Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Lebanese Prime Minister Says His Country in State of War Due to Threats From Israel

Sputnik – 29.06.2024

Lebanon is in a state of war due to threats and aggression from Israel, Lebanon’s caretaker prime minister, Najib Mikati, said.

“The threats we see are a kind of psychological warfare. The question that is on everyone’s lips ‘Is it a war?’ Yes, we are in a state of war. Due to Israeli aggression, there are a large number of civilian and non-civilian casualties and destroyed villages,” Mikati said in a statement on Saturday.

On June 18, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced that it had approved operational plans for an offensive in Lebanon. Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz later said that Israel was “very close” to a decision to “change the rules” against Hezbollah and Lebanon, threatening to destroy the movement “in an all-out war” and to “severely hit” Lebanon.

Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah said that the movement could invade northern Israel if the confrontation intensifies further.

The situation on the Israeli-Lebanese border worsened after the start of Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip in October 2023. The IDF and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters fire at each other’s positions in areas along the border on a daily basis. The Lebanese Foreign Ministry said that around 100,000 people had to leave their homes in border areas, while the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that 80,000 Israelis had to do the same.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump the Peacemaker? How his presidency might help end the war in Ukraine

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | June 29, 2024

The likely next president of the US, Donald Trump, has signaled that he has a plan for bringing the war in Ukraine to an end. Or, at least, two of his advisers have such a plan. More importantly, they have submitted it to Trump. And most importantly, they have said that he has responded positively.

As one of the plan’s authors has put it, “I’m not claiming he agreed with it or agreed with every word of it, but we were pleased to get the feedback we did.” It is true that Trump has also let it be known that he is not officially endorsing the plan. However, it is obvious that this is a trial balloon which has been launched with his approval. Otherwise, we would have either not have heard about it or it would have been disavowed.

The two Trump advisers are Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general, and Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst. Both held significant positions on national security matters during Trump’s presidency. Currently, both play important roles at the Center for American Security: Kellogg serves as co-chair and Fleitz as vice chair. Both, finally, are clear about their belief in what is perhaps Trump’s single most defining foreign policy concept: America First. Fleitz recently published an article asserting that “only America First can reverse the global chaos caused by the Biden administration.” For Kellogg, the “America First approach is key to national security.” The Center for American Security, finally, is part of the America First Policy Institute, an influential think tank founded in 2022 by key Trump administration veterans to prepare policies for his comeback.

Clearly, this is a peace plan that has not come out of nowhere. On the contrary, it has not merely been submitted to Trump to receive his – unofficial – nod, it has also emerged from within Trumpism as a resurgent political force. In addition, as Reuters has pointed out, it is also the most elaborate plan yet from the Trump camp on how to get to peace in Ukraine. In effect, this is the first time that Trump’s promise to rapidly end this war, once he is back in the White House, has been fleshed out in detail. The adoption of the plan or any similar policy would obviously mark a massive change in US policy. Hence, this is something that deserves close attention.

What does the plan foresee? In essence, it is built on a simple premise: to use Washington’s leverage over Ukraine to force the country to accept a peace that will come with concessions, territorial and otherwise. In the words of Keith Kellogg, “We tell the Ukrainians, ‘You’ve got to come to the table, and if you don’t come to the table, support from the United States will dry up’.” Since Kiev is vitally dependent on American assistance, it is hard to see how it could resist such pressure. Perhaps to give an appearance of “balance” for the many Republicans still hawkish on Russia, the plan also includes a threat addressed to Moscow: “And you tell Putin,” again in Kellogg’s terms, “he’s got to come to the table and if you don’t come to the table, then we’ll give Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field.”

Yet it is obvious that, despite the tough rhetoric about Russia, the plan will cause great anxiety in Kiev, not Moscow, for two reasons. First, the threats addressed to Russia and Ukraine are not comparable: If the US were to withdraw its support from Ukraine, Kiev’s Zelensky regime would quickly not just lose the war but collapse. If the US were to, instead, increase its support for the Zelensky regime, then Moscow would respond by mobilizing additional resources, as it has done before. It might also, in that case, receive direct military assistance from China, which would not stand by and watch a potential Russian defeat unfold, because that would leave Beijing alone with an aggressive, emboldened West. In addition, Washington would, of course, have to weigh the risk of Russia engaging in counter-escalation. In sum, the plan threatens Ukraine with certain defeat, regime, and, possibly, even state disintegration; it threatens Moscow with a harder time – a type of threat that has no record of success.

The second reason the plan is bad news for Ukraine but not for Russia is that the peace it aims at is much closer to Moscow’s war aims than to those of Kiev. While the document that has been submitted to Trump has not been made public, American commentators believe that a paper published on the site of the Center for American Security under the title “America First, Russia, & Ukraine” is similar to what he – or his staff – got to see. Also authored by Kellogg and Fleitz, this paper, too, repeatedly stresses just how “tough” Trump used to be toward Russia. Plenty of strutting there for those who like that kind of stuff.

These statements, however, are balanced by an emphasis on what used to be called diplomacy: “At the same time,” we read, “Trump was open to cooperation with Russia and dialogue with Putin. Trump expressed respect for Putin as a world leader and did not demonize him in public statements … This was a transactional approach to US-Russia relations … to find ways to coexist and lower tensions … while standing firm on American security interests.”

That already is a tone that Kiev cannot but find disconcerting. Because under Biden, US strategy – and therefore that of the collective West – has been built not merely on an extremely belligerent approach (as if that were not bad enough already) but, more importantly and more detrimentally, on the obsessive idea that there is no alternative. Everything, to its adherents, is “appeasement” except constant escalation to “win.” There is no room for genuine quid pro quos and compromise. That attitude is vital to America’s unrelenting support for Ukraine and, in particular, the fact that it has crossed one red line (meaning those previously recognized by Washington itself) after the other, with no (good) end in sight.

Hence, a Trumpist approach that is also anything but “soft” on Russia, while, however, acknowledging the possibility of de-escalation through negotiation is already a major departure from current US policy. You could even think of it as being inspired by the Reaganite foreign policy of the 1980s, which also combined pronounced “toughness” with a genuine readiness to compromise. Yet there would be one big difference: Toward the end of the Cold War, Washington was dealing with a pliable, even naïve Soviet leadership. That was a grave mistake – if made for mostly admirably idealistic reasons – that Russia’s current leaders see very clearly, are still angry about, and will not repeat.

In the case of the war in Ukraine, this means that any settlement, even with a newly “transactional” Washington “coming to the table” would involve not one but two “tough” players: Moscow will not agree to any compromise that fails to factor in that it has gained the upper hand in this war. That, in turn, means that, beyond the basic Trumpist mood of conditional conciliatoriness, details will be decisive.

Unfortunately for the Zelensky regime and fortunately for everyone else (yes, including many Ukrainians who won’t have to die in a proxy war anymore once peace comes), in that domain as well, the realm of the concrete and specific, the plan developed by Kellogg and Fleitz shows some progress. The authors, first of all, recognize important elements of reality that the current US leadership is either lying or in denial about: for instance, that this is a proxy war as well as a war of attrition, that Zelensky’s “10-point plan” (essentially a blueprint for what could only happen if Ukraine were to win the war, that is, never) “went nowhere,” and that Ukraine cannot sustain the war demographically.

They also acknowledge that Russia will refuse to take part in peace talks or agree to an initial ceasefire if the West doesn’t “put off NATO membership for Ukraine for an extended period.” In fact, an “extended period” will not suffice; Moscow has been clear that never means never. But Kellogg and Fleitz may be formulating their ideas carefully with a view to how much their readers in America can take at this point. The plan also, again realistically, raises the option of offering a partial and, eventually, complete dropping of sanctions against Russia. Ukraine, on the other side, would not have to give up the aim of recovering all its territory, but – a crucial restriction – would have to agree to pursue it by diplomatic means only. The implication is, of course, that Kiev would have to give up de facto control over territory in the first place.

And there you have it: This is a proposal that, pared down to essentials, foresees territorial concessions and no NATO membership for Ukraine. It’s no wonder that Kellogg and Leitz conclude their paper by admitting that “the Ukrainian government,” “the Ukrainian people” (that is sure to be an over-generalization, by the way), and “their supporters” in the West will have trouble accepting this kind of negotiated peace. We could add: especially after more than two years of an avoidable (as the authors also recognize) and bloody proxy war. Yet that tragedy has already happened. We can wish it had not, but we cannot undo the past. The real question is about the future. Kellogg and Leitz, and Trump as well, if he will follow such a policy, are right that the dying must end, and that the only way to make it end – as well as avoid further escalation, perhaps to global war – is a compromise settlement built on reality.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Finland to Offer Bird Flu Vaccine Despite Lack of Safety Testing and Human Infections

By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | June 27, 2024

Finland is set to become the first country in the world to offer bird flu vaccinations to humans, sparking a heated debate about vaccine safety and necessity.

The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos or THL) announced plans to begin administering H5N8 bird flu vaccines to select groups as early as next week, despite the absence of human infections in the country.

The unprecedented move comes as global health experts express conflicting views on the threat posed by avian influenza. While Finnish officials cite the need for preemptive protection, critics argue the vaccination program is premature and potentially dangerous.

The Finnish announcement comes just two weeks after the European Commission Health Emergency Preparedness and Response (HERA) program announced the purchase of 665,000 doses of CSL Seqirus’ H5N8 avian influenza vaccine, with an option to acquire another 40 million doses over the next four years. HERA has already obtained 111 million doses of GSK’s bird flu vaccine.

Finland’s vaccination plan

Finland plans to offer the CSL Seqirus H5N8 bird flu vaccine to approximately 10,000 people deemed at high risk of exposure to the virus.

Mia Kontio, a health security official at THL, told STAT News that the country was awaiting the arrival of 20,000 doses, with plans to administer them “as soon as the vaccines are in the country.”

According to THL’s press release, the target groups for vaccination include:

  • Fur farm workers in contact with animals.
  • Poultry workers in direct contact with birds.
  • Veterinarians.
  • Laboratory workers handling avian influenza samples.
  • Bird ringers and those caring for wild birds.
  • Workers in petting zoos and aviaries.

CSL Seqirus’ vaccine received the European Union’s (EU) marketing authorization in April. The vaccine requires a two-dose series, with the second dose administered at least three weeks after the first.

“The goal is to start vaccinations in the welfare areas as soon as possible, so that the two-dose vaccination series can be offered to the vaccinated before the start of the autumn flu season,” said THL’s expert doctor Anniina Virkku.

Besides protection from bird flu, the vaccination program aims to prevent simultaneous infection with the seasonal flu virus, “which could enable the emergence of a new type of virus.”

THL noted that the vaccination program is targeted at high-risk groups and is not a blanket recommendation for the staff of facilities without contact with infected birds or animals.

‘U.S. has never had a fatal human case of bird flu’

The H5N1 strain of bird flu has caused widespread concern among government health authorities in recent years, leading to the culling of hundreds of millions of poultry globally, according to Reuters.

The virus has expanded its reach, affecting not only birds but also an increasing number of mammals, including cows in the U.S.

In 2023, Finland experienced large-scale deaths of wild birds due to bird flu virus infections, THL said. The virus also spread widely to fur farms, causing high morbidity and mortality in animals.

However, the Finnish Food Agency reported that bird flu cases in wild birds have significantly decreased in 2024 compared to the previous year.

Globally, human infections remain rare. Since December 2021, only eight cases of bird flu have been reported in humans worldwide, according to the World Health Organization.

In the U.S., three dairy workers were diagnosed with confirmed infections tied to the recent outbreak among cattle, all experiencing mild symptoms, according to STAT News.

Despite the low number of human cases, health authorities remain concerned about the virus’s potential to mutate and become more transmissible between humans.

However, Dr. Peter A. McCullough, in his Substack post on Monday argued that even if the bird flu crossed to humans, it would be less dangerous. “Increased transmissibility of H5N1 has a tradeoff of decreased virulence,” he wrote.

He said the alarming statistics on human mortality rates are from long-ago cases in Southeast Asia and that such concerns are “not appropriate” for today’s strains.

Furthermore, the U.S. “has never had a fatal human case of bird flu,” he said.

A dangerous vaccine for a disease that does not exist’

Medical freedom advocates and health experts have voiced strong objections to the rapid deployment of the bird flu vaccine.

Internist and bioweapons expert Dr. Meryl Nass pointed out that the product information for the H5N8 bird flu vaccine recently purchased by the EU — the same one being deployed in Finland — includes no clinical data for this specific vaccine strain, meaning it has not been tested in humans.

STAT News reported that the European Medicines Agency approved the H5N8 bird flu vaccine based on immunogenicity studies rather than traditional efficacy trials, as the virus isn’t currently circulating among humans.

Nass noted that scientists don’t have a clear way to measure if the vaccine protects against H5 types of bird flu and that it’s unclear whether the vaccine would work against other similar strains of the virus.

She called the product “a dangerous vaccine for a disease that does not exist.”

Nass also noted that the vaccine contains the adjuvant MF59C.1, which includes squalene, polysorbate 80 and other compounds that could cause autoimmunity.

Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a vaccine analyst and biomathematics specialist, said she has several reservations about the program. “There’s no need for this vaccine, and it poses dangers including tolerization and autoimmune reactions from molecular mimicry,” she told The Defender.

Tolerization (or immunological tolerance) occurs when the immune system becomes less responsive to a particular antigen over time, potentially reducing the vaccine’s effectiveness.

Molecular mimicry refers to similarities between vaccine components and human proteins, which could lead the immune system to mistakenly attack the body’s own tissues, potentially triggering autoimmune disorders.

Rose also said, “Intramuscular injections are never the way to deal with pathogens that enter the body via respiration.”

McCullough warned that mass vaccination could lead to a “highly prevalent pandemic” because it “promotes resistant strains of the virus in the vaccinated.”

He suggested alternative strategies, including “dilute iodine nasal sprays and gargles, oseltamivir, hydroxychloroquine and other antivirals” for prevention and early treatment.

McCullough criticized what he called “fear-mongering promulgated by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex,” suggesting that it is “designed to promote mass vaccination of animals and humans with lucrative pre-purchased contracts to the vaccine manufacturers” and their nongovernmental organization sponsors.

Geert Vanden Bossche, DVM, Ph.D., voiced similar concerns. He told The Defender, “Any large-scale vax program using whatever vaccine administered during a pandemic or a panzootic transmissible to humans is at risk of causing large-scale Ab-[antibody-]dependent enhancement of disease and large-scale immune escape!”

Antibody-dependent enhancement is a phenomenon where antibodies produced by the immune system in response to a vaccine or previous infection can worsen a subsequent infection. Instead of protecting against the virus, these antibodies can help the virus enter cells more easily, potentially leading to more severe illness.

Regarding Vanden Bossche’s concerns over immune escape, he made the same argument for the COVID-19 vaccines, claiming their administration during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak caused the evolution of more transmissible and dangerous viral variants.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

‘Stunning admissions’: White House pressured FDA to cut corners on COVID vaccine approvals in order to push mandates

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 28, 2024

The Biden administration pressured the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to “change its procedures, cut corners, and lower agency standards,” to approve Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines and authorize boosters, according to a congressional report released earlier this week.

The approval was key to facilitating the Biden administration’s rollout of the fall 2021 vaccine mandates, despite safety concerns about the shots, according to the report.

“During the pandemic, politics overruled science at the government institutions entrusted with protecting public health,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said in a press release announcing the report.

“The FDA abandoned its congressional directive to protect citizens from false claims and undisclosed side effects, and instead ignored its own rules to pursue a policy of promoting the vaccine while downplaying potential harms,” he added.

As a result, according to the report, “countless Americans” suffer from vaccine side effects and the FDA has lost credibility with the public.

Following the report’s release a U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing Wednesday — “Follow the Science?: Oversight of the Biden Covid-19 Administrative State Response” — during which Dr. Philip Krause, former deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review (OVRR) vaccine products provided evidence to support the report’s conclusions.

Krause testified that both he and OVRR Director Marion Gruber were relieved of their responsibilities overseeing the COVID-19 vaccines review process because the administration wanted to rush FDA approval on a faster timeline than their office could deliver and push forward the fall mandates, Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, reported.

The approval process was then pushed through by the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., and then-Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock.

Documents obtained by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) through a Freedom of Information Act Request also showed that in early 2021, both Marks and Woodcock were aware of injuries linked to the vaccines.

Krause testified that the original timeline to complete the review process for Pfizer’s Biologics License Application (BLA) for its mRNA COVID-19 product was January 2022, but the team was already shooting to have the process completed earlier.

In early July 2021, “something had happened to completely change the opinion of Drs. Marks and Woodcock regarding the urgency of completing the BLA review,” Krause testified. “It was so important to them that they did not trust the experts who led the Office of Vaccines to do it, even with their help,” he said.

Krause told the committee that on July 19, he and Gruber were taken off the review process and Marks took it over himself.

He added:

“In this meeting, Drs. Woodcock and Marks expressed concern about the rising number of COVID cases in the US and globally, largely caused by the Delta variant and stated their opinion that, absent a license, states cannot require mandatory vaccination and that people hesitant to get an EUA authorized vaccine would be more inclined to get immunized if the product were licensed.”

Marks informed staff that the goal was to complete the review as rapidly as possible, Krause said. Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine was licensed on Aug. 23, 2021.

“As predicted by Drs. Woodcock and Marks, vaccine mandates followed immediately afterwards and were announced the same day for DoD [U.S. Department of Defense] and for New York State,” Krause said.

He said that the speed with which the mandates were implemented following authorization, “suggested that the rapid review of the vaccine was motivated more by a desire to mandate vaccines than by other public health considerations.”

Given that mandates are outside of the FDA’s purview, he added, the fact that Marks and Woodcock cited the need for mandates as a reason to speed the review “strongly implies that pressure to complete the review” more rapidly than planned came from outside of the FDA, he added.

When Krause and Gruber tried to implement a slower and more deliberative process, they were demoted, Prasad wrote.

As a result, they both left the agency at the end of 2021.

Prasad noted the mandates were issued only after the administration knew the vaccine couldn’t stop transmission and “as such, the mandates were unethical.”

“Krause’s testimony shows the Biden administration engaged in inappropriate political tampering with the FDA, and the FDA leaders — Woodcock and Marks — folded to political pressure,” he added.

Woodcock, now retired from the FDA, has since expressed regret about not doing more to respond to the concerns of the vaccine-injured, telling The New York Times she is “disappointed” in herself

Marks is still at the FDA, where Prasad said he “has been doing a bad job,” recently authorizing a product from Sarepta Therapeutics despite a failed study and a negative decision from reviewers.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., independent presidential candidate and CHD’s chairman on leave, tweeted that Marks also made commercials for the vaccine, claiming it was safe and effective in pregnancy and for children. “Had Pfizer said that, it would have been a crime,” Kennedy said.

In his testimony, Krause also made a series of comments confirming early knowledge of myocarditis — with rates as high as 1 in 5,000 for young men in early studies — and the protection conferred by natural immunity.

He also said that he did not take a booster shot.

Chief Nerd called Krause’s comments “stunning admissions” and posted a video clip on X.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Iran’s iron ore reserves estimated at over 5bn tons: Mine owner

Press TV – June 29, 2024

A mine owner in Iran says the country’s iron ore reserves are estimated at some 5 billion metric tons (mt), as he insists that official figures should be revised up to show the real state of iron mines in Iran and their potential for investment.

Mehrdad Akbarian, who also chairs Iran’s Association of Iron Ore Producers and Exporters (IROPEX), said on Saturday that figures announced by the Iranian government about unproven iron ore reserves, which is about 3.2 billion mt, do not properly represent a rough estimate of recoverable iron in the country.

“Unfortunately, the official figures do not match the realities on the ground,” Akbarian told the ILNA news agency.

“That comes as reserves can further expand with progress in technology, increased mining and investment in exploration,” he added.

The businessman said that the total iron ore mined in Iran since the industry was formed several decades ago has not exceeded 0.6 billion mt.

Akbarian insisted that increased supply of energy, including electricity and natural gas, to Iranian steel plants can lead to more activity in iron mines.

Iran has produced more steel in recent years mainly due to increased government support as part of a policy to diversify the economy away from oil exports.

Iranian steel exports have increased steadily since the US imposed sanctions on the country in 2018.

Iran is currently the 10th largest steel producer in the world with more than 30 million mt of annual output.

Increased production caused the country to move up to 7th in the global ranking of steel producers during some calendar months of last year.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

The UN Smothers the Peoples with Compassion

By Thi Thuy Van Dinh and David Bell | Brownstone Institute | June 27, 2024

“We The Peoples of the United Nations determined (…) to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,”

United Nations Charter Preamble (1945)

The United Nations (UN) Secretariat will hold the next Summit of the Future in New York on 22-23 September 2024. It is a vast political program covering the noblest of causes including poverty reduction, human rights, environment, climate change, development, and the welfare and rights of children, youth, and women. World leaders are expected to endorse a declaratory Pact for the Future, and commit to act toward its realization.

It all looks wonderful. As in days of old, the rich, powerful, and entitled are coming to rescue us from ourselves and make us live better lives. Freedom, after all, is intrinsically unsafe.

This is the first in a series that will look at the plans of the UN system designing and implementing this new agenda, covering implications for global health, economic development, and human rights.

Climate and Health at the WHO: Building the Authoritarian Dream

Amidst all the hype and posturing regarding the negotiations on pandemic texts at the recent 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva (Switzerland), perhaps the most consequential resolution before the WHA slipped through, approved, but virtually unnoticed. The Resolution WHA77.14 on Climate Change and Health was approved without debate, opening the door for the World Health Organization (WHO) ─ a UN specialized agency ─ to claim a broad swath of normal human activity as a potential threat to health, and therefore coming under the purview of the WHO’s detached business-class bureaucrats.

It was highlighted by a Strategic Roundtable on “Climate change and health: a global vision for joint action,” where speakers, moderated by the Lancet’s Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton, included WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Ghebreyesus, former US Vice President Al Gore (by video message), and CEO of the 28th Climate Conference of States Parties Adnan Amin.

The Resolution was proposed by a coalition of 16 countries (Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Fiji, Georgia, Kenya, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Slovenia, United Arab Emirates, and the UK) and passed without changes, mandating the DG to: i) develop a “results-based, needs-oriented and capabilities-driven global WHO plan of action on climate change and health,” ii) serve as a global leader in the field of climate change and health by establishing a WHO Roadmap to Net Zero by 2030, and iii) report back to future WHA sessions.

United Nations System’s “Newspeak” on Climate Change

There is little surprise in this. It is another predictable move on the global climate chessboard. In the last decade, activities and documents from the UN system have increasingly included climate change as a “newspeak” to signal full compliance with the official narrative.

The head of the UN system, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, is known for pushing the narrative further. In 2019, he posed in water for a picture for Time Magazine’s coverage on “Our sinking planet.” Last summer, he announced that “the era of global warming has ended…the era of global boiling has arrived.”

On 2024 World Environment Day (5th June), he doubled down on his rhetoric: “In the case of climate, we are not the dinosaurs. We are the meteor. We are not only in danger. We are the danger.” We are, it appears, a poison on our planet.

Satellite entities have wildly added their creativity and imagination: UNEP hammering on the “triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss,” UNICEF reporting on the “climate changed-child,” UNWOMEN discovering the “interconnection between climate change and gender inequality,” OHCHR claiming that “climate change threatens the effective enjoyment of a range of human rights including those to life, water and sanitation, food, health, housing, self-determination, culture and development,” and UNESCO fully committed “to addressing the impact of climate change on culture, and to enhancing the potential of culture for global climate action.”

Nomination of First Ever WHO Special Envoy for Climate Change and Health

As for WHO, DG Tedros Ghebreyesus has also demonstrated his mastery of dogmatic claims. Climate change, he insists, constitutes “one of the biggest health threats” and “the climate crisis is a health crisis.” His mandate has therefore been broadened from specific environmental issues including air pollution from particulates and chemicals to the whole climate change spectrum. In 2023, the WHO estimated that “between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone.”

Strangely, however, deaths attributable to cold weather, estimated at 4.6 million globally per year, were not weighed in balance. Nor are inevitable deaths from undernutrition related to a lack of accessible energy for agriculture and transport. Accounting for a reduction in such deaths would significantly reduce projected mortality and perhaps demonstrate an overall advantage. For instance, rising CO2 has increased plant growth and contributed to the world’s ability to feed 8 billion people, an achievement once considered impossible and is obviously highly critical to maintaining health.

The WHO’s leaders have become bolder. In June 2023, in a minor lapse of equity, inclusion, and transparency criteria, the DG appointed Dr Vanessa Kerry as “the first ever” Special Envoy for Climate Change and Health for being “a renowned global health expert and medical doctor and CEO of Seed Global Health.” The press release overlooked any connection with her father, former US Secretary of State John Kerry ─ a key US Democratic politician, well-known personality at UN climate forums, and first-ever US Presidential Envoy for Climate (January 2021-March 2024). Her nomination, apparently, was purely meritocratic.

It is estimated that $27.6 million is required to create the reports implementing the 2024 Resolution. Now, $20 million will come from WHO’s biennial 2024-25 budget, and the gap of $7.6 million will be raised through WHO’s continued “discussions with Member States, development agencies and philanthropic organizations.” People who will, perhaps, benefit from the WHO pushing the products they have invested in, such as heavily processed substitutes to (climate-harming) natural foods.

All of this appears to follow conventional political and diplomatic playbooks. It comes unstuck if one applies a critical look at how Resolution WHA77.14 was built.

It referred to Resolution WHA61.19 (adopted in 2008) on climate change and health, Resolution WHA68.8 (adopted in 2005) addressing the health impact of air pollution, and Resolution WHA76.17 (adopted in 2023) on the impact of chemicals, waste, and pollution on human health as follows.

Recalling resolution WHA61.19 (2008) on climate change and health and welcoming the work carried out so far by WHO in pursuit of it;

Recalling also resolution WHA68.8 (2015) on addressing the health impact of air pollution and resolution WHA76.17 (2023) on the impact of chemicals, waste and pollution on human health, which recognize the link between health, environment and climate change;

Resolution WHA61.19 was adopted based on a WHO report “Climate change and health.” This report stated that “There is now a strong, global scientific consensus that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and is caused by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels which releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere” (para. 1) and that “WHO has, for several years, stressed that the health risks posed by climate change are significant, distributed throughout the globe, and difficult to reverse” (para. 2). These affirmations were made without assessment of levels of evidence (strong, moderate, weak), of the extent to which (modifiable) human activity is involved, or of the actual positive versus negative impacts of higher temperatures (and atmospheric CO2).

Contrary to the statements by Resolution WHA77.14, neither Resolution WHA68.8 nor Resolution WHA76.17 mentioned climate change in the context of pollutants. Excluding rare natural phenomena, particulate and chemical air pollution do result from human activities, including indoor air pollution (e.g. cookstoves) and transport and industrial waste. Hence, these past Resolutions recognized a link between these pollutants and human health, which is common sense. They did not recognize a link between health, environment, and climate change.

Nevertheless, we can probably relax and wait. The WHO’s upcoming reports can be expected to claim a link. They have $27 million to spend on that.

The Climate Agenda Versus “We the Peoples”

It is easy for wealthy self-proclaimed philanthropists and international and governmental bureaucrats to call for phasing out fossil fuels. Living on tax-paid salaries in secure jobs, in economies made rich through the availability of cheap energy, they are able to renew their commitment annually at the Conference of States Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, ignoring the reality that their very ability to be there is due to fossil fuels. The most recent venues ─ Dubai, Sharm-El-Sheik, and Glasgow ─ all built their prosperity on this same energy base.

Being obsessed with the man-made climate narrative, the UN system pushes poor countries to adopt green energies for lighting and cooking, rather than developing the large-scale energy infrastructure that still forms the backbone of wealthier societies.

There seems to be no shame vis-a-vis 2.3 billion people on earth that, according to the WHO, must still rely on dirty and dangerous cooking fuels such as cow dung, charcoal, and wood ─ negatively impacting women and children’s health through particulate air pollution. Increasing the cost of fossil fuels directly increases further deforestation and resultant desertification (and regional climate change) in areas such as East Africa. It feels good, apparently, for the activists of climate COPs and Extinction Rebellion to force African women to walk further each day for firewood, denuding landscapes and their meager savings.

There seems to be no shame either when Western bilateral and multilateral largesse to low-income countries comes on the condition that they pass a “climate check,” or must be spent on developing “green” but unreliable solar and wind generation which barely supplement the base energy supplies of most donor countries. We happily burn Nigerian oil, but our virtue requires Nigerians to do better. After looting wealth through colonialism, this is rubbing noses in the dirt of the poverty left behind.

One can confidently predict that the rhetoric will continue, and more “soft laws” ─ UN declarations, strategies, plans-of-action, and agendas ─ will complement the existing “hard laws” of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Protocols. At the WHO, more funding will come to extend the growing industry of climate change and health, diverting financial and human resources from far greater, but less boutique, health burdens.

A plan of action will be put before a future WHA to agree to a binding document seeking to harden the 2024 Resolution into requirements. Highly questionable assumptions that pandemics and malaria, and even tuberculosis, are worsened because of climate change will be drawn to support the global plan, complementing the coming Pandemic Agreement and the massive surveillance system set up by the freshly adopted IHR Amendments to ensure pandemic lockdowns.

Malaria, tuberculosis, and diseases of undernutrition and poor hygiene are primarily diseases of poverty. People in wealthy countries live longer primarily because of improvements in sanitation, living conditions, and nutrition. These improvements were achieved by using energy for transport, to build infrastructure, and to massively improve the efficiency of agricultural production. Locking future generations in low-income countries into poverty will not improve their health and well-being.

This increasingly charade-like global health circus will, in the end, destabilize the world and harm us all. To address complex issues, the world needs rational and honest debates, rather than games played by a self-entitled few. The WHO is demonstrating that it is no longer the organization to lead us to better health. It is on us to regain control of our own future.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Saudi Arabia warns of ‘dire consequences’ of Israel’s new settlement plans in West Bank

Press TV – June 29, 2024

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry has warned of the “dire consequences” of Israel’s plan to expand illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank.

In a statement on Saturday, the ministry slammed the Israeli regime’s decision to legitimize five new outposts in the West Bank.

Saudi Arabia opposes the “ongoing Israeli violations of international law and international legitimacy resolutions,” it added.

“These violations undermine opportunities for peace and contribute to fueling conflicts and destabilizing regional and international security and stability,” the statement read.

On Thursday, Israel’s extremist finance minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that the Security Cabinet authorized one outpost for every country that unilaterally recognized Palestine as a state in the last month.

Last month, Spain, Ireland and Norway formally recognized the Palestinian state, joining over 140 UN member states that have recognized its statehood over the past four decades.

Slovenia and Malta have also indicated they plan to formally recognize the state of Palestine.

The five settlement outposts are Evyatar, Givat Assaf, Sde Efraim, Heletz, and Adorayim.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation in a statement on Saturday condemned Israel’s new settlement expansion plan in the West Bank.

It said all actions and decisions taken by Israel as the occupying power to perpetuate its colonial regime in the occupied Palestinian territory are null and void under international law and the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, especially UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016).

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , , | 1 Comment

No slow down in US shipments of 2,000lb bombs to Israel

The Cradle | June 29, 2024

The US has sent Israel over 27,000 bombs since the start of its horrific aerial assault on Gaza in October, Reuters reported on 29 June, including 14,000 highly destructive 2,000-lb bombs that US officials have acknowledged as “inappropriate” for Israel to use.

Reuters stated that the US military had transferred at least 14,000 of the MK-84 2,000-lb bombs, 6,500 500-lb bombs, 3,000 Hellfire precision-guided air-to-ground missiles, 1,000 bunker-buster bombs, 2,600 air-dropped small-diameter bombs, and other munitions, according to US officials who were not authorized to speak publicly.

A recent US shipment of bombs to Israel was allegedly delayed due to the inclusion of 2,000-lb bombs within it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a video harshly criticizing the White House for the delay.

A US official told Axios the White House’s “main concern from day one was the Israeli use of the 2,000-lb bombs in Gaza, which the administration thought was inappropriate.”

In October, Israel dropped a 2,000-lb bomb in the center of the crowded Jabaliya refugee camp, killing some 120 people.

However, Reuters notes that the totals suggest “no significant drop-off in U.S. military support for its ally,” despite the recent White House “decision to pause a shipment of powerful bombs.”

Experts told Reuters the size and contents of the shipments are sufficient for Israel to replenish weapons it has used in its eight-month bombing campaign, which has ruined much of Gaza, turning vast swathes into a “moonscape.”

In late April, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor estimated that Israel had dropped approximately 70,000 tons of bombs on Gaza since the start of the war, an amount far surpassing the US and allied bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined during World War II.

Israeli leaders say that major combat operations in Gaza are winding down and that they are now shifting troops and resources to fight against the Lebanese resistance movement, Hezbollah, on the northern front.

While the US provides detailed descriptions and quantities of military aid sent to Ukraine to fight Russia, the White House has revealed few details about the full extent of US weapons and munitions sent to Israel, Reuters added.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has led the effort to supply bombs to Israel that have slaughtered over 37,000 Palestinians, the majority women and children.

In January, 19 Democratic lawmakers called Blinken’s decision to unilaterally approve two emergency weapons sales to Israel without congressional approval “highly unusual.”

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Israel Lobby Cash Dominates and Perverts American Elections

Where is the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 when you really need it?

 BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • JUNE 28, 2024

Once upon a time the United States of America was a constitutional republic that was by design constructed with checks and balances to limit corruption and constrain the ability of any branch of government to initiate certain potentially harmful actions, like going to war, which required approval by both Congress and the Executive Branch. Of course, that was 261 years ago and things change over time. Today’s America, what claims to be both a democracy and the issuer plus enforcer of international rules and norms, is arguably one of the most corrupt as well as most disliked countries on earth, with a political system that is exceptionally vulnerable to those who have deep pockets and a willingness to spend freely to obtain favors from the professional politicians and bureaucrats who now proliferate throughout the system.

If one measures the consequences arising from all the corruption, there is no better example than the heavily lopsided relationship with Israel, which has been produced through the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars coming primarily from Jewish billionaire and corporate sources. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson famously gifted Donald Trump with $100 million and in return received what he demanded, i.e. a United States decision to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and a recognition that Jerusalem would be recognized as the country’s capital, which was illegal under international law. Additionally, Trump’s team headed by Israeli apologist Ambassador David Friedman, brought about the recognition of the Jewish state’s annexation of the occupied formerly Syrian Golan Heights, also an illegal concession, and the de facto granting of a free hand to Israel for dealing with the Palestinians as it sees fit, which is playing out currently. Trump also was in the business of canceling a nuclear monitoring agreement with Iran, which was very much in the US interest, and the assassination senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Qassim Soleimani, a war crime.

The heavily pro-Israel policies have not developed in the US because of some actual affinity between the two nations but rather because of great dollops of Jewish money liberally applied to politicians and journalists to create a myth of an actual beneficial alliance between the two to produce a narrative that the US public would be inclined to accept. In this massive coordinated effort by what is euphemistically referred to as the Israel Lobby there is no more active entity than the basically illegal American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its conjoined AIPAC-Political Action Committee, which delivers the cash and also the intimidation of political candidates who do not embrace the Jewish state with enthusiasm. Such dissidents are marked for removal through the surfacing of opposing prospective candidates who are particularly well-funded and sure to receive exceptionally favorable press. In the current round of primaries just concluded, AIPAC-Pac has boasted that it has achieved 100% success as “an AIPAC-endorsed candidate has won in every district (224 races) where an endorsee was on the ballot. All 90 AIPAC-backed Democrats who have had their primary races in 2024 have won. These Democrats are strong pro-Israel voices. 134 AIPAC-backed Republicans have [also]won their elections. Being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics.”

How does it work? As international lawyer John Whitbeck has described the process “the primary reasons why virtually all members of the US Congress prioritize the desires of the Israeli government over the interests of the American people are money and fear — and particularly the fear of all the money that Israel-Firsters will devote to ending your political career, most notably through primary elections, if you manifest anything less than unconditional support and/or abject subservience to Israel.” In the most recent primary in New York state, AIPAC boasts over having devoted a record $15 million, a record amount spent on a primary election, to delivering exemplary punishment to end the political career of Representative Jamaal Bowman, a rare progressive in Congress who has been an outspoken critic of Israeli apartheid and genocide. Among other damnation of Bowman’s record, he was inevitably accused of “antisemitism.” Only a single such example every few years has proven to be enough to keep virtually all members of Congress in line. One might ask former Congressmen like Cynthia McKinney and others in a long line who felt the wrath of AIPAC and its sister organizations. That would include now deceased Senators William Fulbright, Charles Percy and James Abourezk and Congressmen Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey and Jim Traficant.

It has recently been revealed that nearly all congressional candidates are routinely and openly approached by AIPAC representatives who ask in advance their views on Israel. If they are cooperative, sometimes requiring a written statement of intent, they are given a pass and can count on financial support and favorable media. If they are not, they are marked for removal. And one can even sympathize with members of Congress who are self-defined careerists in politics, as, again per Whitbeck, “what is the point, when all around you are groveling flat-out- prone in subservience to Israel, in raising your head on a matter of principle? Your head will simply be cut off, and nothing will change for the better as a result of your sacrifice. There is really no rational choice but to faithfully follow the orders of your ‘AIPAC babysitter.’” The “babysitter” is an AIPAC endorsed staffer placed in nearly every congressional office to monitor and report on Israel issues, a development which has recently been revealed by Congressman Tom Massie while being interviewed by Tucker Carlson.

So how do we limit the ability of Israel to corrupt America’s political system to such an extent that many now believe that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu controls US foreign policy while his domestic lobby creatures at the same time influence as well many other aspects of how the government operates at state and national levels? And why do I refer to the actions of AIPAC and other groups as illegal? Israel is able to act with impunity because of the undeniable powerful influence of its domestic US lobby coupled with its skill at being able to hide what it is up to. The Lobby also has a free hand because the federal government does not enforce its own laws when it comes to the illegally nuclear armed Jewish state. AIPAC, not to mention groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), are actually acting as directed agents of the Israeli government and therefore subject to the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 which requires organizations that take foreign direction regarding their activities to open up their books and records to scrutiny. It also requires some transparency vis-à-vis their contacts and relationships with the Israeli Embassy and the country’s Foreign Ministry and intelligence and security agencies.

The Act is usually referred to as FARA and was originally intended to monitor groups acting on behalf of the German and Italian governments prior to World War 2. It has since been used to limit the activity of Russian and other entities that have operated in the US but has never been applied against Israel, in itself yet another indication of the power of the Israel Lobby and its ability to suppress any exposure of its activities. Journalist and lawyer Isaiah Kenen had founded the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (AZCPA) as a lobbying division of the American Zionist Council in 1953 but it soon separated from AZC and became AIPAC in 1954. Kenen, an actual lobbyist for the Israeli government, had earlier worked for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. AIPAC is today generally considered the most powerful and wealthiest Israeli lobby in the United States. President John F. Kennedy and his brother Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy understood the threat that it represented and sought to compel both AZC and AIPAC to register under FARA but JFK was assassinated shortly thereafter, which have led many to believe that the killing was a Mossad job. Registration under FARA would have inter alia blocked any funding of US political parties and politicians by those groups acting in support of Israeli interests. It would with one stroke take away much of Israel’s ability to corrupt America’s political system in its favor.

In comments to my articles I am often asked what can we ordinary Americans do to bring the Israeli influencers in this country under control. Well, after recognizing that there is a problem, a partial answer is there by enforcing FARA. One needs to put pressure on individual congressmen and the White House through the media to register AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups. Corrupting money is the key to their power and if the spigot of cash is shut off to the politicians and parties their influence will be greatly diminished. And don’t be surprised if there will be many politicians who are privately ashamed at what has been going on who will suddenly become supporters of control over the Jewish groups. The Lobby has been bad for America and not even particularly good for Israel as “sacrosanct” US support for Israel, as Joe Biden puts it, has freed folks like Netanyahu to engage in very dangerous enterprises for his own country as in Gaza and also against its neighbors and for so-called allies like the US. Time to put an end to the status quo.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Five people killed in Ukrainian drone strike on Russian region – governor

RT | June 29, 2024

Five people have been killed in a Ukrainian drone strike on a settlement in Russia’s Kursk Region, local governor Aleksey Smirnov has said.

A quadcopter UAV dropped an explosive device on a residential building in the village of Gorodische, near the border with Ukraine overnight, Smirnov wrote on Telegram on Saturday.

“To our great sorrow, five people were killed as a result of the discharge, including two small children,” he said. Two more members of the same family were hospitalized in critical condition, he added.

On Saturday, Russia’s Defense Ministry said at least six attempts by “the Kiev regime to carry out terrorist attacks on Russian territory with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles” were intercepted overnight.

Russian air defenses destroyed two drones in Tver Region, one in Bryansk Region, one in Belgorod Region and two in Crimea, the statement read.

READ MORE: Civilians killed on Sevastopol beach were ‘occupiers’ – top Zelensky aide
The Russian regions of Belgorod, Bryansk and Kursk, all of which border Ukraine, have been the targets of Ukrainian missile, mortar and drone attacks almost on a daily basis since the outbreak of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022. The strikes have targeted energy infrastructure and residential areas, resulting in civilian deaths and injuries, as well as the destruction of property.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Robert Hur Emerges as the Clear Winner in the Presidential Debate

By Jonathan Turley | June 28, 2024

The presidential debate last night was chilling to watch as President Joe Biden clearly struggled to retain his focus and, at points, seemed hopelessly confused. The winner was clear: Special Counsel Robert Hur. For months, Democrats in Congress and the media have attacked Hur for his report that the president came across as an “elderly man with a poor memory.” Hur concluded that prosecuting Biden would be difficult because a jury would view him as a sympathetic figure of a man with declining mental capabilities. That was evident last night and the question is whether a man who was too diminished to be a criminal defendant can still be a president for four more years.

Hur laid out evidence that President Biden had unlawfully retained and mishandled classified evidence for decades. However, he also concluded that “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” He found that “it would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

What has followed is the usual pile-on in the media with legal analysts, press, and pundits denouncing Hur for his findings.

Hur likely does not anticipate any apologies even as commentators on CNN and MSNBC admit that there are now unavoidable questions of Biden’s ability to be the nominee.

Democrats have repeatedly insisted that Hur did not find Biden diminished and that he actually was impressed by his memory and mental acuity. Hur contradicted that in his own testimony before Congress.

Indeed, the denial campaign took on a bizarre character, particularly when Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) insisted that Hur “exonerated” Biden. Hur pushed back: “I need to go back and make sure that I take note of a word that you used, ‘exoneration.’ That is not a word that is used in my report and that is not a part of my task as a prosecutor.”

Jayapal shot back, “You exonerated him.”

Hur responded, “I did not exonerate him. That word does not appear in the report.”

The debate also further undermines the ridiculous effort of the Biden Administration to continue to withhold the audiotape of the Hur interview as privileged (despite saying that the transcript is not privileged).

The debate showed not only what Hur saw but why the Justice Department is making a clearly laughable privilege claim to delay any release of the audiotape until after the election.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment