Well, the Jewish Lobby is at it again. In the latest kerfuffle over “Holocaust denial,” Jews and their sycophants are in an uproar over a podcast interview aired on September 2 in which Tucker Carlson spoke at length with a “popular historian” named Darryl Cooper. The two-hour episode is titled “The True History of the Jonestown Cult, WWII, and How Winston Churchill Ruined Europe”—a bit of a stretch for a single show, but with the central theme that conventional or orthodox history is often wrong about events small and large, and thus frequently in need of revision. History is not only written by the victors, it is sustained by powerful lobbies that have a vested interest in a certain interpretation of past events. This much is so obvious that it scarcely needs mentioning.
And yet, when it comes to World War Two and especially the Holocaust, all rules go out the window. The “victors” cannot be named; alternate interpretations are not allowed; and revisionism is declared a crime. In the interview, Cooper offers the mildest of mild statements regarding his thoughts on WW2 and on what happened to “civilians and prisoners of war” at that time. Two points seemed to have raised the greatest ire: that Churchill, not Hitler, was the true villain of the war; and that the millions of people who died—presumably meaning millions of Jews—were, in effect, accidental victims rather than targets of a premediated and planned genocide. Our cultural guardians are upset by the first point but truly enraged by the second.
The horror of stating such views was too much for both our Jewish media and for our Jewish-inspired Biden regime. The headlines are alarming: “Tucker Carlson Criticized for Hosting Holocaust Revisionist” (NYT); “Tucker Carlson Welcomes a Hitler Apologist to His Show” (NYT, Michelle Goldberg); “White House condemns Tucker Carlson’s ‘Nazi propaganda’ interview as ‘disgusting and sadistic insult’” (CNN); “Tucker Carlson Blasted for Interview with Holocaust Revisionist” (The Hill). CNN reports that the Biden administration took the unusual step of publicly “denouncing Tucker Carlson” and his guest. Deputy press secretary Andrew Bates issued a formal statement, not only calling the interview “a disgusting and sadistic insult to all Americans” but also condemning Carlson for “giving a microphone to a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda.” Bates’ chief concern seems to be with “the over 6 million Jews who were genocidally murdered by Adolf Hitler.” “Hitler was one of the most evil figures in human history,” Bates assures us—“full stop.” Certainly no revisionism allowed in this most “freedom-loving” of nations.
This whole incident is worthy of some reflection. Let me start with what exactly Cooper said. Here are the relevant statements (from 46:30 to 49:00):
When [the Germans] went into the East, in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, local political prisoners, and so forth, that they were going to have to handle. They went in with no plan for that. And they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there.
You have letters as early as July, August 1941 from commandants of these makeshift camps that they’re setting up for these millions of people who were surrendering or people they are rounding up. And it’s two months after [Operation] Barbarossa was launched [in June], and they’re writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, “We can’t feed these people…” And one of them actually says, “Rather than wait for them all to slowly starve this winter, wouldn’t it be more humane to just finish them off quickly now?”
At the end of the day, [Hitler] launched that war [against the USSR] with no plan to care for the millions and millions of civilians and prisoners of war that were going to come under [his] control. And millions of people died because of that.
To assess what Cooper is saying here, we must remind ourselves of the basic facts: Hitler launched his war against Poland in early September 1939. Based on a mutual nonaggression pact, Stalin attacked Poland from the East two weeks later, and the two great powers quickly divided Poland in half. England and France then declared war on Germany, not vice versa (wait—who was the aggressor again?), and so Hitler was compelled to direct his military efforts to the west. He never wanted a war to his west, and as Cooper explains, Hitler tried frequently to make peace with Chamberlain (not yet Churchill). Chamberlain sought compromise but the rest of his divided government—including Churchill—preferred to continue a war they were ill-equipped to fight. Germany invaded the Low Countries in May 1940, Chamberlain resigned, and Churchill was elevated to prime minister.
Throughout the second half of 1940 and into the first half of 1941, Hitler continued his impressive string of victories. France was all but defeated and England was on its last legs. Then suddenly, on 22 June 1941, Hitler broke his pact with Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union (“Operation Barbarossa”). This, says Cooper, was the war in which Germany was unprepared to handle “millions” of prisoners. And indeed, more than 3 million Soviet POWs came under Germany control by the end of 1941, many of whom in fact surrendered or defected. They were initially housed in the nearly 100 ad hoc camps established in German-controlled Russia, and conditions were indeed horrible, as Cooper suggests. Upwards of 500,000 Soviet POWs died each month: around two million dead by the end of 1941. As far as we know, this was unplanned; the Germans were too busy fighting on the front to take much care for their 3 million newly-captured prisoners. They indeed simply “ended up dead,” as Cooper says.
Notably, nowhere does Cooper talk about Jewish prisoners. The whole discussion centers on Soviet POWs and other political prisoners, of whom there were relatively few Jews. Jews did pay a price during Barbarossa, but it was because they were partisan fighters: attacking German troops from behind the front lines. According to international rules of warfare, partisans are to be treated the same as soldiers—meaning, they could be captured, or they could be killed. And the Germans preferred to kill partisans; this was logical, given their already overcrowded ad hoc POW camps.
This resulted in the true beginning of “the Holocaust,” if we wish to call it that. Thousands of partisan Jews were shot on the Eastern Front—perhaps 30,000 or 40,000 in 1941, based on reasonable estimates (certainly not the 400,000 or 500,000 that our orthodox historians would have us believe). But Cooper was not discussing these deaths. Jews also died in the ghettos in 1941—perhaps another 40,000 or 50,000, most from natural causes (old age, illness, accident, suicide). And precisely zero Jews died in “homicidal gas chambers” or “death camps” in 1941; none of the infamous six camps—Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chełmno, and Majdanek—were operational that year. For that matter, precisely zero Jews died in “homicidal gas chambers” during the entire war, precisely because such things did not exist. But neither Carlson nor Cooper dared step into that sticky wicket.[1]
So, in Cooper’s (and Carlson’s) defense, the passage at hand says nothing about Jews and thus nothing about “the Holocaust.” Everything Cooper said there was factually correct. In fact, in the entire two-hour-plus interview, Jews were only mentioned a handful of times, and the “Holocaust” not once, that I can recall.
Jews Go on the Attack
But that’s not how our Jewish Lobby sees it. Every reference to “millions” of deaths is, to them, a coded reference to Jews. Even discussing Hitler as anyone other than a comically-evil madman means that you are a Nazi sympathizer, a “denier” (whatever that means), or simply “disgusting and sadistic.”
A good example the absurdly inane orthodox response can be found in (Jewish) Michelle Goldberg’s op-ed in the (Jewish) New York Times of September 6. The alleged “Hitler apologist” Darryl Cooper failed to toe the party line on the unconditional evil of the Nazis, and so she condemns him in the strongest terms, without even knowing what she is talking about. She clearly doesn’t like the idea that Holocaustianity is our current “state religion” (which it is), and she is incensed when Cooper rightly mentions the “emotional triggers” that keep us from asking tough questions. To Goldberg, Cooper offers us only “clever rhetorical formulations” that are presented in a “soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way.” So overwhelmed is she by Carlson’s and Cooper’s audacity that she is reduced to the following idiocy: “Nazi sympathy is the natural endpoint of a politics based on glib contrarianism, right-wing transgression, and ethnic grievance.” This, from a staff writer at the New York Times.
More to the point, despite the utter lack of mention of the Holocaust in the interview, Goldberg is fixated on this supposed inference. She laments “Carlson’s turn toward Holocaust skepticism”; she frets over the “disgraced, Holocaust-denying author David Irving” (as if he is relevant here); and she bemoans the fact that “there are few better trolls than Holocaust deniers.” Those clever deniers “love to pose as heterodox truth-seekers,” and they “excel at mimicking the forms and language of legitimate scholarship”—when in fact their level of scholarship often equals or exceeds that of our conventional so-called experts.[2] Deniers “blitz their opponents with out-of-context historical detail and bad-faith questions” (How dare they go into detail! How dare they ask questions!). In the end, “they only know how to use crude provocation to get attention”—says the attention-seeking Jewess.
One of Goldberg’s biggest fears is that, in her Jewish-controlled ideological universe, that the jig might be up. She worries about the red-pilled right-wing belief “that all you’ve been told about the nature of reality is a lie, and thus everything is up for grabs.” In fact, much of what we have been told by our Jewish-inspired orthodoxy has been a lie, or a half-truth, or otherwise deeply deceptive, and Goldberg worries that more and more people are figuring this out. And she is right to worry: a mass awakening will spell big trouble for her and her co-ethnics.
Finally at the end of her piece, she puts her finger on a bit of truth: “Ultimately, Holocaust denial isn’t really about history at all, but about what’s permissible in the present and imaginable in the future.” Hitler and the Nazis must be viewed “as the negation of our deepest values,” or else we are “softened up” for Trump-like fascism. Holocaust denial—that is, deeply questioning the basic assumptions of that event—is indeed not really about history simply because the revisionists have won: the orthodox story of the “homicidal gas chambers,” “the 6 million,” and the alleged National Socialist mad plot to kill all the Jews—all these have been utterly demolished. Orthodox historians no longer even try to respond to revisionists because they know that they will be disgraced. Instead, they and their potent Jewish backers resort to censorship, lawfare, slander, intimidation, and (in many countries) imprisonment to stifle revisionism. Such things are a sure sign of defeat.
As for her remark about what is permissible and imaginable, this too is correct: The standard Holocaust story is the keystone of present-day Jewish power in the US and the West; everything rests on our collective guilt, and all Jewish/Israeli atrocities are thereby justified. Jewish power presently declares that questioning the Holocaust is impermissible; and that a society in which Hitler and National Socialism are viewed neutrally or even positively is unimaginable. But this will soon change. When Holocaust revisionism becomes permissible, and National Socialism becomes imaginable, then everything—everything—will change. That day cannot come soon enough.
The great irony in this whole much-ado-about-nothing is that it could have been something : Carlson and Cooper could have actually discussed the many problems with the Holocaust story, and they could have actually asked the tough questions that orthodoxy cannot answer. They could have examined the many works of Germar Rudolf or Carlo Mattogno; they could have reviewed the reasons why homicidal gas chambers were technically impossible; they could have explained that the best evidence to date suggests that perhaps 500,000 Jews died during the war, not 6 million. And when all that comes out, Michelle Goldberg and friends will truly have something to fear.
Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and the Jewish Question. All his works are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.
[2] For the full academic story, see the 50-volume “Holocaust Handbook” series. For a concise treatment of all the core issues, see the newly-released Holocaust Encyclopedia.
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is crossing the country with a mobile science “escape room” — complete with a robotic dog — to provide students in rural communities with a “science-based learning experience.”
In the process, students are “exposed to a multi-national company” and they get to meet Pfizer employees.
In its promotional video for the “School of Science Mobile Experience,” students in rural Sanford, North Carolina, are greeted by a Pfizer robot dog, which makes several appearances during their field trip.
Students enter the Pfizer mobile trailer for a “fantastic, interactive, escape-room-like experience,” where they work with Pfizer employees to solve a mystery about a pandemic outbreak that starts with people showing up in doctor’s offices with scaly, lizard-like skin.
As they move through the pandemic tabletop exercise, proceeding through different rooms in the trailer, the children learn different lessons. They learn about antigens in one room, about vaccine manufacturing in another, and more.
In the end, the students “successfully produced a remedy that will be distributed around the world” — reminiscent of Pfizer’s own production of the COVID-19vaccines.
“This is not your typical science class,” a Pfizer spokesperson says, closing out the video.
Through Pfizer School of Science Mobile Experience, we aim to bring the wonders of #STEM to life. Discover how our interactive experience is helping inspire the next generation of scientists and manufacturers: https://t.co/HBLRYMaq3N 🚀🔬 pic.twitter.com/Z2PiPpHiSc
North Carolina mother Beth Secosky told The Defender she wouldn’t want Pfizer teaching science to her children or anyone’s children.
“Pfizer has paid billions in penalties for false claims and safety violations,” she said. “Why would schools invite a corporation that is notorious for putting profits over people to teach their children ‘science’?”
Michael Kane, New York City educator and founder of Teachers for Choice told The Defender he was struck by the fact that the experience would highlight antigens and manufacturing as part of science education for young people.
“It’s definitely crossing a line from education to directly marketing or promoting their products to kids,” he said. “It just feels so wrong.”
The hands-on learning modality is great for kids learning, Kane added, but even in the short video, it’s clear this is just an attempt to promote their vaccines. “It kind of blows me away.”
The robotic dog was especially concerning, Kane said. Police departments across the country and the world have controversially begun deploying robot dogs to surveil citizens with cameras, sensors and microphones and militaries are starting to weaponize them for military applications by mounting them with machine guns.
“They are bringing these dogs to the kids in such a disarming way — showing how cute this robotic dog is when it looks precisely like the dogs that they’re putting out into police departments and into the military,” he said. “That is very frightening in terms of what they’re programming these children to be used to and to think is cool, and to think is normal.”
The video was released a couple of weeks ago. The comment function for the video on Pfizer’s YouTube channel is turned off, so viewers have not been able to share their thoughts.
‘School of Science’ fully funded by Pfizer
The mobile escape room is a project of the Pfizer School of Science, which brings middle school students to Pfizer’s headquarters in New York City, where Pfizer teaches them 90-minute courses on topics like artificial intelligence in healthcare, the history of vaccines and how they protect against epidemics and drug discovery and manufacturing.
On Pfizer’s flagship New York campus, middle-schoolers get to wear lab coats and goggles and listen to Pfizer employees promote possible future careers.
As of early 2024, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla reported on LinkedIn the program had brought more than 6,000 students from New York City schools to its headquarters. The program targets students from “diverse backgrounds,” which is a refrain across the promotional materials.
“In some cases, this meant modifying our coursework to accommodate diverse needs, such as customizing classes to suit different learning abilities and language capabilities,” he wrote.
Pfizer’s promotional celebration of “science” to younger generations as part of its strategy to also promote the company was on display in its Super Bowl ad in January. The 60-second ad — and an extended 90-second cut — featured famous scientists throughout history singing along to Queen’s “Don’t Stop Me Now,” Fierce Pharma reported.
Drew Panayiotou, the company’s chief marketing officer said the “iconic Queen song … cuts across generations with the words ‘don’t stop me now,’ which is a great line for Pfizer.”
A new documentary titled “My Biggest Battle” explores the life-altering journey of renowned
extreme triathlete Heiko Sepp after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The 35-minute film
highlights Heiko’s incredible athletic accomplishments, the onset of debilitating health
complications, and his relentless search for answers while suffering from post-vaccination
injuries.
“My Biggest Battle” is more than just a documentary—it’s a conversation starter. Our hope is
that Heiko’s battle encourages the public to share this powerful film to raise awareness about
the challenges faced by individuals like Heiko. By sharing his story, you contribute to an
important dialogue supporting those impacted by vaccine-related events.
The documentary paints a vivid picture of Heiko’s life in Norway, where he lives with his wife
and their two young sons. Known for his remarkable achievements in extreme triathlons,
including podium placements in grueling races like the Norseman, Heiko’s passion for the sport
is central to his identity. However, everything changed in September 2021 when Heiko received
his second COVID-19 vaccination. What began as chest pain rapidly escalated into a series of
debilitating symptoms, including heart inflammation, joint pain, and muscle spasms, leaving
Heiko’s once vibrant life shrouded in pain and uncertainty.
The film follows Heiko’s challenging journey through countless hospital visits, medical tests, and
consultations with healthcare professionals. Despite his lifelong peak health and athletic
prowess, Heiko faces a healthcare system that offers few answers and little relief. As Heiko’s
search for a diagnosis leads him to an esteemed immunologist, the documentary delves into the
emerging understanding of vaccine-induced autoimmunity and its implications for people like
Heiko. The film concludes with a message of hope and resilience, raising critical questions
about vaccine safety and healthcare accessibility.
FUNDRAISER FOR HEIKO’S FAMILY:
Due to Heiko’s illness, he has been unable to maintain stable employment, depleting his
savings on costly private treatments. Facing the brink of bankruptcy, Heiko has launched a
personal fundraiser to alleviate the financial strain and continue his necessary treatments.
Despite the risks, Heiko’s decision to share his story is vital, bringing attention to post
vaccination injuries—a topic few are willing to address.
We urge the media and public to support Heiko’s fundraiser and spread the word about his
story.
Heiko’s story of injury after the first dose and yet still being advised to take a second shot with devastating consequences, is unfortunately a common occurrence. Any doctor will tell you that if you have penicillin allergy you must never receive it again, and yet the medical profession seemed happy to follow this quite extraordinary advice re covid vaccines, as if they couldn’t get the mantra ‘Safe & Effective’ out of their minds. His story of the failures of the medical profession in Norway to diagnose and treat him, is also mirrored across the world.
Four counties in Massachusetts have initiated a voluntary curfew to mitigate a rare mosquito-borne illness known as EEE. Officials have resorted to widespread spraying of pesticides with known harmful effects on humans. But, locals are pushing back.
Ukrainian casualties and loss of military hardware are intensifying, which is shifting the attrition rates even further to Russia’s advantage. The rapid increase in losses with the losing side is a very common phenomenon toward the end of a war, with a common example being the spike in German casualties at the final stages of the Second World War.
In a war of attrition, the losses will naturally increase when the war machine has reached its breaking point. Soldiers have weaker strategic positions, there is a lack of resources, supply chains are not sufficiently defended, communications often break down, and there is a collapse in morale. Once the collapse begins, it often has a cascading effect. An early indicator of a cascading effect was when Ukraine began to struggle with air defence systems, which resulted in Russia being able to bring in its air force equipped with powerful glide bombs. Subsequently, holding strategic positions and avoiding high casualty rates became increasingly challenging and new problems began to emerge.
The Collapse has Begun
It appears that we have entered the final stages of the war due to the cascading effect. Ukraine is seeing its logistics break down, and there is a lack of weapons and ammunition that prevents soldiers from performing optimally.
The greatest challenge appears to be the lack of manpower, in which there are no good solutions. More aggressive mobilisation deprives society of important labour, it creates social upheaval as the public observes their family and fellow citizens being dragged off the streets and thrown into vans. Furthermore, the recruits receive less training and are much less motivated than the soldiers who volunteered at the beginning of the war. Simply put, a new army cannot be built in a rush. As a result, Ukraine began using and losing its best soldiers.
The Ukrainian frontline sees a growing lack of military resources, reinforcements do not turn up, and communication with military command becomes less reliable. The increasingly difficult position on the front causes a spike in soldiers who defect and surrender, while even entire military companies have withdrawn from their positions without permission. Predictably, this unpredictability creates less cohesion along the frontline as unreliable soldiers can be a tremendous liability as the front lines do not hold.
With the Ukrainian frontlines breaking, troops find themselves encircled and their option is either to surrender or to pursue a disorganised withdrawal in which the retreating forces are exposed and can be knocked out by the Russian military. Incrementally, the Ukrainians find themselves with fewer strategic positions, supply lines are severed, there is an even greater shortage of military equipment and manpower, and morale continues to collapse. As the situation deteriorates, communication and coordination unavoidably suffer, as for example, Ukraine seemingly shot down its own F-16 with a patriot missile.
The war has been lost, and with the writing on the wall, the Ukrainian army becomes more vulnerable to its officers striking a deal with Russia. Some are likely angered by a sense of betrayal as the US and NATO provoked the war and sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreements with the promise that Ukraine would receive all the weapons and assistance it needed to defeat Russia. While there is no evidence of Ukrainian officers defecting, it seems as if Russia’s intelligence and spy network has improved over the past weeks.
The Last-Ditch Gamble
Another common feature in a losing war is the desperation that encourages great risks in a last-ditch effort to turn everything around. The invasion of the Russian region of Kursk is a great example as most Ukrainian, Russian and Western observers initially seemed to agree that this was a great risk with a low chance of succeeding. However, the propaganda machine was thereafter turned on as journalists began reporting on successes, measured mostly in terms of humiliating Putin or boosting morale among Ukrainian soldiers. Yet, the temporary victory in the information war eventually gives way to losses in the real world. Ukrainian troops and equipment were diverted away from well-prepared defensive lines in Donbas in favour of being exposed in the open on foreign territory.
In Donbas, the front lines are collapsing, and in Kursk there are massive casualties. The problem was exacerbated by the lack of reliable supply lines for weapons and fuel, while engineering equipment could not be sent in to dig in at the new positions within Russian territory. The few remaining air defence systems and HIMARS had to be brought much closer to the border, which could then be detected by Russian surveillance and destroyed by Russian missiles and drones. Huge amounts of military resources were squandered on territory with hardly any strategic value, which Ukraine is not able to hold. The inability to pull out of Kursk compels Ukraine to double down on failure and the situation goes from bad to worse.
As the collapse intensifies, the winning side in a war typically increases its pressure. Russia has increased its deep missile strikes, and its military is pushing through what used to be well-defended front lines. Russia’s more powerful bombing campaign is also motivated by retaliation for the invasion of Kursk and to restore its deterrence by warning NATO against further escalations. Furthermore, Russia has retaliated by further destroying Ukraine’s energy network which reduces the mobility of the military, and reduces the industrial production and the ability to get through the next winter. Millions of Ukrainian civilians who are suffering greatly under these deteriorating conditions will likely leave the country when winter approaches, which will bring further problems to both Ukraine and Europe.
A Proxy War: How Will NATO Respond to Defeat?
What makes the Ukraine War different from many other wars, is that this is a proxy war in which NATO uses Ukrainians to fight Russia. The uncertain and unpredictable variable is therefore how NATO will react as it loses the proxy war in Ukraine. NATO is already providing weapons, ammunition, training, intelligence, target selection, war planning, managing complex weapon systems, and sending Western mercenaries. NATO’s support for strikes inside Russian territory and the invasion of Russian territory has already taken us to the brink of a direct war. The Americans appear to get ready to cut their losses and instead shift focus on confronting China, but the Europeans have bet everything on defeating Russia militarily. In terms of capabilities, it is the US that matters.
There are simply no good solutions anymore. The only two options are to either negotiate or get increasingly involved in direct fighting. NATO has largely rejected diplomacy and placed itself in a rhetorical trap in which victory is the only acceptable outcome, and the EU even punishes member states such as Hungary that attempt to restore diplomacy and negotiations with Russia. However, more direct NATO involvement will likely trigger a direct war with Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power, and it is unclear what a “victory” would look like that would not first trigger a nuclear exchange.
This is the time to restore diplomacy and return to negotiations, although it will take some time to reverse the propaganda of the past decade and prepare the public for a new narrative. Much like in Afghanistan, the political-media elites will assure us that we are winning until we flee with people falling off planes.
I spoke briefly about the rising Ukrainian casualties on WION
I was interviewed by the China Academy regarding the strategic partnership between Russia and China. The strategic partnership was formed by two profound historical changes in the international system that occurred around the same time: Russia’s decoupling from the West and the rise of China as the soon-to-be world’s leading economy.
The first historical shift is the end of Russia looking to the West for modernisation and development. Russia has pursued a Western-centric foreign policy for the past 300-years, and after the Cold War pursued the overarching objective of creating an inclusive European security architecture based on the vision of Gorbachev’s Common European Home. The project of Greater Europe died in February 2014 with the Western-backed coup in Ukraine, which ended all hopes of a gradual integration with the West. Over the past 300 years, there have been several attempts in the West to push Russia back into Asia – although this time the East is no longer an economic backwater. Russia subsequently replaced “Greater Europe” with the “Greater Eurasia Initiative” as it began reorganising its economy toward a more accommodating and economically vibrant East.
The second historical shift is the rise of China, which has outgrown the US-administered international economic system. The Global Financial Crisis of 2008-9 was a wake-up call as the US demonstrated it would not restore fiscal discipline, which implied that the stability of the system would continue to erode. China demonstrated both the intention and ability to challenge US geoeconomic leadership by pursuing ambitious industrial policies to assert technological and industrial leadership, investing trillions of dollars into physical connectivity with the Belt and Road Initiative, and new financial architecture with development banks, payment systems and de-dollarisation.
The West assumed the partnership of China and Russia was a “marriage of convenience” as the common interests of opposing US hegemony was superficial and they would likely clash over the dominance of Central Asia. This prediction failed to recognise that both China and Russia need each other to develop a new international economic architecture, and as neither side pursues hegemony they have the ability to accommodate each other’s strategic interests. The efforts by the US to break both Russia and the China at the same time has pushed these two giants together in what can only be described as Kissinger’s worst nightmare. The strategic partnership has also laid the foundation for a new international economic architecture that pulls in other centres of power.
Four Palestinian journalists were injured by Israeli army fire in the occupied West Bank town of Kafr Dan, the Red Crescent Society said today.
The society said two journalists were treated on the spot by its medics while two others were transferred to hospital.
Jaraah Khalaf, one of the injured journalists, said he and other reporters were covering an Israeli siege on a house in Kafr Dan, in the Jenin Governorate, when they came under direct Israeli fire.
“We were all wearing vests that clearly had press identification labels in English (PRESS), and our vehicles carried the same insignia,” he said.
Israeli occupation forces raided the town early today and besieged a house, calling on its occupants to surrender via loudspeakers, according to witnesses.
The house was later demolished by Israeli military bulldozers, while a child and another Palestinian were injured during the raid, according to the Ministry of Health.
US microchip giant Intel faces what’s been characterized as the most difficult moment in its 56-year history, hiring banksters to advise the company on whether to trim, slash or sell off its manufacturing business. That’s bad news for Washington, which greenlit $280 billion in funding in 2022 toward boosting domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
Intel’s stock has had a rough year-to-date, plummeting nearly 60% since January and falling off a cliff in early August as investors led by billionaire Warren Buffett began a massive selloff which led leading tech stocks to shed nearly $3 trillion in value amid a perfect storm of recession fears, concerns over rising AI-related capital expenditure, and inflation.
The shock stock drop shed more light on the difficult situation at Intel, with a flurry of reports beginning late last week citing informed sources revealing that the company is in the “most difficult period in its 56-year history,” looking for strategic advice from the likes of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, and considering selling off its chip manufacturing capacity.
The news carries grave significance for Washington, with Axiospointing out in a report last Friday that Intel isn’t just one of America’s oldest US chipmakers, but “a key national security asset,” signaling the US’s ability (or as it happens, inability) to compete with Taiwan, South Korea, China and other chip-making power players in an increasingly demanding world market for microchips.
All eyes are now on Intel’s mid-September board of directors meeting, at which company CEO Pat Gelsinger is expected to present the company’s recovery plan, from cost cuts achieved by shedding “unnecessary businesses,” possibly including US-based programmable chip manufacturing, and even the potential sale of its foundry business to a foreign buyer like TSMC.
Intel currently has more than two dozen fab and post-fab sites, most of them in Oregon, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Colorado and Ohio, but also Ireland and Israel. The potential slash in investment threatens to jeopardize the company’s ambitious expansion plans, both domestically and in Germany and Poland, with capital expenditures expected to drop by $10 billion, to $21.5 billion, in 2025. Among the casualties is a reported move to freeze construction of a $32.8 billion factory complex in Magdeburg, Germany.
Intel’s troubles are also bad news for the Biden administration specifically, which pumped $8.5 billion into the company’s coffers in March from the 2022 $280 billion CHIPS & Science Act, which includes $39 billion in subsidies for US chip manufacturing, $13 billion for semiconductor research and workforce training, and major tax incentives. Intel also enjoys up to $11 billion in Chips Act loans for modernization and new production.
The current administration has made subsidies to microchip manufacturing a key plank of its economic agenda. In addition to a broad array of civilian uses, from computers to vehicles, companies like Intel produce chips for use in military and space applications.
The company’s multi-year $100 billion+ US expansion plans fell to the wayside after its stagnant second-quarter earnings ($12.8 billion), sparking massive layoffs of over 15% of its workforce in August. The same month, veteran exec Lip-Bu Tan resigned from Intel’s board, reportedly over differences about the future of the company, and its failure to listen to proposals to make Intel’s contract manufacturing more customer-centric.
“Simply put, we must align our cost structure with our new operating model and fundamentally change the way we operate,” Intel chief Pat Gelsinger wrote in a memo in early August while announcing the cuts and firings.
A pioneer in microchip manufacturing and the developer of the Intel 4004 – the world’s first commercial microprocessor, in the 1970s, Intel produced the most popular chip of the 80s – the Intel 8088, which ended up powering the IBM PC. Fast forward to the 1990s, and Intel’s engineers developed the revolutionary 32 bit Pentium x86 processors – which were heavily improved upon by former Soviet supercomputer designer Vladimir Pentkovski. In the late 2008, Intel introduced the Intel Core lineup of multicore processers, assuring it superiority over competitors for over a decade before being surpassed by AMD in 2022. A few short years on, Intel has dropped out of the top ten largest global microchip manufacturers entirely by market capitalization.
Analyses by the New York Fed and the Center for Strategic and International Studies confirm that US semiconductor companies are losing tens of billions of dollars per year in sales. In an 18-month period immediately following strict sanctions against US chip exports to China, US companies lost an average of $770 million in market capitalization, with $130 billion in lost market cap industry wide.
In company-specific examples, Micron has lost half of its revenues as a result of China export restrictions. In 2024 alone, Qualcomm will forego $10 billion in lost sales of 7-nanometer chips which are now manufactured by SMIC, a Chinese semiconductor firm.
The United States now faces strong challenges from companies in allied countries, who are resisting calls to further decouple from China’s semiconductor market, the world’s largest.
Commerce Department Implements New Export Controls on Advanced Computing and Semiconductor Manufacturing Items to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/doc…
US calls for Netherlands, Germany, South Korea, Japan to tighten chip curbs on China, drawing resistance from allies https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-war/ar…
Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, finally addressed the censorship the social media giant engaged in through an open letter to House Representative Jim Jordan this week, outlining the pressure he received from the Biden White House and the media to remove COVID-19 and Hunter Biden laptop posts. Many are questioning why he is coming clean and apologizing now.
Japanese citizens were shocked on the morning of August 28 as their largest national broadcaster, NHK, decided to air a special feature on the COVID-19 vaccine relief system. This program highlighted real-life experiences of individuals who have suffered severe side effects, prompting an overwhelming public response with over 2000 messages received.
In a surprising turn of events, NHK’s popular Morning Show, Asaichi, has taken a bold step. Once dismissive of doubts about vaccine safety, the show recently focused on the challenges and realities faced by those affected by mRNA experimental vaccine side effects. This change in stance marks a pivotal U-Turn in the ongoing national conversation about the experimental mRNA’s safety and transparency.
The program’s new focus was echoed in the unexpected surge of viewer engagement. “We have received more than 2000 messages from viewers today. Thank you very much,” the host announced, signaling widespread public interest and concern.
One chilling account came from a viewer who detailed their struggle after the third vaccine dose: “My headaches became severe. Although they have lessened since the beginning, the symptoms have persisted for more than two years. It has been two and a half years of vaccine aftereffects.” Frustration with the bureaucratic hurdles in seeking relief was evident: “It’s difficult to go collect documents because of my leg pain, so I urgently wish the process to be simplified as soon as possible.”
Another viewer recounted a deeply personal tragedy: “Right after vaccination, my mother developed a serious illness and passed away.” Their story was not just about personal loss, but also about the social repercussions of questioning vaccine side effects. “During the period when I was collecting application documents after my mother’s illness and passing, I’ve been met repeatedly with heartless comments just for questioning the connection with the vaccine.”
The show also featured Misu from Ibaraki Prefecture, a former healthcare worker in her 40s, who shared her ongoing battle. Since receiving her third dose, she has struggled with “pain and numbness in the vaccinated arm, fatigue, and other symptoms.” Misu’s plea was simple yet profound: “I hope the government and media report this properly. Voices are being raised to spread awareness about the suffering caused by side effects.”
This feature on NHK’s Asaichi has not only brought attention to individual struggles but has also highlighted a broader societal issue: the difficulty in openly discussing vaccine side effects without backlash. It presents a call to action for society to foster an environment where sharing such experiences does not invite judgment but rather understanding and empathy.
🚨🚨🚨
Japanese citizens were left stunned when NHK, Japan's largest national broadcaster, on 28th Aug aired an hour long comprehensive report on the harms of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.
The program received messages from over 2,000 viewers, revealing that the extent of the… pic.twitter.com/9vlH6LrYhm
Two days following the national broadcast, Japan’s Health Minister, Keizō Takemi, made an unexpected statement: “Regarding whether health damage from the COVID-19 vaccine constitutes drug-induced injury, our response at this point is that we would like to refrain from commenting.”
It looks like they are no longer saying that it is 100% safe and effective!
The following translation was performed free of charge to protest an injustice: the destruction by the ADL of Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover on Jewish ritual murder. The author is the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and a professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, just outside Tel Aviv.
Dr. Toaff is uniquely qualified to write this book, being thoroughly familiar with the derivative literature in English, French, German and Italian, as well as the original documentary sources in Latin, Medieval Italian, Hebrew and Yiddish. This is not something he worked on in secret. On the contrary, he worked on it openly with his university students and colleagues in Israel for several years; one of his students was even going to publish a paper on the subject. The author is extremely careful about what he says, and his conclusions must be taken seriously. It reads like a detective story.
If it had been published in Israel, in Hebrew, no one would have cared. There are large bodies of literature in Hebrew that Jews do not wish Gentiles to know about. But Dr. Toaff’s announcement of its publication in Italy, in Italian, raised a worldwide firestorm of fury.
Under unbearable pressure, the book was withdrawn from publication. Come in out of the darkness, and strike a blow for the light.
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.
The following translation was performed free of charge to protest an injustice: the destruction by the ADL of Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover on Jewish ritual murder. The author is the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and a professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, just outside Tel Aviv.
Aletho News 