republic and Ukraine.

The current blueprint for a ban on Russian oil has to be unanimously approved by the bloc’s 27 member states to come into force. Hungary has expressed reservations, saying the European Union has so far failed to give Budapest guarantees regarding its energy security.

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

DON’T VOTE “#GREATRESET”

By Olly Connelly | Daily Chaos | May 5, 2022

It’s local election day in the UK and, as you’ll be aware, elections are underway also in France and in the US.

Local, constituency or national level, if you vote for someone who is not talking about defeating the #GreatReset, then you are voting for Klaus Schwab, you are voting “to own nothing”, for communism directed by fascists, you are voting for tyranny, for censorship, for more fake pandemics and more fraudulent war, you are voting for divide-rule on an epic scale that is destroying families, communities and societies from within despite the farcical topics such as “how to define a woman” for crying out loud, you are voting for the normalisation of Satanism and paedophilia as can increasingly be seen in Biden’s America, you are voting for genocidal war criminals like Tony Blair to never be brought to account while being BBC-platformed to lecture you on using experimental drugs on your innocent children, you are voting to condone yet more phony elections, for Martial law in Western societies as we saw in Ottawa, for the hundreds of thousands in death toll in places like Yemen while the globalists distract with Ukraine, you are voting for CCP-style oppression and their model social credit score to keep you in check, you are voting for the last of our liberty ie an end to cash, for Google’s bloodstream nanobots and Musk’s brain chip, for Gates’ quaxxines and the final cull of the Mama-Papas defeated by the Bezos drones.

DON’T VOTE FOR SLAVERY.

Don’t vote for the Great Reset. DON’T VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO IS NOT ACTIVELY WARNING AGAINST THE GREAT RESET, THEY ARE A FRAUD, A DECEIT…

… At this stage in the game, I tell you, ANYONE in politics or journalism who is not warning of the dangers of the Great Reset is somewhere between fraudulent and downright evil.

If in doubt, if in any doubt, do not vote. In most cases this is almost certainly the best option, to help de-power the them-us elitism, to deny a mandate and to create a window to be able to say, “WE DID NOT ELECT YOU.”

We should have seen, by now, the vile outcome by supporting cheats and liars. We should have seen that voting for the lesser of the evils DOES NOT HELP. Do not make things worse by voting yet again for PROVEN cheats and liars.

Do not mindlessly vote. And yes, at this stage in the game where practically everyone on the global stage is either bought or blackmailed, A VOTE “NOT TO VOTE”, an abstention from the Big Lie, is in no way dishonourable. A vote for more of what we have in power now, on the other hand, is downright moronic.

Here’s to us, and bugger plutocracy!

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

With no missile host in Pacific, new US strategy seeks to arm Japan against China

Press TV – May 4, 2022

The United States is struggling to find allies in the Indo-Pacific region who would be willing to host its intermediate-range missiles (IRBM), a new report has found.

The report by US-based think tank RAND Corporation, close to the Pentagon, looks at the likelihood of Pacific countries agreeing to host US IRBMs, the benefits and drawbacks of potential alternatives, and the most feasible alternative.

The report finds that the US strategy that relies on an ally agreeing to permanently host these ground-based IRBMs is bound to fail because of its inability to find a willing partner in the Pacific region.

The author of the report concludes that in the absence of any willing hosts, Washington should encourage Japan to develop a missile arsenal of its own to threaten Chinese ships, thus using Japan as a pawn in its no-holds-barred war against China.

After the US pulled out from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019, it sought to develop and deploy ground-based missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km.

That immediately sparked a debate on where the US will deploy those missiles. Since China was not a signatory of the INF and had developed missiles of its own, Americans eyed the Indo-Pacific region.

The author of the report looks at the likelihood of US allies in the Indo-Pacific region—Australia, Japan, the Philippines, Republic of Korea, and Thailand—hosting its IRBMs to counter the Chinese threat, but finds all of them unwilling.

He also examines alternatives to permanently basing US missiles on allies’ territories, but finds drawbacks with each alternative and thus recommends Japan develop an arsenal of ground-based anti-ship standoff missile capabilities at the behest of the US.

In the report published on Monday, the author argues that “the likely receptivity to hosting such systems is very low as long as current domestic political conditions and regional security trends hold,” referring to Thailand, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, and Japan.

As long as Thailand “continues to have a military-backed government that pursues closer ties with China”, the US “would not want Thailand to host GBIRMs”, it notes.

In the Philippines, as long as a president “continues policies toward the United States and China similar to those of President Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines is “extremely unlikely to accept US GBIRMs.”

The government of South Korea shares ties with China, so Seoul also is “highly unlikely” to agree to host US missiles amid “a general deterioration of US-ROK relations.”

Australia’s historical ties with the US mean that the possibility cannot be ruled out, but “its historical reluctance to host permanent foreign bases and its distance from continental Asia make this unlikely.”

Japan is willing to “bolster its own defense capabilities vis-à-vis China,” but is reluctant to accept any increase in the US military presence or “deploying weapons that are explicitly offensive in nature”, the report says.

The report suggests that to continue to pursue GBIRMs for the Indo-Pacific, the strategy most likely to succeed would be “helping Japan develop an arsenal of ground-based, anti-ship missile capabilities”.

“This would be the first step in a longer-term US strategy to encourage Japan to procure similar missiles with longer ranges,” it states.

Meanwhile, the foreign affairs chief of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) said on Tuesday that the country should deploy surface-launched intermediate-range missiles in the northernmost prefecture of Hokkaido to deter missile attacks from China, Russia and North Korea.

Masahisa Sato, the head of the LDP Foreign Affairs Division, made the remarks at an event in Washington organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a US think tank.

Washington has in recent years made strenuous efforts to make inroads into the strategic Indo-Pacific region, with singular aim of countering the rise of Chinese dragon. The attempts, however, have produced no results.

In a bid to ramp up its diplomatic engagement with Pacific countries, the Biden administration is set to host leaders from the region later this year, a senior US government official said on Monday.

Kurt Campbell, who serves as coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs on the US National Security Council, made the announcement at a US-New Zealand business summit, amid rising tensions with China.

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Nigerian Minister Says Russian Investors Interested in Financing African Gas Mega-Pipeline

Samizdat | May 4, 2022

The EU has been wooing Nigeria in recent weeks as one of the nations whose natural gas could help replace Russian supplies amid the bloc’s spat with Moscow over Ukraine. The charm offensive comes after years of efforts by the West to starve Sub-Saharan Africa of financing for gas projects.

Russian investors have expressed an interest in financing a massive gas pipeline from Nigeria to Morocco, Nigerian Minister of Petroleum Resources Timipre Sylva has announced.

“The Russians were with me in the office last week. They are very desirous to invest in this project and there are lots of other people who are also desirous to invest in the project,” Sylva said, speaking to reporters in Abuja, Nigeria on Monday.

The prospective 5,600 km+ long pipeline project, agreed to by Nigeria and Morocco in 2016, would run along the west coast of Africa, connecting to the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Guinea-Bassau, Gambia, Senegal, and Mauritania along the way and serve as a major potential catalyst for regional economic development. It could also be used to pipe Nigerian gas to Europe via Spain. Six years after being agreed, the project still lacks the necessary financing for implementation.

The infrastructure would extend an existing pipeline pumping gas from southern Nigeria to neighbouring Benin, Togo and Ghana. “We want to continue that same pipeline all the way to Morocco down the coast. Right now, we are still at the level of studies and of course, we are at the level of securing funding for this project and a lot of people are indicating interest,” the oil minister said.

Sylva did not provide any further details on the eager Russian investors, or the project’s total expected cost, but said Abuja has yet to identify the “investors that we want to go with” for the ambitious infrastructure scheme.

Russia’s reported interest in the gas mega-pipeline is unclear, given that it could theoretically provide the same European countries threatening to halt the purchase of Russian natural gas and oil with a cost-effective Sub-Saharan African alternate.

European officials have flocked to Nigeria – the world’s 12th largest producer of natural gas, and 15th largest producer of oil, in recent weeks to try to secure additional energy from the African nation amid unprecedented tensions with Moscow over Ukraine. Last month, ambassadors from the European Union, Portugal, Spain, Italy and France met with Nigerian National Petroleum Company officials to discuss a “strengthened partnership” in the energy sector. No agreements were announced at the conclusion of the meeting.

On Monday, Bloomberg reported on an EU energy plan document which mentioned Nigeria, Senegal and Angola as nations with ‘largely untapped potential for liquefied natural gas’.

Nigeria has over 206 trillion cubic feet of proven gas reserves valued at hundreds of trillions of dollars, but has long been starved of capital for developing these resources amid a raft of problems ranging from corruption and inter-ethnic strife to pipeline vandalism.

On top of that, before the Ukraine crisis began, Europe largely ignored Nigeria’s gas potential. Last year, Nigerian environment minister Mohammad Mahmood Abubakar blasted developed countries for what he said was their deliberate policy of defunding African national gas projects.

“Many [wealthier nations] are now limiting financing to gas projects for domestic use in Sub-Saharan Africa, a region responsible for 0.55% of global carbon emissions that still needs to industrialize and grow. The defunding of gas projects by most financing organizations is a threat to achieving a global energy transition that is equitable, inclusive, just, leaving no one behind,” Abubakar said, speaking at a virtual ministerial event hosted by the United Nations last June.

The European Investment Bank stopped financing fossil fuels projects at the end of 2021. The same year, the Western cash-dominated World Bank indicated that it would shift resources to “combating climate change,” and limit assistance for natural gas projects except for rare exceptions.

Despite its vast wealth in energy resources, about 43 percent of Nigeria itself still lacks access to grid electricity.

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Former NATO Commander Disguises War Propaganda as Novel

By Patrick Macfarlane | The Libertarian Institute | April 26, 2022

On March 9, 2021, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Admiral James Stavridis, co-authored a fiction novel with Elliott Ackerman, another former U.S. military officer. The book, entitled 2034: A Novel of the Next World War, imagines a kinetic war between the United States and China.

Given the pedigree of its authorship, the novel provides a compelling window into the psychology of NATO’s military leadership and, correspondingly, the foreign policy establishment behind it. To those familiar with said psychology, the events of the novel will not be surprising.

It begins with a Chinese ambush of a U.S. vessel in the South China Sea; an Iranian capture of a U.S. pilot; a full scale naval battle between the U.S. and China (resulting in a total U.S. defeat); and a Russian invasion of Poland. The novel concludes with a limited nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China.

Given the last few decades’ hawkish hand wringing about Chinese and Russian cyber capabilities, the tactics employed in the novel are similarly unsurprising. A Chinese cyberattack disables U.S. hardware, allowing the naval rout. The Iranians, as allies of Russia and China, similarly disable U.S. aircraft. For their part, the Russians slice underwater communications cables leading to a complete internet blackout in the West.

To an uncritical reader, the novel appears to be a “cautionary tale” and a “warning” against global conflict. The novel’s dust jacket states:

Everything in 2034 is an imaginative extrapolation from present-day facts on the ground combined with the authors’ years working at the highest and most classified levels of national security. Sometimes it takes a brilliant work of fiction to illuminate the most dire of warnings: 2034 is all too close at hand, and this cautionary tale presents the reader a dark yet possible future that we must do all we can to avoid.

Mainstream outlets were as successful in their attempts to paint 2034 as a “warning” as their reviews were cringeworthy.

Wired, which ran a series of exclusive pre-print excerpts, had this to say:

WIRED HAS ALWAYS been a publication about the future—about the forces shaping it, and the shape we’d like it to take. Sometimes, for us, that means being wild-eyed optimists, envisioning the scenarios that excite us most. And sometimes that means taking pains to envision futures that we really, really want to avoid.

By giving clarity and definition to those nightmare trajectories, the hope is that we can give people the ability to recognize and divert from them. Almost, say, the way a vaccine teaches an immune system what to ward off. And that’s what this issue of WIRED is trying to do…

Consider this another vaccine against disaster. Fortunately, this dose won’t cause a temporary fever—and it happens to be a rippingly good read. Turns out that even cautionary tales can be exciting, when the future we’re most excited about is the one where they never come true.

The Washington Post’s review was almost worse.

This crisply written and well-paced book reads like an all-caps warning to a world shackled to the machines we carry in our pockets and place in our laps, while only vaguely understanding how the information stored in and shared by those devices can be exploited. We have grown numb to the latest data breach—was it a pollical campaign (Hillary Clinton’s), or one of the country’s biggest credit-rating firms (Equifax), or a hotel behemoth (Marriott), or a casual-sex hookup site (Adult Friend Finder), or government departments updating their networks with the SolarWinds system (U.S. Treasury and Commerce)?

In “2034,” it’s as if Ackerman and Stavridis want to grab us by our lapels, give us a slap or two, and scream: Pay attention! George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, “Nineteen Eighty-four: A Novel” was published 35 years before 1984. Ackerman’s and Stavridis’s book takes place in the not-so-distant future when today’s high school military recruits will just be turning 30.

Between Wired’s ham-handed COVID-19 vaccine analogy and the CIA Washington Post’s ironic Orwell reference, the mainstream marketing campaign clearly attempts to portray the novel as a cautionary tale.

It is impossible to gaze into the hearts of men, but we do have some clues. Those clues suggest that the co-authors really do seek to warn against war with China. However, in doing so, they advocate for it. Indeed, their warning is not against the folly of empire, but against a rising China.

Ultimately the co-authors’ MacBethian premonition of conflict necessitates escalatory U.S. policy.

On March 18, 2021, the pair were interviewed by NPR. Stavridis had this to say:

… a subtext in all of this [the novel] is to strike a warning bell about the rise of China and the propensity in human history going back 2,500 years almost any time a [sic] established power is challenged by a rising power, it leads to war. It’s a dangerous moment. And 15 years from now, I think, will be a moment of maximum danger because China will have advanced in its military capability and technology. Therefore, our military deterrent will somewhat decline. We’re standing in the danger, as we say in the Navy.

Ackerman embraces this view:

…and we’re not only sounding the alarm bell, but the book is also trying to situate where America is in this moment of 2034.

Further, the pair assert they do not believe in the American decline.

Interviewer (to both): “…do you believe this, that America will be the author of its own destruction?”

Stavridis: “I believe there are many in the world who do believe that. I personally do not… there are many in the world who believe our best days are somehow behind us. They would be miscalculating, in my view, to believe that.”

Ackerman: “I would add I am by no way a believer in the decline of America. And I am very much committed to the idea of the American ideal. That being said, looking back throughout our entire history, the greatest threat is us turning inward and destroying that ideal. Lincoln himself said – I’m paraphrasing, but basically said that if America is going to destroy itself, we will be the author and the finisher. And I think he says, a nation of free men will live forever or die by suicide. And I don’t think that’s Lincoln being a declinist about the United States. But I think it’s him recognizing that our divisiveness can oftentimes be the greatest threat and what leaves us the most unable to respond to challenges from outside the country.”

Indeed, a reader would be hard pressed to find any point where the co-authors suggest any strategy short of increasing military confrontation with China.

Instead, they warn that America must be more united against an outside threat. It must, by implication, build up its military force, and, oddly enough, confront Chinese technological advances with less reliance on our own technology.

Stavridis expanded on his China policy prescriptions in a June 2021 interview:

The South China Sea is a vital entry point for the United States today. It’s a massive body of water full of oil and gas as well as fisheries, and about 40 percent of global trade passes through it.

So, there are strong strategic reasons, as the United States values its alliances in Asia, to push back against Chinese claims.

It is not just the South China Sea but also the East China Sea, where the Senkaku Islands lie, that are vital to American interests as long as our allies operate there and trade flows through there.

And above all we simply as an international community cannot acquiesce to China’s preposterous claims, which have been rejected by international law.

Indeed, a number one red line would be an attack against our allies.

For example, if China attacked and tried to forcibly take the Senkaku Islands, that would be a red line for the United States. Or an attack against the Philippines, another treaty ally of the United States. An attack against any treaty allies would be the number one red line.

A second red line would be trying to attack U.S. military personnel operating in the South China Sea.

We conduct what we call “freedom of navigation patrols.” These are our warships sailing through international waters such as the South China Sea.

If China were to attack a U.S. ship to attempt to demonstrate their view that they own the South China Sea, that would be a red line. In fact, the book “2034” opens with an attack involving U.S. military personnel being killed in the South China Sea.

Stavridis believes that the U.S. must continue to devote itself to entangling alliances, against which the founding fathers warned. The U.S. must also continue to press its presence in the South China Sea.

Despite resolutely warning against a war against China, Stavridis commits the U.S. to myriad tripwires that would ignite it.

These China policy positions parallel Stavridis’ positions on Ukraine. It’s always more, more, more.

More funding, arming, and training Ukrainians, more U.S. commitment to NATO, more U.S. weaponization of Big Tech, more money to the U.S. State Department, more interagency cooperation, and more silencing dissent. These positions are escalatory. At the very least, they flirt with making Washington a direct party to the War in Ukraine. They may give Russia reason to attack U.S. and NATO forces.

Given Russia’s nuclear footing, these policies pose an existential threat to humanity itself.

Indeed, it will always be a mystery how the hawks convinced the American public that the path to peace leads through war. Perhaps those of us who survive the inevitable result of this mantra can ponder the answer while painting on the cave walls.

Patrick MacFarlane is the Justin Raimondo Fellow at the Libertarian Institute where he advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy. He is a Wisconsin attorney in private practice. He is the host of the Liberty Weekly Podcast at www.libertyweekly.net, where he seeks to expose establishment narratives with well researched documentary-style content and insightful guest interviews. His work has appeared on antiwar.com and Zerohedge. He may be reached at patrick.macfarlane@libertyweekly.net

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »