June marks a number of anniversaries, almost completely unknown in the West today, of significant events in the Allied invasion of the Soviet Union. Namely, when the entire wretched project began to spectacularly unravel. The loss of the Allied Powers’ Tsarist ally to the November 1917 revolution, and the embattled Bolsheviks subsequently granting Germany political and economic hegemony over Central and Eastern Europe via the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, led to wide-ranging imperial intervention in the Russian civil war, starting from May 1918.
The effort was led by Britain and France. Soldiers drawn from the pair’s respective empires, and Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, and the US, were deployed in vast numbers, fighting alongside local “White” anti-Communist forces. Initially prosecuted largely in secret, by June 1919, things were going so badly for the invaders that London formally dispatched a 3,500-strong “North Russian Relief Force” to the Soviet Union. Their ostensible mission was to defend threatened British positions in the country.
Almost immediately though, the “defensive” unit was deployed on offensive missions, to seize key Soviet territory, repel the Red Army, and link up with White Russian forces. This thrust was comprehensively beaten back, however. From that point on, Allied fortunes rapidly worsened. White Russian soldiers violently mutinied against their “allies” and defected to the Bolsheviks, while invading foreign troops simply refused to fight due to horrendous battlefield conditions. All-out Western withdrawal commenced before the month was over.
In failing to crush the Russian revolution, Britain and France lost a historic opportunity to “strangle Bolshevism in its cradle,”, in Winston Churchill’s pestilential phrase. The pair had agreed to carve up the Soviet Union’s vast resources while neutralising any prospect of Moscow emerging as a major international anti-capitalist agitator. The failure of invading powers to learn lessons from the debacle, and Russia’s visceral memories of the mass invasion, in no small part account for where we are today.
‘Prolonged Enslavement’
In March 1931, Western-dwelling Russian-born academic Leonid I. Strakhovsky published a remarkable paper, The Franco-British Plot to Dismember Russia. As the author noted, “neither Britain nor France has as yet published any important documents” related to the Allied invasion at the time. This remains the case over a century later. Yet, Strakhovsky was still able to piece together “the startling designs” of Paris and London’s conspiracy “to bring about the complete dismemberment of the Russian realm for their own political and commercial advantage.”
This agreement was cemented in L’Accord Franco-Anglais du 23 Décembre 1917, définissant les zones d’action Française et Anglaise (The Anglo-French Agreement of December 23rd,1917 defining the French and British zones of direct control and extended influence). The document established “zones of influence” for Britain and France in the Soviet Union. London was granted “Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia and Kurdistan.” Paris received “Bessarabia, Ukraine and Crimea.” White Russian military chief General Anton Denikin is quoted as saying “the line dividing the zones” stretched from the Bosporus to the mouth of the Don River:
“This strange line had no reason whatsoever from the strategic point of view, taking in no consideration of the Southern operation directions to Moscow nor the idea of unity of command. Also, in dividing into halves the land of the Don Cossacks, it did not correspond to the possibilities of a rational supplying of the Southern armies, and satisfied rather the interests of occupation and exploitation than those of a strategic covering and help.”
Strakhovsky observes, “a survey of the economic resources in the two zones of influence” lends credence to Denikin’s analysis. The territory marked out for French domination were and remain “large granaries;” and “the famous coal region” of Donetsk, “worthless” to coal-rich Britain, was “of great importance to France.” In turn, London “obtained all the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus,” and regions producing “an enormous amount of timber.” Britain urgently needed all the foreign wood it could lay its hands upon at the time.
Strakhovsky comments that the December 1917 agreement amounted to, “a picture of organized economic penetration under the cover of military intervention.” Elsewhere, he quotes dissident US journalist Louis Fischer, “a parallel agreement disposed in similar fashion of other parts of Russia.” Despite this, France was “not satisfied” with its resource windfall. Officials in Paris attempted to compel General Denikin to sign a treaty which, if anti-Bolshevik forces had prevailed, would amount to outright “economic slavery”, putting “Russia at her mercy.”
Denikin was not persuaded. His successor Pyotr Wrangel was. He accepted extraordinary conditions, which included granting France “the right of exploitation of all railways in European Russia during a certain period,” Parisian monopoly on Moscow’s grain surpluses and oil output for an indeterminate stretch, and a quarter of all Donetsk’s coal output “during a certain period of years.” As a Soviet writer quoted in Strakhovsky’s paper observed:
“France was striving to obtain a prolonged and if possible an all-sided domination over Russia… a means of a prolonged enslavement of Russia.”
‘Half Measures’
Britain’s motivation for invading the Soviet Union went beyond visceral aversion to Bolshevism, and a desire to take the fallen Russian empire’s resource-rich lands into receivership: Namely, London’s “fear of the rising power of Russia” throughout the 19th century, which had produced the “Great Game”. This confrontation in Central Asia was concerned with preventing India – “the jewel in the crown” of the British empire – falling into Moscow’s sphere of economic and political influence.
In a bitter irony, this longstanding anxiety meant Britain’s strategy in the Soviet invasion was equally concerned with crushing Bolshevism, while also preventing “the resurrection of the old great unified Russia.” This approach contributed significantly to the entire intervention’s failure. Strakhovsky notes, “Britain carried out her part of the intervention in Russia by half-measures, which certainly did not help the anti-Bolshevik forces in their struggle for a national government. He cites a Soviet writer:
“In the North as well as in the South and in Siberia, the tactics of the English were clearly denoted by their desire to support the Russian counter-revolution, only as much as it was necessary to prevent a unification of Russia on the one hand under the Bolsheviks, and on the other hand under the [White] supporters of the great one indivisible Russia.”
There was another ironic boomerang to Britain’s simultaneous belligerence and treachery in the Soviet Union. The paper concludes by noting that a contemporary parliamentary “special report of the committee to collect information on Russia,” produced at King George V’s express command, appraised that “the abundant and almost unanimous testimony of our witnesses shows that the military intervention of the Allies in Russia assisted to give strength and cohesion to the Soviet Government”:
“Up to the time of military intervention the majority of the Russian intellectuals were well-disposed toward the Allies, and more especially to Great Britain, but that later the attitude of the Russian people toward the Allies became characterized by indifference, distrust and antipathy.”
Per Strakhovsky, this “was the reward that Great Britain and France received” for attempting to dismember Russia. A similar dynamic is afoot today, as the Ukraine proxy war grinds on. The more genocidal, Russophobic rhetoric issues from EU and US officials, and the more Western-encouraged attacks on Moscow occur, the more united Russians become in opposition to their adversaries, and with each other.
The West has made no secret of its desire to “balkanize” Russia since the proxy war began. In July 2022, a Congressional body hosted a dedicated event on the “moral and strategic imperative” of breaking up the country into easily exploitable chunks. It proposed sponsoring local separatist movements for the purpose. A year later, Italian journalist Marzio G. Mian toured Russia, and was overwhelmed by how the population was unified like never before. A typically mild-mannered academic acquaintance of his had “become a warrior”. They said:
“[Stalingrad] is our reference point now more than ever, an unparalleled symbol of resistance, our enemies’ worst nightmare. Whosoever tries it will meet the end of all the others—Swedes, Napoleon, the Germans and their allies. Russians are like the Scythians: they wait, they suffer, they die, and then they kill.”
Newly released internal documents from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Germany’s federal disease control and prevention agency, reveal a stark disconnect between expert knowledge and public health messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Stefan Homburg, a public finance expert and retired professor from Leibniz University of Hanover, brought “seven shocking RKI files” to the attention of the English-speaking world in a video published June 19.
The January 2020 to April 2021 documents suggest that scientific advisers tailored their COVID-19 medical and policy recommendations to align with political directives rather than available evidence.
Commenting on Homburg’s video, former Pfizer Vice President Michael Yeadon, called the political interference with RKI’s scientific analysis and recommendations “appalling” and RKI’s continuing compliance “cowardly.”
‘This event was wholly political’
RKI played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s COVID-19 response. The recently disclosed files include internal meeting minutes from the agency’s crisis management team.
RKI subsequently made over 2,500 mostly unredacted pages publicly available on May 30, citing “public interest in the content of the COVID-19 crisis team protocols.”
According to the RKI’s introduction to the released files, the minutes “reflect the open scientific discourse in which different perspectives are addressed and weighed up.”
The institute cautioned that individual statements in the documents “do not necessarily represent a coordinated position of the RKI and are not always understandable without knowledge of the context.”
Yeadon wrote, “I don’t think there’s an equivalent document which admits repeatedly that this event was wholly POLITICAL and decisions entirely driven by non-technically qualified political people at the top of government.”
‘Experts knew this but stated the opposite’
Homburg discussed how the RKI documents expose several discrepancies between internal expert discussions and public health messaging:
COVID-19 severity: Contrary to public messaging, internal discussions suggested COVID-19 might be less severe than typical influenza. “More people die in a normal influenza wave,” one entry reads. “The main risk of dying of COVID-19 is age.”
“Right — 83 years to be precise, in Germany,” Homburg said.
“Rather, the public was fooled and forced for years to wear FFP2 masks,” Homburg said.
School closures: Experts recommended school closures only in heavily affected areas. “School closures in areas that are not particularly affected are not recommended,” the documents state.
However, Homburg observed, “In the same week, politicians decided to close all German schools for months.”
Vaccine effectiveness and herd immunity: As early as January 2021, RKI experts questioned the propaganda around herd immunity. One entry reads, “Are we saying goodbye to the narrative of herd immunity through vaccination?”
“Pfizer’s preceding clinical trial had not demonstrated protection against serious illness and they had not even tested protection against transmission,” Homburg pointed out. “The experts knew this but stated the opposite in public and even before our courts.”
Vaccine side effects: One file reveals concerns about serious side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine. “Sinus thrombosis is a side effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine,” the document states. “There is also a 20-fold increased incidence in men.”
Homburg alleged that shortly after this statement, “German politicians pretended to get the AstraZeneca vaccine.” He showed images of various newspapers announcing vaccinations by Chancellor Angela Merkel, Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach and others.
Despite this internal acknowledgment, Homburg noted, “The experts did not inform the population about this danger, but insisted that AstraZeneca was safe and effective.”
‘Corona was a singular fraud’
The documents reveal a concerning level of political influence on scientific recommendations. One entry starkly illustrates this pressure: “Still high risk, order from the Federal Health Ministry: nothing will be changed until the first of July.”
This directive apparently led to pushing high-risk assessments despite declining case numbers. Homburg argued that this political interference helped the continuation of pandemic mandates.
“In fact, nothing was changed for three years,” he said. “To recall, in summer 2020, Corona cases were approaching zero and the public wanted a halt to the measures.”
The files also expose the experts’ fears of losing their advisory roles if they didn’t comply with political directives. One entry reads, “If the RKI does not comply with the political requirement, there is a risk that political decisionmakers will develop indicators themselves and/or no longer involve the RKI in similar assignments.”
“Corona was a singular fraud,” Homburg concluded. “The virus replaced influenza while the total number of illnesses remained unchanged.”
German politicians divided on response
The documents’ release ignited a fierce debate about the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, reaching the German Bundestag. The following is adapted from Schreyer’s April 30 report on Radio Munich (translated from German).
On April 24, 2024, the Parliament deliberated on a motion by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group to establish a commission of inquiry to review the Corona period. The proposed commission would examine the limits of intervention rights of state and federal governments and review the roles of relevant actors such as RKI.
The debate revealed deep divisions among political parties. The AfD and Free Democratic Party (FDP) supported the establishment of an inquiry commission, while the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Green parties (also called Alliance 90) opposed it, arguing for alternative approaches such as a citizens’ council. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU) faction suggested a federal-state working group instead.
Some politicians expressed concerns about the RKI files. CDU member Simone Borchardt argued that the handling of the RKI documents — first releasing them with redactions, then later allowing access to unredacted versions — suggested a deliberate attempt to control or limit information.
The debate also touched on broader issues, with some calling for amnesty for citizens who violated lockdown measures. Others warned against seeking scapegoats or spreading “half-baked conspiracy ideas.”
Since Schreyer’s report, the political landscape in Germany has shifted significantly. The June 2024 European parliamentary elections saw a decline in support for the governing coalition parties, while the far-right AfD made substantial gains, likely strengthening the position of those critical of the government’s pandemic response.
Yeadon called for increased activism to bring more attention to Homburg’s and Schreyer’s revelations, especially in light of the recent “drumbeat of ‘avian influenza’” or bird flu.
“This task cannot be left to a small number of us with the information, because we are so effectively gagged in relation to reaching large numbers of people that the perpetrators are no longer concerned about us speaking out,” he wrote.
From 1996 to 2003, he served on the Scientific Advisory Board at Germany’s Federal Ministry of Finance. He also was a member of the Federalism Commission of the Bundestag and Bundesrat from 2003 to 2004, and the Sustainability Council of the Federal Government from 2004 to 2007.
He authored several textbooks on macroeconomics and tax theory and has been regularly called upon as an expert for Bundestag hearings on tax and financial legislation.
Homburg was generally regarded favorably in the press until 2020 when he began questioning Germany’s pandemic policies. Since then, he has written scientific articles and blog posts on the coronavirus crisis and related topics, published podcasts and participated in interviews and talk shows.
“Autopsy is not only a service to the doctors who were responsible for the patient, but it is a public service for our health system.” – Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt
Many cases of sudden death and severe disease are being reported since the rollout of the COVID-19 gene-based vaccines. Early on, several doctors and scientists warned that the COVID vaccines would lead to several complications including autoimmune disease, blood clots, strokes, and more. Additionally, The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, data showed a strong correlation between the vaccines and adverse events. But how does one determine in an individual case that the vaccine was the cause of death or the adverse event? It is through pathology.
An early pioneer of pathological investigations into vaccine adverse events was Prof. Arne Burkhardt — a senior, highly accomplished pathologist from Germany. Prof. Burkhardt came out of retirement in 2021 to examine the autopsy and biopsy materials of vaccinated patients. The work of Prof. Burkhardt not only provided strong evidence of vaccine causation, it substantiated the professional medical hypotheses of doctors and scientists around the world.
Journalist Taylor Hudak interviewed Prof. Burkhardt in his laboratory in Reutlingen, Germany, shortly before his death in May 2023. Prof. Burkhardt explains several of his findings in detail as well as which testing mechanisms he uses. Additionally, he shares his perspectives on the public health industry and academic and medical science as well as what motivates him to do this work.
Want to send a check to support TLAV, or just words of encouragement?
Use our new P.O. box:
Ryan Cristian
1113 Murfreesboro Rd. Ste 106-146
Franklin, Tn 37064
“Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.”
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange agreed to a plea deal with the U.S. government and was released on bail, leaving Belmarsh maximum security prison and the United Kingdom (U.K.) on Monday morning WikiLeaks announced on X, formerly known as Twitter.
His wife, Stella Assange, an attorney who has worked for years for his release, celebrated the deal on X.
“This is the result of a global campaign that spanned grass-roots organisers, press freedom campaigners, legislators and leaders from across the political spectrum, all the way to the United Nations,” WikiLeaks wrote. “This created the space for a long period of negotiations with the US Department of Justice, leading to a deal that has not yet been formally finalised.”
A federal judge must still approve the plea deal.
Assange is en route to appear Wednesday in a U.S. federal court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands near Australia. He is scheduled to return to Australia after the hearing.
In exchange for his release, Assange agreed to plead guilty to a single felony count of illegally obtaining and disclosing national security material in violation of the U.S. Espionage Act, The New York Times reported.
Under the terms of the agreement, Justice Department prosecutors will seek a 62-month sentence, which is equal to the amount of time Assange has served at Belmarsh while he fought his extradition to the U.S. The deal would credit that period as time served, which would allow Assange to return home, according to CNN.
The deal would also disallow him from later making any claim that his long prison time in Belmarsh, where he was confined to a cell for 23 hours a day, was unjust, according to journalist Glenn Greenwald.
U.S. authorities were pursuing Assange for publishing classified materials shared with him by U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010 and 2011. He faced 18 counts from a 2019 indictment for his alleged role in the breach that carried a maximum of up to 175 years in prison, CNN reported.
“US officials alleged that Assange goaded Manning into obtaining thousands of pages of unfiltered US diplomatic cables that potentially endangered confidential sources, Iraq war-related significant activity reports and information related to Guantanamo Bay detainees,” CNN wrote.
‘A very courageous human being,’ and ‘a generational hero’
Journalists, politicians, press freedom organizations and countless supporters celebrated Assange’s release, although they remained outraged over what they believed to be his unjustified detainment and that he was forced to plead guilty, despite having committed no crime.
Greenwald tweeted:
There’s so much to say about the Assange case, the outrage of his being detained for almost 15 years, being forced to plead guilty despite committing no crime.
But on a human and personal level, it’s beautiful to watch him leave prison a free man, and finally leave the UK.
Independent presidential candidate and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman on leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Assange had to take the deal to get out of the life-threatening conditions under which he was being held, “but the security state has imposed a horrifying precedent and dealt a big blow to freedom of the press.”
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender that Assange is “a very courageous human being,” who “has suffered enough. He stood up and he did the best he could.”
Boyle said that the plea deal required Assange to agree to a conviction under subsection G of the Espionage Act but also to concede that he had violated other subsections.
“In the future, the federal government can use this as a precedent to go after journalists” for violating those subsections of the act. “In my opinion, this is a loaded gun cocked at the heads of all journalists in the future.”
It means that any journalist in the future who publishes classified information or stories based on classified information could be prosecuted for violating one or more provisions of the Espionage Act, Boyle said — even though the First Amendment is meant to protect the press.
Press freedom group PEN America, which has long called for the U.S. to drop the charges against Assange, called on Congress today in a press release to reform the Espionage Act to protect press freedoms. It wrote:
“Congress should seize this opportunity to immediately reform the Espionage Act to include an exception for information disclosures that advance the public interest. This move would send a strong signal in defense of press freedom, strengthening protections for journalists in the United States and reducing the risk of the law being wielded for political purposes in the future.”
Assange founded WikiLeaks in 2006 as a nonprofit media organization to hold governments and political leaders accountable by publishing large datasets of censored and restricted official materials on war, spying and corruption.
The organization gained international attention in 2010 when it released the “Collateral Murder” video, showing classified raw footage shot from a U.S. Army Apache helicopter depicting the killing of over a dozen people in Iraq — including two Reuters reporters — along with other videos and documents leaked by Manning.
The organization also published other documents related to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The revelations became major global stories and led to intense scrutiny of American involvement in foreign conflicts.
Assange spent almost 15 years in various forms of detention. In 2012, facing sex-related allegations from Swedish prosecutors — which were subsequently dropped in 2019 — Assange said he was willing to travel to Sweden for questioning. However, Swedish authorities wouldn’t guarantee that if he appeared for questioning he wouldn’t be extradited to the U.S.
He sought and was granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government and took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy from 2012-2018, where he stayed in a two-bedroom apartment with no outdoor space and the CIA spied on him.
The British police arrested him and put him in Belmarsh prison, which the BBC has called “Britain’s Guantanamo.” He has spent the last nearly six years fighting extradition to the U.S., where he was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by allegedly committing conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information, following the massive WikiLeaks disclosure in 2010.
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
The International Movement for a Just World (JUST) empathises with the concerns expressed by several NGOs and public figures in Malaysia over the involvement of the investment fund manager BlackRock in Malaysia’s infrastructure development.
BlackRock has extensive investments in companies allied closely to Israel’s arms industry. It has, for example, a 7.4 per cent stake in Lockheed Martin, a US defence contractor that has played a critical role in arming the Israeli military. This is why Lockheed has been accused of complicity in the barbaric genocide in Gaza which is now in its eighth month. The CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, is known to be a staunch supporter of Israel in its ongoing massacre of Palestinians.
The company has earned the wrath of former Federal Ministers in Malaysia such as Khairy Jamaluddin and Saifuddin Abdullah, as well as a former legislative assembly member, Mukhriz Mahathir, and the head of the Malaysian branch of the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, Dr Nazari Ismail, mainly because it is now the owner of Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), a partner in a consortium to manage Malaysia’s 39 airports. Although GIP holds only 30 per cent of shares in the consortium — Khazanah Nasional, the government’s investment arm, and the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) own the other 70 per cent — GIP, given its expertise in airport management, will inevitably play a significant role.
Is it because of this expertise that GIP was brought into the partnership? There are other firms with a comparable level of expertise that could have been considered.
Why should we collaborate with a company owned by an entity that has such close ties to the Israeli and US military establishments?
It is a matter of serious concern because it is Malaysia’s airports — not restaurants or supermarkets — that are now being managed by a company owned by BlackRock. At stake is the fact that airport management places some highly sensitive data at the command of its managers; the Malaysian authorities should have realised at the very outset that this is a transaction that has profound security ramifications.
What makes BlackRock’s purchase of GIP and ipso facto its status now as partial owner of Malaysian airports all the more bizarre is the fact that Malaysian Airports Berhad (MAHB), which hitherto managed our airports, had no sound financial reason to sell off its shares to a US-based fund manager with close ties to Israel. It was reported in February 2024 that MAHB recorded “a net profit of RM 543.2 million for the financial year ending 31 December, 2023. This is a huge jump from the previous year, when the company made a profit of RM 187.2m, and also higher than the profit it made in 2019 before the Covid-19 pandemic paralysed the aviation sector worldwide.”
That there was no financial justification for the sale of MAHB shares is reinforced further by its excellent management performance. As its acting CEO Mohamed Rastam Shahrom was quoted as saying by MalaysiaNow on 20 June: “We have worked hard to deliver value to our stakeholders in the past year. Amidst improved operating conditions we have managed to deliver improved financial performance, and we are making good progress in our airport modernisation, digitalisation and commercial rejuvenation programmes.”
Some supporters of the move to bring in BlackRock and GIP opine that the real reason is linked to geopolitics. Since we have strengthened our relations with China in recent years, our leaders feel that we should also develop further our ties with the US. Balancing relations with the two superpowers should not mean a readiness to sacrifice principles. If Malaysia, which has often adhered to ethical concerns in regional and international politics, now deviates from such norms and tries to please one superpower or the other, it will tarnish its reputation and lose credibility.
As a nation, we should never be perceived to be colluding with entities that are complicit in one of the most inhuman and cruellest genocides in history. When the moral dimensions of a conflict are so stark, we must make sure that we are not dismissed as a bunch of people who “hunt with the hounds and run with the hares.” Our commitment to principles and ethical values in a catastrophe like Gaza should be demonstrated through deeds; deeds that prove over and over again that there can be no compromise with evil.
Journalist Tucker Carlson interviewed Republican Congressman from Kentucky Thomas Massie on June 7, 2024. During the interview Massey went into detail about how the Israel lobby bullies US politicians and co-opts evangelicals into getting billions of US tax dollars for Israel. Massie attended MIT where he earned a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering. Before entering Congress, Massie was a successful businessman who holds 29 patents. (See https://massie.house.gov/about/)
This video excerpts Massie’s statements about the Israel lobby from the full Carlson interview, “Rep. Thomas Massie: Israel Lobbyists, the Cowards in Congress, and Living off the Grid”. This can be viewed at https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show…
You seem very reliant on accepting Putin’s worldview
rather than perhaps the stark reality of the
barbarism with which he’s executed this war.
Yeah, maybe because I know too much about the United States.
Because the first war in Europe after world War two was the US bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a european state.
The idea was to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave, and then to install Bondsteel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans, in the southwest Balkans.
So the US started this under Clinton, that we will
break the borders, we will illegally bomb another country.
We didn’t have any UN authority.
This was a, quote, NATO mission to do that.
Then I know the United States went to war repeatedly,
illegally, in what it did in Afghanistan and then what
it did in Iraq and then what it did in Syria, which was the Obama administration, especially Obama and Hillary
Clinton, tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad.
And then what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi and then what it did in Kiev in February 2014.
I happened to see some of that with my own eyes.
The US overthrew Yanukovych together with right wing ukrainian military forces.
We overthrew a president.
And what’s interesting, by the way, is we overthrew
Yanukovych the day after the European Union representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections, a government of national unity and a stand down of both sides that was agreed.
The next thing that happens is the opposition, quote unquote, says, we don’t agree.
They stormed the government buildings and they deposed Yanukovych.
And within hours, the United States says, yes, we support the new government.
It didn’t say, oh, we had an agreement that’s unconstitutional what you did.
So we overthrew a government contrary to a
promise that the European Union had made.
And by the way, Russia, the United States,
and the EU were parties to that agreement.
And the United States an
hour afterwards backed the coup.
Okay, so everyone’s got a little bit to answer for.
In 2015, the Russians did not say, we want the Donbas back.
They said, peace should come through negotiations.
And negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the
east of Ukraine and this new regime in Kiev led to the Minsk II agreement.
The Minsk II agreement was voted by the UN Security Council unanimously.
It was signed by the government of Ukraine.
It was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France.
And you know what?
And it’s been explained to me in person.
It was laughed at inside the us government.
This is after the UN Security Council unanimously accepted it.
The Ukrainian said, we don’t want to give autonomy to the region.
Oh, but that’s part of the treaty.
The US told them, don’t worry about it.
Angela Merkel explained in Die Zeit in a notorious interview after the 2022 escalation.
She said, oh, you know, we knew that Minsk two was just a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength.
No, Minsk too was a UN security council unanimously
adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war.
So when it comes to who’s trustworthy, who to believe
and so forth, I guess my problem, Piers, is I know the United States government, I know it very well.
I don’t trust them for a moment.
I want these two sides actually to sit down in front
of the whole world and say, these are the terms.
Then the world can judge, because we could get
on paper clearly for both sides of the world, we’re not going to overthrow governments anymore.
The United States needs to say, we accept this agreement.
The United States needs to say, Russia needs to say,
we’re not stepping 1ft farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached and NATO’s not going to enlarge.
And let’s put it for the whole world to see once in a while, treaties actually hold.
This updated analysis was written in 2023 (read in full here at CHD Africa)
Sanctions are a powerful instrument of political control and economic profit. One of the rare but critical topics relevant to the international campaign to #ExitTheWHO is whether the World Health Organisation and the United Nations can impose, influence or recommend specific sanctions. The sanctions could be implemented against countries that choose to not comply or cannot comply with International Health Regulations, the proposed new pandemic treaty, or other legislative attempts that curtail rights, freedom and sovereignty.
The accelerating and profitable globalist march towards unprecedented levels of ‘1984’ style totalitarianism – using censorship, vaccine passports, 15 minute cities, and CBDC’s continues. It is plausible that the WHO and the UN will move to impose, influence or recommend sanctions against countries that do not want to or cannot comply with its centralised health agenda and undemocratic legislative attempts.
What is the basis for me raising the red flag on sanctions in 2023?
Health is no longer just health, as it is defined in the WHO’s constitution. Through Covid-19, and other controversially declared pandemics, health is now a multi-billion dollar health security industry. With it, creeps in the tyranny of secrecy, surveillance, vaccine certificates, forced quarantines, and the undemocratic censorship of free speech. Given the absence of public participation, the WHO is a strategic spear for oligarchs and corporations, and given international resistance to its power grab, it becomes desperate and argues or pushes for sanctions.
Reported in 2021: “In 2021, GermanHealth Minister Jens Spahn called for sanctions against countries that hide information about future outbreaks. Citing the World Trade Organization’s power to sanction countries for non-compliance, Spahn said “there must be something that follows” if countries fail to live up to commitments under a new pandemic treaty that the World Health Assembly will take up in November.”
Further, it is entirely under reported that controversial “World Health OrganizationDirector-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus also urged countries to consider the idea as they take up the treaty, a legally binding tool. The treaty should “have all the incentives, or the carrots” to encourage transparency, Tedros said, appearing at a press conference with Spahn in Berlin. “But maybe exploring the sanctions may be important,” he added.”
Also reported in 2021: “Speaking at the WHA in June, Mike Ryan, WHO Health Emergencies Programme Executive Director, also spoke out in favour of the treaty, despite the fact that WHO technical staff have historically avoided taking positions on controversial policy choices before member states. “My personal view is that we need a political treaty that makes the highest-level commitment to the principles of global health security — and then we can get on with building the blocks on this foundation.”
I engaged renowned international law expert Professor Francis Boyle about the possibility of sanctions via the WHO. He had no doubt “They will pursue sanctions against countries that do not comply with their orders, coming from Geneva. Both economic and political sanctions. However, they will only have the power to pursue sanctions if we accept their authority. We cannot. We must exit the WHO.”
UN Power Grab. Disaster Capitalism 101.
With far less public scrutiny currently than the controversial WHO, the United Nations is simultaneously seeking exponential new powers and stronger global governance mechanisms, including multilateralism, to deal with what they define as international emergencies.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ Common Agenda report arises from a UN declaration on the commemoration of its seventy-fifth anniversary. This report states “All proposed actions are designed to accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Our Common Agenda is intended to advance the 12 themes of the declaration.”
In March 2023, UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres released a related policy brief: To Think and Act for Future Generations – OUR COMMON AGENDA – Policy Brief 2 – Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform.
One of this policy brief’s 12 key themes is ‘Being Prepared’, which includes:
1. Emergency Platform to be convened in response to complex global crises
2. Strategic Foresight and Global Risk Report by the United Nations every five years
3. On global public health:
a) Global vaccination plan
b) Empowered WHO
c) Stronger global health security and preparedness
d) Accelerate product development and access to health technologies in low- and middle-income countries
e) Universal health coverage and addressing determinants of health
Under the topic of addressing major risks, Guterres states:
98. An effort is warranted to better define and identify the extreme, catastrophic and existential risks that we face. We cannot, however, wait for an agreement on definitions before we act.
99. Learning lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, we can seize this opportunity to better anticipate and prepare to respond to large-scale global crises. This requires stronger legal frameworks, better tools for managing risks, better data, the identification and anticipation of future risks, and proper financing of prevention and preparedness. Importantly, however, any new preparedness and response measures should be agnostic as to the type of crisis for which they may be needed. We do not know which extreme risk event will come next. It might be another pandemic, a new war, a high-consequence biological attack, a cyberattack on critical infrastructure, a nuclear event, a rapidly moving environmental disaster, or something completely different such as technological or scientific developments gone awry and unconstrained by effective ethical and regulatory frameworks.
101. Secondly, I propose to work with Member States to establish an Emergency Platform to respond to complex global crises. The platform would not be a new permanent or standing body or institution. It would be triggered automatically in crises of sufficient scale and magnitude, regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved. Once activated, it would bring together leaders from Member States, the United Nations system, key country groupings, international financial institutions, regional bodies, civil society, the private sector, subject-specific industries or research bodies and other experts. The terms of reference would set out the modalities and criteria for the activation of the platform, including the scale and scope of the crisis; funding and financing; the identification of relevant actors who would form part of it; the support that it would be expected to provide; and the criteria for its deactivation. The platform would allow the convening role of the Secretary-General to be maximized in the face of crises with global reach.
DIAGRAM: Policy Brief 2 – Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform
UN’s Emergency Platform = One World Government backdoor
The emergency platform would be activated during any event that is deemed to have a global impact, and would provide the UN the authority to actively promote and drive an international response. Antonio Guterres, UN secretary-general, declared: “I propose that the General Assembly provide the Secretary-General and the United Nations system with a standing authority to convene and operationalize automatically an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach.”
The policy further argues that such authority would “Ensure that all participating actors make commitments that can contribute meaningfully to the response, and that they are held to account for delivery on those commitments.” While the policy states that the emergency authority would have limited duration, it also states that the UN would be able to extend its own powers if it decides to do so. These powers would effectively render public consensus unnecessary, democracies obsolete, and the role of politicians largely irrelevant.
These all encompassing areas of expanded emergency powers relate to:
pandemics
wars and nuclear events
climate or environmental events, degradation or disaster;
accidental or deliberate release of biological agents;
disruptions in the flow of goods, people, or finance;
disruptions in cyberspace or “global digital connectivity;”
a cyberattack on critical infrastructure
a major event in “outer space;”
“unforeseen risks (‘black swan’ events)
technological or scientific developments gone awry – and unconstrained by effective ethical and regulatory frameworks.
At least 7 out of 10 of the above areas have already happened or are happening.
What does the UN have planned?
On September 20th 2023, the UN intends to adopt a high level political declaration on pandemics. In my analysis, the UN pathway to the one health and one world government agenda is a back up plan to the WHO’s trajectory which is increasingly exposed and resisted.
The UN is planning to host its related ‘Summit of the Future’ in September 2024. Guterres stated “The Summit of the Future is an opportunity to agree on multilateral solutions for a better tomorrow, strengthening global governance for both present and future generations.” The UN website states “The General Assembly welcomed the submission of Our Common Agenda and passed a resolution to hold the Summit on 22-23 September 2024, preceded by a ministerial meeting in 2023. An action-oriented Pact for the Future is expected to be agreed by Member States through intergovernmental negotiations on issues they decide to take forward.”
Understanding Sanctions or Unilateral Coercive Measures
Sanctions are action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws. There are several types of sanctions imposed through the United Nations:
Economic sanctions are distinguished from trade sanctions, which are applied for purely economic reasons, and typically take the form of tariffs or similar measures.
It is plausible that the UN’s controllers realise that the world is pushing back against the WHO’s overreach, or find it irrelevant to real health. Given that sovereign nations will choose to exit the WHO, the UN decided to launch plan B and ascribe to itself even greater powers. Technically, there is no legislation to exit the United Nations within the UN Charter. Again, this is a critical issue of national sovereignty.
Can the WHO and the UN collaborate on sanctions?
The WHO is an agency of the United Nations.
In 2015, on punishing member states who violate the International Health Regulations (IHR), as reported: “United Nations health officials said they want to impose sanctions on countries that do not comply with public health regulations meant to avoid the spread of dangerous epidemics, such as the Ebola outbreak that killed more than 9,000 people and ravaged domestic health care systems in West Africa last year.
World Health Organization Director Margaret Chan said she is investigating ways to reprimand countries that disobey the IHR — a set of rules adopted in 2005 and mandate that countries set up epidemiological surveillance systems, fund local health care infrastructure and restrict international trade and travel to affected regions deemed unsafe to the public, among other provisions. Chan is on a panel set up by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who instructed the group to think of ways to hold countries accountable for how they manage public health crises and punish those who violate the IHR.”
In 2022, according to commentators in a policy article: “In order to enforce compliance, some commentators have recommended concluding the treaty at the United Nations level. However, we fear that it has been already decided with the INB (mandated by WHASS) that a treaty will be developed under the roof of WHO. They added: “To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically. If international pandemic response is enhanced, compliance is enhanced. In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support.
These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak. High-income settings may not be motivated by financial resources in the same way as their low-income counterparts. An adaptable incentive regime is therefore needed, with sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.”
Conclusion
Given the rapidly growing distrust in the WHO, its historical failures and harms, Covid-19 failures and harms, and the fact that it cannot maintain independence because it is a largely privately funded entity; it is plausible that the WHO and/or the UN will move to impose or influence sanctions via the World Trade Organisation, ahead of Agenda 2030. This act of aggression weaponises the WHO and/or the UN against countries that influential funders and unethical stakeholders have an interest in destabilising for power and resource control.
This sinister strategy has disturbing implications for democracy, peace, and prosperity around the world. Freedom faces an existential risk through unelected bureaucratic entities. Nations can and must protect their sovereignty by defunding and exiting WHO, and, by critically assessing the true history, nature, value, and risks of continued membership in the 78 year old United Nations. Not to do so, means to ignore the risks of UN peacekeepers, known to commit crimes with impunity, being deployed in your country to enforce UN and WHO governance.
Apparently, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo is to blame for the outbreaks.
After several measles cases were reported in a Florida school, Ladapo allowed parents to choose whether they wanted their healthy children to attend school during that time, even if they were unvaccinated against the disease.
In a letter to parents, Ladapo wrote “Due to the high immunity rate in the community, as well as the burden on families and educational cost of healthy children missing school, DOH is deferring to parents or guardians to make decisions about school attendance.”
The advice sparked outrage because it contradicted the CDC’s official advice which recommends a 21-day ‘quarantine’ for individuals who have not been vaccinated against measles or do not have prior immunity.
Ladapo was labelled “anti-vax,” accused of being the Governor’s “lap dog” making maverick proclamations that would pose “an unacceptable danger to the health of Florida residents” and fuelling the growing distrust in vaccines across the board.
Criticism of Ladapo escalated after he appeared on a podcast in late 2023 and called the covid-19 vaccines “the Anti-Christ of all products.”
And when the FDA failed to adequately address his concerns that billions of DNA fragments found in the vaccines might lead to cancer, he called for the halt of their use in Florida.
Recently, I spoke with Ladapo about his reaction to the measles outbreaks, covid-19 vaccines and the diminishing trust in public health. His calm, candid and authentic approach shone through.
DEMASI: Dr Ladapo, thanks for your time today.
LADAPO: You too Dr Demasi. Hey, can you call me Joe? Then I can call you Maryanne.
DEMASI: No problem, Joe. You’ve been blamed for the measles outbreaks across America. What do you say about that?
LADAPO: Oh, it’s completely political Maryanne. When I tell people that, all in all, we had maybe 10 or 11 cases of measles, they’re shocked because based on the news articles, you’d think that we had thousands of cases of measles. I just saw some over-the-top, completely ridiculous titles to news articles about this. Ultimately, I guess what really ticked off people in the media was that we said that parents could make the decision about whether their healthy kids could go to school. We weren’t suggesting kids who were sick with measles go to school, it was only if they were not sick.
DEMASI: But you said unvaccinated kids could return to school if their parents wanted then to… that’s what caused the upset…
LADAPO: You know, vaccination rates at the school were very high, so there was a lot of protection against measles already. Therefore, you let the parents choose. Giving parents the choice is what people really couldn’t handle.
DEMASI: And it was because your advice contradicted CDC’s advice to quarantine unvaccinated kids for 21-days…
LADAPO: Yes, it did go against CDC guidelines, but it’s in sync with Florida guidelines, which is, that if a kid is healthy, they can go to school.
DEMASI: Why was this all so triggering?
LADAPO: Honestly, that’s what I struggle with. I do hear people say that if a kid is unvaccinated and there is a measles outbreak, then they should stay home. But keeping healthy kids home from school puts an enormous burden on the families. It’s obviously bad for the kids. It’s bad for their education, it’s bad for their mental health and wellbeing. Those lessons were apparently not learned during the pandemic. We’re in this state of mind where people reflexively want to isolate healthy people. It was rampant during the pandemic and caused tremendous harm. Those policies never really took a foothold here in Florida, but in other states, it was very common for whole classrooms to go home just because one kid had covid.
DEMASI: That’s the difficulty in public health, weighing up the pros and cons…
LADAPO: Right, you have to make a judgement call. There was a high rate of vaccination against measles already in the school and a kid who maybe hasn’t had a measles vaccine should be allowed to go to school if the parents have all the information about their options. Measles is very contagious and the chances their kid will catch it is high if they’re exposed to it. But that’s a choice the parents should make, it’s not for public health officials to make for families. That’s my opinion.
DEMASI: You said there were only 10 or 11 cases. It seems as if public health officials like frightening people… Do you think there is some disease-mongering happening?
LADAPO: Oh, definitely. Absolutely there is. Measles certainly can be serious and sometimes you can get very sick. But by and large, historically, it’s not something that was abnormal to catch. Many recover but nowadays it has been transformed into something that signals the end of days. It’s just not realistic. Again, it’s not to say that measles cannot be serious, because it can be, but for most healthy kids, they’re going to get over it. That’s just the reality. All the pandemonium about casting it as if its the plague or Ebola, well, no, it’s not. Unfortunately, some public health officials, at least the ones that make it on TV, have a warped vision of health. They equate things like vaccines with health, but vaccines are not health. Health is health – when you’re sleeping, you’re eating and you’re exercising. It’s not a medical product. Medical products can help people, but they’re not the definition of health. I think ‘disease mongering’ is equating medications and vaccines with health – it’s actually a sick way of thinking about health and wellness.
DEMASI: Do you think people’s trust in vaccines more broadly has been damaged since COVID?
LADAPO: Oh, it definitely has. And frankly, I think it will only get worse. I, myself, have learned so much about some of the clinical trials that were used to approve other vaccines. Ever since seeing how corrupt the scientific approach to the safety and efficacy of mRNA covid-19 vaccines has been, more people are looking at other vaccines now. And it’s really appropriate to do that because vaccines do not have the same type of critical scrutiny as other medications. Just for example, one of the things that has come out during the pandemic is the work by Dr Christine Stabell Benn. It’s very clear that some vaccines can be very effective against the condition that they’re targeted against, but have other effects on people’s health outside of the condition.
DEMASI: That’s right, her work found that vaccines can have ‘off-target’ effects that are unintended.
LADAPO: Right, and you never really hear any discussion about things like that. But that’s clearly part of a critical analysis of any medication you’re putting into someone’s body. And some people just want to exempt vaccines from that type of scrutiny… I think that’s hogwash.
DEMASI: You know about the discovery of DNA fragments contaminating the mRNA vaccines. What has happened since you called for the halt of their use in Florida?
LADAPO: The FDA wrote us back, I think, in December last year with a long letter where they didn’t answer directly our question of whether DNA integration studies had been performed with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines… which I interpreted to mean that those studies had not been done. And that was last correspondence from them. Since then, we’ve seen FDA and CDC officials continue to prop up the COVID-19 vaccines.
DEMASI: What’s your reaction to how the FDA handled the safety concerns about the COVID vaccines?
LADAPO: Honestly, it makes me sick to my stomach, It’s so sad. And there really should be much stiffer consequences for when people knowingly choose to prioritise the reputation of an institution above the health and wellbeing of human beings. The FDA and the CDC, they just care about their own reputations.
DEMASI: You commented that covid shots were the work of the devil. I can’t imagine that went down well….
LADAPO: They are, Maryanne. Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are evil products…
DEMASI: It’s extraordinary to hear a physician in public office say that. Vaccines are considered the “holy grail’ of medicine… is it just covid-19 vaccines that concern you?
LADAPO: The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, yes, and it’s all tied together with the inhumane lockdowns, the harms to kids, the separation of people, the inability to say goodbye to people you love, who were dying. Give me a break — saying goodbye to people over zoom when they’re dying, that’s bullshit. All that stuff where they were firing nurses and doctors or firemen who didn’t want to take the vaccine. It has just been a series of anti-human and… well, evil behaviours. And the fact that many people weren’t conscious of how inhumane their actions were was part of the hypnotic environment that was created to allow those behaviours to occur and to be sustained. The fact that so many people have been injured by the vaccines, and people have been misled into taking them – people who were very low risk and manipulated – the whole thing’s evil, it’s totally all evil.
DEMASI: What drives you to say these things out loud?
LADAPO: I personally had an early life experience, a very traumatic experience, that affected me profoundly. As a little kid, I was molested by my babysitter when I was probably four years old or something like that. And I thought I was fine and normal. A few decades later, I fell in love with my wife and the effects of that traumatic experience came out like a volcano that erupted, and really presented the most challenging personal experience I’ve ever had in terms of dealing with it. That experience created intense fear and an inability of being able to connect with other people – almost a disassociation from reality. But I fell in love – accidently – we met on a plane, she was living in California, I was in Boston at graduate school at the time and we end up continuing to talk on the phone. I had no idea I fell in love with her on the phone from our conversations. Eventually, I ended up working with a guy named Christopher Maher, who’s a former Navy SEAL, and he helped me really overcome the effects of my early traumatic experience and that changed everything for me. Now, it’s easy to recognise truth, but also to say it out loud.
DEMASI: Thank you for sharing that story Joe. It sounds like your experience also instilled a strong sense of social justice?
LADAPO: I would call it love and appreciation for who we are as humans. So, when there are forces that undermine people’s sovereignty, that undermine people’s ability for autonomy, to make decisions for themselves with full information, that will rub me the wrong way. So, I would actually say it’s that, yeah.
DEMASI: We’ve lost trust in public health. How do we get it back?
LADAPO: I think it’s going to be a long road. Unfortunately, we still have leaders who are not forthcoming about information and risks. I think you need new leadership, and whether it’s head of CDC or head of FDA, they’re just clearly incapable of being honest with Americans, they are way more interested in preserving the reputation of institutions. You’re never going to be able to really earn people’s trust back, when you have people that don’t prioritise people’s health. So, yeah, we need new leadership.
DEMASI: All right. I think I’ll leave it there, Joe. It’s been lovely speaking with you.
LADAPO: Cool, Maryanne. Great to speak with you too.
The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is often criticised for failing to produce a vision for the “day after” the end of the Gaza war. Some of the criticism emanates from Israel’s traditional Western allies, who are wary of Netanyahu’s personal and political agendas, which are fixated on delaying his corruption trials and ensuring that his extremist allies remain committed to the current government coalition. The criticism, however, is loudest within Israel itself.
“As long as Hamas retains control over civilian life in Gaza, it may rebuild and strengthen [itself], thus requiring the IDF [Israel Defence Forces] to return and fight in areas where it has already operated,” said Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in May, demanding a “day after” plan.
The same sentiment was conveyed by Israeli army Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi. “As long as there’s no diplomatic process to develop a governing body in the Strip that isn’t Hamas, we’ll have to launch campaigns again and again,” he was quoted as saying by Israel’s Channel 13.
It is true that Netanyahu has no post-war plan.
The lack of such a “vision”, however, does not rest entirely on his own failure to produce one, but is also due to his inability to determine, with any degree of certainty, if the war would yield favourable results for Israel.
Nine months of war have shown that the occupation state is simply incapable of maintaining its military presence in urban areas, even those that have been ethnically cleansed or are sparsely populated. This has been proven to be as true in the southern parts of Gaza as in the north, including border towns that were relatively easy to enter in the first days and weeks of the military offensive.
For a post-war plan to be produced that fits Israeli interests, Gaza would have to be militarily subdued, a goal that seems more distant than ever. At the start of the war, and many times since then, Netanyahu argued that Israel would have “overall security responsibility” for the Gaza Strip “for an indefinite period”.
That too is unlikely, as Israel tried to establish such security control between 1967 and 2005, when it was forced, due to the popular resistance during the Second Uprising, to withdraw its settlers and troops from the Gaza Strip, imposing a hermetic siege that has been in effect since then.
Recent events proved that even the Israeli blockade itself is unsustainable, as those who were entrusted with keeping the Palestinians locked in, failed miserably at their main task. This assessment is that of the Israeli military itself. “On October 7, I failed (in) my life’s mission: to protect the [Gaza] envelope [of settlements],” said the commander of the 143rd Division, Brigadier General Avi Rosenfeld, as he tendered his resignation on 9 June.
This means that returning to the post-1967 war status quo is not a rational option, nor is the reactivation of the post-2005 so-called “disengagement plan”.
While Washington is busy hoping to devise an alternative that ensures long-term security for Israel — with no regard for Palestinian rights, freedom or security, of course — Netanyahu refuses to play along. The problem with the American ideas, as far as the Israeli government is concerned, is that such language as “returning to negotiations” and the like is completely taboo in Israel’s mainstream politics.
Moreover, Netanyahu rejects any involvement of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza.
This position, which was even advocated by other Israeli officials, seems to puzzle many, as the PA is already incorporated into Israel’s security arrangements in the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu’s real fear is that a return of the PA to Gaza would come at a political price, as it would give greater credibility to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who is invested keenly in the US-championed “peace process”.
Not only does the current Israeli leadership reject the return to the old political discourse, but it has also fundamentally moved on, passing that language into that of military annexation of the West Bank, and even the re-colonisation of Gaza. To re-colonise Gaza, as per the expectations of far-right Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, two consecutive events would have to take place: first, the pacification of the Gaza Resistance, then, a partial or total ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population there into Egypt.
While the Israeli army is failing at its first task, the second also seems unfeasible, especially since the recent Israeli operation in Rafah has pushed hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians back, away from the Gaza-Egypt border towards the centre of the Strip.
Netanyahu does not seem to have an actual plan for Gaza, neither for now nor for the “day after” the war. So, he prolongs the offensive despite the fact that his army is exhausted and depleted, and is being forced to fight on multiple fronts.
Blaming Netanyahu for failing to produce a “day after” vision for Gaza, however, is also wishful thinking as it assumes that Israel has all the cards. In fact, it has none.
Of course, there is an alternative to the never-ending war scenario, namely lifting the siege on Gaza permanently, ending the military occupation, and dismantling the apartheid regime. This would grant Palestinians their freedom and rights as enshrined — indeed, guaranteed — in international and humanitarian laws. If the international community mustered the courage to force such a “day after” reality on Tel Aviv, there would be no need for further war or resistance.
Xi Jinping has said that the US tried to provoke the Chinese military into attacking Taiwan but that Beijing did not take the bait, the Financial Times reported on Saturday, citing sources.
According to people allegedly familiar with the matter, Xi made the remarks during a private meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in April 2023. The Chinese president also reportedly relayed concerns about Washington’s alleged attempts to trick Beijing into invading the self-governed island to his officials.
Beijing considers Taiwan to be sovereign Chinese territory under its One-China policy. The island has been self-governing since 1949 when nationalists fled the mainland with US help after losing the Chinese Civil War to the communists.
Financial Times described Xi’s reported remarks to von der Leyen as the first known time he told a foreign leader that the US was trying to goad Beijing into invading Taiwan. The Chinese president also reportedly explained that a conflict with the US would be detrimental to China and derail its plans for a “great rejuvenation” by 2049. The project, also known as the ‘Chinese Dream’, aims at creating a “modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, civilized, and harmonious.”
China has long accused the US of fomenting tensions over Taiwan and has denounced Washington’s arms sales to Taipei. Beijing has also protested visits by top US officials to the island, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, claiming it violates China’s sovereignty. Against this backdrop, China regularly conducts military exercises in the Taiwan Strait.
In 2022, Xi said that while Beijing seeks peaceful reunification with the island, it is “not committed to abandoning the use of force” to accomplish that goal. In March, the head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral John Aquilino, suggested that the Chinese military would be prepared to invade Taiwan by 2027. Officials in Beijing have denied having any near-term plans to use force against the island, accusing the US of “hyping up the China-threat narrative.”
US President Joe Biden has said that Washington would defend Taiwan if it were attacked by China, although he later conceded that the exact response would “depend on the circumstances.”
Please subscribe to my channel here on Bitchute for notifications of new videos and visit my webiste http://www.vernoncoleman.com every week day for new material.
“Far from being an anomaly, Epstein was one of several men who, over the past century, have engaged in sexual blackmail activities designed to obtain damaging information (i.e., “intelligence”) on powerful individuals with the goal of controlling their activities and securing their compliance.”[1]
Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Ghislaine Maxwell is locked away in prison, and the thought-makers of our world seem keen to let the more explosive parts of the scandal dissipate from the public consciousness. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, Epstein and Maxwell were little more than well-connected socialites who ran a sex-trafficking ring for the rich and the powerful, and the focus has shifted instead to the criminal and civil cases seeking to achieve redress for the victims of sexual abuse.
On occasion some newspaper articles will mention the hidden cameras littered across Epstein’s properties, others the reams of CDs and hard drives found within them during the FBI raids. Altogether missing from the Netflix documentaries (Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich [2020] and Ghislaine Maxwell: Filthy Rich [2022]) or the articles that spend their time narrowly focusing on the links between Epstein and Bill Gates, is the acknowledgement of the true nature of Epstein himself and the ultimate purpose of this sex-trafficking of minors — a sexual blackmail operation.
Not everyone is cowardly enough to let these controversial aspects lie untouched, as the newly released two-volume book One Nation Under Blackmail by independent reporter Whitney Webb seeks to blow wide open this media-enforced blackout. Utilizing primarily open-source information (that is, publicly accessible information such as books, newspapers articles and government reports),[2] Webb’s book delves into the life and times of Jeffrey Epstein and his deep ties to Jewish billionaires and Israeli intelligence. … 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.
Aletho News
Aletho News 