Aletho News


Pfizer vaccine effects on total motile count in sperm donors

israeli study shows persistent effects

by el gato malo – bad cattitude – june 19, 2022

one of the great early misapprehensions about mRNA vaccines is that they would not have widespread, systematic effects, instead remaining relatively localized. this was rapidly debunked and early studies showed widespread penetration of organs with a particular and perhaps unfortunate preference for concentration in ovaries and testes. (this was discovered early in japan, then denied vehemently by armies of “fact checkers” only to wind up proven in pfizer’s own documents gained through FOIA and lawsuit.)

these mRNA drugs are broadly systemic and concentrate in (amongst others) reproductive organs and effects on menstrual cycles are widely documented.

in light of this quite worrying fact (especially with a compound carrying high CG enrichment relative to high virus and the attendant risks thereof) it has been surprising to me that there have not been more studies on this topic.

but a few are starting to emerge. this israeli study was published 2 days ago:

and the results are, well, nuts. (sorry)

there was strong a priori reason to suspect effects, especially in light of the higher and more persistent prevalence of vaccine induced S proteins vs natural infection and the CG enrichment issued mentioned above.

Over the first pandemic months, there was insufficient data regarding the possible impact of Covid-19 on human reproduction. Yet, it was clear it employs the Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor for cellular entry 3, 4. Various testicular cells including Leydig, Sertoli, spermatogonia and spermatozoa express ACE2 and related proteases resulting with viral fusion 5, 6. Cytokine storm-induced dysfunction, autophagy regulation and damaged blood-testis barrier were also suggested as possible pathogenic mechanism for testicular damage 7. Clinical reports of orchitis, supported by histological findings, further emphasized testicular involvement 8, 9. Therefore, detrimental impact on both spermatogenesis and testosterone production 10 seem an obvious outcome they evaluated donors from 3 sperm banks over a longitudinal period commencing before pfizer vaccine and following up after.

the study was performed and followed up according to the following timeline around vaccination.

  • T0 = pre vaxx baseline
  • T1 = 15-45 days post
  • T2 = 75-120 days post
  • T3 = 150+ days post

and from this, substantial effects on sperm concentration and overall motile count were discovered.

the authors draw a set of conclusions from this:

and from this state:

Conclusions: Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good

but i am left wondering about these claims and fear they may provide an example of the sort of “nerf or refute your own findings in the abstract so that we can publish this without massive controversy” behavior that has become all too common in medical and scientific journals who withhold peer review from those whose findings look too worrying if stated plainly. (but that will often let such data out if buried deep in supplements and appendixes)

this is why you should always read these data repositories. because they often tell quite a different tale than the abstract.

here’s table two from this same study. notice anything?

i’m struggling to see how one could call this “recovery.”

post day 150, sperm concentration was -15.9% vs baseline, lower even than in the 75-120 day period. average time post vaxx for T3 collection was 174 +/- 26.8 days so we’re talking about 6 months post vaxx with NO recovery in sperm concentration.

total motile count was slightly recovered from T2, but was still down 19.4% vs baseline, seeming to make up somewhat in volume what is lost in concentration.

both results were statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval.

there is a greater than 97% chance that the TMC figure is real and not random.

those are not odds you want to buck.

this raises some serious concerns for a number of reasons:

  1. obviously, this is a significant and unforeseen impact not only missed in the rush-job drug trials, but that the drug makers assured us was basically impossible and spent the better part of a year vehemently denying.
  2. this effect looks durable to at least 6 months and from this data, we really do not know when or even if (or to what extent) it will attenuate.
  3. the role of boosters here is not known, but there is every reason to expect they will have similar effects and either extend or possibly worsen this effect. that seems like a study that should be being performed immediately.
  4. even if this condition does moderate and TMC return to prior levels over time, that timescale looks quite long. it’s certainly more than 6 months. this would seem to imply low motile counts could be near constant in a regimen of annual or bi-annual boosters.

when you rush vaccines to market, especially vaccines using an entirely new and poorly understood modality that has never before been approved or even used in humans, you’re going to get all manner of nasty surprises and this looks to be yet another.

and clearly, it was missed. this was not even mentioned as a possibility in any FDA proceedings of which i am aware.

and THAT is why vaccine development generally takes place over 5-10 years, not 5-7 months.

best i can tell, we cannot even yet rule out that these effects are permanent.

and, of course, we have zero idea what they might do to pre-adolescents and possible impacts on their healthy sexual development and ultimate fertility.

and yet the US is bucking the trend in most of europe and approving this drugs for not just the young and healthy but for kids from 6mo-5 yr. this feels reckless.

we have little idea what this may be doing to ovaries and eggs either as these are much more difficult and invasive to study (and will likely need to be assessed by autopsy). this is another analysis that desperately needs to take place because unlike sperm, eggs to not replenish, so if you damage them, that’s that.

add to this effects on normal development and it could take decades to see what happened.

people have historically trusted vaccines because they underwent serious, long term testing before being pushed wide. assessment was measured in decades, not months and even a tiny number of adverse events would pull them off the market.

to trade upon that trust while abandoning all the safeguards that enabled it is bad science and worse public health policy.

how many more examples of unforeseen outcomes must we endure before this simple truth is accepted?

… additional take on the israeli sperm count data

June 19, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

January 6: The show trial, the movie… and Liz Cheney’s dyspepsia

By Michael Lesher | OffGuardian | June 19, 2022

Not every piece of political theater openly presents itself as political theater. But these aren’t ordinary times, heaven knows – and the show trial that goes under the popular name “the January 6 Committee” has been nothing if not consistently over the top.

So it was appalling, but not really a shock, to note that when the committee’s ringmasters got down to serious public business on June 9, the first thing they did was to premiere their own movie.

And what a movie!

Perfectly timed to monopolize mainstream media for the evening, the committee’s production turned out to be…

an expertly curated multimedia experience unlike any Congressional hearing in history. With revelatory clips from the committee’s interviews with Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and Bill Barr; never-before-seen and brilliantly edited footage of the rioters; and a wrenching live interview with a Capitol police officer injured in the melee.”

I’m quoting, word for word, from Jodi Rudoren, who used to recycle Israeli propaganda for the New York Times and is now (poetic justice?) reduced to gushing about a “multimedia experience” that – if offered at a genuine inquest, not a show trial aimed at stifling political dissent – could only have been reported as the national disgrace it actually was.

But grab your popcorn, folks! A movie is a movie; when has Trump-baiting ever been hampered by rules of evidence? Who needs facts when you can watch doctored testimony on a big screen?

Why ask about the legal definition of “insurrection” (a question that makes nonsense out of the committee’s putative mission) when you can sit back and enjoy “brilliantly edited footage” of the first “coup” that had to be synthesized in a cutting room?

And why even think about the only violent death that occurred during all the trouble – that of Ashli Babbitt, a slight, unarmed protester shot dead by a cop for no apparent reason – when you can hang on every word of that “wrenching interview” with a different police officer who was prepared to say exactly what the committee (and Rudoren) wanted to hear?

So much for the June 9 teleplay.

And yet, the worst part – for me, anyway – was that none of it was really a surprise. If anything had remained of the committee’s bona fides after it wasted ten months on procedural ballyhoo (who’s getting the next subpoena?… will he appear?… let’s make some headlines!), the last vestige of its credibility was trashed by the committee members themselves as they stormed TV political talk shows three days after airing their feature film to deliver their prearranged verdict against the former President.

According to Rep. Jamie Raskin, Trump was guilty because he said he had won the election when he should have known he hadn’t. “He had to have known he was spreading a ‘Big Lie,’” Raskin solemnly informed CNN’s “State of the Union” on June 12.

By that standard, I guess, you’d also have to bracket Al Gore with Hitler if it turned out that some campaign-trail bigwig whispered in his ear (Gore’s, not Hitler’s) that he probably didn’t get enough votes to carry Florida in 2000.

And Rutherford B. Hayes, who actually managed to reverse the results of the presidential election of 1876 on the basis of claims every bit as dubious as Trump’s – was he a traitor, too?

Or have I missed something?

But why quibble about logic? While Raskin was declaring bad political sportsmanship a federal crime, Rep. Adam Schiff was concocting an even bolder guilt-by-association theory on ABC, where he claimed that the committee’s hearings would demonstrate “connections” between “people in Trump’s orbit and white nationalist groups that participated in the attacks [sic].”

Asked how he could prove this, the Congressman sniffed, “You’ll just have to wait until we get to that point of our hearings.”

Schiff’s committee is supposed to have interviewed more than 1,000 people since last July, but of course it’s way too early to have any evidence to back up inflammatory accusations – though not too early to air them on national television.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Almost a year ago, I underlined how popular media had already fabricated the myth of the January 6 “coup attempt.” Within days of the protest at the Capitol, its participants had been demonized as – take your pick – “fascists” (PBS), “white supremacists” (CNN), or a violent “mob” bent on paralyzing the United States government (USA Today).

And everyone seemed to accept the dogma that the demonstrators, collectively, had staged an armed “insurrection” that only just failed to turn the United States into a right-wing dictatorship.

Indeed, typical of the early propaganda was New York Magazines accusation that the “goal” of the “mob” was “threatening or killing officials” of the U.S. government; The New Republic went so far as to insist that the protesters sought “the mass execution of Democratic politicians and prominent liberals” – although, of course, not a single politician was attacked on January 6, let alone “executed.”

For anyone who remembers what really happened, that distinction belongs to Ashli Babbitt – whose name is never mentioned by the January 6 committee or by the popular media breathlessly reporting its every pronouncement.

Judging from its opening night, the committee still expects us to believe that the protesters who entered the Capitol on January 6 fully intended to make corpses and to extinguish American democracy. It doesn’t seem to matter that only a handful of them have been accused of possessing “weapons” of any kind (most of which seem to have been flagpoles).

In fact, a grand total of one of those “terrorists” even thought to bring a gun to the “coup.” (And never drew it, according to police.)

Not to mention that if one riot at the Capitol amounted to an attempted overthrow of the government, you’d probably have to say the same thing about the violent protests that erupted after Donald Trump’s election victory in 2016.

And what about the Democratic members of Congress who tried to prevent the certification of that election by the Electoral College the following January? Needless to say, such questions aren’t being posed by the committee or in the liberal press.

But after all, the ringmasters have never relied much on facts; they prefer to ply their audience with emotional images and wait for it to salivate like Pavlov’s dogs.

Thus, nobody on opening night mentioned the old lie about Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick being clubbed over the head with a fire extinguisher by one of the “insurrectionists.”

Instead, the committee flashed onto a viewing screen a momentary freeze-frame of a policeman, supposedly Sicknick, holding a hand over his face while a “witness” gave a description of events that didn’t match the picture but insisted on Sicknick being “as white as this sheet of paper” as he held “his face in his hands.”

Did the poignant image we saw match the story the committee wanted us to believe?

It was awfully hard to tell from the ringmasters’ own video. And the whole thing was irrelevant in any case: there’s no evidence connecting Sicknick’s death the next day (from natural causes) with anything that happened at the protest. But who cared? The concatenation of images – Sicknick’s name, a covered face, the words “white as paper” – rendered truth irrelevant; it worked directly on the emotions of the estimated 19 million viewers for whom the histrionics were designed in the first place.

And that was just the beginning. The high point of Thursday night’s emotional blitz was that “wrenching live interview” with Caroline Edwards – the police “witness” whose testimony so moved Jodi Rudoren. And who, we may ask, is Caroline Edwards?

According to the committee’s program notes, Edwards – a Capitol Police officer who looks like an actress and whose background just happens to be “a career in public relations” – was “the first law enforcement officer injured by rioters” on January 6.

She also claims to have been an eyewitness to a gruesome “war scene” as the protest intensified outside the Capitol.

Which certainly made for some popcorn-munching theater on June 9. But one might have expected a former New York Times bureau chief (which Rudoren is) to notice at least a few gaps in Edwards’ performance.

For one thing, why did the committee choose a witness who admittedly saw nothing that happened inside the Capitol – where any actual “coup attempt” would necessarily have taken place? Why wasn’t Edwards mentioned by any of the four law enforcement officers trotted out by that same committee as its star witnesses to anti-police violence during the protest at its first hearing back in July 2021?

(At the time, one of those cops insisted he had been “tortured” by a crowd that tried to “kill him with his own gun” – claims the committee has not even attempted to substantiate since then.)

And why didn’t the committee’s video document the “carnage” and “chaos” in which Edwards said she was “catching people as they fell” and “slipping in people’s blood”?

But given the priorities of Hollywood – the ones that counted, apparently – that blurry apocalypse was more than enough to make the committee’s point. In fact, according to Rudoren, another set of images at the hearing upstaged even pretty Ms. Edwards. And since you probably can’t guess what they were, I’ll quote Rudoren once again:

[I]n some ways the most powerful images of the night were the expressions on [Rep. Liz] Cheney’s face…. Cheney wore a look of profound disappointment and deep distaste.”

The emphasis is mine; otherwise I have quoted Ms. Rudoren verbatim. And her message could hardly have been clearer. Forget the truth, folks. Forget about what really happened to whom. Forget even about that “multimedia presentation” the committee spent so much time fabricating. Just look at Liz Cheney’s face while the Wyoming congresswoman does all the looking for you.

After all, it’s entirely too passé to think for yourselves. Today we keep our mouths shut and take our cues from a politician’s facial expressions. Goodbye, democratic government; hello, Liz Cheney’s dyspeptic grimaces!

Which brings me to the real point of the January 6 committee proceedings. The partisan aspect of this show trial is too obvious to need emphasis here. But there’s a lot more to the theater than an attempt to disqualify Donald Trump from seeking political office – though, of course, that’s part of the mix.

At bottom, these hearings are a kind of morality play – a public ritual that both invokes Divine Justice and adumbrates where its verdict will fall. The show-trial-cum-exorcism that commenced on June 9, laden with symbols of threatened virtue and guilt by association, is designed to dramatize in miniature a totalitarian religion that divides Absolute Good (center-liberal government) from Absolute Evil (grassroots dissent).

The Biden administration has already made a point of defining its critics as nonpersons: white supremacists, enemies of democracy, the awful “unvaccinated.” Now hoi polloi are to be purged altogether of any temptation to challenge the machinations of the ruling class. The ultimate crime of the January 6 protesters was not, in the end, that some of them trespassed on government property, or that an even smaller number scuffled with police.

No, the protesters’ unpardonable offense was to cry, “This is our house!” as they surrounded the Capitol. And that’s why they have to be demonized: because, right or wrong in their protest’s specific objective, they believed all too sincerely in what Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg about “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” They were traitors – because they declared their faith in democracy.

That’s why the committee’s ringmasters are scapegoating every single man and woman who disputed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election as a racist or a proto-Nazi, even though only a small fraction of the January 6 protesters had any connection to the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Aryan Nations or Three Percenters.

That’s why the committee is pinning all the blame for the fracas on the few hundred protesters who entered the Capitol, while not even trying to challenge federal officials who allowed a disorganized bunch of unarmed demonstrators inside what is supposed to be one of the most zealously guarded buildings in the United States.

And this, mind you, despite the fact that General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – whose consent would have been required for the deployment of National Guard or military personnel to the Capitol on January 6 – told his aides (according to a newly-published book) that Trump reminded him of Hitler and that he was determined to see Joe Biden installed as President “come hell or high water.”

Bear in mind that Time Magazine (yes, Time Magazine), less than a month after the protest, could already report that a “conspiracy” between “left-wing activists and business titans” had managed to ensure that the Trump supporters who converged on the Capitol on January 6 “were met by virtually no counterdemonstrators” who might otherwise have had to share the blame for “any mayhem.”

Is it too much to ask of a committee supposedly dedicated to investigating the events of January 6 to hope it might inquire into whether General Milley, and some of colleagues, had anything to do with that “conspiracy” and whether they deliberately let the protest get just far enough out of hand to publicly discredit Trump and establish a pretext for demonizing all such protests in the future? The committee’s refusal to ask such questions only underscores its anti-democratic objectives.

And please don’t be fooled by the absence of any reference to COVID19 during the committee’s opening act. The COVID coup may not be in the foreground now, but it lurks just behind every surface.

The show trial we’re watching now was, and is, the culmination of a process that began in March 2020 when we were told the First Amendment’s right to assemble was a suicide pact.

It gathered strength when the governors of some forty states turned themselves into quasi-dictators, and neither the courts, the press, nor the political opposition did anything to stop them.

It took its inspiration from a series of high-profile frauds, from public muzzling to arbitrary confinements to “vaccine passports,” that for over two years have swindled citizens of basic freedoms under the false flag of “safety.”

Its systematic unscrupulousness mirrors the rights-busting propaganda blitz that has made social media off limits to unwelcome truth-telling and continues to demand that we dose ourselves, and our children, with untested drugs whose safety our government specifically refuses to ensure.

And once the January 6 protest is officially pronounced the work of Satan – as it will be when the committee’s work is done – the next steps will almost certainly take aim at the future of dissent.

Justin Trudeau has already given us a taste of that future with the police-state tactics he deployed to crush the truckers’ protest in Ottowa: scrapping civil rights protections by declaring an “emergency,” imposing outlandish fines on peaceful protesters, and “freezing” the bank accounts of anyone who contributed to the demonstrations or who even attended a protest.

That’s what you need to remember whenever you happen to watch a rerun of the January 6 committee’s “multimedia experience”: this process isn’t over. It has only begun. And it isn’t just about some unruly Trump supporters.

It’s about you.

This time, people who milled around in the Capitol lobby on January 6 got locked up without bail and slapped with federal felony charges. Tomorrow – who knows? Once Big Brother finds out that you once sent $25 to the wrong political cause, you might be the one behind the eight ball, condemned without a trial, unable to buy food or pay the rent.

And Washington’s next movie might end up featuring you among the enemies of the State.

Political theater, meet Theater of the Absurd.

No – ritual virtue-signaling, meet the short road to dictatorship.

Michael Lesher is an author, poet and lawyer whose legal work is mostly dedicated to issues connected with domestic abuse and child sexual abuse. His latest nonfiction book is Sexual Abuse, Shonda and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities (McFarland & Co., 2014).

June 19, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

The Old World is Over: Key Takeaways from Putin’s First Major Speech Since Russia’s Military Offensive in Ukraine

We are strong people and can deal with any challenge. Like our predecessors, we can resolve any task. The entire thousand-year history of our country bears this out.

However, the ruling elite of some Western states seem to be harbouring this kind of illusion. They refuse to notice obvious things, stubbornly clinging to the shadows of the past. For example, they seem to believe that the dominance of the West in global politics and the economy is an unchanging, eternal value. Nothing lasts forever.

Our colleagues are not just denying reality. More than that; they are trying to reverse the course of history. They seem to think in terms of the past century. They are still influenced by their own misconceptions about countries outside the so-called “golden billion”: they consider everything a backwater, or their backyard. They still treat them like colonies, and the people living there, like second-class people, because they consider themselves exceptional. If they are exceptional, that means everyone else is second rate.

Thereby, the irrepressible urge to punish, to economically crush anyone who does not fit with the mainstream, does not want to blindly obey. Moreover, they crudely and shamelessly impose their ethics, their views on culture and ideas about history, sometimes questioning the sovereignty and integrity of states, and threatening their very existence. Suffice it to recall what happened in Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya and Iraq.

If some “rebel” state cannot be suppressed or pacified, they try to isolate that state, or “cancel” it, to use their modern term. Everything goes, even sports, the Olympics, bans on culture and art masterpieces just because their creators come from the “wrong” country.

This is the nature of the current round of Russophobia in the West, and the insane sanctions against Russia. They are crazy and, I would say, thoughtless. They are unprecedented in the number of them or the pace the West churns them out at.

The idea was clear as day – they expected to suddenly and violently crush the Russian economy, to hit Russia’s industry, finance, and people’s living standards by destroying business chains, forcibly recalling Western companies from the Russian market, and freezing Russian assets.

This did not work. Obviously, it did not work out; it did not happen. Russian entrepreneurs and authorities have acted in a collected and professional manner, and Russians have shown solidarity and responsibility.

Step by step, we will normalise the economic situation. We have stabilised the financial markets, the banking system and the trade network. Now we are busy saturating the economy with liquidity and working capital to maintain the stable operation of enterprises and companies, employment and jobs.

Full transcript.

Full video:

June 19, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 1 Comment

West at inflection point in Ukraine war


Henry Kissinger predicted some three weeks ago that the Ukraine war was dangerously close to becoming a war against Russia. That was a prescient remark. The NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in a weekend interview told Germany’s Bild am Sonntag newspaper that in the alliance’s estimation, the Ukraine war could wage for years. 

“We must prepare for the fact that it could take years. We must not let up in supporting Ukraine. Even if the costs are high, not only for military support, also because of rising energy and food prices,” Stoltenberg said. He added that the supply of state-of-the-art weaponry to Ukrainian troops would increase the chance of liberating the Donbass region from Russian control.

The remark signifies a deeper NATO involvement in the war based on the belief not only that Russia can be defeated in Ukraine  (“erase Russia”) but the cost shouldn’t matter. The NATO chiefs traditionally take the cue from  Washington, and Stoltenberg was speaking just a fortnight before the alliance’s Madrid summit. 

Curiously, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in an op-ed for London’s Sunday Times after a surprise visit to Kiev on Friday virtually complemented Stoltenberg’s words, stressing the need to avoid “Ukraine fatigue.” Johnson noted that with Russian forces gaining ground “inch by inch” it was vital for Ukraine’s friends to demonstrate their long-term support, which meant ensuring “Ukraine receives weapons, equipment, ammunition and training more rapidly than the invader”. 

Johnson outlined “four vital steps to recruit time to Ukraine’s cause.” First, he said, “we must ensure that Ukraine receives weapons, equipment, ammunition and training more rapidly than the invader, and build up its capacity to use our help.” Second, “we must help preserve the viability of the Ukrainian state.”

Third, “We need a long-term effort to develop the alternative overland routes” for Ukraine so that its economy “continues to function.” Fourth, crucially, the Russian blockade of Odessa and other Ukrainian ports must be lifted and “we will keep supplying the weapons needed to protect them.” 

Johnson admitted that all this requires “a determined effort … lasting for months and years.” But the imperative to strengthen President Zelensky’s capacity to wage the war is also vital for “protecting our own security as much as Ukraine’s.” Stoltenberg and Johnson spoke up after the EU executive recommended that Ukraine should be officially recognised as a candidate to join the bloc (which is expected to be endorsed at a summit set for June 23-24.) 

Meanwhile, Russian forces are steadily marking tactical successes in the region of Donbass and in the stabilisation of the frontline in other sectors. The most intense fighting is ongoing in the Severodonetsk-Lysichansk area and around Slavyansk, but the situation is also tense in the Kharkiv region and in Mykolaiv and Kherson Regions in the south.

The Russian forces are pounding the military infrastructure and equipment gatherings of Ukrainian forces. As per Russian MOD, in the five-day period between June 13-17 alone, according to the Russian version, it appears that 1800 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and 291 pieces of military equipment and 69 objects of military infrastructure were destroyed.

A defeat in Donbass will be catastrophic for Zelensky, as the destruction of its best military units deployed there virtually leaves the southern regions as low-hanging fruit for Russian forces. For NATO too, its international standing will be seriously eroded. On Friday, two US war veterans detained on Donetsk frontline were put on display on Russian TV appealing to their families for help. More such visuals can be expected in the coming days.

Johnson wrote alarmingly that the Putin Doctrine arrogates to Russia an eternal right to “take back” any territory ever inhabited by Slavs and this “would permit the conquest of vast expanses of Europe, including Nato allies.” This is hyperbole. To take their eastern and southern territories back, the Ukrainians will indeed have to wage a long war but they also will critically depend on enormous military, financial and economic assistance from Europe. On the other hand, European unity is fragile and there is “fatigue” setting in. 

There is no coherent vision about the ultimate NATO objective, either. Ukraine is a black hole unworthy of a Marshall Plan. Unsurprisingly, there is great circumspection on the part of Germany to waste its resources over Ukraine. 

Finally, the deepening economic crisis in the West — high inflation and cost of living and growing likelihood of recession — is at the gates like wolves howling in a winter wonderland. The European public no longer becomes sentimental at the sight of Ukrainian refugees. The alibi that Putin is responsible for all this  won’t fly. 

Fundamentally, the Western economies are facing a systemic crisis. The complacency that the reserve-currency-based US economy is impervious to ballooning debt; that the petrodollar system compels the entire world to purchase dollars to finance their needs; that the flood of cheap Chinese consumer goods and cheap energy from Russia and Gulf States would keep inflation at bay; that interest rate hikes will cure structural inflation; and, above all, that the consequences of taking a trade-war hammer to a complex network system in the world economy can be managed — these notions stand exposed. 

When the money printing presses whirred in Europe and America, no one felt uneasy about the structural flaws in the system. In a haze of ideological bluster, the Biden Administration and its junior partner in Brussels didn’t pay any due diligence before sanctioning Russia and its energy and resources. Europe is much worse off than America. Inflation in Europe is well into double digits. A European sovereign debt crisis may already have begun.

The accelerating inflationary crisis threatens the standing of western politicians, as they will encounter real popular anger once inflation eats away at the middle class and high energy prices gut business profits.

How to arrest the unfolding slow burn political debacle for both Europe and the US? The logical way is to force Zelensky to go to the negotiating table and discuss a settlement. The narrative of continuing the attrition against Russian forces for the coming months, to inflict hurt on Russia, does not help European politicians. Mariupol, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia have fallen. Donbass might also, soon. What’s the next red line? Odessa? 

Paradoxically, the long war in Ukraine could only work to Russia’s advantage. President Putin’s speech at the SPIEF at St. Petersburg on Friday shows how thoroughly Moscow studied the western financial and economic system and identified its structural contradictions. Putin is adept at using the weight and strength of his opponents to his own advantage rather than opposing blow directly to blow. The West’s overextension can ultimately be its undoing. 

That’s where the actual inflection point lies today — whether the structural contradictions in the western economies have matured into disorder. Putin sees the West’s future as bleak, hit simultaneously by the blowback from its own imposition of sanctions, and the resultant spike in commodity prices, but lacking agility to deflect the blows due to institutional rigidities. 

The big question today is at what point Russia retaliates against the countries who are involved in the gun-running business in Ukraine if they accelerate on that path. The air strikes by Russian jets last Thursday on the militant terror groups harboured in the US garrison at Al-Tanf on the Syrian-Iraqi border may well have carried a message. 

June 19, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | 2 Comments

British Army’s New Top General Tells Troops to Prepare to ‘Fight in Europe Again’, ‘Defeat Russia’

Samizdat – 19.06.2022

Russia and the UK haven’t engaged one another directly in battle since the Crimean War of 1853-1856. It was that conflict which became the subject of Lord Alfred Tennyson’s famous poem ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’, the disastrous cavalry charge against Russian troops during the 1854 Battle of Balaklava which nearly wiped out British forces.

Britain must prepare to return to continental Europe to fight and win a conflict against Russia, General Sir Patrick Sanders, the new Chief of the General Staff of the British Army, has said.

“There is now a burning imperative to forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle. We are the generation that must prepare the Army to fight in Europe once again,” Sanders wrote in a letter to the troops after taking over from his predecessor, Gen. Sir Mark Carleton-Smith earlier this week.

Sanders emphasized that he was the first British chief of general staff “since 1941 to take command of the Army in the shadow of a land war in Europe involving a continental power,” carefully wording his comment to avoid mentioning NATO involvement in the 1990s Yugoslav Wars, including the 78-day-long bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.

The general suggested that the crisis in Ukraine highlighted the Army’s “core purpose” of protecting Britain “by being ready to fight and win wars on land.”

Sir Patrick’s sentiments have been echoed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who wrote in an article for The Sunday Times that the UK and its allies must “steel” themselves for a “long” slog in Ukraine, and that the West needs “to enlist time on Ukraine’s side.”

Separately, in an interview with Bild, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg similarly urged allies to “be prepared” for the Ukraine crisis “to last for years,” and stressed that the bloc “must not weaken in our support of Ukraine, even if the costs are high – not only in terms of military support but also because of rising energy and food prices” at home.

Sanders’ enlistment as Chief of the General Staff comes at a difficult time for Britain’s military, with the government announcing plans last year to whittle the regular Army down from 82,000 troops to 72,500 personnel by 2025 – its smallest size since 1714. The prime minister’s office assured that large land forces aren’t necessary in conditions of modern warfare, where smaller units supported by technology and electronic warfare tools are expected to do the job. It remains to be tested whether such logic is applicable to hypothetical conflicts with a large power like Russia, or limited to the kinds of operations the UK has engaged in in recent years, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the aerial bombardment of Libya in 2011.

Britain and Russia haven’t fought directly in a war since the 1850s, and were allies in both the First and Second World Wars, as well as the conflict against Napoleon in the early 19th century.

Russian officials have accused the West of sending billions of dollars’ worth of military hardware to Ukraine to prolong the crisis as long as possible, and “fight Russia to the last Ukrainian” through the proxy conflict. The Russian military has warned that it will destroy Western arms deliveries and foreign mercenaries.

June 19, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | | 9 Comments

Moldovan President Signs Law Banning Russian News – Media Authority

Samizdat – 19.06.2022

CHISINAU – Moldovan President Maia Sandu has signed a law banning broadcast of news programs made in Russia, which will go into effect next week, the chairwoman of Moldova’s Audiovisual Council, Liliana Vitu, said on Sunday.

“The president signed the law. It will likely be published in the Official Gazette next Friday and go into effect. It codifies the concept of disinformation, which entails much tougher sanctions. If a company is proven implicated, it will lose licence for seven years,” Vitu said on air of the Rlive broadcaster.

The Ukraine crisis was what prompted the Moldovan authorities to seek more information security, but most disinformation in Moldova happens during election periods, she said.

On 2 June, the Moldovan parliament approved in the final reading a law on information security. A similar legislation was adopted in 2017 to fight “foreign propaganda,” but this time the law specifically bans Russian-made news shows and analytical programs, as well as military movies. The media propaganda law was repealed in December 2020 at the initiative of socialist lawmakers.

Moldova’s Commission for Emergency Situations has also banned political and military news from countries which have not ratified the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, including Russia.

June 19, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | 2 Comments

The Prison Remains the Same (Palestine)

Sharif Nakhleh | May 8, 2022

THE FILM is a brilliant explanation of the history, present, and possible future of Palestine by  anthropologist Khalil Nakhleh, a Christian Palestinian from the Galilee who experienced Israel’s founding war and subsequent actions first-hand.

Mixing current and archival footage, the film weaves a tale of expulsion and return, through the origins of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict to the resistance and political occupation of an entire people.

Filmed across various locations in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Israel, the film is a thoughtful, yet searing look at physical and psychological oppression.

Dr. Nakhleh has authored a number of academic books and articles on Palestinian society, development, NGOs, and education, including The Myth of Palestinian Development: Political Aid and Sustainable Deceit and Globalized Palestine: The National Sell-out of a Homeland. [See his books here.]

THE FILMMAKER Sharif Nakhleh is an independent filmmaker living and working in San Francisco with over 20 years of experience as a director, writer and editor. His body of work includes documentary and narrative films, music videos and commercials.

The Prison Remains The Same is an homage to his father’s legacy and nod to his own identity as a Palestinian American.

June 19, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment