Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide

By Jeffrey A Tucker | Brownstone Institute | November 7, 2024

No matter how bad you think Covid policies were, they were intended to be worse.

Consider the vaccine passports alone. Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.

It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialed back.

Features of the CDC’s edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and mask mandates. It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.

Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.

The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.

It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.”

“This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings. This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available.”

By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided.

The meaning of “shielding” is “to reduce the number of severe Covid-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (‘high-risk’) and the general population (‘low-risk’). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or ‘green zones’ established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector, or community level depending on the context and setting. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”

In other words, this is what used to be concentration camps.

Who are these people who would be rounded up? They are “older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions.” Who determines this? Public health authorities. The purpose? The CDC explains: “physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population” allows authorities “to prioritize the use of the limited available resources.”

This sounds a lot like condemning people to death in the name of protecting them.

The model establishes three levels. First is the household level. Here high-risk people are“physically isolated from other household members.” That alone is objectionable. Elders need people to take care of them. They need love and to be surrounded by family. The CDC should never imagine that it would intervene in households to force old people into separate places.

The model jumps from households to the “neighborhood level.” Here we have the same approach: forced separation of those deemed vulnerable.

From there, the model jumps again to the “camp/sector level.” Here it is different. “A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together. One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The CDC is here proposing concentration camps for the sick or anyone they deem to be in danger of medically significant consequences of infection.

Further: “to minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile. Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.”

The plan says in passing, contradicting thousands of years of experience, “Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.” Therefore the only solution is to minimize all exposure throughout the whole population. Getting sick is criminalized.

These camps require a “dedicated staff” to “monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”

The people housed in these camps need to have good explanations of why they are denied even basic religious freedom. The report explains:

“Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.”

Further, there must be some mechanisms to prohibit suicide:

Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.

The biggest risk, the document explains, is as follows:

“While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.”

(It should go without saying but this “shielding” approach suggested here has nothing to do with focused protection of the Great Barrington Declaration. Focused protection specifically says: “schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”)

In four years of research, and encountering truly shocking documents and evidence of what happened in the Covid years, this one certainly ranks up at the top of the list of totalitarian schemes for pathogenic control prior to vaccination. It is quite simply mind-blowing that such a scheme could ever be contemplated.

Who wrote it? What kind of deep institutional pathology exists that enabled this to be contemplated? The CDC has 10,600 full-time employees and contractors and a budget of $11.5 billion. In light of this report, and everything else that has gone on there for four years, both numbers should be zero.

Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press.

November 8, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Western liberalism has ‘degenerated’ – Putin

RT | November 7, 2024

Liberalism in the West has devolved into an aggressive and intolerant ideology in which freedom, democracy, and human rights take a back seat to power, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

His remarks were part of a keynote address at the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi on Thursday.

“Today’s Western liberalism, in my opinion, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative, towards any sovereign and independent thought, and now justifies neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism and even mass genocide of the civilian population,” Putin said.

Moscow has traditionally considered the “collective West” to consist of the US and its allies in North America, Europe, Australia and East Asia. Their once-liberal governments have transformed their guiding ideology into something “totalitarian in essence,” the Russian president argued.

“Democracy is increasingly being interpreted as minority rule rather than rule of the majority, and traditional democracy is even being put at odds with some abstract freedom, for the sake of which – as some believe – democratic procedures, elections, the opinion of the majority, freedom of speech and impartiality of the media can be disregarded, or even sacrificed,” said Putin.

The Russian president called this trend towards tyranny as one of the biggest threats to the emerging multipolar world order.

The plenary session at which Putin spoke was titled ‘Security for Everyone. Together – Into a New World’. This year’s Valdai meeting is taking place under the motto ‘A Lasting Peace – On What Basis? Universal Security and Equal Opportunities for Development in the 21st Century’.

November 8, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

Censorship Down Under

By Kym Robinson | The Libertarian Institute | November 7, 2024

The Australian parliament pushes through a bill that will now control access to social media. Like most censorship and prohibition acts it is done under the guise of child protection, the fear mongering used has been constant. Children can be groomed, manipulated and infected with information and contacted by predators if only not for these measures. We are told, again.

What does it likely mean?

Given that social media will now be banned by anyone under the age of sixteen, it will require a proof of ID to access. The digital ID that has been avoided and rejected by most people is now a closer reality. Soon digital ID will be needed not just to access and use social media and online platforms and services but could be made a requirement across for banking, entitlement services, medical treatment, registration, licensing and employment. The State has control with its regulation and monopoly powers to lean into the service providers with its power to ensure that they comply.

It means that people will be unable to use anon accounts, and have to be themselves which has repercussions for employment. Those working government or corporate jobs can’t say or share things online for fear of punishment. This is why a lot of people divorce their online avatar from their real self. Not all are trolls hiding behind a digital mask to shitpost. This can include non-traditional social media platforms such as fetish, gaming and political outlets where anonymity is preferred. Digital ID also makes finding personal information such as place of employment and address easier to access for stalkers, given the States track record with the retention of such information in the past.

What is Social Media?

We think of Facebook, X(Twitter) and Snapchat along with the much hated by governments TikTok as social media platforms but this can include online forums, YouTube or any platform where there is a comment section, that has an interaction interface. Not to mention messaging apps that allows for the creation of groups such as encrypted ones like Signal, Telegram and Whatsapp.

TikTok has constantly come under attack because of it’s association with Andrew Tates rise to fame among young males, to the allegations that it is controlled by the Chinese government but the reality is that it’s used to get information out from conflict zones like Palestine without fear censorship. It also does not allow for the US government or its allies to access user data. While other social media platforms have to comply with the US and other governments to give up their information and privacy, TikTok is not controlled by such, just yet.

The same goes for encrypted messaging services. Which is why the owner and founder of Telegram has been a man of interest, foreign governments have threatened and imprisoned him in an attempt to force him to give them access to the platform. Why would they want to do that?

Naturally the naive think of criminal networks or even terrorists would be the main focus of such government surveillance but consistently the focus is on journalists, whistle blowers and human rights activists. And foreign users. Telegram for example has been used by those reporting on the Russia-Ukraine war giving raw and uncensored access in dedicated channels, both combatant nations want to stop this. Telegram has also been used by dissident groups inside of repressive regimes to keep information and news flowing in and out. While also used by journalists for information dumps.

The same goes for the other encrypted chats. Not to mention the fact that individuals may like to have intimate and private conversations between themselves without pervert spying. Spying which has been used to blackmail and abuse those messaging in the past for no other reason other than they were having a conversation with a lover or lovers that did not need to be public knowledge.

What is misinformation?

There is a lot of bunk online, always has been and always will be. Heck there is a lot of junk in magazines, books, on television and coming from peoples mouths. That’s something we have learned to navigate. The concern is that any information that is not APPROVED or controlled can no longer be shared or expressed. This information may be very factual and come from credible sources but it it is contrary to the State or a regimes ambitions then it is to be banned. Anything that challenges the control and influence of legacy mainstream media or the government has and is to be labelled as mis-dis information or harmful speech.

Both traditional forms of media are waning and have been avoided for some time. People have lost trust in them and look to alternatives whether they happen to be long form podcasts, journalists directly expressing information via social media or the many other independent news groups online. Many times those sources can be wrong and found to spread disinformation, they lose their reputation and need to work hard to regain trust. That is how a free market on information works. BUT legacy media outlets and the State have also been found to lie and spread nonfactual information that has been proven to be false. When they have the monopoly on authority there is no need for them to concern themselves with reputation or the notion of credible ethics because alternatives are banned.

The new Australian law makes it possible to go back and look at a person or organisations previous posts to punish them. This may include anything that challenges foreign policy, prosecutions against whistle blowers, handling of the COVID pandemic, or any conversations that may challenge the approved narrative in that time. This would include the sharing of Wikileaks and the many cables that exposes government and corporate evils which harm millions the world over.

Ultimately public servants in a government department will determine what a fact is. They will determine for you what information you are allowed to know and what you should be allowed to know. These public servants will also determine what opinion you are allowed to express and hear. The public servants will determine what information suits any given reigning political regime, meaning it has the potential to change at the whim of each and every election. It can also influence the public outcries of corruption that leads to Royal Commissions, or potentially what the findings are of such a Commission itself is.

It can punish academics, intellectuals, medical practitioners and scientists from having public debates and discussions which are crucial for the progress of each field. Limiting the conversation to echo chambers of elitism and removing the inclusion of such conversations from online platforms. Not to mention it will go after political and philosophical dissent, any one who does not have a homogenised world view. The believers of democracy boast that government is supposed to represent the people and be an extension of the mobs will, rather than determining what the public can think. This includes religion itself as that will suffer under such measures.

Many public servants especially those who aspire to such positions have a tendency of not understanding nuance, humour or the ability to see outside of their own self interested perspective. These are the experts who will be reviewing and disseminating what is allowed. The legacy and State media are exempt from punishment along with approved officials. This creates an information hierarchy determined by the State. The irony is that this Bill was pushed because legacy media outlets themselves spread misinformation themselves without fact checking.

Whose kids?

Even if this all remains specifically isolated to prohibiting anyone under the age of sixteen from using online services and platforms, why is it that the State can assume it has these parental powers? How is it that the State constantly can determine the rights of parents and what their kids can and can’t do. It is another example of the human ownership that government assumes over those who are born and live inside the borders of its taxation zone. There will be many who welcome this step with the belief that children are already drowning in screens and this will be a means of getting them outside and away from the digital predators or distracting influences of non-approved media.

Is that not for the parents and family to have this influence and to set those parameters?

Is it not enough that main stream television, print media and the radio are all heavily regulated by what can and can’t be expressed. Is it that those realms will now need to be more child friendly and inoffensive in their challenge of approved narratives or with the concern of triggering the most sensitive? Just as concerning is that the internet allows us to directly read Bills, studies, findings and reports without it being digested and ‘broken down’. Rather observe debates and challenges to dogma and doctrines that assume to influence and control us all?

Let’s not forget that the justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on lies, all since admitted. This has been the cast with other past wars such as the US-Vietnam war. The legacy media and State outlets went along with the narrative and snuffed alternatives out through the control of the informationspace. Now we have the opposite where the common person can witness through their screens an ongoing genocide in visceral clarity and can challenge the narratives, to the point that legacy and State media react by switching on how they report as a response to the widespread disdain for what is occurring. The awareness of what was occurring coming about because of access to many forms of media which granted an accurate depiction of events. Rather than a one sided version.

Censorship has been an obsession to curtail free expression using all forms of slurs ranging from hate speech, to dis-misinformation. We all should have the right to chose what we wish to hear or see and not hear and see. Even if the most obscene extent of potential for these laws are attained, government mercenaries will enforce them regardless, the market and those with a dissident spirit will find a way to defy. But for the mob who don’t challenge or seek alternatives they will be drunk in the miasma of lies that the government feeds them. The sad truth is in the many who wish to trample the flower of speech that pushes through the pavement of the dreary, rather than to appreciate it for what it is. But the spirit of truth will push through, shame on those who continue to poison it with the pesticide of lies and oppression.

November 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The Trump mandate

By Daniel MCCARTHY | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 7, 2024

Donald Trump has won a victory even more stunning than his upset defeat of Hillary Clinton eight years ago. Two impeachments, relentless lawfare and innumerable criminal charges, two assassination attempts, and an unceasing chorus of the nation’s most powerful media calling him a “fascist” could not stop Trump. In the teeth of all that adversity, Trump has only grown stronger. And now he has the symbolic yet potent mandate of a popular-vote majority.

That majority adds psychological force that makes the Trump revolution cultural as well as political. Before, it was easy for Trump’s critics to believe his 2016 victory was a fluke. They might have to deal with its consequences, including the impetus his election gave to a populist turn within the institutions of the conservative movement. But once Trump was out of office, those institutions would sooner or later revert to their former character. After all, populism didn’t have money behind it. If it didn’t have people, either, it wouldn’t be around for long.

Trump has shattered the laws of political physics. Realignments that had already begun as a result of Trump’s earlier success are accelerating. To appreciate the magnitude of what Trump achieved in this election, look beyond the states he won—in blue state after blue state, Trump made enormous, often double-digit gains. He made deep inroads into the Hispanic vote, particularly among men. Meanwhile, neoconservatives who held out hope of retaking the commanding heights of the Republican party if Trump was defeated have little choice now but to accept a place in the Democratic coalition. But they may not be comfortable there, either, as Democrats crack up over Israel’s war with Hamas.

This does not mean that four years from now the Republican nominee will be competitive in every blue state or will win a majority of Hispanics, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the GOP will be without a hawkish wing and some ostensibly pro-Trump neoconservative influences. The changes that Trump brings about are not necessarily linear. But they will afford opportunities hardly imaginable before this point. And J.D. Vance is well-equipped to make the most of them in 2028.

Although foreign policy was not voters’ top priority either this year or when Trump first won the presidency, war and the way leaders in both parties respond to it—or fail to respond—establishes conditions conducive to ideological mutation. How Trump handles the crises in Ukraine and the Middle East that he inherits from President Biden will be a watershed. Democrats who were reluctant to criticize U.S. support for Israel while that support was coming from the Biden-Harris administration will now hammer Trump over Israel’s actions. Can Trump make good on the faith placed in him both by Arab-American voters in Michigan and by ardent supporters of Israel? Can the green shoots of a return to realism in Republican foreign policy survive the burdens of responsibility that the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine impose? The wars themselves may not be America’s responsibility, but the administration will face tough choices about what not to do as well as what to do.

The possibility of wide-ranging new tariffs exists alongside the possibility that the Federal Reserve may be audited and compelled to answer to the public by the new administration. Moves in either of these directions would send shockwaves through Wall Street. Could the Trump administration be skillful enough to remake the fiscal and monetary systems without causing panic? If not, what milder measures could the administration undertake that would still address trade imbalances and inflation? Trump is open to considering a much wider range of possibilities than conventional politicians would dare to imagine, and even if his administration doesn’t avail itself of those possibilities, the mere fact the president would consider them will redraw the boundaries of policy discourse in Washington and beyond.

The president will be confronted by stiff opposition within the federal bureaucracy as well as from Democrats in Congress. He should not flinch from forcing reform on the administrative state and dismantling entire departments of the federal government. In this, too, Trump can be transformative. His experiences during his first term with leaks and policy sabotage originating from the bureaucracy should inform his handling of the civil service this time. It has been a power unto itself for far too long, and it has pursued not a disinterested agenda in the service of the public but a partisan agenda in the service of liberal elites.

New electoral maps, new issue coalitions, a new balance of power within the executive branch—all of these are just some of the domestic effects of Trump’s triumph. It also has the potential to inspire, or amplify, such changes all around the world. The precedent Trump has set is not only one that populist parties in Europe and elsewhere will take to heart. Mainstream parties that until now had looked to elite liberal opinion in the United States for guidance and guidelines will henceforth have to do some new thinking of their own, incorporating something of Trumpism into their dealings with America and perhaps into their politics at home. Emmanuel Macron joined Benjamin Netanyahu as the first of the world’s leaders to congratulate Trump on X last night.

The political and cultural aftershocks of Trump’s victory will not by themselves be enough to make the new administration a success—much hard work and resilience in the face of inevitable setbacks will be necessary, as in more pedestrian administrations. There is also a need for conservatives outside of government to answer the call, the moment presents to be both creative and disciplined. The right needs renovation, including in the way it approaches art and literature. Just as Trump has shown that a new majority can be forged in battles no one else would dare fight, the right may be capable of achieving greater things in the realm of culture and philosophy than it has so far been brave enough to imagine. What’s needed is not just a Trumpist or populist cultural program—though Hulk Hogan certainly has his place in America’s affections—but a cultural program as bold as Trump’s political challenge to the obsolete elite.

Trump should reawaken conservatives’ spirit of endeavor. Because he has dared greatly and succeeded.

November 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Victory & the Decline of Liberal Hegemony: “Unburdened By What Has Been”

By Professor Glenn Diesen | November 7, 2024

The election victory of Trump should not have been a surprise. The era of liberal hegemony has already come to an end, and a correction is long overdue. The liberal hegemony is no longer liberal, and the hegemony is exhausted. Trump is often denounced for being transactional, yet the de-ideologization of America and return to pragmatism is exactly what the country needs.

Change or Preserve the Unsustainble Status-Quo?

The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction, which placed Harris as the incumbent in an unfavourable position. Harris as the Vice President could not distance herself sufficiently from President Biden’s policies, which meant that she had to own the failures of the past four years. The message of “turning the page” did not resonate, and she was left with the meaningless slogan of “joy” – which only demonstrated her detachment from the growing concerns of Americans.

The borders have been wide open, media freedom is in decline, the government’s overreach is growing, US industries are no longer competitive, the national debt is out of control, social problems and culture wars are going from bad to worse, the political climate becomes increasingly divisive, the US military is overstretched, the global majority rejects Washington’s simplistic and dangerous heuristics of dividing the world into liberal democracy versus authoritarianism, the US is complicit in a genocide in Palestine and is heading towards nuclear war with Russia.

Who would vote for four more years when the status quo entails driving off a cliff? It is a good time to be in opposition and offer change. Being a populist with a bombastic demeanour, seemingly immune to consequences from breaking social norms, is a good feature when breaking free from decades-old ideological dogmas that constrain necessary pragmatism.

Neoliberalism Exhausted the US

“Make America Great Again” is likely a reference to 1973, when the US peaked and has since been in decline. Under the neoliberal consensus, society became an appendage to the market and politicians became impotent to deliver the change demanded by the public. The political Left could not redistribute wealth, and the political Right could not defend traditional values and communities. Globalisation gave birth to a political class loyal to international capital without national loyalties, and accountability to the public disappeared. Globalisation often contradicts democracy, and there is a growing division between illiberal democracy versus undemocratic liberalism.

A key lesson from the American System in the early 19th century was that industrialisation and subequent economic sovereignty is a necessity for national sovereignty. Tariffs and temporary subsidies are important tools for infant industries to develop maturity, and fair trade is thus often preferable to free trade. Trump’s tariffs to re-industrialise and advance technological sovereignty are noble ambitions that even the Biden administration attempted to emulate. However, Trump’s flaw is that excessive tariffs and the economic war on China will severely disrupt supply chains to the extent it undermines the US economy. The excesses of Trump’s tariffs and economic coercion derive from the effort to break China and restore US global primacy. If the US can accept a more modest role in the international system as one among many great powers, he could embrace a more moderate economic nationalism that would have greater prospect of succeeding.

Trump’s Vice President J.D. Vance correctly noted the self-defeating moralising of the US: “We have built a foreign policy of hectoring and moralising and lecturing countries that don’t want anything to do with it. The Chinese have a foreign policy of building roads and bridges and feeding poor people”. It is a good time for pragmatism to triumph over ideology.

Critics of Trump are correct to point out the paradox of a billionaire claiming to represent the people against a detached globalised elite. Sitting in flashy buildings with his name on the side in large golden letters, Trump has nonetheless taken the role of representing the American workers by calling for re-industrialisation. Raised in the excesses and hedonism of America’s cultural elites, Trump calls for preserving America’s traditional values and culture. Is Trump a saviour? Probably not. But policies are more important than personalities, and Trump is kicking open a door that was seemingly closed by liberal ideology.

An End to Liberal Crusades – Including Ending the Ukraine Proxy War

Trump’s appeal to end the forever wars resulted in invaluable support from former democrats such as Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy and Elon Musk. The liberal crusades over the past three decades fuel unsustainable debt, they finance the deep state (the blob), they alienate the US across the world, and incentivise the other great powers to collectively balance the US. The forever wars are costly mistakes that never end well, yet the US could absorb these costs during the unipolar era in the absence of any real opponents. In a multipolar system, the US must scale back its military adventurism and learn how to prioritise foreign policy objectives.

It is not unreasonable to argue that preserving the empire in its current format could cost the US its republic. Trump is not in favour of dismantling the empire, but being a transactional pragmatist, he would like a better return on investment. He believes allies should pay for protection, regional arrangements such as the former NAFTA and TPP that transfer productive power to allies are rejected, and adversaries should be engaged to the extent it serves US national interests. Trump is condemned for befriending dictators, yet this is surely preferable to the so-called “liberal” diplomats who no longer believe in diplomacy as it is feared to’ “legitimise” adversaries.

Trump would like to put an end to the proxy war in Ukraine as it is very costly in terms of both blood and treasure, and the war has already been lost. The liberal crusaders never defined a victory against the world’s largest nuclear power that believes it is fighting for its survival. Washington’s elites have repeatedly stated it is a good war as Ukrainian soldiers are dying rather than American soldiers, thus it is difficult to morally shame Trump when his main argument is that the killing must stop.

The liberal crusaders in Washington also frequently argue that the strategic objective of the proxy war was to knock out Russia from the ranks of great powers so the US could focus its resources on containing China. Instead, the war has strengthened Russia and pushed it further into the arms of China. A humanitarian disaster is taking place and the world is pushed to the brink of nuclear war. The economic coercion, including the theft of Russia’s sovereign funds, has triggered the global majority to de-dollarise and develop alternative payment systems. Trump is hardly innocent as he started the economic war against China. However, without ideological constraints, there may be room for course correction as he noted that the weaponisation of the dollar threatens the foundation of US superpower status. Yet again, pragmatism can triumph over ideology.

Will Trump be successful? He will certainly not end the war in 24 hours. Trump has the tools to influence Ukraine as the US is financing the war and arming Ukraine. However, Trump’s maximum pressure is unlikely to work against Russia as it considers this to be a war of survival, and the political West has broken nearly all agreements. Trump withdrew from strategic arms control treaties and armed Ukraine, which contributed to triggering the war. Russia will demand an end to NATO expansion in accordance with the Istanbul agreement, plus territorial concessions as a result of almost three years of war. Trump has previously signalled the willingness to offer an end to NATO expansionism, which could lay the foundation for a wider European security agreement. The conflicts between the West and Russia derive from the failure to establish a mutually acceptable settlement after the Cold War. The West instead began expanding NATO and thus revived the zero-sum bloc politics of the Cold War, and there has ever since been conflicts with Russia over where to draw the new militarised dividing lines.

Concerning Israel, there is an obvious exception to Trump’s aversion to war. Trump, Vance, Musk, Gabbard and Kennedy are all reluctant to take a hard line against the genocide in Palestine or even criticise Israel. Trump will likely continue to offer unconditional support for Israel and take a hostile stance against Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran. Pragmatism and “America First” will likely be lacking in this part of the world.

Panic Across the Liberal Empire

The opponents of Trump demonstrate a remarkable difficulty in articulating the case for Trump. Even if they know why people voted for him, they would feel morally compelled to refrain from articulating the reasons in fear of “legitimising” his policies with understanding. The inability to articulate the position of an adversary is a good indication of being propagandised. Have we been exposed to propaganda? There is clearly a tendency for ideological fundamentalists to present the world as a struggle between good and evil, in which mutual understanding and pragmatism are demonised as a betrayal of sacred values.

The panic and confusion is also caused by a dishonest media. The media has almost exclusively negative coverage of Trump, while Harris can do no wrong. Trump did not win despite the bad media coverage but because of it. A populist claims to be the real representative of the people, who will defend them against a detached and corrupt elite. The animosity towards Trump and his supporters was therefore worn as a badge of honour. The political-media elites used the judiciary system against the political opposition during the election cycle, they impeached Trump twice and tried him as a private citizen, and they attempted to remove Trump from 16 state ballots.

Trust to the media is not an advantage when it is not trustworthy. The Russiagate hoax from the 2016 election has been exposed as a fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story from the 2020 election was censored by the media under the false pretence of being “Russian propaganda”. During the 2024 election, the removal of Biden was largely a non-issue. The undemocratic selection of Harris was ignored, and the media instead converted her into a rockstar after ignoring her due to her failures over the past four years. The first assassination attempt against Trump went down the memory hole with remarkable haste, while most people are likely unaware that there was a second assassination attempt. Desperate media stories, such as Trump threatening Liz Cheney with a firing squad, were so desperate and dishonest that they had the opposite effect. The liberal machine, represented by an obedient media and Hollywood elites, has run out of steam.

Europe is in panic as they lost their ally in the White House and thus fear for the future of the liberal international order. Yet, the liberal international order is already gone and an ideological Europe is suffering from Stockholm Sydrome. Biden is complicit in genocide in Palestine, he attacked Europe’s critical energy infrastructure, lured European industries to relocate to to the US under the Inflation Reduction Act, brought major war to Europe by provoking a proxy war in Ukraine and sabotaging the peace negotiations in Istanbul, he intensified censorship around the world, and pressures the Europeans to reduce economic connectivity with China. After years of aspiring for strategic autonomy and de-vassalisation, the Europeans have subordinated themselves and accepted diminishing relevance in the world. The European political-media elites present Trump as the new Hitler, yet are in a great hurry to subordinate themselves economically, militarily and politically to the US. The Europeans are also worried that a similar leadership crisis has come to their own continent. Political elites committed to liberal hegemony have neglected national interests, and will be swept away in the years to come.

How will it all end?

The second Trump presidency will not be like the first term. The first Trump presidency was constrained as the Democrats largely contested the election results in 2016 by denouncing him as an illegitimate leader who had been placed in the White House by the Kremlin. The RussiaGate hoax has since been exposed and Trump even won the popular vote by 5 million votes, giving him a powerful mandate to pursue his agenda. Furthermore, Trump the first Trump government was infiltrated by neocons as he was dismissed as too radical. Over the past 8 years, a powerful MAGA movement has emerged that also consists of former Democrats.

One should be careful looking into the crystal ball and make predictions, and this is especially true with Trump. Professor Richard Rorty predicted in 1998 that the excesses of liberalism and globalisation would eventually be met with a fierce correction:

“Members of labor unions, and unorganized and unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else. At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots… Once the strongman takes office, no one can predict what will happen”.[1]

Trump has identified many of the problems plaguing the US and the world, although he may not have the answers. He will make many mistakes and his maximum pressure approach from business is not always transferrable to international politics. After decades of criminalising opposition to liberal hegemony, it should not have been a surprise that a “strongman” would be elected to throw a wrench into machinery. Trump is a wild card and the world is undergoing immense transformation, so to quote Rorty: “no one can predict what will happen.”

[1] Rorty, R 1998. Achieving our country: Leftist thought in twentieth-century America, Harvard University Press.

November 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Hungary’s anti-Orbán opposition party may implode following Trump victory

Remix News | November 7, 2024

While Donald Trump’s victory in the United States and the Hungarian opposition to Viktor Orbán may seem like two totally unrelated events, they are actually quite intertwined. The Tisza party, led by Péter Magyar, is tightly connected to the Biden administration and the U.S. foreign policy establishment, including through financing. With Trump in office, the party’s fortunes may change for the worse.

In fact, the Tisza party is already breaking out into panic following the results of the election, according to Hungarian news outlet Magyar Nemzet.

An online chat group of the Tisza Party refers to the “Western help” that the party receives drying up.

On Wednesday, Magyar congratulated Trump on his victory on his Facebook page, claiming he is ready to work together with Trump and his new administration.

However, in reality, there is no chance of that. Orbán is a well-known loyalist to Trump, and Trump has referenced Orbán throughout his campaign.

Furthermore, Tisza appears to be aware of this fact. Magyar Nemzet reports that in the Discord chats leaked involving party operatives, Márk Porpáczi, a Zala county organizer, said the party’s “biggest trump card is Western aid,” because nobody is interested in party programs but “Facebook is very popular.” He said that the party’s page is being boosted due to “external help.” He also noted it was not just Facebook but also “research, know-how, expertise and other soft power support. Tisza received a lot of help.”

Magyar Nemzet writes that “up until now, it could have been guessed that the Tisza Party received significant contributions from abroad, but no one in the party’s vicinity has talked about it so openly. When Porpáczi talks about ‘sharing research,’ the question can rightly be asked, ‘What exactly can these materials contain, financed by whom, for what purpose and from what source?’”

While Facebook support is one thing, intelligence activities, including clandestine eavesdropping, wiretapping, and theft of chats are also possible.

Regarding Facebook, outside actors may be helping with ad spend, but it also can refer to bot networks run by clandestine groups, including intelligence services like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or third-party groups connected to intelligence, but other factors may be at play. Notably, Magyar’s page receives huge reach on the platform, but like much of social media reach, much is influenced by bot networks and the whims of the people running these social media platforms.

According to Magyar Nemzet, “there is also a direct connection between the Hungarian party and Facebook’s parent company, Meta: Dóra Dávid, Meta’s legal advisor, became Tisza’s EP representative in the summer European Parliament elections.”

The U.S. Ambassador to Hungary, David Pressman, was known for his constant attacks against the Orbán government. He also funneled money to anti-Orbán publications. A new ambassador to Hungary appointed by Trump may entirely reset not only Hungarian relations, but it will likely lead to a complete cut in funding and support to Tisza.

Magyar Nemzet writes “soft power support can be extremely diverse: it can typically mean economic, cultural or even media support from abroad for Péter Magyar. And Donald Trump’s victory could mean that these subsidies will completely or partially disappear.”

In the chat, Tisza members also mocked Trump voters, with Porpáczi writing that “it is meaningless to deny that Trump is campaigning for dumber strata.”

Following Trump’s victory, another wrote about U.S. voters: “What about the people? Are they completely out of their minds?”

While Magyar represents the biggest threat to Orbán in some time, it is still at least two years until elections, and Orbán still remains an incredibly popular politician in his country.

November 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Canada’s McGill University event with UN rapporteur relocated amid pro-Palestine crackdown

UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca P. Albanese in Brussels, Belgium on April 10, 2024 [Thierry Monasse/Getty Images]
MEMO | November 6, 2024

The UN Special Rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, delivered a speech at McGill University in Canada on Monday despite attempts to cancel her appearance, in what is a reflect of a broader pattern of suppressing criticism of Israel on North American campuses.

The event, originally scheduled to be held at McGill’s Faculty of Law, was relocated hastily to the student union building after the university raised concerns following pressure from several pro-Israel groups. A letter sent to the university on Friday called for Albanese to be barred from campus.

Speaking to a packed audience in the venue, Albanese acknowledged the controversy surrounding her appearance. “I know the hurdles you had to go through in order to secure this event, which makes this moment even more devastating,” she told the organisers. “We cannot mourn, we cannot talk.”

The student organisers were sharply critical of the university’s handling of the situation. “It must be clarified that McGill fought to shamelessly shut down this event,” said student union representative Hugo-Victor Solomon, who claimed that the university had threatened disciplinary action against the organisers.

The attempted cancellation at McGill coincided with wider opposition to Albanese’s Canadian tour. The UN rapporteur later alleged that pro-Israel lobby groups had successfully pressured Canadian government officials, including Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly, to cancel planned meetings.

“It’s happening because of the pressure from pro-Israel lobby groups, who are very vocal, very virulent, very aggressive,” Albanese told reporters at Parliament Hill. “What are they fearing? I’m telling you the truth; I’m just speaking facts and international law.”

Despite the obstacles, the relocated event drew an overflow crowd, with students packing the venue to capacity. Organisers noted that the attempted suppression had inadvertently generated greater interest, drawing a larger audience than the original venue could have accommodated.

The controversy adds to growing concerns about academic freedom and open discourse regarding Israel and Palestine on university campuses. Critics point to what they describe as a pattern of institutional resistance to Palestinian advocacy and critical discussions of the Zionist state of Israel.

November 6, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK government crackdown on pro-Palestine support may turn to lawfare against political dissidents

By Muhammad Hussein | MEMO | November 6, 2024

Throughout the past year of Israel’s war against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the purported objective of wiping out Hamas, many governments across Europe have served as a kind of buffer for Tel Aviv, stopping at nothing to crush pro-Palestine protests. Demonstrators have been arrested and protests have been banned. The shameless labelling of all and any advocates for Palestinian rights as “Hamas sympathisers” and “anti-Semites” has exposed the obvious bias of European policymakers and police forces towards Israel and the Zionist narrative.

After around a year of such incidents and power games, the UK — the quiet repressor of dissent and rare expresser of policy positions — stepped up its own crackdown, arresting journalists or raiding their homes because of their support for Palestine and its people, as well as their criticism of Israel and its genocide in Gaza.

Last month, for example, British counter-terrorism police raided the home of journalist Asa Winstanley as part of “Operation Incessantness”, reportedly linked to his pro-Palestine social media posts. Although the specific posts were not detailed by reports, the authorities claimed that they were possible offences under sections 1 and 2 of the 2006 Terrorism Act, which pertain to the “encouragement of terrorism”.

Others to fall foul of this official crackdown in the UK include Palestine solidarity activists Mick Napier and Tony Greenstein, who were arrested last year over their expressions of support for legitimate Palestinian armed resistance and resistance movement Hamas itself. More recently, activist Sarah Wilkinson had her home raided by counter-terrorism police, and journalist Richard Medhurst was detained under the Terrorism Act upon arrival at Heathrow Airport.

Such raids, arrests and detentions by the British authorities are part of the wider repression of civil, political and press freedoms across the West as a whole.

First glimpsed during the “war on terror” years, we have seen the implementation of legislation granting governments greater freedom to monitor their citizens. The crackdown on hard-won freedoms was felt more heavily during the Covid pandemic. Many people who had not felt the weight of counter-terrorism policies realised suddenly that they too might not be exempt from being subject to pressure from the state, overreach and enforcement.

Today, with Western governments crushing expressions of support for the Palestinian cause or opposition to the Israeli occupation and genocide in Gaza, we are witnessing the next level of repression, symbolised by the way that the Establishment is protecting a rogue state which treats international laws and conventions with contempt — Israel — and the war crimes and crimes against humanity which are the inevitable result of such protection.

The repression is expected to get worse, with the UK in particular on a very worrying downward trajectory.

Following the election in July of the new Labour government under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, there was a brief moment when it looked as if the UK was ready and to offer more diplomatic and humanitarian support to the Palestinian people. There was even hope that the British government would not intervene to stop the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants sought for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and (now former) Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

Now, though, we see the Labour government putting the brake on soon-to-be applicable legislation in order to cancel pro-Palestine activism on university campuses. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was passed by the previous Conservative government in order to protect freedom of speech in universities and student unions by obliging them to take “reasonable steps” to promote free speech at the risk of facing legal action.

According to Labour’s Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, the government is applying the brake just days before the legislation is due to come into force, “In order to consider options, including its repeal.” She claimed that it “could expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses.”

Despite the UK government insisting that it remains “absolutely committed” to freedom of speech, it is suspected by many of seeking to avoid at all costs the possibility of higher education institutions, figures and even officials being held to account over censorship of pro-Palestinian views and criticism of Israel.

Tragically, the state crackdown in the UK and other parts of the Western world could have serious implications for campaigners who refuse to stop advocating for Palestinian rights. The days of assassination, indefinite detention without trial or state-sponsored kidnapping of dissidents’ family members have generally long passed in the Western world — for now, at least — but so-called “extraordinary renditions” of dissidents to more brutal Western allies around the world are not unknown.

Western states and intelligence agencies have another trick up their sleeves, however, and one that is perhaps more powerful due to its facade of legitimacy: lawfare. False allegations, heavy-handed investigations and legal action under draconian laws look like being the bludgeon of choice for governments to attack political and other dissidents, including journalists and activists. Anything is possible in the clamour to protect the Zionist state of Israel.

Character assassinations are likely, and even so-called “sexpionage”.

The Western media is already largely complicit in such acts, being very pro-Israel in any case, so they would come as no surprise to anyone engaged in pro-Palestine, pro-justice activism.

Individuals and organisations in Britain have already faced such attempts to discredit them. No evidence is ever produced; it is enough for Israel to say “terrorist” and Western governments and media join the fray. Once the “terrorist” genie is out of the bottle, it is very difficult to get it back in. Mud sticks, whether thrown legitimately or not. The intention, of course, is to intimidate people into submission, so that Israel can continue to act with total impunity, free from criticism.

Even ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan has faced allegations of sexual misconduct recently. Is it coincidental that these allegations have surfaced when he is seeking the aforementioned arrest warrants against Israeli leaders over war crimes, and shortly after a pro-Israel group threatened him with legal action if he failed to reconsider his efforts?

Another key example of political lawfare in contemporary times is none other than Donald Trump, who has faced countless allegations, lawsuits and character assassinations that have never truly stuck. He may not be the finest moral example, nor is he any great advocate for the Palestinians, but it is naive not to acknowledge that many of the attempts to discredit him have been politically-motivated.

According to US Senator Chuck Schumer in 2017, Trump was “being really dumb” for taking on the US intelligence community regarding its analyses of Russia’s reported cyber activities. “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” said Schumer in as clear an admission you can hear that if the government and its agencies truly decide to discredit anyone, they can and will do so.

That is true for most Western states, including the UK. If allegations of Anti-Semitism and support for Hamas don’t stop pro-Palestine activists, then lawfare surely will. That’s the Starmer government’s hope, anyway. And given that very few individuals have the same wealth, tenacity and popular support as someone like Trump to help them fight against the allegations, self-confessed Zionist Starmer is probably right to be optimistic. We are heading into dark times, and all in order to protect an alien state engaged in genocide. It’s a shocking and disgraceful situation.

November 6, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Appeals Court Rules Against CHD, RFK Jr. in Landmark Censorship Case

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 5, 2024

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is weighing next steps after an appeals court late Monday ruled against CHD and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in their landmark censorship case against the Biden administration.

The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiffs — CHD, Kennedy and news consumer Connie Sampognaro — have no legal basis to sue the Biden administration for pressuring tech giants to censor their social media posts.

Monday’s ruling overturned a lower court decision, made in August by Judge Terry Doughty from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, who ruled the plaintiffs do have standing to sue the administration.

Standing is the legal doctrine requiring plaintiffs to show they’ve suffered direct and concrete injuries and that those injuries could be redressed in court in order to sue.

The lawsuit, Kennedy v. Biden — filed in March 2023 — alleges top government officials and federal agencies “waged a systematic, concerted campaign” to compel the nation’s three largest social media companies to censor their constitutionally protected speech.

“We are, of course, disappointed with and disagree with the 5th Circuit’s decision here,” CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg told The Defender.

Mack Rosenberg added:

“We believe that the additional evidence CHD presented more than sufficiently established standing for Children’s Health Defense. We pointed the court to ongoing censorship activities by the government and we demonstrated that the government has a significant and improper role in the social media platforms’ censorship of CHD.”

Mack Rosenberg said that plaintiffs are weighing the next steps.

Censorship lawsuits against Biden administration continue to drag on

The decision marks the latest major development in the ongoing anti-censorship litigation against the Biden administration.

Two separate cases — Murthy v. Missouri (originally Missouri v. Biden) and Kennedy v. Biden were filed in May 2022 and March 2023 respectively against the Biden administration in Louisiana District Court.

The cases have different plaintiffs but make similar allegations: that the administration colluded with social media companies to censor plaintiffs’ speech.

Both cases cited the disclosures of secret communications between social media companies and federal officials — in the “Twitter Files,” other lawsuits and news reports — revealing threats by President Joe Biden and other top officials against social media companies if they failed to aggressively censor content that ran counter to official narratives, including those on COVID-19 origins and vaccines.

Doughty consolidated the two cases, allowing them to share processes, such as discovery of evidence. However, the courts continued to hear and rule on the cases separately.

Plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden sought and won a preliminary injunction in the lower court to prevent the Biden administration from pressuring social media companies to censor certain content. The administration appealed in July 2023 and in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the injunction.

The Supreme Court ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing because there was insufficient evidence they were directly injured by the government’s actions.

The Louisiana District Court later granted a preliminary injunction in the Kennedy v. Biden case; however, the court simultaneously issued a stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision on the injunction in Missouri v. Biden.

After the Supreme Court struck down the injunction in Missouri v. Biden, the 5th Circuit sent the Kennedy v. Biden case back to the District Court to rule on standing, where plaintiffs presented supplementary evidence.

The Kennedy v. Biden plaintiffs argued they had a stronger case for standing than the plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden because there is explicit evidence that both Kennedy and CHD were specific targets of censorship and that they continue to be censored.

In a declaration by CHD President Mary Holland, Holland said CHD was deplatformed from Facebook and YouTube in August and September 2021 and continues to be deplatformed from major social media sites to this day.

Doughty found the government’s conduct is traceable to direct statements and instructions to social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. He said Kennedy and CHD showed they faced ongoing injuries that could be redressed by the court.

In October, a three-judge panel in the 5th Circuit heard oral arguments in the Kennedy v. Biden case.

In its ruling late yesterday, the 5th Circuit disagreed with Doughty and concluded CHD, Kennedy and Sampognaro lacked standing for the same reasons the Supreme Court found the Missouri v. Biden plaintiffs lacked standing.

The court didn’t deny that pressure to censor and subsequent censorship of Kennedy and CHD had happened. Instead, it said the meetings between the government and social media companies had stopped in 2022.

Even if pressure exerted at that time led to the platforms censoring CHD, the organization could not tie ongoing censorship to government action, the court ruled. Therefore, plaintiffs have a “redressability problem,” and don’t have standing, it concluded.

Kennedy’s campaign Chief of Staff Brigid Rasmussen also described a series of content moderation actions taken by social media platforms against the Kennedy campaign.

The court ruled that Kennedy’s argument that he would be subjected to future censorship is speculative — and even more speculative now that his presidential campaign is suspended — and that he also therefore lacks standing.

The 5th Circuit’s decision voided the preliminary injunction and sent the case back again to the District Court.

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.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Outrage in France as MP proposes bill to ban criticism of Israel

Press TV – November 5, 2024

A proposal by a Zionist member of French parliament to criminalize all criticism of Israel has sparked outrage among activists and politicians.

Caroline Yadan, the member of the French National Assembly, will submit a bill that, among other things, would ban “the denial of the State of Israel.”

The bill would also prohibit expressions like “from the river to the sea,” during protests against Israel.

Yadan, who belongs to President Emmanuel Macron’s party, “seeks to suppress the freedom of thought, criticism, and writing,” Jean-Philippe Cazier, French poet and author wrote on X.

The lawmaker, Cazier said, is seeking “to prevent condemnation of the genocide committed by Israel in Gaza.”

European lawmaker Rima Hassan wrote in a message on X that Israel “deserves criticism,” since it has “violated all United Nations resolutions for decades and commits the most heinous international crimes.”

In a related development, Pro-Palestine protesters staged a demonstration at the headquarters of the French Football Federation in Paris, demanding the cancellation of the upcoming UEFA Nations League match between the French and Israeli teams.

Video footage of protests posted on social media shows protesters gathered in the lobby, where they waved Palestinian flags and held banners condemning Israel.

The French Football Federation has agreed to meet with the protesters to discuss their demands, according to the French daily Le Figaro.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Austria, Hungary working on reforming EU

By Patrick Poppel | November 5, 2024

After the founding of the “Patriots for Europe” platform in the European Parliament, this group is now beginning its political work. The last recent visit of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to Vienna is clearly related to this project. He was the first international guest to be officially welcomed by the new President of Parliament, Walter Rosenkranz.

This meeting would of course be presented as a scandal by the mainstream media in Austria. Orban also met the leader of the Freedom Party (FPÖ) Herbert Kickl. Since the Vienna-Budapest political axis has been very well established, it can now be expected that this can be the starting point for a new patriotic initiative within the European Union.

During the talks in Vienna, it was repeatedly emphasized that the European Union needs reform. The centralism of the European Union should be pushed back and the role of the nation states should be strengthened. The “Patriots for Europe” are clearly against gender ideology and want to preserve Europe’s cultural heritage.

A very important one is the failed migration policy of the European Union. One can see Viktor Orban’s current visit to Vienna as a starting signal for future campaigns. The meeting between the President of the Austrian Parliament (FPÖ) and the Hungarian Prime Minister had a historic character. Even though the FPÖ is currently not represented in the Austrian government, this party has the chairmanship of parliament due to the large number of votes it receives.

This party also plays an important role in Austria as an opposition force. Since this group of “Patriots for Europe” is also very well networked in other states of the European Union, one can now really speak of an opposition at the European level.

This group is also very important in security policy, as they advocate for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Even political opponents find it difficult to find arguments against this attitude, since the European Union has historically always been seen as a peace project.

What further political developments can we now expect? Orban’s visit to Vienna shows that the cartridges in Europe are very well networked and can react very quickly to developments. The political forces in the various EU states support each other. This is not only important bilaterally, but it will also play an important role in the European Parliament.

Austria and Hungary are now a good role model for the right-wing parties in other countries. It is of course clear that this political struggle in Europe is entering its final round. If the patriots in Europe do not succeed in stopping mass migration and defending peace, irreparable damage will occur in Europe.

This new alliance of patriotic forces at European level is perhaps the last chance for the future of Europe. However, it will be very difficult for all of these movements in the individual states of Europe to implement the necessary reforms, which are urgently needed.

European politics has gone completely wrong in too many areas. It’s not just about asylum policy or foreign policy. Europe’s economic and energy policy development is also catastrophic. It will take a lot of time to correct the mistakes of the last few decades, but it is not clear whether Europe still has that much time available.

The system’s parties and media expressed very negative opinions about this visit by the Hungarian Prime Minister because they were surprised by this action. The patriots in Europe are on the rise and the opponents are overwhelmed by this situation. Further elections in other European countries will confirm this trend.

The fact that a panel discussion was organized by a private Swiss media on the sidelines of Viktor Orban’s visit and that this event was fully booked shortly after the announcement also shows that the state media have less and less influence.

So not only are the patriotic forces on the rise, but also the alternative and private media. This means that the system in Europe is coming under increasing pressure. This visit to Vienna marks a historic date in the struggle for the sovereignty of the European peoples, as from now on the established parties have understood that they are not all-powerful.

But the harsh and rude statements from the other parties about this meeting in Vienna also show us clearly that the rhetoric is becoming more and more aggressive. It is therefore to be expected that the political debate will become stronger in the future.

The system loses influence and this leads to confusion and aggression. The patriots in Europe still need to organize and network better in order to be successful. The first steps have been taken, but much more effort is needed to defeat the old system. An important key to this is changing the media world.

Opposition parties and alternative media are the two forces that can bring about the necessary changes and decide the future of the European continent. Viktor Orban will play an important role in this future development.

Patrick Poppel is an expert at the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Manipulations Possible in US Elections to Prevent Trump’s Win – French Politician

Sputnik – 05.11.2024

PARIS – There is a possibility of manipulation in the upcoming US presidential election to prevent former President Donald Trump from winning, French politician and leader of the Patriots party Florian Philippot told RIA Novosti.

“We are seeing a trend in Trump’s favor in the US, there are many indicators — polls, voting intentions. But I am afraid of manipulation. In 2020, we faced machinations, and they can happen now from the deep state and the Kamala Harris camp,” Philippot said.

According to the French politician, the EU and France openly support Harris’ candidacy against Trump, who advocates ending the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

“The EU, of course, wants Harris to win: [European Commission President] Ursula von der Leyen, [French President Emmanuel] Macron. The whole system that supports NATO and the European Union, globalization, is on the side of Kamala Harris. The system that promotes war is on the side of Kamala Harris, that’s obvious, while the support for patriotism and the sovereignty of the nation is on the side of Trump,” Philippot said.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »