Implementing all the tasks outlined in Australia’s defense review is a challenge that will take plenty of time, Professor Joe Siracusa, US political expert and dean of Global Futures at Curtin University, told Sputnik.
Australia has rolled out its new defense strategic review, billed by the government as the most significant update of its military planning in nearly 40 years.
The document outlined at least six “priority areas for immediate action,” including the development of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine capability and longer-range strike capacity, speeding up the integration of new technologies into the military, defense workforce retention and recruitment, plus improving strategic cooperation between Canberra and its key partners in the Indo-Pacific.
“These are major changes which are going to take a great deal of effort to realize, because they have neither the capability to produce the boats right now or the ability to manufacture the missiles unless they buy them off the shelf from the Americans,” Siracusa said, referring to nuclear-powered submarines.
The expert argued that the review “does two things: shows that [Australia’s] Labor [Party] is changing the battle plan for the country, and number two, that it’s serious about funding it.”
“It’s been very hard to get this kind of money up in Australia because Australians don’t like to pay a lot of money for defense. […] And so this is a major decision. And once again, it’s a decision taken by a government on a proposal that will take years to come to fruition, when and if it does. This defense plan is sort of a promissory note,” Siracusa claimed.
Joseph Camilleri, emeritus professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne and one of Australia’s leading international relations scholars, in turn, told Sputnik that the goal of the country’s new defense review is “to equip Australian military forces to support the US in any future military confrontation with China.”
According to him, the Australian government looks “to demonstrate that it remains a close ally of the United States and that it will side with it in any future conflict with China.”
Camilleri was echoed by Scott Burchill, Honorary Fellow in International Relations at Deakin University and author of The National Interest in International Relations Theory and Misunderstanding International Relations.
He recalled that the review stipulates a shift in Australian defense policy towards a closer alignment with the US military in the Asia-Pacific outlined under the AUKUS arrangements, which he said “is an incremental rather than a revolutionary change.”
“The emphasis on greater ‘self-reliance’ is welcome and sensible, but the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines and the ‘interchangeability’ foreshadowed under the AUKUS procurements suggest Australia is heading in the opposite direction: to an even closer alignment with US maritime interests in the region,” Burchill pointed out.
He said that Canberra deciding to side with Washington is “a development that will not be lost on the other countries of the region, Australia’s neighbors, who will again question the sincerity of Australia’s desire to more fully integrate with the Asia-Pacific.”
The European Commission has designated 19 online platforms under its Digital Services Act, a move that opens them up to hefty fines if they target advertisements at certain users, publish illegal content, or fail to “address the spread of disinformation.”
In an announcement on Tuesday, the commission named 17 “Very Large Online Platforms” and two “Very Large Online Search Engines,” defined as those reaching at least 45 million monthly active users. Among the platforms cited are Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter, while Google and Microsoft’s Bing are the two designated search engines.
The decision means that as of August, these platforms must be in compliance with the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a wide-ranging piece of legislation that came into force in November.
To avoid fines of up to 6% of their global annual turnover, the commission stated that these platforms must label all advertisements as such and avoid targeting ads at users based on “sensitive data” such as their ethnicity, sexuality, or political orientation.
Targeting ads toward children will no longer be permitted, and platforms will have to “redesign their systems to ensure a high level of privacy, security, and safety of minors,” the commission said.
Regarding content moderation, platforms will be required to restrict the “dissemination of illegal content” and “address the spread of disinformation.” The entire text of the DSA mentions the word “disinformation” 13 times without defining it. Free speech activists have argued that the term is often used by governments to silence factually correct yet politically inconvenient narratives.
The commission also warned that platforms and search engines will need to address “negative effects on freedom of expression,” a requirement that could clash with the demand to tackle “disinformation.”
While the DSA was being drafted last year, EU officials singled out Twitter as a company that would be forced to comply with its requirements. Immediately after billionaire Elon Musk bought the platform and set about rolling back some of its restrictive speech policies, EU industry chief Thierry Breton declared that “in Europe, the bird will fly by our European rules.”
Two months later, EU Commissioner for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova warned that Twitter would face “sanctions” if it breached the DSA. Jourova cited Musk’s banning of several prominent journalists – who shared information on his whereabouts – as potential DSA violations.
No, not financially. He makes $20 million a year while producing $77 million in advertising revenue for Fox annually.
And no, not in terms of popularity. His daily audience was just south of four million viewers and now that he has been fired by Fox executives, he is among the most famous people in America, at least in this news cycle.
We may resemble him in one respect however: his truth-seeking. Yes, he got some things wrong. Unless we’ve lived a life of total perfection, the same can be said for us.
We admit to being annoyed at times by the extent to which he personally insulted people as being fat or stupid (one need not state the obvious). In a world sagging under the weight of vulgarity he should have maintained a higher standard of civility and decorum.
His hyperbole was frequent. Too many events, people, crimes and grievances became in Tucker’s parlance, the worst or the greatest in “all of history,” which is the conceit of pundits and philosophers of every age, who are tinctured with eschatological notions. The preceding examples are however, peccadilloes rather than discrediting offenses.
The one occasion on which he did cross the line was February 22, 2021 when he was fed disinformation about the late Wellesley College Prof. Tony Martin (1942-2013) and heedlessly parroted the character assassination on his show, as part of an attempt to discredit Kristin Clarke, Biden’s Assistant United States Attorney General, with a guilt-by-association slander.
When she was a student at Harvard University, Clarke invited Martin to speak on campus. That was enough for someone at Fox to persuade Tucker to denounce Dr. Martin. Tucker complied, calling him a “noted Trinidadian anti-semite” and, “the author of a “self-published manifesto called The Jewish Onslaught… He attacked Jews and Judaism as a religion. Tony Martin spent his final years giving speeches to holocaust denial organizations on topics such as ‘tactics of organized Jewry in suppressing free speech.’ Kristin Clarke strongly approved of Tony Martin.”
The preceding reads like a press release from one of the thought police organizations that are today celebrating Tucker’s removal. Tony Martin was not “anti” any ethnicity. He was a gentle Catholic scholar, a self-made man and a native of Trinidad who became an English barrister, a PhD., an authority on Marcus Garvey, and professor of African history at Wellesley, where he placed a book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, on his class reading list, from which sprang most of his troubles, including the subsequent “onslaught” which he scrupulously documented in his book. The Secret Relationship is one of the most banned books in America (we surveyed ithere).
Prof. Martin endorsed its thesis as historically valid. What should have been a matter of rational debate between scholars was turned into the familiar “no debate with hate” hysteria too often used as a cover for denouncing a work of merit which self-appointed arbiters of approved history have not the scholarly means to challenge. The irony is that Tucker permitted himself (albeit briefly), to be a tool of the political correctness which ultimately cost him his employment with the Murdoch dynasty.
We believe that had Tucker known the facts about Tony Martin he would not have broadcast the segment. Unlike Sean Hannity and other Fox News talking heads, Tucker seldom trafficked in callous anti-Palestinian rhetoric or Israeli government talking points. On that score he will be walking on thin ice if he signs with the Newsmax television network, which is at least as beholden to the hasbara public relations of war Zionism and racist Israeli settler violence as any media outlet, Right or Left.
After years of broadcasting five nights-a-week Tucker was probably bound to blunder on occasion, as he did in wronging Prof. Martin. Nonetheless, the good he did far outweighed his mistakes.
In a comment briefly published on the website of the Wall Street Journaland then removed for “violating community standards,” we wrote:
“Ad hominem attacks on Tucker do not impress. His investigation of the death of Jeffrey Epstein in federal custody was brilliant. Part of his investigation included an exposé of Trump’s Attorney General William Barr on whose watch Epstein’s death occurred. Epstein’s molestation network included some of the most powerful and wealthy men on earth. If he was murdered in federal custody, this is an indication of profound corruption, and deserves the highest possible media scrutiny; and yet it was primarily Tucker who shined a light.”
To his credit, Tucker traveled to Las Vegas and broadcast his show from that city to focus attention on the anomalies in the 2017 slaughter of 60 Country and Western music fans blamed by the Federal government and it’s mouthpiece media on gambler Stephen Paddock (see our investigation, “The Route 91 Harvest Massacre” in Twilight Language).
“Tucker Carlson Tonight” was the only major news program to undertake a skeptical examination of the official story of the Las Vegas mass murder. Glenn Greenwald points to some of Carlson’s other valiant investigations:
“Tucker was the cable host who most opposed US proxy war in Ukraine; denounced CIA, FBI and the Department of Homeland Security for systemic lies and corruption; devoted himself to a pardon for Julian Assange; objected to regime change efforts in Cuba; criticized the Trump administration’s militarism.”
(He also exposed the U.S. government’s role in the sabotage of the Baltic Sea Nord Stream pipeline, and helped to kindle the memory of the largely forgotten Christian victims of the Nashville school shooter).
Two authoritarians, New York Senator Schumer, the Democrat leader in the senate, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, had demanded the government ban Carlson from the airwaves.
The Dominion Lawsuit
On her podcast, “The Megyn Kelly Show,” Kelly, a Fox News alumnus, stated in connection with Tucker’s firing and Fox Corpation’s $787.5 million out-of-court settlement with Dominion Voting Systems:
“This is a terrible move by Fox and it’s a great thing for Tucker Carlson. I don’t know what drove Fox News to make this decision, and it was clearly Fox News’ decision because they’re not letting him say goodbye. That’s my supposition. That’s not inside knowledge.
“The irony here is that — how did they get in trouble with Dominion? They called Arizona too soon, felt their critics, and ultimately that proved to be the case. They were under pressure by their audience to reverse the call.
“The audience started to leave them in droves because they felt betrayed. Like they didn’t understand the mission of Fox News, which is to be fair to especially the Republicans who don’t get a fair shake on other channels. And they (Fox) went into a panic as their audience started to flee. Then they over-corrected by covering the bulls**t claims about Dominion as though they were plausible and gave way too much credence to some of those claims on the air. He was not the reason for that $800 million settlement.
“So what do they do now in the wake of that settlement? They get rid of Tucker. Talk about misjudging your audience yet again. I think this is a massive error. I think this is a massive misjudgment of what their audience wants. If you are — this is a reaction to the Dominion lawsuit — why is Maria Bartiromo there? Why is Jeanine Pirro still there? Why is (Fox CEO) Suzanne Scott still there?”
Tucker’s Thought Crimes according to the New York Times
The New York Times, one of Mr. Carlson’s frequent targets after he stopped obsessing over small fry like CNN, could barely conceal its glee as Tucker was shafted by the “conservative” Murdoch family for whom he had made hundreds of millions of dollars. The Times haughtily charged him with begetting “misinformation.” This is a laugh coming from a newspaper that repeatedly states as an article of faith a lie of Brobdingnagian proportions: that individuals possessing xy chromosomes are “women.” It’s on that hill that the credibility of the New York Times has died and is buried.
The Times (here and here) inventoried Tucker’s thought crimes:
“He seemed to shrug off his on-air popularization of a racist conspiracy theory known as the ‘great replacement’ … When Russia invaded Ukraine, Mr. Carlson’s show frequently promoted the Kremlin’s point of view, attacking U.S. sanctions and blaming the conflict on American designs for expanding NATO… Carlson warned his viewers that they were under assault from liberal elites and unchecked immigration, borrowing some of his central themes from the white nationalist and far-right web and polishing them up for a more mainstream audience.”
The New York Times doesn’t offer reasoned rebuttal to refute Carlson’s theses. The paper generates shabby guilt-by-association inculpation. If Carlson believes the billions spent on Ukraine would be better spent at home, that the U.S., in the wake of costly no-win wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, should halt its role as world policeman, and that risking nuclear war with Russia while undermining peace talks flirts, with planetary conflagration— well, he’s not articulating common sense, he’s promoting “the Kremlin’s point of view.” The prestigious Times is the master of the cheap shot.
After much thought and observation, if an American honestly has arrived at the conclusion that President Biden’s far-Left open border immigration policies are disastrous for the country, then according to the New York Times that American is “borrowing central themes” of “the white nationalist and far-right web.” It is the brazen unfairness of that flimsy linkage, tossed recklessly for maximum effect, which Tucker shredded night after night amid peals of his own laughter. He was a merry warrior and his mirth was contagious.
The Times also avers that Carlson is guilty of the “racist conspiracy theory known as the ‘great replacement.” That concept puts forth the proposition that the U.S. government is conspiring to replace white Americans with a large immigrant population from south of the border. If that is a fact, it is not racist. Truth is not bias. The same obtains for statements of fact concerning our border. When you see facts subjected to politics you are in the presence of a commissar, not an individual interested in the advancement of knowledge.
Furthermore, the white nationalists enamored of the “You will not replace us!” slogan are in search of scapegoats to conceal their own failure. It is white people themselves who are at fault for voluntarily contracepting and aborting themselves out of existence. There’s no law in our nation that limits the size of one’s family, such as existed in Communist China. Get married; have at least three children. Train them up in the way they should go (Proverbs 22:6). Quit whining.
The smear that “Carlson backs white racist talking points about replacement theory” is actually a matter of prerogative. The media does not grant to Carlson the prerogative it grants to the ADL, the thought cops they rely upon for lists of dissidents to libel with impunity. It appears that the ADL is somehow, without so much as denting its brand, entitled to promote a replacement theory of its own. In 2010 the ADL went on record warning against the replacement of Israelis by Arabs. The New York Times does not disclose that fact when it is lauds and relies upon the ADL for data.
The Times also reported that in March one of Carlson’s former producers filed a lawsuit against him, claiming that he “ran a toxic workplace.” The producer, Abby Grossberg, said in her suit that “she endured an environment ‘where unprofessionalism reigned supreme, and the staff’s distaste and disdain for women infiltrated almost every workday decision.’ She also accused her former colleagues on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ of making antisemitic remarks… she accuses Mr. Carlson of presiding over a misogynistic and discriminatory workplace culture. Ms. Grossberg said… that on her first day working for Mr. Carlson, she discovered the work space was decorated with large pictures of Speaker Nancy Pelosi wearing a plunging swimsuit.”
If this suit is as frivolous as it appears to be, then it is little more than harassment. The opinionated charges it raises are subjective at best and more suited to a talkshow scream session than a courtroom. As a basis of litigation, unflattering photos of Pelosi are a nullity.
We Are All Tucker
The illusion factory seeks to project an image of justice, democracy and decency. Those who penetrate their veil of hypocrisy are stigmatized as little better than demons, haters and Fascists.
The ideal of dialogue and debate is increasingly delegitimated because, as the tenets of our Overlords become ever more preposterous, they can be readily exposed by granting a voice to doubters and dissenters. For most of us not in Tucker’s league, the suppression of us translates into censorship, online deplatforming and demonetization.
Many of us began our Internet outreach using YouTube to broadcast our discussions and lectures across America and around the world, and Paypal to efficiently process credit card orders for our book sales. When YouTube and Paypal were controlled by libertarians with a respect for the free marketplace of ideas which is critical to the advancement of knowledge, the free enterprise system was largely untrammeled on the relatively new Internet. By 2017 however, Paypal was under new ownership and began to deny service to dissidents. YouTube has also purged tens of thousands of independent researchers and scholars. The anti-monopoly aspect of the Internet, competing as it does with the corporate media, had to be curtailed for the sake of the success of the Novus Ordo Seclorum.
The potential of the Internet was being obstructed prior to the recent inauguration of the Rumble video service, Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, the podcasting host Transistor, and the emergence of Substack. These four are paving the way back to the original promise of the Internet as expressed in 1996 by one of its pioneers, the Electronic Freedom Foundation’s John Perry Barlow:
“I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us… a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth… a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.”
Tucker Carlson’s domain was the old media. He had a position within it that gained him nearly four million direct viewers and who knows how many others who obtained bits and pieces of his reporting from barber and breakfast shop conversations, podcasts, tweets and e-mail.
The Cryptocracy and its auxiliary, the Deep State, have a morbid fear of any opposition, however small, a trait visible in all totalitarian regimes, whether that of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin or Mao. As big as Tucker’s position was on cable television—and his footprint was huge—he was sacrificed to the gods of woke. “Thou showest the difference ‘twixt ourselves and thee, in this thy barbarous damned tyranny.” (Christopher Marlowe).
Even in this Revelation of the Method era where the crimes perpetrated against the people have been made manifest to such an extent that we are exhausted by the truth, even the slightest chance that Tucker might spark a peaceful populist uprising, militant in character and knowledgeable concerning the depth of media and government deception, had to be terminated.
The billions of dollars in the company’s coffers that Fox News chief executive Lachlan Murdoch commands were not enough to keep him from caving to the relentless pressure to can Tucker. This is not only a display of pusillanimity but of spiritual weakness. It serves as a tool for demoralizing us. A fearsome lesson has been reinforced, “Don’t buck the system. We are invincible.”
There has been a good deal of whistling in the dark in the aftermath, suggesting that Tucker will be better off and he’ll be going on to bigger and better things. We hope so. Godspeed, Tucker.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Nothing online or at the relatively puny and Zionist-compromised Newsmax can equal an hour in primetime five nights a week, on a television network like Fox that is viewed on almost any TV in America. The awesome power of that plugged in presence remains unequaled. Any job Tucker takes with any alternative will diminish his reach, though not, we trust, his message.
In that sense, Tucker Carlson, for all his accomplishments and the good he has done, is in the same boat with those of us who have been kicked off YouTube, Facebook and Paypal, had those who host our websites harassed, and our credit card acceptance terminated. It’s all one war on alternatives to the System, and for that reason we are all Tucker Carlson. For this week at least, he shares what we have experienced as veterans of the war of ideas.
…..
How did this come about? How do our enemies exhibit such solidarity and unwavering loyalty to their cause? Their cleverness, exertion, skill, planning and organization are generally outstanding.
It seems that the adherents of the diabolic can oft-times exhibit more dedication than the purported followers of Jesus. They are effective, tenacious and willing to suffer massive losses for their infernal cause; while with many of us, it is not that way. We will go only so far for Jesus and then, when our struggle for truth threatens our bank account or reputation, we meekly withdraw, with regret to be sure. Our absence from the field of battle strengthens the enemy immeasurably. “What treachery was used? No treachery, but want of men and money” (Shakespeare).
Jesus drew our attention to this ignominy 2,000 years ago when he observed, “For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” (Luke 16:8).
Obviously, He who declared that all power in heaven and earth was given unto Him (Matthew 28:18), did not intend for those who love and follow Him to be powerless.
In Luke 16:8 Jesus was pointing out the perennial tendency of the diabolic to effectively fight the godly when we fail to use the instruments Jesus has placed before us for battle.
When we rise to our destiny by defending and invoking His holy name and recalling that our time on this earth is meant for spiritual battle, and that our rest is in the grave, then we will begin to equal and surpass the devotion and discipline of God’s opposers.
In the sight of the betrayal represented by Tucker’s defeat at the hands—not of his enemies, but of the people he served—we soldier on. We know that Jesus Christ has dominion and nothing happens on planet earth unless he allows it.
We help to curb evil when, seeing a truth-teller assaulted or overcome, we re-dedicate ourselves to the Cause and fill their shoes.
Let us put the Cryptocracy on notice that every time they take down a Tucker Carlson, millions of us will stand up to emulate his pursuit of truth. We are on firm ground here for the gospel of Jesus Christ is always and in every age, counter-cultural. Woe to us when we curry favor with men and the media speak well of us (cf. Luke 6:26).
Because we are God’s people we reject demoralization. We remain more than ever resolved and stalwart in the face of what transpired at Fox News on the morning of April 24.
Hope is the virtue that expects God’s help. Truth is the witness we bear in order to receive it.
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE CONTRA CANCEL CULTURE
Last week in the New York Times, Harvard University Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. quoted from Carter G. Woodson, the scholar who founded Black History Month: “Starting after the Civil War,’ Woodson wrote, ‘the opponents of freedom and social Justice decided to work out a program which would enslave the Negroes’ mind… It was well understood that…by the teaching of history the white man could be further assured of his superiority…”
Gates proceeded to quote from Rev. Dr. King; “No society can fully repress an ugly past when the ravages persist into the present.” Prof. Gates commented, “Addressing these ‘ravages’…can only proceed with open discussions and debate across the ideological spectrum…”
We enthusiastically agree with these sentiments which, to tell the truth, are in certain respects mainly that—only sentiments. Being in the trenches of the censorship wars requires a willingness to radically displease contemporary white supremacist powers, who are no longer confined to KKK Grand Dragons, Exalted Cyclops and other easy contemporary targets.
It was four years ago this February, in the midst of Black History Month 2019, that billionaire Jeff Bezos’ Amazon colossus waved a giant middle finger at black history by removing and henceforth banning the sale of a trilogy written by a team of black historians.
How could this outrageous censorship have occurred without public protest, rallies, boycotts, seminars, an op-ed in the New York Times and sundry discussions and debates on network and cable television? None of that occurred because the forces of white supremacy arrayed against it were too powerful.
Mr. Bezos’ house organ, the “progressive” Washington Post, was as quiet as a democracy mouse in darkness, along with all of the corporate media. One glance at the titles of this trilogy may tell you why: The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, volumes I-III.
The study which the black scholars undertake in these volumes is the authentic history of the role of Judaic enslavers of black people in the New World, in addition to apostate Christians who perpetrated these crimes. They present the facts dispassionately. The books are free of rancor and invective.
“The Truth Hurts”
One of the conservative movement’s most distinguished white scholars privately published a collection of essays several years ago in which he surveyed a wide range of controversial historical issues, including the participation of some Judaic people in the slave trade in America. This conservative author wrote:
“Such was the extent of my knowledge—disturbing as it was – of one of the carefully hidden pivot points of… politics in America. What was my surprise, in the early 1990s, to learn that I ‘didn’t know the half of it.’ That was when Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam published its astounding study, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, laying bare in awesome detail the long buried story of Jews in the African slave trade. The unnamed but clearly astute authors note that they have chosen ‘to present evidence from ‘the most respected of the Jewish authorities’… in order to explore the proposition that ‘Jews have been conclusively linked to… the Black African Holocaust….’
“(I)t needs a little more than a cursory glance at The Secret Relationship volume one to see that its vast array of meticulous documentation does present a devastating testament to racial exploitation…on a staggering scale…The study is based on a huge number of scholarly sources, predominantly by top-flight Jewish authors. There are 76 books and 18 learned articles in the selected bibliography of volume one alone, with many more which I have not counted in the 1,275 footnotes. Most of those notes contain multiple references and enough supplementary material to duplicate a substantial portion of the text. In short, this is a formidable work of scholarship of a ‘classic’ style, not often seen these days. The tone is unfailingly judicious, and the authors make it clear that they have excluded sources considered to be antisemitic, and/or anti-Jewish. Small wonder, then, that The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews touched an extremely sore nerve, possibly of the ‘truth hurts’ variety…”
Readers can google the titles to find a number of criticisms of the trilogy which have been elevated by Google to the opening pages of its search engine. However, there is no substitute for reading these suppressed black history volumes yourself, free of prejudgment.
Making these black-authored books more difficult to find does not speak well of the strength of the arguments of those who denounce the authors’ thesis. Banning these magisterial works of black intellect during Black History Month no less, gives us a peak behind the curtain, affording a glimpse of white supremacy at work in 2023.
Due to their servitude to the white racists who control the funding and call the shots, it’s no surprise that Critical Race Theory’s (“CRT”) leading exponents dare not speak out on the subject of the hidden side of black slavery in the ante-bellum South, or of Amazon’s censorship of The Secret Relationship.
CRT activists and academics are virtually mute regarding the advancement of humanity’s knowledge of how black people first came to be the subject of racist disparagement and dehumanization.
Ancient and Medieval Ideological Sources of the Subjugation and Bondage of Black People
We regret to say that among the earliest sources for this subjugation was the Talmud of Babylon. Specifically, it takes the form of the oral Torah’s theological teaching, circa the third century A.D., that Ham, the son of Noah, sentenced to perpetual enslavement along with his posterity, was black (cf. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 108b). The Talmud identifies black people as those who therefore are justifiably forever destined to be slaves. Notice that we specify the oral Torah, the Torah shBeal peh (תּוֹרָהשֶׁבְּעַל־פֶּה) as culpable, and not the written Torah of the Old Testament—the Torah sheBiktav (תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב)—which assigns no racial identification to Ham.
Moreover, in the Midrash it is taught, “Ham and the dog copulated on the Ark (of Noah), therefore Ham came forth black-skinned” (Midrash Rabbah 36:7).
These statements, as found in the Midrash and particularly the Talmud—the latter is the groundwork of halacha (rabbinic law)—lend support to those who seek, or who have sought in the past, a divine rationale for domination over blacks. After the Renaissance, as knowledge of these sacred texts began to be more widely disseminated among Christian scholars and ministers, they served to exonerate the white supremacy which was the backbone of the racist belief that black servitude was ordained by God.
Apologists have claimed that these passages were little known among gentiles and represented an insubstantial and merely interstitial element in Judaism. This fallacy is impossible to maintain however, in the case of the authoritative teachings of the medieval Rabbi Moses Maimonides, whose revered image adorns the hall of Congress. Buildings and institutes throughout America are named for him.
Maimonides (sometimes known by the acronym the “Rambam”) remains, even in our time, among the highest halachic authorities in Askenazic Judaism. He has been prominently quoted for centuries by learned Catholic and in particular Protestant clergy. Their repetition of his dogmatic teachings trickled down to the congregants in the churches. “The wisdom of Maimonides” (still upheld in panegyrics published by the New York Times), became renowned as a reflection of his allegedly illuminating exposition of the Bible.
In the uncensored versions of his celebrated Guide of the Perplexed, we discover some of that “wisdom.”Maimonides institutionalized a heinous alibi for the subjugation of blacks which is among the most ruinous ever written, in terms of their impact on the West:
“….the Negroes in the remote South, and those who resemble them from among them that are with us in these climes. The status of those is like that of irrational animals. To my mind they do not have the rank of men, but have among the beings a rank lower than the rank of man but higher than the rank of apes.” (Moses Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, translated by Shlomo Pines [University of Chicago Press, 1963], vol. 2, p. 618).
Did you ever hear of this? Has this highly influential eugenic malediction, which circulated sub-rosa in white circles for centuries before the Civil War and Jim Crow, been publicly denounced during Black History Month, or at any other time? You know the answer.
Southern Historian Shelby Foote Echoes Maimonides
In light of his reputation for having deep insight into the heart of Old Testament doctrine, Maimonides has had a significant influence over Protestants in the South, even in our time.
The late Shelby Foote, an award-winning white historian of the Civil War who was descended from Mississippi gentry, quoted the statement from the Guide of the Perplexed on more than one occasion, including in the course of a 2001 interview with Brian Lamb on C-SPAN television. After remarking on what he considered high levels of black criminality he observed, “African Americans are acting as if the utter lie about blacks being somewhere between ape and man were true.”
Did you catch Mr. Foote’s backhanded method of confirming Maimonides’ dictum? It’s an “utter lie”—that may be true. Possible confirmation of the veracity of Maimonides’ words may be found in how “African Americans are acting,” according to the much-honored historian Shelby Foote, whose bestselling books freely circulate and are, needless to say, not banned by Amazon.
Concerning the consequences of the much-honored Maimonides’ hate speech, silence is all we get from elite whites, as well the domesticated servants of the forces of white supremacy. Some black Conservatives have been labeled white supremacists by progressives. In turn, we observe the presence of white supremacist functionaries among the Henry Louis Gates Jr. coterie, as well as the Obama, Eric Holder and Hakeem Jeffries entourage.
They all have the power and position in American society to decry Amazon’s censorship of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews and see that it is made a national issue. All of them have the means to condemn the legacy of Talmudic Maimonidesianism, made doubly insidious because it bears the imprimatur of religion.
They could speak with one voice to advance enlightenment for the good of all people, including the many Judaic persons who, when they become aware of the problem texts in their own tradition, are often quick to denounce them.
During Black History Month 2023, like every Black History Month for the past four years, the leading personalities who have made themselves central to the Month and who are extended favorable publicity by the ruling class media, dare not confront the obdurate and seemingly ineradicable white supremacy whose weltanschaung is predicated upon the theology of Talmudism and Maimonides.
Black History Month is captive to this self-censorship. It is like a domesticated lion whose rump has been flea’d and whose claws have been pared.
“(T)he opponents of freedom… decided to work out a program which would enslave the Negroes’ mind… It was well understood that… by the teaching of history the white man could be further assured of his superiority…”
It has been a hundred years since Carter G. Woodson penned those words. They are as salient now as the day he wrote them.
President Joe Biden and US Vice President Kamala Harris announced that they are going to run for reelection in 2024 on April 25, to the elation of some and the bafflement of others.
In the tweet announcing his latest presidential run, Biden said he is doing so because he believes that “every generation has a moment where they have had to stand up for democracy” and “their fundamental freedoms,” and urged his supporters to join him to “finish the job.”
James George Jatras, retired US diplomat and adviser to the US Senate Republican leadership, did not seem particularly impressed by the POTUS’ move, telling Sputnik that Biden is merely a “placeholder” and a “face for a deep state conglomerate that is essentially running the country.”
“We’ve got to the point where it really doesn’t matter who the Democrats put up as their candidate, it would be very difficult for any Republican candidate to win,” Jatras remarked.
He also remarked that, despite the Biden administration being saddled with quite a bit of economic and internal policy problems, the “very high proportion of Americans are simply not able to understand” what is really going on in the US and in the world, thanks to the “very managed legacy media here in the United States.”
“So they basically think, it’s all the Russians fault or it’s all Trump’s fault or maybe if they’re getting some money sent to them from the government a certain way that’s all they really care about,” Jatras elaborated. “I don’t think that’s a majority of the population, but a sufficient minority of the population, that provides the basis for the Democrats to be able to pull out a victory.”
Regarding the prospects of the Democratic Party in the upcoming presidential election, Jatras simply remarked that “that’s more than just the question of who counts the votes,” but also the “voting procedures, the media, the social media and everything else where it seems that the Democrats have mastered the art of political technology.”
“Especially in a presidential election, we don’t have a single national election as long as you can win several key states,” he added. “And the way you win those key states is to win several big cities in those states, you’re going to win the election. And given that the Democrats have virtually free reign to pack the votes in several major American cities, I think it’s very hard to see how they lose.”
Iran’s permanent ambassador to the United Nations says unilateral measures taken by the United States are against the UN Charter while threatening multilateralism in the world.
Amir Saeed Iravani made the remarks in a Monday address delivered during a UN Security Council debate on multilateralism.
“Multilateralism has been recognized as a well-established approach to addressing global challenges and effective multilateralism … is essential for ensuring international peace and security,” he said.
The official, however, warned that the integrity and effectiveness of multilateralism are undermined by the abuse of the UN system and selective application of international law, which pose a serious threat to international cooperation, peace, and security.
“Within this context, the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, re-imposition of illegal unilateral sanctions on Iran, its coercion of other countries to engage in these illegal actions, and defiance of the International Court of Justice’s order are striking examples of how such harmful unilateral acts violate the UN Charter, undermine the UN system and threaten multilateralism,” Iran’s ambassador said.
He was referring to Washington’s unilateral and illegal withdrawal in 2018 from a multilateral deal with Iran, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), whose other members included the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. After leaving the deal, the administration of former US President Donald Trump reinstated all anti-Iran sanctions that the accord had lifted and introduced its signature “maximum pressure” policy against Tehran.
The administration of Trump’s successor Joe Biden had alleged a willingness to compensate for Trump’s mistake by rejoining the deal, but it has retained the sanctions as leverage and even imposed a slew of its own coercive economic measures on the Islamic Republic.
“Unilateral coercive measures (UCMs), including their extraterritorial application, represent a concerning example of harmful unilateral acts that run counter to the fundamental principles of international law, the UN Charter, and basic human rights,” Iravani said, adding, “These illegal measures have far-reaching humanitarian consequences and can undermine diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving disputes and promoting cooperation.”
Iravani also referred a March 30 verdict by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled that the United States had violated the international law by allowing American courts to confiscate nearly two billion dollars in assets from Iranian companies, and ordered Washington to pay compensation.
“The ICJ’s ruling is final and binding, requiring the US to comply with this decision,” the Iranian diplomat noted.
Iravani said, “Collaboration should be the cornerstone of multilateralism, rather than confrontation,” because “collaborative approaches foster trust, build consensus, and promote sustainable solutions to global challenges.”
He concluded by saying, “Through collaborative problem-solving and engagement with all parties, multilateralism can effectively address the challenges facing our world today. In this context, diplomacy, dialogue, and negotiation should be the preferred means for resolving disputes among member states.”
Serbia may change its stance on Ukraine’s territorial integrity after Kiev abstained during a vote on accepting the breakaway region of Kosovo’s request to join the Council of Europe, Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic has said.
The Ministerial Committee of the Council of Europe held an extraordinary meeting on Tuesday to decide the fate of Kosovo’s application. The bid was supported by 33 members out of 46, with seven against, and five abstaining.
“I must say that Ukraine has surprised us unpleasantly” by being among the abstaining members, Dacic said shortly after the vote.
“This whole story is based on territorial integrity when it comes to [the conflict in] Ukraine. You know how much effort it takes for [Serbia] to vote for all the resolutions, to condemn the violation of territorial integrity of Ukraine,” he said.
The diplomat pointed out that “foreign policy is based on reciprocity. This will certainly affect our views in the future on territorial integrity of those countries,” he said, referring to Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, Slovakia, Armenia as some of the nations whose votes surprised him.
Serbia, which has close ties with Russia, has been resisting Western pressure to sanction Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine. However, it has condemned the use of force by Moscow and insisted that the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state should be respected.
The majority ethnic Albanian region of Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia back in 2008. The US and many of its allies recognized the province as a sovereign state almost immediately. However, Belgrade still considers Kosovo to be part of its territory and the region is not recognized by Russia, China and several other nations.
Pristina’s Foreign Minister Donika Gervalla-Schwarz hailed the vote as “a historic step, perhaps the most important after our independence.” The final verdict on the bid by Pristina is to be delivered by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Dacic condemned the development, warning that it may well lead to a situation where “a part of some other country is going to be offered to join the Council of Europe.”
Apparently, it is increasingly difficult to hide the Western participation in attacks against Russians abroad. In a recent report it was revealed that the US and its proxies had a secret plan to assassinate some commanders of the private military company Wagner Group in Africa. Wagner’s representatives would be in Mali at the time of the attack, which would make them easier targets than inside Russia. The case shows how in fact Washington and Kiev coordinate and jointly perform terrorism and sabotage actions against Russian citizens, which brings possible answers to other recent cases.
The plan was leaked by sources to an important western media outlet. The purpose of the operation would be to prevent the growth of Russian influence in Africa. As well known, the Wagner Group operates in some African countries, responding to requests made by the local governments themselves. Faced with the failure of initiatives by western countries – mainly France – to halt the advance of terrorism in Africa, cooperation in defense and security with Russia has emerged as an alternative for some countries on the continent, which apparently worries western authorities.
It was reported in the media that the Ukrainian intelligence agency GUR planned to operate an attack in Mali, which would be commanded by Kiev’s officer Kirill Budanov. On that occasion, several Wagner officers would die at once, seriously damaging the Group’s presence in Africa – and consequently boosting the growth of terrorism, as Wagner combats criminal organizations on the continent. However, for reasons still unknown, the operation did not happen – perhaps because there were more serious priorities on the Ukrainian battlefield.
On the other hand, the report exposes a successful plan by the same agents interested in assassinating Wagner’s officials. The case supposedly occurred in Libya, where a Wagner logistics aircraft would have been shot down. No details were given about the case, and there is no concrete data on what exactly the contents of the aircraft’s cargo would be. However, the report makes it clear that US and Ukrainian agents in fact operate together to kill Russian nationals outside the combat zone, which suggests answers to many other questions.
In several recent cases, Russian authorities have claimed that Ukrainian agents are involved in attacks against ordinary, innocent citizens, as well as against civilian infrastructure in the country’s demilitarized zones. In most cases, there is also a strong suspicion of US involvement, as Ukrainian forces are too weak to coordinate major attacks and intelligence actions abroad.
For example, Russian authorities have claimed on several occasions that the GUR was responsible for the attack on the Crimean Bridge, which took place in October last year. On that occasion, a truck driver who was transporting a bomb in his vehicle (apparently involuntarily) died after detonating the explosive, also killing two other civilians who were on the bridge at the time. In fact, knowing that the GUR planned to kill Russians in Africa and probably participated in the attack on a Wagner’s aircraft in Libya, the suspicions surrounding the participation in the Crimea case gain even more strength, since it is clear that terrorism is really a practice of the Ukrainian agency.
The same can be said for attacks against specific human targets. The homicides of Daria Dugina and Vladlen Tatarsky, both journalists with no military involvement, were the ones that made obvious the existence of Ukrainian terrorism abroad. Moscow identified those responsible for both attacks and exposed their connections with Ukrainian intelligence. In the specific case of Daria, US military informants even admitted Kiev’s responsibility. It only remains to be seen to what extent the Ukrainians would be acting “alone” in such incidents.
Kiev’s neo-Nazi regime has proved many times that it is not capable of acting alone. The actions of the Ukrainian armed forces are nothing more than the execution of orders coming from Washington. This becomes clear in the mere fact that the Ukrainian army and its allied militias continue to fight against the Russians despite being heavily weakened, without any possibility of reversing the military scenario of the conflict. So, it is to be expected that the same happens with Kiev’s intelligence agencies, which certainly work as mere proxies for the US, in addition to being extremely dependent on foreign aid to operate any kind of complex action – even more so when outside Ukrainian territory.
Knowing that Americans and Ukrainians jointly planned attacks against Russians in Africa, it is even more difficult to deny that the same certainly happened in the attacks inside Russian territory. Washington will certainly not admit this and will try to blame its neo-Nazi proxy alone, but it is evident that the Ukrainians do not have the operational force, technical capacity or even autonomy to make these decisions on their own. In this sense, as American participation in brutal crimes committed by Ukrainians becomes clearer, the greater the need for an international reaction to NATO, which must begin to be seen as an organization that sponsors terrorism.
Lucas Leiroz is a journalist and a researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Having formally joined NATO earlier this month, Finland has recorded its highest year-on-year spike in defense spending since 1962, the height of the Cold War.
Finland, which shares the longest border with Russia in Europe at 1,300 kilometers, recorded the most drastic spending boost in the EU (36 percent), underpinned by a number of costly purchases, such as a new fleet of 64 F-35 fighter jets from US weapons company Lockheed Martin. The 10-billion-euro procurement was billed as the single largest splurge in the Nordic country’s history.
During the late Cold War-era, Finland spent approximately 1.9 percent of its GDP on defense, yet saw its spending plummet in the subsequent years and reach its lowest in 2001 at 1.1 percent of GDP. Barely two years earlier, the defense expenditure still stood at a meager 1.3 percent of GDP. However, last year alone, Finland’s outgoing five-party government led by the Social Democrats agreed to add more than 2 billion euros ($2.2 billion) in defense spending, citing hostilities in Ukraine as a pretext.
In doing so, Finland notably eclipsed its fellow European nations, such as Lithuania, Sweden and Poland, which saw the next biggest spikes in their defense budgets at 27 percent, 12 percent and 11 percent, respectively.
As a new-fledged NATO member, Finland has emerged as one of the top military spenders in the alliance, spending about 2 percent of GDP. In 2022, only the US (3.5 percent of GDP), Poland (2.4 percent), Estonia (2.3 percent) and the UK (2.1 percent) spent more on defense per capita than Finland. Despite NATO’s spending goal of 2 percent, many nations fall well below this target. For instance, Finland’s neighbor Norway had a spending level of just 1.55 percent. Its neighbor Sweden, with which it filed a joint NATO bid only to part ways later on, has pledged to reach the bloc’s target of military spending “as soon as possible,” whereas Denmark seeks to reach NATO’s target within a decade, by 2033.
Meanwhile, global military expenditure rose to a record high last year amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which spurred European nations and, broadly, the West, into reaching spending levels unseen since the Cold War. European military spending alone shot up 13 percent last year.
According to an estimate by researchers from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), last year’s total global military spending rose by 3.7 percent in real terms to $2.24 trillion. SIPRI stressed that the hike rests on multi-year plans to boost spending from several governments, which is why it is reasonable to expect military expenditure in Central and Western Europe to keep rising in the years to come.
The importance of global cooperation and international law has never been more pronounced in the post-WWII era than it is today. The world’s most important organization in this regard is certainly the United Nations, with one of its main tasks being to uphold international law and maintain its impartiality, regardless of which country or entity it is engaged with. Unfortunately, the UN has failed on both counts, but its role as an international forum of sorts that serves as the last frontier of dialogue between states is still evident. And yet, it seems that even this largely ceremonial role is too much for the political West, as it undermines its desire for total dominance through the so-called “rules-based world order“.
Perhaps the best example (although “the worst” would probably be a more suitable word) of this is the atrocious treatment of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the UN. The latest UN Security Council meeting (chaired by FM Lavrov) should serve as a textbook example of how not to conduct diplomacy, probably for decades to come. The tensions have been quite high at the UNSC due to the political West’s frustrations after Russia took over the council in April, a rule based on the regular monthly rotation. Lavrov warned against this and stated that the world has become a more dangerous place, possibly more so than at the height of the Cold War.
“As was the case in the Cold War, we have reached the dangerous, possibly even more dangerous, threshold,” Lavrov said.
The meeting, titled the “Maintenance of international peace and security”, came under fire as Western diplomats repeatedly grumbled about Russia taking over chairing of the UNSC on April 1 and that it allegedly “must be an April Fool’s joke”. Lavrov himself slammed the United States and its vassals and satellite states for abandoning diplomacy and called for the clarification of relations on the battlefield. However, Western “diplomats” went about with their hostility, including Olaf Skoog, the official representative of the European Union to the UN. Skoog openly called Russia “cynical” for allegedly “trying to portray itself as a defender of the UN charter and multilateralism”.
“We all know that while Russia is destroying, we are building. While they violate, we protect,” he said.
This statement alone shows the immeasurable level of EU/NATO’s self-delusion, as the political West’s truly unprovoked and brutal aggression against the world stands as a stark reminder of just how opposite of truth this is. However, it wasn’t just Western officials that took aim at Russia. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also stated that “Russia’s invasion is causing massive suffering and devastation to the country and its people” and then (rather inexplicably) added that “it’s fueling global economic dislocation triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic”. Neither of these statements makes much sense, as he has said virtually nothing about the suffering of the people of Donbass in the six years since taking office.
“Tensions between major powers are at an historic high. So are the risks of conflict, through misadventure or miscalculation,” Guterres also warned.
Apparently, he stated this to “even out” his previous one-sided statement, but he failed in this too, as he never mentioned which side was responsible for stoking the tensions to a boiling point. Still, perhaps the most laughable example of endless hypocrisy came from the US, when its UN representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield called Lavrov himself “hypocritical” and criticized Russia’s counteroffensive against NATO aggression.
“Our hypocritical convener today, Russia, invaded its neighbor, Ukraine, and struck at the heart of the UN Charter. This illegal, unprovoked and unnecessary war runs directly counter to our most shared principles – that a war of aggression and territorial conquest is never, ever acceptable,” she said.
Again, such statements are beyond laughable or even enraging to dozens of countries that have been invaded or targeted by Washington DC. However, what’s truly disturbing is how the US is abusing its status as the UN’s permanent host country. There have been countless examples of Russian, Belarussian, Syrian, North Korean and many other officials, diplomats, journalists, etc. that have been denied entry into the US, preventing access to what is supposed to be an impartial organization.
These incessant Western-induced tensions serve as a testament to the notion that the UN should be reformed significantly. Liz Truss, one of the UK’s recent fast-track prime ministers, floated the idea last year, one of the very few things she was right about. Of course, her reasoning for the move was quite the opposite, but the point still stands. The actual world should start creating truly international institutions that are completely divorced from the malign influence of the US-led political West. This includes either relocating or even completely replacing the UN itself.
The very idea that increasingly irrelevant countries such as France or the UK have permanent seats at the UNSC, unlike actual giants such as Brazil or India, is geopolitically ludicrous. If the political West aims to control so-called “international institutions”, then it can do so within its own geopolitical boundaries. But the issue is that it aims to control quite literally everyone, which has been preventing the emergence of a truly independent multipolar world for decades. To say nothing of how the political West has been (ab)using the UN to promote or even impose its so-called “values” on the rest of the world, something that the vast majority of civilizations find repugnant.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
When New Zealand Civil liberties activist, Billy Te Kahika, was arrested in 2021 at a peaceful freedom rally in Auckland, he had no idea the legal battle he would face. Currently out on appeal, hear about the shocking 4 month jail sentence he’s facing for simply organizing a peaceful protest.
Government regulatory agencies are not weapons to be used against political opponents. Dr. Jensen is preparing a lawsuit to vindicate the rights of physicians and other health care professionals, cosmetologists, and anyone else who recognizes this grave threat to free speech and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The purpose of the suit will be twofold: First, to aid the courts in further drawing the line between protected speech and professional conduct subject to regulation. Second, we will hold accountable those responsible for the outrageous weaponization of government against Dr. Jensen and countless other professionals with the courage to speak out against censors and regulators run amok.
After being an outspoken voice during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Jensen had his medical license threatened 5 times by political activists who leveraged Minnesota’s Board of Medical Practice against him. These attacks on speech continued throughout his campaign for Governor of the State of Minnesota.
Others around the country lost their livelihoods and had their professional careers threatened because of similar government overreach. Their freedom to speak freely and question authority was crushed and their recourse was oftentimes nonexistent. We are pursuing this lawsuit to vindicate Dr. Scott Jensen and to set a precedent so that ALL healthcare professionals and beyond will have free speech protections.
The chief executive officer of Iran Electronics Industries (IEI) says Iranian experts have employed an array of electronic warfare tactics to successfully hack three hostile aircraft as they were on reconnaissance missions in the country’s airspace.
“A while ago, a hostile aircraft breached our flight information region (FIR) and started emitting waves in order to collect information. We confronted the plane straight away. The enemy pilot thought there was a technical glitch with his aircraft system; so he contacted his command center and informed them of the problem and the decision to return. That communication is in our possession,” Brigadier General Amir Rastegari, whose company is a state-owned subsidiary of Iran’s Ministry of Defense, told Tasnim news agency on Monday.
In aviation, FIR is a specified region of airspace in which a flight information service and an alerting service (ALRS) are provided.
Rastegari added, “The following day, two more enemy aircraft flew over the area in close proximity to each other. We disrupted their activities in yet another hacking operation as we had already detected and uncovered the bandwidth.”
“As soon as we started jamming, the two planes realized that Iranian ground systems were disrupting them. They, therefore, informed their command center about the presence of a jamming system in the area and their inability to operate there,” he added.
Rastegari underscored that the capability now exists in all units of the Iranian Armed Forces, and Iranian forces can at anytime jam hostile aircraft from a distance of several hundred kilometers away.
The Iranian Defense Ministry official went on to say that Iran’s military technicians have been for years engaged in electronic warfare to protect the country’s airspace, emphasizing that any intruding aircraft which has sought to penetrate into Iranian skies knows all about such indisputable prowess.
Earlier this month, the Iranian Army’s Ground Force unveiled its first indigenously-manufactured jammer drone, which is designed to disrupt the communication between hostile unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and their controllers.
Mohajer-6 jammer drone, equipped with a high-tech system capable of transmitting interfering radio signals, was inaugurated in a ceremony attended by Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi, the chief commander of the Iranian Army, and a number of senior commanders of the Army’s Ground Force on April 11.
The jammer drone is the Army’s first UAV with the capability to operate and support electronic warfare and electronic offense against the enemy’s communication networks.
Iranian military experts and engineers have in recent years made remarkable breakthroughs in manufacturing a broad range of indigenous equipment, making the armed forces self-sufficient.
Iranian officials have repeatedly underscored that the country will not hesitate to strengthen its military capabilities, including its missile power, which are entirely meant for defense, and that Iran’s defense capabilities will be never open for negotiations.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has repeatedly called for efforts to maintain and boost Iran’s defense capabilities, decrying enemies for questioning the country’s missile program.
Slava Zilber: Sam, three years ago, you appeared on Talk Nation Radio with David Swanson and spoke about the case of the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun. You pointed out that the people involved in the spying on the UN and the people authorizing the Iraq War were not held accountable:
“Virtually everybody who went along with the war, whether it is Kerry or Clinton, of course, the Bush administration themselves has falsified their own records in terms of why, what they did, when they did, why they did it, to the extent that they’ve been scrutinised at all.”
You also address it in a recent article. And recently, Joe Biden has been lying about his position on the Iraq War. How can such an important issue escape meaningful scrutiny? … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
