The 2050 Net Zero Climate Scam
By William Levin | American Thinker | December 29, 2024
Twenty fifty is the official date for net zero emissions. According to the experts, it is the last chance to stop a catastrophic rise in temperature. The leading source for climate change science, the U.N. IPCC, says so. Corporations run commercials helpfully informing the public that net zero is a top priority. Few can outdo Delta Air Lines, which promises compliance using “a fully sustainable long-haul aircraft [that] has yet to be invented.”
The urgency is palpable and the science compelling. Humanity itself is at risk without net zero CO2 and non-CO2 emissions.
Politically, 2050 is the ideal climate date because it is close enough to justify immediate action, and just far enough as to be unprovable for climate disaster.
For a science so settled and a date so specific, there must exist a wealth of data scientifically supporting the hypothesis that 25 years from now marks a deadline and turning point for the Earth’s future.
An A.I. query provides the answer:
The target year 2050 for achieving carbon neutrality is primarily driven by scientific consensus and international agreements aimed at limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Paris Agreement outline that reaching net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 is crucial to avoiding catastrophic climate impacts.
A.I. is correct that the IPCC and the signatories of the Paris Agreement are the parties responsible for promoting 2050 net zero. But who exactly are these organizations, and do they deserve our trust?
The IPCC is a political body consisting of 195 member-governments, charged with providing assessments in support of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. In theory, the IPCC mandate is to collect the best available climate science. The IPCC expressly commits that its “reports should be neutral with respect to policy.” And by its own admission, “the IPCC does not conduct its own research.” Its role is to summarize the objective science.
The signatories to the Paris Agreement are likewise 195 nations convened under the auspices of the U.N. But unlike the IPCC, the Paris Agreement signatories make no pretense to being a scientific body, and indeed, no one is confused on this point. The signatories are a political body and the Paris Agreement a purely political document.
With an overlapping membership, it should come as no surprise that the two organizations coordinate their efforts. In the process, the IPCC has become the loudest and most strident advocate for existential change in human activity. In the latest IPCC report, deepening red gradient shadings convey that the Earth is a looming inferno.
According to the IPCC, the danger of imminent collapse due to rising CO2 and non-CO2 emissions, particularly methane, requires immediate action. Humanity must downsize and restructure the global economy, including, in their modest terminology, “governments, private sector, and civil society.” Everyone is responsible, and everyone must contribute.
Not only must GDP be lowered, but the world must immediately and drastically curtail fossil fuels; limit global agriculture output based on emissions, not feeding the world; spend and redistribute upwards of $125 trillion; rely on expensive, unreliable, discredited solar and wind for global power needs; and virtually ignore nuclear power, all the while “prioritizing equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes.” To make the math work, governments and the private sector must implement on a global scale yet-to-exist carbon capture technologies, of unknown cost and consequence.
There is no imputation here that climate science is not real. It is the political choices of the IPCC at issue, specifically the 2023 Sixth Assessment’s Summary for Policymakers, as opposed to the physical scientists reporting as Working Group 1. As summarized by scientist Roger Pielke, “it is not within the IPCC’s mandate to call for action or to implore urgency.”
The IPCC task is to vet and summarize thousands of complex models and scientific papers produced annually. In each instance, a climate model incorporates assumptions not easily aggregated. The IPCC solution groups the models into five arbitrary scenarios based on forecasted warming in 2100. At no point does the IPCC ever declare one set of scenarios more likely than another. Indeed, as aggregators, they have no scientific basis for making any such assertion. In these scenarios, 2050 does not exist as a scientifically significant year. It is simply a point on the curve connecting the current temperature to the 2100 end point.
To get to 2050, and urgency, the IPCC needs to import the political findings of the Paris Agreement.
In 2015, the Paris Agreement signatories reviewed the then most current IPCC report, the 5th Assessment. These 195 government actors arbitrarily concluded that “well below 2 degrees Celsius” of warming was the maximum threshold the Earth could survive. Nothing in the IPCC 5th Assessment supports the “well below 2 degree warming” as a scientific consensus. No IPCC evidence identifies a scientific threshold for global warming beyond which the Earth tips into collapse. Especially relevant, the signatories to the Paris Agreement in no manner highlighted 2050 as a year of special climate meaning, nor would it matter, scientifically speaking, if they had. Following the 5th Assessment, the Paris Agreement target date is merely a “long-term temperature goal,” with one reference to “the second half” of the century.
The Paris Agreement signatories went farther, deciding by imperial fiat that the temperature goal needed a guardrail, the now infamous, endlessly repeated 1.5-degree-warming “limit.” In popular parlance, many, many people will swear that 1.5 degrees of warming is a scientifically valid statement of the limit to global warming, beyond which climate catastrophe ensues.
As important to note, all IPCC warming targets, including the Paris Agreement, start from the pre-industrial period 1850–1900. According to the IPCC, 1.1 degrees of warming has already occurred, meaning the Paris Agreement target at present is a mere 0.4 degrees over 75 years to the IPCC 2100 model date. This equates to an imperceptible 0.005 degrees of annual warming — hardly the stuff of headlines and catastrophic collapse. And nothing compared to the 10 degrees of warming observed in the Earth’s last interglacial warm period in Siberia some 115,000 to 130,000 years ago.
It needs to be said as loudly as possible. The 1.5-degree climate tipping limit has no basis in any finding of the IPCC. It is the arbitrary finding of 195 political actors, in defense of the non-scientific “well below 2 degree” catastrophe, magically transported by the IPCC from 2100 to 2050.
How does the IPCC move the climate clock back 50 years, in violation of its 2100 science? By intentional sleight of hand, the IPCC provides a science answer to a policy question. How much CO2 can be emitted before the 1.5-degree target is breached? The sole source of the 1.5 degrees is the Paris Agreement.
Pro-IPCC climate scientists confirm that the global warming limit, whether it be 1.5 degrees from the Paris Agreement or some other number, is based solely on “value judgments and choice,” not “climate science.” (See page 7 chart.) The IPCC would have readers believe the exact opposite: that the global warming limit is scientifically determined, and those who disagree are “science deniers.” It is a deception of massive consequence.
Twenty fifty, as it turns out, is a long con between 195 governments and the IPCC.
As part of his Day One actions, President Trump needs to, once again, remove the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and disavow the overtly political IPCC Sixth Assessment Summary for Policymakers. The IPCC global prescription is not scientific, and it most certainly is not benign.
The Risks of Vaccines During Pregnancy
What Expecting Mothers Need to Know
By Tracy Slepcevic | Warrior Mom | January 2, 2025
Pregnancy is a time of joy, anticipation, and careful decision-making. As an expecting mother, your primary goal is to ensure the health and safety of your baby. However, amidst the abundance of information and recommendations, it’s important to understand the potential risks associated with vaccines during pregnancy. Despite assurances from health authorities, recent evidence and expert testimonies suggest that vaccines given during pregnancy pose a significant risk to both mother and baby.
Lack of Proper Testing for Pregnant Women
One of the most concerning aspects of vaccine recommendations for pregnant women is the lack of rigorous safety testing. During a 2023 FDA meeting, Dr. Meryl Nass highlighted the troubling fact that many vaccines routinely recommended during pregnancy, including the COVID-19 vaccine, were not adequately tested in pregnant populations. The FDA admitted that its recommendations are based on limited or no data from controlled clinical trials involving pregnant women.
This absence of reliable data leaves many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of vaccines on both the developing fetus and the mother’s immune system. The decision to recommend vaccines without sufficient evidence undermines informed consent and raises serious ethical concerns.
Alarming Reports of Adverse Effects
Adverse events following vaccination during pregnancy are increasingly being reported. These include:
- Miscarriages: Some studies and anecdotal reports have linked vaccines, particularly the COVID-19 vaccine, to an increase in pregnancy losses.
- Preterm Births: Concerns have been raised about a potential connection between maternal vaccination and preterm deliveries.
- Developmental Issues: Emerging evidence suggests the possibility of long-term developmental effects on the baby, though more research is urgently needed to confirm these findings.
Dr. James Thorp, a board-certified OB-GYN, has been vocal about the risks of vaccinating pregnant women, stating that the CDC’s recommendations lack robust scientific backing. Dr. Thorp and other experts argue that the precautionary principle should guide decisions regarding vaccines during pregnancy, especially when there are alternative ways to manage risks.
The Role of Adjuvants and Ingredients
Many vaccines contain adjuvants; these are substances added to enhance immune response. Aluminum-based adjuvants, for example, have raised concerns due to their neurotoxic effects. During pregnancy, the developing fetus is particularly vulnerable to toxins, and the accumulation of such substances may interfere with normal development.
The presence of viral DNA fragments and other contaminants in vaccines has also been flagged as a risk factor. These components are not fully studied in the context of pregnancy, further complicating the risk assessment.
Trusting Your Natural Immunity
God did not make a mistake, man did. Pregnancy is a time when the body’s immune system undergoes natural adjustments to protect both the mother and the baby. Our God-given immunity is remarkably capable of managing many potential threats without external interventions. Prioritizing a healthy diet, reducing stress, and ensuring adequate sleep can support your immune system during this critical time.
Steps to Protect Yourself and Your Baby
If you are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, here are some steps you can take to make informed decisions about vaccines:
- Ask Questions: Before agreeing to any vaccination, ask your healthcare provider about the evidence supporting its safety and efficacy during pregnancy. Most doctors are blinded by the dangers of vaccines or choose to keep us in the dark due to kickbacks from Big Pharma.
- Do Your Research: Explore independent studies and expert testimonies to gain a fuller understanding of potential risks. The research is out there, but you will have to dig deeper than a Google search.
- Consider Alternatives: For certain infections, there may be natural or non-invasive ways to protect yourself without compromising your baby’s development. Boost your immune system with supplements instead of neurotoxic vaccines.
- Seek Second Opinions: If you feel pressured by your provider, consult with another healthcare professional to discuss your concerns. Functional and Alternative medicine doctors are more likely to keep their oath to “do no harm.”
- Prioritize Wellness: Focus on boosting your natural immunity through nutrition, hydration, and lifestyle choices.
A Call for Transparency and Caution
As an expecting mother, you deserve complete and honest information to make the best decisions for your baby. The current vaccine recommendations for pregnancy often lack the robust safety data needed to ensure their efficacy and safety. Until comprehensive studies are conducted and transparency is prioritized, the precautionary principle should guide decisions about vaccines during pregnancy.
By taking the time to educate yourself and trust your instincts, you can protect both your health and the health of your baby. Remember, it’s your right to make informed choices about your body and your baby’s future. For more information go to http://www.WarriorMom.com and http://www.AutismHealth.com.
Hoax Alert: Acker is Angry (2024)
Karl’s Substack | January 4, 2025
According to Jake Tapper writing for CNN there was a so-called ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ in Detroit, Michigan in December 2024.
We read how:
‘The home of a Jewish member of the University of Michigan’s Board of Regents was vandalized early Monday, in what the university described as “a clear act of antisemitic intimidation.”
The incident marks the third time Jordan Acker, a Michigan attorney elected to the board overseeing the university’s governance, has been targeted since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
“The University of Michigan condemns these criminal acts in the strongest possible terms,” the school said in a statement. “They are abhorrent and, unfortunately, just the latest in a number of incidents where individuals have been harassed because of their work on behalf of the university. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
The sound of shattering glass jolted Acker from his sleep just after 2 a.m. Monday, he told CNN. He went downstairs to find his front windows had been smashed and his wife’s car vandalized with what he described as “messages about Palestine with a Hamas upside triangle.”
The upside-down triangle has become a symbol of violent resistance to Israel, according to the Anti-Defamation League. Photos provided by Acker show someone scrawled “Divest” and “Free Palestine” on the vehicle.
Acker said his neighbors captured the incident on their ring camera and called the police. CNN has reached out to the Huntington Woods Police Department for comment.
“As a public official, you expect a certain level of criticism – even protests – but this is not protest, this is terrorism,” Acker said, adding the incident took place while his daughters were asleep upstairs.
“This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, has nothing to do with Palestine, nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with trying to harass and intimidate Jews,” Acker said, “And this Jew will not be intimidated by it.”’ (1)
Now before I get into the meat of this claim this is the ‘anti-Semitic’ vandalism:
Now while it can be reasonably described as politically motivated vandalism given the political message, damage to Acker’s car and the smashed window; ‘anti-Semitic’ is not only pushing it but ludicrous.
This is because it is clearly targeted at Israel – hence the BDS and ‘Free Palestine’ references in the graffiti on Acker’s car – and Acker while jewish has been a staunch and vocal pro-Israel supporter for quite some time who has had the police violently break up pro-Palestine protests of the University of Michigan campus (2) and as such as been the focus on anti-Zionist political protest stunts – such as the vandalising of the sign of his legal practice – (3) for quite some time.
Acker’s response has been exactly the same and has claimed that anyone protesting against him is ‘anti-Semitic’ and criticism of the jewish state is also ipso facto ‘anti-Semitic’. (4)
To quote Acker:
‘I was not targeted here today because I am a regent. I am a target of this because I am Jewish. This neighborhood is Jewish, and because some people, under the pretext of helping Palestinians, feel the obligation to single out Jews, especially liberal ones for an attack. It is unacceptable, it is un-American, and it must stop now.’ (5)
Given this and the fact – as Jacob Maggid has explained in the ‘Times of Israel’ – that:
‘The activists shouted various accusations and grievances at Acker, claiming that he “supports Israeli genocide” in Gaza and is behind the “persecution” of anti-Israel protesters who were recently indicted for trespassing and resisting law enforcement during the break-up of a pro-Palestinian encampment on campus.’ (6)
Or put another way: Acker is a jewish lawyer who is using his position as Regent of the University of Michigan to crack down on anti-Israel sentiment and protests on campus and thus limit the scope of intellectual inquiry as it pertains to Israel, but also uses his jewishness as a shield to enable him to label any resistance and/or criticism of him and his policies as ‘anti-Semitic’.
So thus, while this is a case of politically motivated vandalism it is not an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ in any way, shape or form.
Cecilia Sala, or the stupidity of the western narrative
Western propaganda made of distortion and manipulation has a new face of the month: Cecilia Sala
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 4, 2025
Facts and… misdeeds
It is a familiar and perfectly functioning pattern that has been adopted in the case of Cecilia Sala, a mainstream Italian journalist, who arrived in Iran on 13 December on a journalistic visa and was arrested on the 19th ‘for violating the law of the Islamic Republic of Iran’. The event occurred a few days after the arrest in Italy, at Milan’s Malpensa Airport, of Iranian engineer Mohammad Abedini Najafabadi.
So far, nothing strange. These things happen for many reasons. People are arrested every day and this is not news.
The oddities, however, begin when you explore the background.
Let’s start with Abedini: an engineer specialising in drone design, who was on a business trip. He is arrested not for breaking any laws, but because… the United States of America asked for it. The master orders, the servant executes. Now the US has asked for his extradition and one can guess that they have no intention of treating Mr Abedini politely. The charge, of course, is international terrorism.
As far as Cecilia Sala is concerned, things are even more captivating. Her CV leaves little doubt. Born in 1995, she studied at Bocconi but did not graduate. She started working for Vice Italia, then went on to work for other magazines all from the same publisher and then appeared on television. The interesting thing is that he always passed under the aegis of Rupert Murdoch, one of the ‘oligarchs’ of British intelligence and politics, who in Italy invested a lot of money first in football and then in telecommunications, but also the man who owns Fox, News Corp and Disney. One of the richest men in the world, whose first interest is obviously to do independent and truthful journalism, right?
Curious that his numerous employees, especially journalists, have constant collaborations with the intelligence agencies of the USA, the UK and Israel, with offices appearing as veritable ‘schools’ of infowarfare and human intelligence; curious how there have already been convictions in this regard, as there were for the Sunday Times in the late 1970s and in 2011 with the News of the World ; equally curious that a good slice of mainstream information is in the hands of this man and his empire. And even more curious is that we should think of Cecilia Sala as a ‘clean’ person working for the universal good.
Since we are in the realm of fantasy, let’s try an imaginative suggestion: let’s think for a moment of Cecilia Sala as an advisor or intelligence agent, perhaps under a British or American flag, who goes to Iran, a country notoriously hostile to the two empires mentioned above, and is arrested. If we see it for just one minute like this, we immediately realise that there is nothing strange about it. If Abedini can be considered a ‘terrorist’ and arrested just because he deals with drones, why should we not be able to consider Sala a ‘spy’ who goes on a mission in a foreign land to do something she has been asked to do?
Let’s add another biographical detail: Cecilia Sala’s father was an executive at Monte dei Paschi di Siena and is Senior Advisor for Italy at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and has been a member of the Greenmantle Think Tank since 2017. He is one of the Founding Members of the Canova Club in Milan. He is currently CEO of Advisor S.R.L. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
What a curious coincidence… because it is a coincidence, isn’t it?
A few blots on the Curriculum
It must be pointed out that Cecilia Sala was a well-known anti-Russian, anti-Chinese, anti-Palestinian and anti-Iranian propagandist, coincidentally a journalist for Il Foglio, in contact with the Zionist sectors of the anti-Iranian opposition, and despite this she was freely allowed to enter Iranian soil by the government in Tehran. This is not the case, for example, for Russian journalists.
After Abdeini’s anomalous arrest, since Ms Sala had all the elements to be detained by the Iranian justice system, culturally collaborating with part of that opposition that has carried out terrorist attacks on Iranian soil, even deadly ones, it did not follow that the government in Tehran, not being the monster depicted today by the western and Italian media, but simply a sovereign nation that does not accept interference, proceeded to detain the goliardic journalist.
We reiterate this for those who had not grasped the ‘subtle’ difference: Abedini’s arrest at Malpensa is entirely arbitrary, while Sala’s is justified under the laws in force in the Islamic Republic.
The Italian press immediately turned to somersaults worthy of the Olympics to attack Iran, ignoring both the truth of the facts – a subject, the truth, that most Western journalists have not been interested in for years – and how certain ordinary diplomatic protocols between hostile countries work.
Diplomatic bodies and intelligence agencies are in constant contact with each other and carry out such activities every day.
A journalist with Cecilia Sala’s CV does not just happen to be arrested. Is that clear?
We know nothing about the circumstances of her arrest. However, those who know a little about the country know that it is unlikely that she was arrested for her work as a reporter on women’s movements or for her opinions, which may transpire from her writings, which were certainly scrutinised by those who granted her the visa. Under normal conditions, i.e. not in this geopolitical context that has taken shape in the last year, and not with Iran as a ‘live’ and perhaps imminent target of the US, UK and Israeli administrations, we could have assumed a classic detention due to active participation in political demonstrations or more likely any photos at military, government or nuclear installations; however, it is very likely that Cecilia Sala knew these things very well and did not do this kind of journalism. Perhaps there is much more behind it.
The point is that this ‘more’ is not the subject of journalistic comment. The vast majority of western journalists are talking out of their ass about things they do not know.
The US ordered the capture in Italy of an Iranian engineer who was travelling, Iran arrested a journalist with a respectable resume to find a job with MI6 and the CIA because she violated the laws of the Republic. Incidentally, in America one can be arrested on the free initiative of a policeman, who can also shoot at a distance of 21 paces on his own free initiative. This, in Iran, is illegal. But the Western press does not know this and writes nonsense anyway.
The newspapers have spoken of the shadow of an Iranian ‘blackmail’, but if we are to accept it as such, we must remember two things: it is also American blackmail to countries called upon to arrest Iranian civilians on the basis of embarrassing and specious US laws, according to imposed sanctions that magically take effect even in vassal states; how it got to this point, after 20 years of assassinations of Iranian scientists and physicists, that is, to the point where Iran, under threat of bombing by Israel, uses even with a country considered a ‘friend’ like Italy the methods of diplomatic soft power to get a break in the interminable Western attack.
The point is that Iran is not a country born yesterday, nor is it just any old colony that can be exploited at will. Iranians still enjoy two things that are bitterly lacking in the West: sovereignty and dignity.
From slogan to slogan
In the sum of the parts, Cecilia Sala’s case is a great gimmick for anti-Iranian propaganda and will be used for a long time to come.
All this, of course, with the usual Western hypocrisy.
It is full of journalists who on social networks (sick!) are indignant about the arrest and write posts about the importance of free journalism, but not one of them has been tearing their hair out over all the crimes committed against freedom of the press and information in the West or in Israel, for example, with more than 200 journalists killed in Palestine in one year, even with targeted killings
Juicy news for the western press: much worse has come into Iran, Il Foglio fortunately counts for nothing in the world, and those who have come in have written much worse things than Cecilia Sala who, let’s be honest, is not worth a lira as a journalist (this is proven by her own articles and posts, many of which will remain in the annals of propaganda vileness).
In Iran, and elsewhere, as a foreigner they stop you or arrest you if they suspect you are a spy, and this is a fact we should learn to understand and keep in mind, because at home these terms and definitions or accusations belong only to the cinematic dimension but in certain quadrants of the world they are anchored in tangible reality.
In the past few days I read a brilliant commentary on the matter, which I quote from memory: ‘We have agreed to participate in the American sanctions festival – which began well before last year – and to consider as a ‘global threat’ even those who are not, or who are at worst for Israel, and not for us; we have agreed to harass, detain, interdict Iranian citizens who until proven otherwise are civilians and not guilty of any crime that has not been configured ad hoc in the American ‘acts’; we have even agreed at certain times to interrupt supplies of stocks of goods that have already been paid for, just as the USA has reserved the right to withhold tens of billions of dollars’ worth of Iranian state property for decades; we have decided to join a belligerent and hostile coalition, without yet having understood what role to play, other than that of paper-pusher. We should, however, be careful in the future about which cards we pass on to the next one’.
Once again, from slogan to slogan, the truth that journalism is supposed to investigate and tell will be of no interest to anyone. On the other hand, no one is interested in reporting on what is happening in Gaza, but there has never been a shortage of time to post some new hashtag to win the war against Russia, China, Iran and any other enemy, evidently terrified by the use of social network posts with a few well-functioning keywords for psy ops marketing.
Once again, we will have to settle for the words of Seneca: ‘Magis veritas elucet quo sepius ad manum venit’.
State Department Rebrands Defunded Global Engagement Center into New Counter-Disinformation Hub
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | January 4, 2025
As we previously reported would be the case, the celebration about the shutting down of the US government’s most overt censorship unit would be short-lived. The State Department is moving forward with plans to reassign employees and resources from a controversial office accused of stifling media into a newly created internal unit, as revealed by documents obtained by the Washington Examiner. This maneuver is already drawing criticism, with some alleging it is a thinly veiled attempt to rebrand and continue the disputed activities of the defunct office.
The Global Engagement Center (GEC), established in 2016 to counter foreign disinformation, faced fierce scrutiny from Republicans over claims it collaborated with groups like the Global Disinformation Index to target and demonetize right-leaning US media outlets.
In late 2024, Congress defunded the GEC, effectively shutting it down. Yet, a December 6 communication from the State Department to Congress outlined a plan to “realign” 51 GEC employees and nearly $30 million in funding into a new “Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub.”
Republicans are expected to investigate the matter closely, with concerns that the new hub could replicate the GEC’s controversial operations.
A Legacy of Controversy
The GEC claimed its mission was to counter foreign disinformation, but allegations of domestic overreach cast a long shadow. It funded initiatives like the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard, groups accused of pressuring advertisers to blacklist certain US media outlets.
These actions prompted legal challenges, including a December 2023 lawsuit by conservative outlets The Federalist and The Daily Wire, alongside the State of Texas.
Despite its closure, top officials from the GEC have already found new roles in the State Department.
The hub will report to the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and will inherit significant resources. According to the documents, $69 million previously allocated to the GEC will be redistributed across the State Department, with $29.4 million designated for the R/FIMI hub. This funding includes salaries, contract staff, and operational support. However, a source noted that, unlike the GEC, the new hub would lack grantmaking authority.
New Censor Replacing Old Censor at Meta
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | January 4, 2025
Some people are optimistic that the promotion of Joel Kaplan to be Meta’s president of global affairs heralds the end of, or at least a big reduction in, censorship at Meta’s social media sites of Facebook and Instagram. This optimism springs from the fact that Kaplan leans Republican in the notoriously Democratic leaning company, and even was White House deputy chief of staff for policy in the Republican George W. Bush administration.
Yet, there is plenty of reason for skepticism. Support for free speech has become a rallying cry for many Republicans in response to censorship efforts by Meta, other companies, and governments over the last few years. However, many Republicans and Republican-leaning individuals still are keen on censoring people, though sometimes for different reasons than are many Democratic or Democratic-leaning individuals. Consider efforts by Republicans, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott a good example, to shut down very broadly defined “antisemitic” communication.
Also, Kaplan is not a hire from the outside. He joined Meta 13 years ago as vice president of United States public policy. Since 2014 he has been the company’s vice president of global affairs. In this job, Kaplan has worked with Nick Clegg — the person Kaplan will succeed. Are we to believe Kaplan has spent all this time itching to tear down the censorship implemented, with his help, by his boss? They have had some differences of opinion regarding Meta’s censorship, but let’s wait and see what change comes.
Clegg, in a Thursday Facebook post, profusely praised Kaplan ascending to Clegg’s job, stating:
And no one could pick up from where I’ve left off with greater skill and integrity than my deputy, Joel Kaplan. I am simply thrilled that Joel will now become Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer.
Hmmm. That is not suggesting a big change in policy on censorship is on the way.
Reporter Glenn Greenwald provided in a Friday Twitter post a fact that challenges the optimism that Kaplan’s promotion signals the end of, or even a large reduction in, censorship by Meta. Greenwald wrote, using “FB” to refer to Facebook: “Kaplan was the senior FB official who worked directly with the Israeli Government to ensure that Israel’s demands for censorship were honored.”
Backing up his claim, Greenwald linked in his Twitter post a September 12, 2016 The Times of Israel article that detailed Facebook’s, at the behest of the Israel government, then substantial and expanding clamping down on communication. This was years before the company’s name change to Meta.
The article identifies Kaplan as a Facebook employee who took part in a high-level meeting to carry out the arrangement with the Israel government:
Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan met Monday morning with senior Facebook officials in an effort to jointly stem online incitement that Israel claims leads to terror activities.
The Facebook officials included Joel Kaplan, vice president of Global Public Policy and a former deputy chief of staff for policy at the White House, and Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of product policy and counterterrorism.
And the censorship by Facebook at the Israel government’s request was ongoing before the meeting. Noted in the article:
In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, also on Monday, Shaked said that Facebook has already started removing 95 percent of content Israel has requested it to remove, while YouTube has complied with Israel’s requests 80 percent of the time, the Israeli news website Ynet reported.
But, that was just the start. The Israel government wanted even more censorship from Facebook. From the article: “In the meeting Israel requested that Facebook be more proactive in removing materials that could be seen as incitement to terror and the joint teams will study how to work together to serve the interests of both parties, a person familiar with the matter said.”
This man is the hope for stopping censorship? Hoping is fine, but it is often important to keep your feet firmly on the ground as well.
Angela Merkel’s Revelation: The Minsk Agreements Were Not Intended To Be Pursued
By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – January 4, 2025
The EU was born as a peace project. Is it still so? The former German Chancellor reveals in an interview and in her Memoirs that Europe preferred conflict to peace with Russia.
The Minsk Agreements: A Tactical Pause, Not a Path to Peace
The former German chancellor Angela Merkel sparked controversy with her candid reflections on the Minsk agreements. These accords were ostensibly negotiated to de-escalate tensions in Ukraine after Russia’s accession of Crimea in 2014 as a result of a referendum by its residents and the subsequent outbreak of hostilities by the Ukrainian army and the Azov Battalion against ethnic Russians in the Donbas and Donetsk regions.
In an interview and in her memoirs titled Freedom, Merkel stated that the agreements were not genuinely pursued as a path to peace with Russia but rather as a strategic delay tactic, buying Ukraine time to strengthen its military and prepare for an inevitable confrontation.
Her statements highlight deeper underlying tensions within the European Union, particularly among member states like the Baltic nations and Poland, who viewed Russia’s actions as an existential threat. This perspective helps explain why efforts for peace were limited, and why many in the EU tacitly or openly preferred to prepare for conflict rather than seek reconciliation.
The Minsk agreements—Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015—were brokered under the Normandy Format with the involvement of Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia. These agreements called for an immediate ceasefire in Donbas and Donetsk, withdrawal of heavy weaponry, granting autonomy for these regions in eastern Ukraine, and constitutional reforms in Ukraine to ensure the autonomy of these regions. If the agreements had been implemented, they would have saved the lives of 14,000 Russian ethnics in Donbas and Donetsk, and certainly, they would have avoided Russian special operation in Ukraine.
However, Merkel’s remarks suggest that these agreements were never fully intended to resolve the conflict. Instead, they were a way to “freeze” the situation, allowing Ukraine to rebuild its military capacity and align itself more closely with NATO and the West. This approach mirrored a broader strategy within the EU that saw Russia’s actions, such as the accession of Crimea, not as isolated incidents but as part of a larger pattern of aggression.
Baltic and Eastern European Perspectives: Security over Diplomacy
For the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—Russia’s accession of Crimea and its support for people in eastern Ukraine were seen as dire warnings. These countries, which share borders and historical tensions with Russia, viewed any peace deal as a potential opportunity for Russia to consolidate its gains and prepare for further expansion.
The Baltic States, are deeply rooted in Russophobia. As a result, they prioritise strengthening NATO and bolstering their defences over engaging in diplomacy, which they perceive as a tool Russia has exploited for strategic advantage. Additionally, there is a persistent mistrust of European institutions, viewed as incapable of guaranteeing their security. Consequently, they place greater reliance on the United States through NATO and favour purchasing American defence equipment over European alternatives.
This is the stance held by the EU Foreign Affairs Chief, Kaja Kallas, the former Prime Minister of Estonia, who is hindering a diplomatic solution in Ukraine. This makes her unfit for the role, as she is driven by deep Russophobia and is little inclined toward diplomacy.
EU’s General Stance: Divided but Increasingly Hawkish
Within the broader EU, member states were divided over how to handle Russia. Western European countries like Germany and France initially pursued dialogue and diplomacy, partly due to their economic ties with Russia. However, Merkel’s remarks suggest even these efforts were tempered by a recognition that peace with Russia might only be temporary.
By contrast, Eastern European members like Poland and the Baltics were vocal advocates for a tougher stance. Their influence grew as Russia’s actions in Ukraine escalated, pushing the EU toward a more unified, confrontational approach.
The Militarization of Ukraine was pursued as the EU and NATO believed that a stronger Ukraine was essential to deter future Russian aggression. This focus on military preparedness left little room for genuine peace efforts. As a result, the U.S. did not respond to Putin’s letters and security guarantee requests.
Further, there was the question of strategic interests. For many EU members, particularly the Baltics and Poland, a weakened Russia was viewed as essential for regional stability. Consequently, the West and NATO members were accused of unnecessarily prolonging the war. A former U.S. Senator famously remarked, “We will fight until the last Ukrainian,” underscoring the approach of continued military engagement.
The peace agreement reached in Istanbul in April 2022 was reportedly rejected by Western powers. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, acting on behalf of U.S. President Joe Biden, hurried to Kyiv to dissuade President Zelensky from signing the deal, assuring him of full Western support to defeat Russia.
Merkel’s Legacy and the Fallout of Her Comments
Merkel’s acknowledgement that the Minsk agreements were merely a strategic delay has sparked debates about the sincerity of European diplomacy. Her remarks have also undermined Europe’s moral narrative, exposing the calculated realpolitik behind decisions often framed as efforts towards peace. While Merkel defended her actions as necessary to protect Ukraine and Europe, they raised uncomfortable questions about the EU’s commitment to its proclaimed values of diplomacy and conflict resolution.
At the time, the guarantors of the Minsk agreements—France and Germany—still held significant diplomatic clout on the international stage. Today, however, these nations have become diplomatic dwarfs, rendered increasingly irrelevant by their subservience to U.S. interests—a dependency deepened by the war in Ukraine. This decline is also compounded by the West’s hypocrisy and double standards, which have eroded its legitimacy on the global stage.
In sum, Merkel’s comments highlight a Europe that, while officially advocating peace, frequently prioritised U.S. interests over genuine reconciliation. For the Baltics and other Eastern European nations, their warmongering approach underscores the challenges of pursuing balanced diplomacy in an era of resurgent great-power rivalry.
The Pandemic Planners Come for Hoof and Hen… and Us Again
By Clayton J. Baker, MD | Brownstone Institute | January 4, 2025
On December 31, 2024, the world received a year-end parting gift from the good folks at NIAID, Anthony Fauci’s old fiefdom at the National Institutes of Health. NIAID – the same unaccountable and secretive agency that Fauci used to fund the gain-of-function research of Ralph Baric at UNC Chapel Hill and the Bat Lady in Wuhan that resulted in Covid – has a new director, one Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo.
Marrazzo and another NIAID colleague, Dr. Michael G. Ison, wrote a year-end editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanies a research paper on recent H5N1 Bird flu cases in the United States, as well as a case report of a lone case of severe illness associated with Bird flu in British Columbia.
Marrazzo and Ison summarize the findings of the research paper and case report as follows:
Investigators now report in the Journal a series of human cases from the United States and Canada. The former series involves 46 case patients with generally mild, self-limited infection with [Influenza type] A(H5N1): 20 with exposure to poultry, 25 with exposure to dairy cows, and 1 with undefined exposure.…Most case patients presented with conjunctivitis, almost half with fever, and a minority with mild respiratory symptoms, and all recovered. The only hospitalization occurred in the case patient with undefined exposure, although hospitalization was not for respiratory illness.
They elaborate on the single case of serious illness:
In Canada, a 13-year-old girl with mild asthma and obesity presented with conjunctivitis and fever and had progression to respiratory failure…After treatment that included oseltamivir, amantadine, and baloxavir, she recovered.
In other words:
- Over an eight-month period, from March to October 2024, 46 cases of human bird flu occurred in the United States, a country of 336 million people.
- There were zero deaths.
- 45 out of 46 infected persons had known exposure to animals.
- The majority of the cases consisted of conjunctivitis (commonly known as “pink eye”).
- Only one US patient was hospitalized, but this was not due to pneumonia – the principal life-threatening complication of influenza – and the patient recovered.
- One severe case was identified in Canada, a country of 40 million people, in an asthmatic, morbidly obese girl. She was treated successfully with respiratory support and existing antiviral medications, and she recovered.
Does this sound to you like a public health emergency worthy of the legacy media’s recent exhumation of discredited Covid-era fear-mongers like Dr. Leana Wen and Dr. Deborah “Scarf Lady” Birx? Does it justify their hair-on-fire pronouncements on cable news shows everywhere, pushing for indiscriminate PCR testing of animals and emergency authorization of more mRNA vaccines for humans?
Does this sound to you like justification to continue to kill and destroy (pro tip: “cull” means kill and destroy) millions upon millions of farm animals, when most animals who contract Bird flu survive, recover, and develop immunity?
Does this sound to you like justification for another Emergency Use Authorization of another mRNA vaccine?
No? Me neither.
But wait, there’s more.
In their editorial, NIAID experts Marrazzo and Ison fail to mention the following:
- There have been zero cases of human-to-human transmission of this virus.
- The current circulating clade of the virus has been determined by independent researchers to very likely have originated at a US Government gain-of-function laboratory, namely the USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) in Athens, GA.
- Multiple bioweapons laboratories, including the Yoshihiro Kawaoka lab at the University of Wisconsin, and the Ron Fouchier lab in the Netherlands (both of which have been affiliated with NIAID and with work done at SEPRL) have been doing gain-of-function research on Bird flu for many years, including experiments so outrageously dangerous that their work prompted President Obama’s ultimately unsuccessful ban of gain-of-function research in 2014.
- In 2019, NIAID reapproved and resumed funding Kawaoka and Fouchier’s dangerous work at increasing human transmissibility of Bird flu – the very same gain-of-function research that had prompted Obama’s ban.
- According to its package insert, Audenz, the current Bird flu vaccine, was associated with death in 1 out of every 200 recipients, compared to 1 in 1,000 placebo recipients.
- According to openthebooks.com, and as reported in the New York Post, NIH scientists received royalties totaling $325 million from pharmaceutical companies and foreign entities over more than a decade.
So, what are our friends at NIAID’s recommendations?
For one, they stress the “urgent need for vigilant surveillance of emerging mutations and assessment of the threat of human-to-human transmission.”
Are they advocating for the willy-nilly testing of entire livestock herds, as promoted by Birx, which is sure to create a preponderance of false positives?
Are they calling for the continued mass killing and destruction of millions upon millions of farm animals, whenever a fraction of the animals test positive for the virus?
Instead of PCR-swabbing every cow, chicken, and farm worker on Earth, how about we stop creating new mutant variants of H5N1 in the labs, since that’s where the current problem originated? How about we stop funding such utter madness with our tax dollars, funneled through corrupt government agencies like NIAID?
After all, you don’t save Tokyo by creating Godzilla.
But Marrazzo and Ison make no mention of this common-sense, sane approach.
Instead, they also stress the need for more – you guessed it – vaccines. They write:
we must continue to pursue development and testing of medical countermeasures…Studies have shown the safety and immunogenicity of A(H5N1) vaccines…studies are ongoing to develop messenger RNA–based A(H5N1) vaccines and other novel vaccines that can provide protection against a broad range of influenza viruses, including A(H5N1).”
Aside from attesting to the “safety” of a product where 1 in 200 users die, the use of the word “countermeasures” is extremely telling. It is a military term, not a medical one. We have already seen this game played with Covid. The gain-of-function lab research is done to produce a lab-manipulated, weaponized version of a virus, a version that is transmissible among and toxic to humans – in other words, a bioweapon. The vaccine is the countermeasure to the bioweapon. The vaccine is the intellectual property of those who created the bioweapon, and it is worth a fortune once the weapon has been unleashed. It is as simple as that.
“Pandemic preparedness” is a gigantic, deadly protection racket. I have described it in the past as arsonists running the fire department. That is precisely what happened with Covid, and that is what is being attempted with H5N1 Bird flu.
Moving forward to a new administration that has expressed a commitment to rooting out corruption in the pharmaceutical/medical/public health realm, improving the health of citizens, and restoring trustworthiness in medicine, I recommend the following steps to combat the H5N1 Bird flu, and to end the “pandemic preparedness” racket that threatens to hold the world hostage again and again, as it did during Covid.
- Immediately end and outlaw all gain-of-function and other bioweapons research in and funded by the United States, and apply all possible diplomatic pressure to eradicate it from the Earth.
- Eliminate all special protections from liability for vaccines, including the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the PREP Act.
- Refocus Infectious Disease research on new therapeutics, rather than power-seeking and profit-driven vaccine development.
- Completely reform the National Institutes of Health, and close the incorrigibly corrupt NIAID altogether.
The fear pornographers must be discredited. We must make realistic and sensible decisions about our food supply.
We must learn the lessons of Covid, and live in knowledge rather than in fear.
We must end the protection rackets, confidence games, and shakedowns that government insiders impose on us like mafiosi.
Happy New Year!
Uncle Sam and Banderite bandits destroy Europe while Euro lackeys hail liberation
Strategic Culture Foundation | January 3, 2025
This new year began with a new era that presages Europe sliding irrevocably into economic darkness and abject suzerainty under U.S. dominance.
Uncle Sam has won a decades-long ambition to dominate Europe entirely, thanks to the help from a NeoNazi regime in Ukraine and the pathetic European politicians who hail the slavery of Europe as some liberation.
The people of Europe are facing a foreboding period of economic hardship. We can confidently say that because the most fundamental of economic inputs – fuel energy – is about to become more expensive and precariously supplied for the European Union.
Russia’s decades-long energy relations with Europe are now severed. It seems an astounding final act of reckless self-harm. The European Union’s economies have been floundering from an energy crisis caused by EU leaders willfully cutting off supplies of Russian gas. Now, with the last major transit route shut down, Europe is heading toward economic, social, and political self-destruction.
On Wednesday, New Year’s Day, the Ukrainian regime cut off the last supply route of Russian gas to the European Union. This regime, which glorifies Stepan Bandera and other Nazi-era fascists, is, in effect, holding the entire European Union hostage with its Russophobia and relentless corruption.
The arrogance and audacity are astonishing. The Ukrainian regime does not have an elected leader (Zelensky canceled elections last year), it is not a member of the EU, it has milked European taxpayers of hundreds of billions of Euros, and now has unilaterally shut down the last gas pipeline from Russia to the EU.
Ironically, the pipeline was called the Brotherhood Pipeline. It was conceived in the 1970s and began operating in the 1980s, carrying natural gas from Russia’s Western Siberia to the EU. Ukraine received generous transit fees for the overland route. The decades-long era of transcontinental cooperation was killed on December 31 by a Banderite regime that has the cheek to claim its actions are virtuous to “stop Russian blood money”.
Incredibly, too, various European leaders also hailed the Ukrainian action as a liberation from Russian energy dependence. Some Western media even tried to cast Moscow as the villain that instigated the cut-off. The New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, for example, inverted reality with the headline: “Russia ends exports of natural gas to Europe via Ukraine”.
To his credit, Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico seems to be the only sane leader among the EU’s 27 member states. He condemned what he called Ukraine’s “sabotage” of Europe’s energy supply and its economies. Fico warned that the European Union is facing a full-blown economic disaster as a result.
The Ukraine transit route supplied Slovakia, Austria, Italy and the Czech Republic. Now, those countries will have to find alternative supplies from international markets. The Ukrainian route also supplied Moldova, which is facing an immediate energy crisis. Russia claims that the Moldavian government owes outstanding bills for past gas supply.
The Brotherhood Pipeline harks back to an era of friendship and cooperation even though it was conceived during the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union. The 4,500-kilometer pipeline was partly financed by German capital.
Another ambitious Cold War-era supply route was the Yamal Pipeline, which ran over 4,100 km from Siberia to Poland and Germany. Its operation was halted in 2022 by Poland following the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine.
The more recently constructed Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines that ran 1,200 km under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany were blown up in 2022. That covert act of sabotage was no doubt carried out by the United States under the orders of President Joe Biden, according to the respected investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.
The upshot is that all major Russian natural gas supply lines to Europe have now been terminated. The only one remaining is Turk Stream which runs under the Black Sea to Turkey. But it mainly supplies Balkan countries that are not in the EU.
In the space of two years, Russia has gone from being the major supplier of EU gas imports (over 40 percent) to being a minor source. The big winner of the phenomenal market disruption is the United States, whose exports of liquefied natural gas to the EU have tripled. Another winner is Norway, which is not an EU member. Other sources of gas for Europe are Azerbaijan and Algeria.
However, the unprecedented extra costs to Europe for this enormous rearrangement in its energy trade are encumbering the EU economies, industries and households with crippling burdens. New pipelines have to be built, as well as new terminals to receive the shipped gas. U.S. exports cost 30 to 40 percent more than the Russian product.
The slump in the German economy from higher energy costs is directly caused by the cutting off of abundant and affordable Russian gas. And it is going to get even worse. The grim fate of Germany heralds the economic misery that the whole EU is sliding headlong into.
The history of Europe’s economic demise is as obvious as it is blatant.
Of course, it is all about the United States using and abusing its Western “allies” for its own interests. For Western imperialists, there is no such thing as allies, only interests. And the Americans are exacting that maxim to the hilt.
For decades, the U.S. has vehemently opposed the energy trade between the EU and Russia. Back in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan’s administration tried its best to block the development of the Brotherhood Pipeline with threats of economic sanctions. The Americans openly said they didn’t want to see Europe and the Soviet Union developing cooperative relations.
At least in earlier times, the European governments appeared to have more independence and backbone. Germany, France, Italy and others rebuffed Washington’s demands to shut down the gas projects.
The long-running strategic aim of the U.S. to displace Russia as an energy supplier to Europe has now been realized. It’s a sign of the desperate times and lawlessness that American military operatives attack European infrastructure.
The blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines and the proxy war in Ukraine have secured the strategic aim of the U.S. and its NATO proxy – keeping the Germans (Europeans) down, the Americans in, and the Russians out.
So much for the free-market capitalism and rules-based order that American and European elites preach. The practice is brute economic competition and dominance down the barrel of a gun. Millions of lives have been destroyed in this “great game” of American imperialist chicanery, and the proxy war in Ukraine is risking the escalation to a nuclear Third World War.
The Banderite regime – an echo of the Nazi past – has enabled the United States to enslave Europe to Washington’s imperialist desires.
Tragically, a coterie of elitist European political leaders are so obsessed with Russophobia and servility to their American overlord that they are crowing with delight at cutting off Russia.
Russia will not suffer. Its vast energy resources are finding alternative lucrative global markets. The victims are the European citizens who are being plunged into wretched economic hardship due to the machinations of American capital, its Banderite tools, and Euro fools.
What US mediation? 1000 Israeli violations in Lebanon go unchecked
The Cradle | January 2, 2025
Under the supervision of US special envoy and former Israeli soldier Amos Hochstein, Beirut and Tel Aviv reached a ceasefire agreement on 27 November after almost 14 months of intense conflict against the backdrop of the war on Gaza.
The Israeli military pledged to withdraw from Lebanese territory within 60 days of the agreement’s enactment.
To ensure compliance, a monitoring committee led by US General Jasper Jeffers was established, focusing on enforcing the cessation of hostilities and the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
Rampant Israeli violations
But Israel immediately undermined the truce, committing nearly 1,000 violations within the first month alone – one of many cases of the occupation state’s disregard for international agreements.
Additionally, occupation forces have continually obstructed the Lebanese army’s deployment at key points in southern Lebanon, and have leaked plans that Tel Aviv intends to maintain control over strategic areas in the country. Reports suggest there is an Israeli effort underway to establish a security buffer zone spanning from Abbad to the villages of Odaisseh and Kfar Kila.
Map showing areas of Israeli military presence (in yellow) south of the Litani River in southern Lebanon, following the declared ceasefire. (Updated December 2024)
Meanwhile, from the onset of the ceasefire, Hezbollah assured the Lebanese government that it would not retaliate during the 60-day truce period, adhering strictly to the agreement terms and allowing the government and army to address Israel’s daily provocations.
The ceasefire followed intense internal and international pressure on the resistance movement to halt its battle with Israel, especially as the latter began to dangerously expand its bombing targets across the country. Simultaneously, the Israelis – having failed to achieve their stated war objectives and taken daily troops losses in their ground invasion – were pushing hard for a truce, citing the need to prevent an escalation that could extend to Beirut, risking mass civilian casualties.
This agreement may not be ideal for either party, but it is feasible to implement. Israel achieved tangible successes but failed to crush Hezbollah or eliminate it as an organization. For Hezbollah, the priority was ending the war to halt the destruction, despite the damages it sustained.
Consequently, both sides reached an agreement that Hezbollah described as a reiteration of the 1701 Resolution. It was not a deal of humiliation or defeat, contrary to how the group’s adversaries are eager to portray it.
It is important to note that Hezbollah chose a middle path between Hamas’ call to ignite a broader conflict under the banner of “Al-Aqsa Flood” and a policy of non-intervention, given that the Palestinian movement’s leadership did not involve Hezbollah in its decision to go to war.
Ethically, Hezbollah opted to open a limited support front, clearly defining its objectives: to exhaust the Israeli military and pressure it into halting the assault on Gaza. However, this calculation later proved to be flawed.
When the support front escalated into a full-fledged war, Hezbollah declared that its aim was to stop the conflict. When Israel requested a cessation of hostilities, Hezbollah agreed under acceptable conditions.
Ultimately, after over a year of conflict sparked by the Hamas-led Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Hezbollah and Israel reached a 13-point agreement mediated by the US and France. While Tel Aviv agreed to withdraw from Lebanese territory within 60 days, its actions during the ceasefire depict a relentless drive to achieve militarily what it could not during the war.
The destruction of Lebanese homes and towns during the first month of the truce already far exceeds that caused during the conflict, with villages such as Bani Hayyan, Markaba, Shama, Al-Bayada, and Wadi al-Hujayr suffering devastating damage.
Israel’s brazen violations are not just restricted to border towns. Its truce violations include the prohibited operation of war drones over Beirut and its southern suburbs, and substantial military strikes in villages across the eastern Bekaa Valley.
The US looks the other way
The ceasefire monitoring committee, led by Tel Aviv’s staunchest allies, has faced significant challenges, largely due to Israel’s unwillingness to comply with the terms of the truce.
Sources reveal to The Cradle that so far, two meetings have been held at the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) headquarters in Naqoura, southern Lebanon, with Israeli officers present, followed by a third meeting attended by Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati – without the Israelis present.
The sources added that the first meeting lasted just 40 minutes, limited to introductory discussions on core topics. The second session, however, was marked by discord, as the Israeli side failed to uphold previously agreed-upon terms.
During that meeting, it became apparent to all that while the Lebanese army had finalized and approved a deployment plan for the western, central, and eastern axes, the Israelis refused to present any withdrawal strategy. Instead, they shifted blame to the Lebanese army for what they called “slow deployment,” further suggesting that the 60-day truce deadline was merely symbolic, not binding for the withdrawal of Israeli forces, and intended only for the withdrawal of Hezbollah troops from south of the Litani River.
Israeli representatives went further, baselessly claiming that the Lebanese army had no intention of implementing the agreement’s provisions to withdraw Hezbollah from south of the Litani.
During the discussions, Lebanese General Edgar Lowndes is said to have stormed out of the meeting after heated exchanges with the Israeli side, which downplayed its repeated attacks in Lebanon as insignificant and refused to classify them as breaches of the agreement. The Israeli delegation specifically argued that their use of drones in Lebanese airspace was not a violation of the truce, suggesting that the air breaches would continue unchecked.
The lead US official – a general – brought Lowndes back to the meeting and tried to keep the proceedings more formal thereafter. Following the session, high-level contacts took place between various committee members, with Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati gathering French and American officers and the UNIFIL Commander to emphasize the need for Israel to respect the signed agreement that the Israeli army would withdraw from Lebanese territory within the agreed upon deadline.
In this context, the US general confirmed that envoy Hochstein would participate in the next committee meeting on 6 January to confirm the ambiguous issues, and agreed with his Lebanese counterparts that Israel is violating the ceasefire through its actions.
Patience amid provocation
While Hezbollah has exercised restraint and refrained from delivering any significant response beyond a single retaliation at the “Ruwaisat al-Alam site belonging to the Israeli enemy army in the occupied Lebanese Kfar Shuba Hills,” Israeli provocations have continued to test the limits of the ceasefire on a daily basis. As a source close to Hezbollah informs The Cradle :
“We will be patient until the 60-day period expires and diplomatic opportunities are exhausted, and after that there is no solution but resistance.”
International mediators now face growing pressure to enforce the agreement, with Lebanese Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri emphasizing the importance of French involvement in the monitoring process, given US partiality toward Israel.
The Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs filed a formal complaint with the UN Security Council, citing 816 violations between 27 November and 22 December. Prime Minister Mikati has called for the swift and complete implementation of Resolution 1701, cautioning that delays could destabilize the region further.
Beirut also called for “enhanced support for UNIFIL and the Lebanese army to guarantee the protection of its sovereignty and to create the necessary security conditions for restoring stability and normalcy in the south of the country.”
It is evident that Israel is leveraging its perceived upper hand to manipulate the ceasefire agreement, interpreting its terms to align with its strategic objectives. By acting as if the balance of power has irreversibly shifted in its favor, the occupation state not only challenges the Lebanese side but openly flouts the agreement with actions such as air violations, justified under the guise of self-defense.
These provocations, coupled with threats to reignite hostilities and forcibly expel Hezbollah, reveal a calculated effort to establish new facts on the ground that were never part of the original accord.
How likely is a ceasefire In Gaza?
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | January 2, 2025
As the Gaza ceasefire talks stall yet again, some analysts argue that Donald Trump’s inauguration could be the key. However, the prospects for ending the war are dependent upon a variety of other factors that are making an Israeli victory impossible.
Despite the recent progress towards securing a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, the Zionist regime has again employed its delaying tactics in order to find the opportune moment. While the Resistance in Gaza has proven flexible on the fine details of a prisoner exchange and cessation of hostilities, it has also proven steadfast on the battlefield, making an Israeli victory declaration implausible.
The popularly accepted analysis at this stage is that with the start of Donald Trump’s second term in office, the possibility of a Gaza ceasefire will increase greatly. It is believed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could even present the implementation of such a deal as a gift to Trump; kick-starting his Presidency with a diplomatic breakthrough.
It is also true that the Zionist Entity’s richest billionaire, Miriam Adelson, had pledged 100 million dollars to the Trump campaign, with the quid pro quo that in return for bankrolling his presidential bid, he would permit an Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank.
What Could Make or Break A Gaza Ceasefire
The reality that must be accepted when it comes to the Israeli approach to a Gaza ceasefire/prisoner exchange agreement is that the United States will not use its leverage to secure one and instead only seeks to support the Zionist entity towards securing the best possible deal. Therefore, arguments presented about the possibility of the Trump administration actually using Washington’s leverage are ludicrous and should be discarded as fanciful.
The reason why Donald Trump could make a difference in this case comes down to two major factors: His support within the Zionist regime and his willingness to permit them to completely crush the idea of a so-called “Two-State solution”.
There is no one that commands quite as much public support amongst Israelis as Donald Trump, in fact, he is more loved by them than his own population in the United States. This means that his word carries weight and him throwing his support behind the Netanyahu-led coalition could force the more fundamentalist elements of his government to fall into line. In addition to this, there will be no hesitancy when it comes to permitting an Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank.
These two components are essential for ensuring that a Gaza deal will not collapse the current Israeli coalition. If the Israeli PM is going to secure the support he needs for such a ceasefire, he needs the extremists on his side and can only do this by fulfilling the pledge to annex the West Bank.
Another major issue, besides the domestic Israeli political divisions is the activity and risk of battle across a variety of fronts. In order to annex the West Bank, the Israeli military will need to deploy enormous numbers of soldiers, private security forces and occupation police into the territory. In the event of mass civil unrest, or even a worse scenario for them like the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, they will need to send a force that could amount to hundreds of thousands of fighters, into the territory in order to control the situation.
Already the Zionist military is in a State of exhaustion, with many of its soldiers refusing to show back up when called upon to redeploy into the Gaza Strip. They have tens of thousands of wounded fighters and countless others suffering from psychological disorders, all of which place a burden on the regime alone. There’s also a deficit that has to be filled in the rank and file that the Israelis need in order for their military to function at proper capacity, which has led to desperate attempts to draw in new reserve soldiers and force the Ultra-Orthodox population to draft their young.
In the best case scenario for the Israelis – when carrying out their annexation – they will still need to dedicate a tremendous amount of resources and manpower to fulfilling the task properly. This is essential to understanding why the annexation will prove extremely difficult in the event that one of the various war fronts expands, particularly the Lebanon or Syria fronts.
While the future of resistance inside Syrian territory is unclear and not certain, if such a force does manage to rise and challenge the occupation of their territory in the south, it will require major investments to combat it and will be greatly draining for the Zionist armed forces. Although this appears to be the least likely of the fronts to again deteriorate into war, it is certainly still a question mark.
Then we have Lebanon. The Israelis have not respected the ceasefire for a single day since its announcement, committing hundreds of violations. The Zionist regime is not only continuing to maintain its presence in southern Lebanon, but has even penetrated further into the country during this period, forcing their way into territories that they couldn’t reach due to the fierce resistance against them.
The Israelis now discuss re-occupying southern Lebanon, blow up homes, mosques and other infrastructure daily, murder civilians, bomb targets deeper into the country and provocatively fly their flags in the south. Such a situation has not occurred since Hezbollah kicked the Zionist regime out of their nation in 2000, battering the Israelis again in 2006 and liberating their land. There is no conceivable way that the situation in Lebanon can remain like this, either the Israelis decide to leave the country altogether, or they will eventually face a response from Hezbollah.
If these fronts ignite, or tensions escalate with Iran, annexation will prove a difficult task for the decision makers in “Tel Aviv”, as they will be faced with a potentially dangerous predicament. Again, without the annexation of the West Bank, it is hard to imagine the Zionist regime being able to conclude a Gaza ceasefire.
On top of this, the Palestinian Resistance in Gaza has shocked everyone and is not only continuing to fight, it still possesses the rocket capabilities to strike occupied Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. In fact, the last burst of long-range rockets from the Gaza Strip towards occupied Jerusalem were fired from Beit Hanoun, an area in the besieged enclave that the Israelis have been stationed in throughout almost the entirety of the war.
Palestinian Resistance fighters continue to kill and injure Israeli soldiers, destroy and damage their military vehicles, while also firing rockets and drones. This is happening almost 15 months into the fighting and with no known supply lines to Gaza. Yet, the people continue to remain steadfast, while the resistance continues to recruit more fighters and manufacture new weapons.
Because of the refusal of the people of Gaza to lessen their cause, they have thwarted several attempts to impose a new rule upon them. Despite suffering through a Genocide and losing everything around them, they have not allowed for a foreign regime and fighters to be imposed. Also, the Zionists have not come up with any valid strategy to allow for a takeover of the Palestinian territory, having failed to destroy Hamas.
This is another issue that rears its head, what will the day after look like? There is no clear answer to this question yet and none of the proposals on the table will give the Zionists the image of a full victory that they have proposed from the start.
Last ditch media sanctions from the West against Russia are like a sick child crying for help
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 3, 2025
Many analysts will be wondering what Trump will do about Russian sanctions when gets into the Oval office, although there is some optimism that he will try and reverse them. He is cautious not to get into a debate about this subject, which leads me to suspect that this will be one of the bombshells he will drop on the Biden administration which left him the small gift of signing off over a billion dollars of military aid to Ukraine. What almost no Americans understand though, which is largely the fault of mainstream media, is that these military spending sprees are really all about feeding a dual-purpose racket which really has nothing to do with the actual war in Ukraine, which everyone now admits Russia is winning. On one hand, it is of course pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the 5 main arms manufacturers in the U.S. in a move which could arguably be called illegal state aid; on the other hand the kit which is sent to Ukraine from the U.S. – and the UK – is mainly being sold on a number of black markets, with only about 30 percent or thereabouts actually reaching Ukrainian troops. My own investigation has proved that the Zelensky cabal are selling off the heavy equipment like armoured personal carriers (APCs) and lorry loads of American made assault rifles to dealers in the international arms bizarre of Libya – where Middle Eastern terrorists, or their affiliates in the Sahel buy it at bargain prices.
And Trump certainly understands the racket and will want to stop it. Dropping the mother of all bombshells on the Biden legacy by scrapping the sanctions and blocking any more aid would be an effective way to do that.
But it’s the sanctions on Russia media which he should also give priority to, given that, with the state of western media being such a shambles, we had to rely on RT for example, in the UK and U.S., to ask the difficult questions and hold our administrations to account.
The recent news at the end of December that the EU is cracking down even further on Russia media and individuals who are active within it – journalists and others – is another parting shot which smacks of desperation. The West is under no illusions privately that it is losing the war in Ukraine and is wondering how it can tell a fairy tale story to its own voters so as to deflect blame with the sole purpose of staying in power. This is really what media sanctions are all about. Shutting down any narrative that could possibly hold you to account and expose the tawdry reality of the mess the West has made in Ukraine based on the military industrial complex gaining too much power and eating up elites in its path. The Biden administration will be remembered for this. A new dawn in just how much power these arms manufacturers have and what lengths they can go to, to get the big contracts. This will all come out in the Trump administration with documentaries about Biden and his son’s laptop and how Ukraine was a holiday camp for them to go to with empty suitcases and return with a few million dollars. Like a cash machine which keeps churning out cash due to a computer glitch. The lure of Ukraine and corrupt western elites is nothing new. But during Trump’s first term citizens of the West are going to see the dark side to the events which led up to Russia’s invasion. And it stinks.
Part of that racket, going back even to 2013 or 2014 was to try and shut down Russian media. In reality, it was simply RT which elites noticed was gaining popularity in many European countries from people who had lost all faith in their own media which had fallen into the grubby hands of the powerful elites and their dirty games long ago. It used to be the case that in Brussels, the hold that the powerful institutions had on journalists was so strong in such an abusive relationship that what we saw each day on TV and in the newspapers was pure EU propaganda on a scale that even the Soviet Union could not muster. There used to be however the contrast between Brussels and member states where the media were more robust and anti-establishment. But no more. Now the political journalists along with the defence correspondent in the UK for example are practically government propaganda agents who probably think they were journalists once. Their work is to keep the lies about Ukraine, as one example, flowing so that the public are distracted and can’t focus on what is under their nose. Sometimes the plain truth is so close to the person looking for it, that it can’t be seen. Distance is required. When RT operated in the UK, there was this certain environment which questioned more and provided an alternative viewpoint which was needed in any functioning democracy. Trump’s priority should be to finish the sanctions and adopt a more grown-up approach to resolving Ukraine as the Russians want a longer-term solution rather than quick fix buggerydoo. Ending the sanctions on Russian media would be a good message to western elites that have fed from the trough for so long with the lies which have been created that their time is up. Trump’s back.
Featured Video
Iran War Confusion & Mixed Messaging /Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Tragic Consequences of believing Anti-Science
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | January 17, 2023
I try not to write about anyone who has died because if it was my family member I would not want to read any speculations about their death. However, in this case I feel that justice has not been given a chance and therefore it needs highlighting. ... continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- ‘Project Freedom’ perishes in 48 hours as Trump retreats under the wall of Iran’s asymmetric deterrence
- Iran War Confusion & Mixed Messaging /Lt Col Daniel Davis
- Israel threatens Gaza flotilla activists with death after abduction
- Met refuses to probe British nationals accused of war crimes in Gaza
- Hezbollah denies activity in Syria amid persistent and false claims
- Melkite bishops concerned over Israeli demolitions in South Lebanon
- Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond
- UAE deports tens of thousands of Pakistanis, seizes their savings amid war on Iran: Report
- Wheels Down in Tbilisi: Was a Routine U.S. Military Stopover a Deliberate Signal to Iran?
- Trump’s second strike on Iran would be suicidal. But that’s not the reason why he won’t go ahead with it
- If Americans Knew
- An All-American Retort to Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon
- How Dr. Adam Hamawy’s experience as a surgeon in Gaza inspired him to run for Congress
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- With World Distracted by War, Extremist Settlers Intensify Attacks in West Bank
- Israel’s brutality toward Gaza flotilla activists – 3 articles
- “Spitting and humiliation are daily. People are afraid to walk in Jerusalem with Christian symbols.”
- How the US-Israel Relationship Weakens America and Harms the World
- 1 in 5 amputees in Gaza is a child, UN warns amid prosthetic care crisis
- 6,000 Gazans lack prosthetic and/or rehabilitation care – Daily Update
- As in Gaza, Israel is targeting rescue workers in South Lebanon, killing more than 100 since March
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
Aletho News 