US still operating biolabs in Ukraine – Russian envoy
RT | March 25, 2024
The US continues to operate 30 biolabs on the territory of Ukraine as part of an illegal military-biological program, Russia’s envoy to the Netherlands has claimed.
The number of American laboratories on Ukrainian territory has been “well-known for a long time,” Vladimir Tarabrin, who is also Russia’s Permanent Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper on Sunday.
The diplomat recalled that the head of Russia’s Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Protection Forces, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, had claimed in March 2022 that 30 such biolabs existed.
“Our armed forces discovered documents confirming the extensive military biological program deployed by the US and NATO countries on the territory of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics,” he said.
The Kiev government allegedly began destroying dangerous pathogens in the laboratories and suspending research on February 24, 2022, the day Russia launched its military operation against Ukraine, but “in 2023 the implementation of those programs resumed, only their name was changed,” Tarabrin claimed.
Asked if the number of the US biolabs in Ukraine still stands at 30, the ambassador said: “According to our data, yes.”
“It’s not surprising, therefore, that over the past 20 years, Washington has been blocking all Russian initiatives aimed at strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) regime and creating an effective mechanism for verifying compliance with its provisions by all participating countries,” Tarabrin said.
Over the past two years Moscow has repeatedly raised concerns over an alleged network of secretive US-funded laboratories in Ukraine, publishing troves of documents captured from Kiev authorities, which it claims are linked to the operations of those facilities.
Last April, Kirillov said Russia had “no doubt that the US, under the guise of ensuring global biosecurity, conducted dual-use research, including the creation of biological weapons components, in close proximity to Russian borders.”
The US government has confirmed the existence of the biolabs in Ukraine, but insisted that they are entirely legal and not intended for military purposes, despite mostly being funded via the Pentagon. Washington has denied Moscow’s claims of the labs being used to work on bio-weapons as a “Russian disinformation campaign.”
Kirillov also said a year ago that the US biolab program in Ukraine, which was previously known as ‘Joint biological research’, was rebranded as ‘Biological control research’ so that it could continue its operations.
Most Americans Believe US Will Be in World War Within Next Decade
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | March 24, 2024
The majority of Americans believe it is likely that the US will be involved in a world war during the coming decade. Under President Joe Biden, the US is preparing for great power wars with Russia and China, engaged in multiple Middle East conflicts, and posturing for a confrontation with Iran and North Korea.
According to a new YouGov poll, 61% of Americans responded that it is very or somewhat likely that a world war would break out in the next five to ten years. About two-thirds of people responding to the poll said they believe the war will turn into a nuclear conflict.
When asked what countries would be aligned against the US, a majority of Americans said that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and China. Americans identified NATO members such as France and the UK, as well as Israel and Ukraine, as allies in the coming world war.
Americans are not overly optimistic about the potential conflict. A slight majority believe the US and its allies would defeat Russia. While under half of respondents said the US would lose a war with Russia or against an alliance between Moscow and Beijing.
While most Americans believe a global conflict is on the horizon, they are not interested in fighting the war. More than twice as many respondents said they would refuse service even if drafted than stated, they would volunteer if the war broke out. Americans responded that they were more likely to serve in non-combat roles or if the homeland was threatened.
The survey was conducted as President Biden embroiled the US in multiple conflicts, putting America on the brink of war across various global hot spots. The White House is fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. That conflict has escalated in recent weeks as Ukraine is losing territory and lashing out with attacks on Russia. In response, Moscow has launched more attacks on Ukrainian cities and devastated energy infrastructure with a missile barrage last week.
In the Middle East, Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, but in October, he followed Israel into a massive regional war. Washington is shipping thousands of bombs to Tel Aviv. The US is also bombing Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. Three American soldiers were killed in Jordan earlier this year. Even within the halls of the White House, US officials are concerned Biden’s Middle East policy could lead to a broader war with Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
President Biden has also continued a military buildup in the Asia-Pacific, stoking tensions with North Korea and China. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has responded with a rash of missile tests and fiery rhetoric. Beijing has increasingly pushed back against Washington’s support for Taipei and Manila with military drills in the Taiwan Strait, South, and East China Seas.
A growing divide in the world economy is further adding to global tensions. A rising number of countries, including Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Syria, Yemen, and Zimbabwe, face significant US sanctions. Economic warfare has led to a growing number of countries forming blocs outside of Washington’s control.
Israel, allies oppose release of popular Palestinian leader
The Cradle | March 25, 2024
Washington is reportedly opposed to the potential release of Fatah leader Marwan al-Barghouti as a result of Israeli pressure on the US regarding the matter.
Barghouti is currently being held in Israel’s Megiddo prison and has been imprisoned since 2002, the second year of the Second Intifada. He was a supporter of armed Fatah operations against Israel and was convicted of murder.
“The US, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority [PA] have identical positions toward Barghouti, and do not want to release him as part of any prisoner exchange deal between Hamas and the occupation,” informed sources told Arab21 on 24 March.
Hamas had previously demanded Barghouti’s release as part of any exchange deal with Israel.
According to observers cited by the outlet, PA President Mahmoud Abbas fears “severe polarization” within the Fatah movement if Barghouti is released – given his popularity among Palestinians.
Barghouti reportedly faces direct threats in Israeli prison, prompting some to fear for his life. The head of the Palestinian Prisoners’ and Ex-Detainees Authority, Qaddoura Fares, was recently subjected to several physical attacks.
He added that 13 Palestinian prisoners have been killed inside Israeli prisons since 7 October and that there “is real concern for the life of Marwan Barghouti, who may suffer the same fate if these attacks continue.”
Recent polls indicate that Barghouti has soaring popularity among Palestinians. A poll released on 20 March – carried out by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) – states that in the case of a hypothetical election, Barghouti would win the majority of support by Palestinians.
“In presidential elections against current president Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas’ leader Ismail Haniyeh, Barghouti wins the majority of those participating in the elections. In a two-way competition between Barghouti and Haniyeh, the former wins by more than 60 percent of the participating voters. These findings indicate an 11-point rise in the vote for Barghouti among voters and an 8-point drop in the vote for Haniyeh,” the poll reads.
Despite US opposition to Barghouti’s release, western media has portrayed Barghouti – an advocate of the two-state solution – as essential to future peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Arab21 report comes as Washington has been pushing the idea of a ‘reformed’ PA taking administrative control over post-war Gaza, with the eventual establishment of a two-state solution. Hamas has referred to such an initiative as “a failed conspiracy that will not come to fruition.”
According to the PCPSR poll, Palestinians have shown little support for such a plan. Only thirteen percent of respondents selected the PA with Abbas at the helm, with 11 percent choosing the PA without Abbas.
In comparison, about 60 percent of respondents agreed that Hamas would be the preferred choice in ruling Gaza.
UN Security Council passes Gaza resolution, Israel fumes at US for not using veto power
Press TV – March 25, 2024
With the United States abstaining, the United Nations Security Council has finally adopted a long-awaited resolution that demands an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.
The resolution was put forward by the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council. It received unanimous support from the remaining 14 members on Monday.
Washington had already vetoed similar bids three times since Israel started its brutal campaign in Gaza in early October.
The resolution demands an immediate ceasefire for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and the release of Israelis the resistance movement Hamas took captive during Operation Al-Aqsa Storm on October 7, 2023. It also underscores the “urgent need to expand the flow” of aid into Gaza.
The regime says 253 Israelis were taken captive during the operation.
Given the duration of Ramadan, the truce demanded by the resolution would last for about two weeks.
The draft, however, says the truce should lead to a “lasting, sustainable ceasefire.”
Failure to implement truce ‘unforgivable’: UN chief
Right after the vote, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres welcomed the resolution.
“This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable,” Guterres posted on X.
The Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour said in remarks to the Security Council that the resolution must be “a turning point” in ending hostilities in Gaza.
“This must signal the end of this assault, of atrocities against our people.”
Hamas also welcomed the prospective ceasefire, saying the resistance group is ready for a prisoner exchange.
Slamming ‘US retreat’ at UN
Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, responded to Washington’s abstention.
He said the move, which allowed the resolution to pass, “hurts both the war effort” and the effort to release the captives, according to a statement by his office.
Netanyahu “made it clear last night that if the US withdraws from its principled position, he will not send the Israeli delegation to the US.”
“This is a clear retreat from the consistent position of the United States at the Security Council since the beginning of the war.”
President Joe Biden of the United States had asked Netanyahu to send a team for consultations over the regime’s plans to launch a full-scale ground invasion of Gaza’s southern city of Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians have sought shelter.
The UN Security Council’s call for a ceasefire comes as international fears have grown over the planned Israeli ground invasion.
Human rights groups say a ground invasion of Rafah would drastically worsen a heavy civilian death toll and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
The French Road to Nuclear War
Consortium News | March 24, 2024
ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: On the Brink of Nuclear War
Mr. President:
France is reportedly preparing to dispatch a force of some 2,000 troops — roughly a reinforced brigade built around an armored battalion and two mechanized battalions, with supporting logistical, engineering, and artillery troops attached — into Ukraine sometime in the not-so-distant future.
This force is purely symbolic, inasmuch as it would have zero survivability in a modern high-intensity conflict of the scope and scale of what is transpiring in Ukraine today. It would not be deployed directly in a conflict zone, but would serve either as (1) a screening force/tripwire to stop Russia’s advance; or (2) a replacement force deployed to a non-active zone to free up Ukrainian soldiers for combat duty. The French Brigade reportedly will be supplemented by smaller units from the Baltic states.
This would be introducing combat troops of a NATO country into a theater of war, making them “lawful targets” under the Law of War.
Such units would apparently lack a NATO mandate. In Russia’s view, however, this may be a distinction without a difference. France appears to be betting – naively – that its membership in NATO would prevent Russia from attacking French troops. Rather, it is highly likely that Russia would attack any French/Baltic contingent in Ukraine and quickly destroy/degrade its combat viability.
In that case, French President Macron may calculate that, after Russian attacks on the troops of NATO members – NATO mandate or not – he could invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter and get the NATO alliance to intervene. Such intervention would likely take the form of aircraft operating from NATO nations – and perhaps include interdiction missions against tactical targets inside Russia.
On Precipice of Nuclear War?
Doctrinally, and by legal right, Russia’s response would be to launch retaliatory strikes also against targets in NATO countries. If NATO then attacks strategic targets inside Russia, at that point Russia’s nuclear doctrine takes over, and NATO decision-making centers would be hit with nuclear weapons.
We do not believe Russia will initiate a nuclear attack against the U.S., but rather would leave it up to the United States to decide if it wants to risk destruction by preparing to launch a nuclear strike on Russia. That said, Russian strategic forces have improved to the point that, in some areas – hypersonic missiles, for example – its capability surpasses that of the U.S. and NATO.
In other words, the Russian temptation to strike first may be a bit stronger than during past crises, and we are somewhat less confident that Russia would want to “go second”. Another disquieting factor is that the Russians are likely to believe that Macron’s folly has the tacit approval of some key U.S. and other Western officials, who seem desperate to find some way to alter the trajectory of the war in Ukraine – the more so, as elections draw near.
What Needs to Be Done
Europe needs to understand that France is leading it down a path of inevitable self-destruction.
The American people need to understand that Europe is leading them to the cusp of nuclear annihilation.
Since Russian leaders may suspect that Macron is working hand in glove with Washington, the U.S. needs to make its position publicly and unambiguously clear.
And if France and the Baltics insist on sending troops into Ukraine, it must also be made clear that such action has no NATO mandate; that Article 5 will not be triggered by any Russian retaliation; and that the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including those nuclear weapons that are part of the NATO deterrent force, will not be employed as a result of any Russian military action against French or Baltic troops.
Void of such clarity, France would be leading the American people down a path toward a nuclear conflict decidedly not in the interests of the American people – or of humanity itself.
FOR THE STEERING GROUP,
VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY
- William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
- Richard Black, former Virginia State Senator; Colonel, USA (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Judge Advocate General (associate VIPS)
- Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret) and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research
- Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
- Graham E. Fuller, Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
- Philip Giraldi, C.I.A., Operations Officer (ret.)
- Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq and Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
- James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
- Larry C. Johnson, former C.I.A. and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
- John Kiriakou, former C.I.A. Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
- Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
- Douglas Macgregor, Colonel, USA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
- Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army infantry/intelligence officer & C.I.A. analyst; C.I.A. Presidential briefer (ret.)
- Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & C.I.A. political analyst (ret.)
- Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, U.S. Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
- Pedro Israel Orta, former C.I.A. and Intelligence Community (Inspector General) officer
- Scott Ritter, former MAJ, USMC; former U.N. Weapons Inspector, Iraq
- Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
- Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel USA, ret.), Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary (associate VIPS)
- Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
- Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
- Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
- Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
Background: Earlier VIPS Memos for President Biden on Ukraine
May 1, 2022
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Nuclear Weapons Cannot Be Un-invented, Thus …
“The growing possibility that nuclear weapons might be used, as hostilities in Ukraine continue to escalate, merits your full attention.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
Sept. 5, 2022
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: VIPS
SUBJECT: Ukraine Decision Time & Secretary of Defense
“If Austin tells you Kyiv is beating back the Russians, kick the tires”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jan. 26, 2023
ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: VIPS
SUBJECT: Leopards to Ukraine: Decisions in an Intelligence Vacuum
“None of the newly promised weaponry will stop Russia from defeating what’s left of the Ukrainian army. If you have been told otherwise, replace your intelligence and military advisers with competent professionals – the sooner the better.”
“There is a large conceptual – and exceptionally dangerous – disconnect. Simply stated, it is not possible to “win the war against Russia” AND avoid WWIII. It is downright scary that Defense Secretary Austin may think it possible. In any case, the Kremlin has to assume he thinks so. It is a very dangerous delusion.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
January 25, 2024
ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: VIPS
SUBJECT: Throwing Good Money After Bad
“On Jan. 26, 2023, we reminded you that National Intelligence Director Avril Haines had said Russia was using up ammunition extraordinarily quickly and could not indigenously produce what it was expending.”
“On July 13, you said Putin “has already lost the war”. You may have gotten that from C.I.A. Director William Burns who, a week before, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post saying: “Putin’s war has already been a strategic failure for Russia – its military weaknesses laid bare.” Both statements are incorrect. Nor is the war a “stalemate”, as Jake Sullivan has claimed more recently.”
What Is ‘Extremism’?
By Owen Ashworth | The Libertarian Institute | March 25, 2024
Amidst protests in the United Kingdom that have been going on since October 7, there have been multiple allegations of extemists among the protestors intimidating, harassing, and scaring innocent people who are not involved in the demonstrations. It seems that even MPs are being intimidated, with the Speaker allegedly pushing a vote using a parliamentary procedure that has not been employed for years; he’s allegedly been pressured by Labour leader Kier Starmer, who in turn has been allegedly pressured by the extreme wing of his party.
In response to these events, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made a speech where he promised to crack down on political extremism that he perceives to be growing across the country. One such measure is changing the definition of “extremism.” The British government released its guidelines for a new definition which includes “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: negate or destroy fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve results.”
Those “results” are the first two parts of the definition. This may seem sensible, but when you dig a little deeper than face value, a lot more is revealed that should trouble every British citizen.
A necessary part of any law is specificity. Any law that is written needs to be specific, limited, and restricted to exactly the people or organizations you wish to affect. Often legislation written today is hundreds of pages long. Extensive bills with never ending subsections allow for numerous interpretations that lead to legal exploitation. There should be no room for legal maneuvering, with government actors encompassing huge swathes of people with a law that, when its origin is studied, was only meant for very rare or specific circumstances.
For example, the United States Constitution, despite being somewhat specific and with clearly intended purposes for each amendment, has been twisted and contorted to allow for the expansion of government into everyone’s lives. The U.S. Constitution, heavily influenced by those who recognized that ambiguity in law is inherently dangerous to a free society, was still able to be interpreted in a malicious way; so why would it be surprising that guidelines written today could be wrongly interpreted when politicians of the modern age do not recognize this danger? Anyone who has studied U.S. constitutional history will know that the Commerce Clause was not intended to allow for interference in the free trade of goods between the states. However, over the centuries it has been manipulated to grant the federal government power to intrude into every single part of the business dealings of every, if not all, businesses in the United States. It was clearly not meant for that and anyone with the right knowledge of how the Founding Fathers’ thought would know this. Nonetheless, the American government manipulated it.
This is the nature of all governments; they pursue growth and the actors within them use laws for their own purposes. A famous case in the United Kingdom is of Babar Ahmad. After 9/11, new counter terrorism legislation was passed that critics at the time said was far too vague and could easily be used to wrongfully detain people without trial for extended periods of time. Babar Ahmad fell victim to this effect and was detained for eight years in the United Kingdom without trial with the Crown Prosecution Service later admitting they have “insufficient evidence” for prosecution. This was as clear cut an example as you can get where a law that is vague and all-encompassing will be used to harm people it was not intended to harm. This is the result of knee jerk legislation that sought to make it look like government was doing something in the face of great panic and fear. Sometimes, the hardest thing to do is to do very little (relative, of course, to what happened in reality; which was a heck of a lot).
We also need to zero in on a specific part of the definition: “…promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance.” This is so broad that it massively threatens freedom of speech. It is very easy for every single person on the political spectrum to perceive how this could easily be used against their beliefs. Here are a few examples:
- You are a social conservative, you go to church every week, and you make a conscious attempt to read your religious text. You may vocally oppose homosexuality. You do not act on the belief but you simply believe two men or two women do not belong together. You could easily be labeled as intolerant and hateful under this definition.
- You consider yourself an anti-woke individual so you may vocally oppose policies like sex reassignment surgeries for minors. Do you truly believe someone in government could not label you as hateful and intolerant under this definition?
- You are an anti-racist campaigner who believes that white people should pay reparations for all the damage you believe they caused. You will easily be labeled as hateful or intolerant if specific people are in positions of power to use this definition against you.
- You believe in permitting sex reassignment care for everyone who seeks it, including minors, so you vocally advocate for it. Some people consider this child abuse, so is it hard to foresee how those individuals in power could use this definition against you?
You can be left, right, center; wherever you are on the political spectrum there will be an area where you can be considered hateful and intolerant under this definition. Are you willing to take the risk of the people you oppose getting into power and using it against you and many hundreds of other people who hold the same beliefs as you? It has already happened in the past so what makes you think it will not happen again?
You can deplore real terrorism as wholeheartedly as I do without resorting to heavy handed government measures that end up catching innocent people in the crossfire. Vague definitions of words that can potentially jail people for life cannot be normalized by our government. Otherwise every different political party will find ways to use it for their own purposes. It is already happening around the world and has happened a multitude of times in history. The fact is that you have a basic right, given to you by the virtue of being born, that should allow you to say what you want without fear of repercussion from the state. Once we allow the state to define terms that will inevitably be used to curb your freedom to express your belief, then we are on the slippery slope to having a hollowed out rights altogether. We should challenge the ideas, not the act of vocalizing them.
Fear of the Jews and the Jewish God of Terror
BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • MARCH 25, 2024
“It’s time for Jews to be feared!” declared Rabbi Shmuley recently. Jews having failed to overcome anti-Semitism by trying to be loved, respected or admired, must now make themselves feared. This is the new watchword.
The problem is, if Jews want to be feared, then they must also accept being hated. “Fear of the Jews” can be translated, literally, as “Judeophobia” (from the Greek phobos, to fear). To be feared, you must have the power to harm, and you must prove it. So if Jews want to be feared in order to fight anti-Semitism, then anti-Semitism has a bright future ahead.
This all doesn’t make much sense. But it’s very biblical. To my knowledge, the Hebrew Bible does not recommend that Jews should strive to be loved by non-Jews. On the contrary, Yahweh said to his people in Deuteronomy 2:25:
“Today and henceforth, I shall fill the peoples under all heavens with fear and terror of you; whoever hears word of your approach will tremble and writhe in anguish because of you”
If Yahweh wants to spread terror among non-Jews, doesn’t that make him a terrorist, or the god of terrorists? It does, and it makes Zionists good Yahwists. In his 1951 memoir The Revolt, Menachem Begin bragged about “the military victory at Deir Yassin,” because the news of this slaughter of 254 villagers (mostly unarmed men, women, and children) immediately led to the “maddened, uncontrollable stampede of 635,000 Arabs. … The political and economic significance of this development can hardly be overestimated.”[1] Wasn’t Begin a worthy servant of his national god?
What Netanyahu is doing today is more than a hundred Deir Yassins. And the goal, again, is not just to kill indiscriminately, but by doing so to terrorize millions of Palestinians into leaving “voluntarily”. This explains why they let so many images of the martyrdom of Gaza filter: it is a public crucifixion, meant for all to see. (Andrew Anglin has suggested another reason, not contradictory with this one).
One of Netanyahu’s favorite biblical stories is the Book of Esther. He mentioned it in 2015 before the American Congress, as an argument why America should bomb Iran.[2] The Book of Esther is important for understanding how the Jews want to be feared. Under the influence of his minister Haman, the Persian king Ahasuerus issued a decree of final solution regarding the Jews of his kingdom, because “this people, and it alone, stands constantly in opposition to every nation, perversely following a strange manner of life and laws, and is ill-disposed to our government, doing all the harm they can so that our kingdom may not attain stability” (3:13). But thanks to Esther, Ahasuerus’s secretly Jewish wife, the Jews turn the situation around and obtain from the king that Haman be hanged with these ten sons, and that a new royal decree is promulgated, which gives the Jews “permission to destroy, slaughter and annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, together with their women and children, and to plunder their possessions” (8.11). And so the Jews massacred seventy-five thousand people. Throughout the land, the book concludes, “there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and holiday-making. Of the country’s population many became Jews, since now the Jews were feared” (8.17).
This story is entirely fictional, but it is very important to Jews, because every year, at Purim, they celebrate the hanging of Haman with his twelve sons, and the massacre of 75,000 people, including women and children.
According to the conclusion of this story, fear of the Jews produces new Jews, meaning Gentiles who become Jews out of fear of the Jews: “many became Jews, since now the Jews were feared.” Or in a more literal translation: “many people became Jews because the fear of the Jews fell upon them.” As I said, fear of Jews is more likely to produce anti-Semites than new Jews. Yet there are many examples of people who make themselves Jews out of fear of the Jews: any non-Jewish politician who one day put a yarmulke on his head and swore eternal loyalty to Israel fits that profile.
There is another story in the Book of Joshua that goes along the same lines. At the beginning of chapter 2, Joshua, who receives his orders directly from Yahweh in the Tabernacle, sends two spies to the city of Jericho. Having been spotted, they hide with a prostitute named Rahab. She helps them escape in exchange for being spared together with her family when Israel attacks the city, because, she says, “we are afraid of you and everyone living in this country has been seized with terror at your approach” (2:9). Because Israel is so terrifying, she assumes that “Yahweh your god is God.”
The French Catholic Bible de Jérusalem adds a footnote saying that “Rahab’s profession of faith in the god of Israel made her, in the eyes of more than one Church Father, a figure of the Gentile Church, saved by her faith.” I find perplexing the idea of making the whore of Jericho a symbol of the Church because, out of fear of Israel, she converted to the god of Israel and helped Israel to commit the genocide of her own city (“men and women, young and old, including the oxen, the sheep and the donkeys, slaughtering them all,” Joshua 6:21).
On the other hand, it is not a bad metaphor for the complicity of the Christian world in the Israeli genocide of Gazans. There is no doubt that, in most Christians today, fear of the Jews is much stronger than pity for the Gazans. And the heads of states of most Christian nation would rather start World War III with Russia than criticize Israel. Russia is, after all, a rational enemy, while no one knows what psychopathic Israel is capable of.
Israel is the only country that openly threatens to blow up the planet. They call it the Samson Option. The Samson Option is the combination of Israel’s nuclear capability and Israel’s reputation as a dangerous paranoid. Everyone knows that Israel has a hundred nuclear warheads (80 according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). And everyone knows that Israel is biblical, eager to fulfill prophecies, such as Zechariah 14:12:
“And this is the plague with which Yahweh will strike all the nations who have fought against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet; their eyes will rot in their sockets; their tongues will rot in their mouths.”
Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the University of Jerusalem, explained to the British newspaper The Gardian in 2003 that the Palestinians’ recurrent Intifadas will find only one solution: the “transfer” of all Palestinians out of Palestine. On the risk of opposition from the international community to such a project, he added:
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions … We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”[i]
That’s the Samson Option in a nutshell. Its essence is nuclear terrorism.
The audacity and impunity of Israel today are incomprehensible if we do not take into account the Samson Option. But the Samson Option, like Jewish Power in general, is taboo: everyone must know about it, but no one has the right to talk about it. This silence is the ultimate test of Israel’s fear. In a very recent post, Seymour Hersh writes:
“No one who’s anyone in Washington is allowed to talk about Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Or how it affects the region. Or whether it serves U.S. interests, even as the Middle East teeters on the brink of regional war.”[3]
As Hersh himself has documented in The Samson Option, it was thanks to the Kennedy assassination that Israel was able to adopt the Samson Option. Jefferson Morley, an investigator on the Kennedy assassination, noted, in a comment on Hersh’s post, that there is also an “Israeli gag” in Kennedy research:
“you can see the effects of the Israeli gag rule in the long-classified testimony of James Angleton, chief of CIA counterintelligence, to Senate investigators in June 1975. The redactions make visible what the U.S. and Israel government seek to conceal in 2024: how Israel obtained nuclear weapons on Angleton’s watch.”[4]
In the extract below, the word “Israeli” has been redacted to conceal the fact that Angleton was running the “Israeli account” and was, in that function, the sole liaison with the Mossad.
In his remarkable biography of Angleton, Morley shows that Angleton’s loyalty to Israel went as far as allowing and covering their smuggling of nuclear materials and technology. As every Kennedy researcher knows, Angleton is also the number one suspect in the CIA for the Kennedy assassination. Which means the CIA trail in the Kennedy assassination runs directly into the Mossad trail (something that Morley avoids saying, as a respectable member of the mainstream It’s-the-CIA school).
I must say that I am very disappointed by President Kennedy’s nephew, Robert Kennedy Junior, who either seems to have no idea of the heavy suspicion hanging over Israel in the assassinations of his uncle and father, or else pretends not to know, or just doesn’t want to know.
And since I started this article talking about Rabbi Shmuley, the sad news is that Rabbi Shmuley is one of RFK Jr.’s friends and advisors. At a rally on July 25, 2023, he introduced Robert Kennedy by mentioning his father:
“On the fifth of June, 1968, at 12:15 am, … Robert Kennedy Sr., one of the greatest Americans who ever lived, was gunned down by a Palestinian domestic terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan, and murdered because of his support for Israel. He was gunned down because he wanted to share the fate of the Jewish people.”
Bobby Jr. listened and took it in, without the slightest sign of disapproval, even though he knows very well that his father was not killed by Sirhan, and certainly not for his support of Israel. He remained frozen and mute in his chair, not even nodding when a brave lady in the audience protested, “Why are you lying? Sirhan Sirhan was not the murderer of Robert Kennedy…”[5] RFK Jr. will not contradict the lying Rabbi.
It’s a sadly revealing moment. By publicly humiliating Robert Kennedy Junior, insulting the memory of his father with his gross lie, right beside him, Shmuley is making an example. To be feared, Jews must show their power by making examples. That’s a good example.
Notes
[1] Menachem Begin, The Revolt: Story of the Irgun, Henry Schuman, 1951, quoted in Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel?, op. cit., p. 81.
[2] “Benjamin Netanyahu Speech to Congress 2015” on YouTube.
[3] Seymour Hersh, « It’s Bibi’s War », https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/its-bibis-war
[4] Jefferson Morley, “In the Last of the JFK Files, Israel’s Nuclear Secrets Are Safe,” 26 féb 2024, https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/in-the-last-of-the-jfk-files-israels
[5] “Conversation with RFK Jr. 7.25.23” sur www.youtube.com/watch?v=kihS7wFPG6I&t=434s, à partir de 5:30 minutes.
[i] David Hirst, “The War Game”, The Gardian, September 21, 2003: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextr
Terrorist attack in Russia – enemies want to generate domestic instability
By Lucas Leiroz | March 25, 2024
The recent terrorist attack at the Crocus City Hall, in the suburbs of Moscow, was undoubtedly one of the greatest tragedies in the recent history of the Russian Federation. More than 130 civilians, including several children, were brutally murdered by gunmen on the night of March 22. The death toll is expected to rise further, considering that there are several people hospitalized.
The criminals who participated in the attack have already been captured by Russian security forces. In total, eleven people were arrested, including the four shooters. The killers were Tajik immigrants, apparently linked to radical Islamic groups. They were arrested on the border of Bryansk oblast while trying to escape into Ukrainian territory. After interrogation, they said they were hired via Telegram. The hirers allegedly gave them the weapons used in the crime and promised a reward of half a million Russian rubles.
Interestingly, immediately after the attack rumors began to circulate in the Western media about alleged ISIS responsibility. American newspapers not only accused the Islamic extremist group, but also emphasized on several occasions that there was no Ukrainian responsibility for the attack. This hypothesis, however, seems untrue given the facts so far elucidated during the investigations.
The killers clearly worked as mercenaries in the attack. Despite being Islamic radicals, there is no evidence that their work in the specific case of Crocus City Hall has any connection with this extremist ideology. The killers’ modus operandi did not appear to be related to ISIS (a group with which they do not appear to have any ties). In addition to killing for money, they tried to escape the place and cross the border into Ukraine, which is not expected from ISIS militants, who almost always carry out suicide attacks in search of “martyrdom”.
It is also necessary to remember that ISIS is currently a weak organization and incapable of carrying out large-scale attacks. Since the Russian intervention in Syria, most of ISIS has been liquidated, with only remaining militias from the original group operating in several countries – including Ukraine itself, where radical Islamic militants are often seen among anti-Russian troops. There appears to be a strategic use of the acronym “ISIS” by Western intelligence, with the attribution of responsibility to the group whenever Washington wants to disguise its own involvement in a crime.
Furthermore, the terrorists tried to escape through the Bryansk border, which is a region heavily protected by Russian forces, with a large presence of minefields. Not even during the recent Ukrainian incursions on the border was there an attempt at a Ukrainian land invasion through Bryansk, which shows how difficult to cross this region is. To try to escape there, the terrorists certainly had solid support from Ukrainian intelligence, with precise data on how to circumvent the Russian defense and escape the minefields – which contradicts the Western narrative about Kiev not participating in the attack.
The reasons why the West wants to disguise Ukrainian participation in the case are easy to understand. Kiev does not act alone in its terrorist acts, always having the co-participation of the West. Being a vassal state, Ukraine only obeys orders from its Western backers, which means that, if there was Ukrainian participation in the attack against Moscow, Western agents certainly cooperated in some way to make the incident happen.
It must be remembered that there have been open threats against Russia from Western leaders for a long time. Recently, US former Under Secretary, Victoria Nuland, promised “surprises” to the Russian government in a statement interpreted by many analysts as a sign that sabotage operations would begin to take place within Russian territory. Furthermore, the American Embassy recently advised US citizens to avoid public gathering in Moscow, citing information about terrorist risk. This information was never shared with the Russian authorities, which indicates that, even if there was no American participation in the attack, there was at least an absence of willingness to act jointly against terror.
It must be remembered that these terrorist attacks occur amid an increase in Ukrainian incursions across the border. The Kiev regime has been bombing peaceful Russian cities, such as Belgorod and Kursk, even though there are no military targets in these regions. There appears to be a clear intention on the part of the regime and its supporters to promote terror deep in Russian territory. Faced with military failure, asymmetrical warfare, using terrorism, is the only “alternative” left for the neo-Nazi regime.
The choice of Central Asian immigrants to play the role of assassins seems even more interesting for the intentions of the Ukrainian regime and the West. Russia’s enemies hope to encourage the growth of racism and ethnic polarization in Russian society, trying to move the majority of the population against immigrants from the post-Soviet space. There is no evidence that such a plan will be successful, given the high level of social cohesion in contemporary Russia, but it is well known that fomenting domestic chaos in Russia is an old plan of the West.
The West and Ukraine want to make ordinary Russians feel insecure and start criticizing the government. They are working to recover a scenario similar to that of the 1990s and 2000s, when several terrorist attacks affected the main Russian cities. By awakening such traumas and memories in the Russian people, Western intelligence networks hope to succeed in creating a crisis of legitimacy against the government in the country.
However, the tendency is for precisely the opposite to occur: the more it is attacked, the more the Russian people endorse the government and support the special military operation, as they understand that this is the only way to neutralize terror.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram.
Nuclear Subsidies Galore …
By Kennedy Maize – Master Resource – March 19, 2024
The U.S. nuclear industry in recent days has hit three cherries on the federal money-and-policy slot machine. The open question is whether the largess (some might call it pork) will have the intended results: revitalizing a moribund industry by hitching its wagon to the feverish fear of climate change and long-run animosity toward nuclear rivals China and Russia.
First, the money–the most tangible of the goodies Congress and the White House have doled out. On March 5, the ranking members of the House and Senate appropriations committees rolled out a consensus on six money balls, including the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies bill funding all government nuclear programs for fiscal year 2024. Passage is almost certainly a done deal.
For nuclear, the bill includes the following radioactive goodies:
- $1.685 billion for Department of Energy nuclear R&D, including a priority for microreactors and accident tolerant fuel. This is a $212 million increase over 2023 funding.
- $2.72 billion in repurposed supplemental emergency funding for a high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) program for advanced reactor fuel development. This is aimed specifically at Russia (the only significant current supplier of HALEU).
- $280 million for an assortment of nuclear programs, such as $16 million for hydrogen produced from nukes and $137 million for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
House Legislation Passed (H.R. 6544)
The above Treasury payments followed policy victories for the nukes, including legislation and a new regulatory program.
On February 28, the House by an overwhelming 365-36 bipartisan margin passed H.R. 6544, designed to streamline safety reviews by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and give the Department of Energy some authority to buy electricity through purchase power agreements from commercial nuclear power purveyors.
In some respects, the legislation is a return to the approach of the now-defunct Atomic Energy Commission in the early days of atomic energy. In 1974, Congress abolished the AEC, and the all-power congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, in large part because the AEC viewed reactor safety as a poor cousin to promotion the atom.
The language in the House bill, as described by the Hogan Lovells law firm, would require the NRC to revise it mission statement
to ensure that, while upholding the policies of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the licensing and regulation of nuclear activities are carried out efficiently without unduly restricting the potential of nuclear energy and to improve the general welfare and the benefits of nuclear technology to society.”
Some observers have suggested this hortatory language is unlikely to survive in the Senate. Senators are trying to combine House provisions with a separate bipartisan bill that passed last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act but was later axed.
The legislation would also create a cadre of up to 210 Supergrade nuclear ninjas, possibly paid more than NRC commissioners in some cases. According to the bill language, under some circumstances, the NRC chairman Chairman “may, during any period when such a certification is in effect, fix the compensation for such employees or other personnel serving in a covered position without regard to any provision of title 5, United States Code, governing General Schedule classification and pay rates.” These alleged experts appear to have the power to second-guess the Senate-confirmed commissioners.
The House bill would also extend the Price-Anderson federal accident insurance subsidy, first enacted in 1957 and renewed seven times since then. The program expires at the end of 2025. It isn’t clear why this federal subsidy for nuclear is still needed when the industry insists its new, advanced reactor designs are “inherently” walk-away safe. Congress apparently believes it can assess the risks of nuclear energy more accurately than private sector actuaries.
Regulatory Favor
Then there is the third cherry on the governmental slot machine: regulation.
On March 4, the NRC rejected a staff-written draft rule developed over three years for how to regulate the potential new license applications for a variety of advanced reactors. The commission told the staff to rewrite its proposal for a new “Part 53” section of the agency’s authority embodied in 10 Code of Federal Regulations, joining the current sections 50 and 52, which pertain to large light-water reactors.
According to Utility Dive, a key change ordered by the commission “rejected ‘a strict checklist of requirements’ for probabilistic risk assessments while favoring a more flexible framework suited to simplified reactor designs with passive safety features that utilize natural forces, such as gravity or pressure differentials, rather than operator action.”
In a news release, NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson said, “This proposed rule leverages significantly more risk insights than our existing regulatory framework in making safety determinations. Applicants can use our existing regulations today, but this proposed rule will provide future nuclear developers a clear, additional pathway for licensing.” The NRC said it expects to publish the new rule in the Federal Register in about six months.
Legacy of Failure
This latest effort to revive the largely stagnant U.S. nuclear program is the third time in the last nearly 20 years that the government has tried to pump new life into atomic power. The U.S. program started grinding to a halt in the mid-1970s and was barely treading water by the 1990s. The pipeline of new reactor licenses emptied in 1974, and as the final builders of plants under construction either completed or abandoned their projects, the workforce and supply chain infrastructure hollowed out.
In 2005, Congress passed a new “Energy Policies Act,” which offered a smorgasbord of financial goodies for new plants including loans (they called them “loan guarantees” to make them look more palatable to opponents of direct federal subsidies, but the Treasury wrote the checks and received the loan payments), cost overrun protections, and extension of Price-Anderson to 2025.
The 2005 act was largely a failure. The two preeminent U.S. nuclear power developers, Westinghouse and General Electric, ended up sorely financially injured and in Japanese hands. Former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford commented, “They placed a big bet on this hallucination of a nuclear renaissance.”
Then came the first push for “small modular reactors,” designed to downsize the financial risks and construction costs of nuclear power plants. The strategy was the reverse of the “economies of scale” that drove the first generation of nuclear power plants, where bigger was always assumed to be better, but wasn’t.
In 2009, reactor vendor Babcock & Wilcox, which had substantial experience building nuclear power plants for U.S. submarines, announced it would offer a 125-MW pressurized water reactor (later scaled up to 180 MW) and a year later unveiled an alliance with builder Bechtel Corp. They called the project mPower.
In 2012, the Obama administration announced a $500 million program for development of small modular reactors. In 2013, mPower won financial assistance from DOE, with an award up to around $126 million. The same year, B&W tried and failed to sell a majority share of mPower, then cut back funding by 75%. Bechtel soon soured on the project, and it officially ran out of steam in 2017 after failure to find a customer.
During the same time frame, Westinghouse launched a 225-MW small modular reactor program. It quickly cratered, as the Pittsburgh-based company was unable to find a customer for its machines.
Will the latest government attempt to revive nuclear, driven by global warming concerns, succeed? It’s not a given. There’s lots to like about smaller nukes. They produce no CO2, have a relatively small footprint, can be sited fairly close to load.
But the economics aren’t clear, as the NuScale saga demonstrates. Some of the non-LWR advanced reactor designs will present licensing challenges, as there is little history behind them. Sodium cooled fast reactors may be particularly problematic, given the well-known problems of sodium as a coolant and the experience with Superphenix in France and Monju in Japan, plus issues of nuclear weapons proliferation.
———————-
This revised post originally appeared at The Quad Report.
Fired Harvard Professor: ‘All the Basic Principles of Public Health Were Thrown Out the Window’
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 21, 2024
Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration said Harvard University’s decision to fire him for non-compliance with the university’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate is just one example of the consequences faced by anyone who questioned the official COVID-19 narratives.
In an appearance on “The Defender In-Depth” podcast, Kulldorff, an epidemiologist, said his firing is part of a broader trend of censorship and intolerance toward people who express diverging views in the broader fields of science, medicine and academia.
Kulldorff is one of the five individual plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Biden administration alleging key administration officials and government agencies coerced social media platforms to remove content, in violation of the First Amendment.
Kulldorff discussed the latest developments in the suit — Murthy et al. v. Missouri et al. — whose plaintiffs also include the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on an injunction, previously granted by lower courts, barring the administration and certain federal agencies from communicating with social media platforms for the removal of content.
He also discussed the COVID-19 pandemic response of his native Sweden, which bucked the global trend by eschewing lockdowns, vaccine and mask mandates, making the country the target of global pressure and widespread media criticism. Yet, Sweden now demonstrates better public health outcomes than most other countries.
‘Never a consensus in the scientific community’ for lockdowns
Kulldorff said Harvard was “not happy” with him when he co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in 2020. However, it was Kulldorff’s decision not to get a COVID-19 vaccine that ultimately led Harvard to fire him.
“We had a disagreement about infection-acquired immunity,” Kulldorff said. “I was fired because I didn’t want to take the vaccine because I didn’t need it. I had better immunity from having had [COVID-19] already, and so, there was no medical reason for me to do it. And there was certain risk, because with every vaccine and drug, there’s some risk.”
Yet, many of his colleagues at Harvard and other institutions “sort of kept quiet” and “went along with it,” Kulldorff said. He attributed their cooperation to the federal funding many scientists and researchers receive from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
“They sit on the biggest pile of medical research money in the world,” Kulldorff said. “So, it’s pretty scary for a scientist to speak up against their wishes, because you risk losing the resource funds that you depend on to support your family, and also to support the other people that work in your laboratory.”
Still, in personal contacts with fellow epidemiologists, Kulldorff said “The majority were arguing for focused protections over better protecting the older people, by letting kids go to school and so on. So, there was never a consensus in the scientific community, at least not in the epidemiological community, for these lockdown measures.”
Kulldorff said that during the pandemic, “all the basic principles of public health were thrown out the window.” His former institution, Harvard, was no exception, “going to online teaching before there was any government incentive or push to do so.”
This, Kulldorff said, “set the stage, and a lot of other colleges and even high schools and elementary schools sort of followed Harvard’s lead” in locking down.
Similarly, Harvard later imposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate — which it finally ended on March 5. “There was no public health reason to mandate vaccines for students” in particular, Kulldorff said, because most of them “had COVID, so they have superior immunity. But even those few that haven’t [caught COVID-19] face minuscule risk from COVID.”
Children ‘will never fully recover’ from school closures
Kulldorff cited his native Sweden as an example of a country that bucked the trend and kept schools — and society more broadly — open during the pandemic.
“If you look at the elementary and high school students, we know that the test results went down” in countries that closed their schools, Kulldorff said. “The kids were hurt by this, and they will never fully recover from the damage that we did to them.”
Sweden was the only major Western country that kept schools open for ages 1-15, according to Kulldorff who said test results in Sweden have shown “no comparable drop — it’s just as normal, slightly going up.”
Among 1.8 million children who went to school in Sweden throughout the virus wave during the spring of 2020, “there were exactly zero COVID deaths and only a few hospitalizations,” he said.
Public health outcomes in Sweden also were positive for other population groups. “Sweden has low COVID mortality, less than the average in Europe [and] the lowest excess mortality in the Western world.”
Kulldorff said Swedish authorities were able to resist global pressure to impose lockdowns and mandates because they “had very strong support from other epidemiologists in Sweden” and “very strong support by the public” for their approach.
He noted that Sweden’s then-prime minister, Stefan Löfven, had a working-class background, having begun his career as a welder. Noting that lockdowns favored “the upper class,” Kulldorff said Löfven’s background might have made a difference as he could “understand what the effect these lockdowns had on regular people.”
Science will ‘dwindle down’ without freedom of speech
Yet, in other countries, including the U.S., dissenting views were silenced, Kulldorff said.
“Those of us who tried to speak up were either silenced or, after they couldn’t silence us anymore, we were slandered,” he said, noting that after the Great Barrington Declaration was published, Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., then the director of the NIH, called for “a devastating published takedown” in response.
“With scientific or other logical arguments, they have two options: They can sort of silence it by ignoring it or censoring it, which was done, or they can attack it through slander and smears,” Kulldorff said. He said postings he made on Twitter and YouTube critical of mask mandates and school closures, were removed by those platforms.
“They didn’t want the science to be known, the true science, and the true principles of public health,” Kulldorff said.
That’s why Kulldorff joined the Missouri et al. v. Biden et al. (now known as Murthy et al. v. Missouri et al.) lawsuit. He said the central argument the plaintiffs are making in this case “is that the federal government should not be allowed to coerce social media to censor people like myself.”
“They actually censored accurate, correct scientific information from scientists at Harvard and other places. And to me that’s pretty astonishing,” Kulldorff said.
Kulldorff said that during Monday’s Supreme Court hearing, “There were clearly some justices who seemed to be very sympathetic” to the plaintiffs’ position, and “seemed very concerned about the First Amendment.”
But other justices argued that “the government should be allowed to coerce social media to censor” in some instances.
By June, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling on whether or not to uphold the injunctions lower courts previously granted in this case. Kulldorff said the case will then return to the lower courts and is expected to “take years” to resolve, proceeding “in tandem” with Kennedy et al. v. Biden et al. — a similar lawsuit in which Children’s Health Defense is a plaintiff. The two lawsuits were consolidated in July 2023.
“I thought we were in agreement, as a country, as a society, that freedom of speech is important, that it is the foundation for us,” Kulldorff said. “It saddens me greatly that that’s not the case.”
“If we don’t have this freedom of speech, then gradually, science is going to dwindle down … Academia would go there also and society as a whole.”
Watch ‘The Defender In-Depth’ here.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Jewish Fingernail Fact Check
Did a rabbi say that “a thousand Blacks aren’t worth the fingernail of a Jewish man”?
Nation Of Islam Research Group
Why, yes. More than one rabbi has expressed openly this white Jewish supremacist rhetoric in both Israel and America. And though Jewish leaders have tried mightily to portray themselves as equal rights crusaders, the mind and mentality of white supremacy runs deeply through Jewish culture and history. Now, let’s look at the Jewish fingernail facts.
On February 25, 1994, the Brooklyn-born Israeli settler and physician Baruch Goldstein (in photo) machine-gunned 800 Muslims at prayer in Hebron’s Ibrahimi mosque, killing 29 and wounding 125, and setting off riots in which reportedly more than 100 Palestinians were killed by Israeli soldiers. The February 28, 1994, New York Times covered Goldstein’s funeral:
“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail,” Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said in a eulogy. At the service in Jerusalem, attended by 300 people, one man shouted, “We are all Goldstein,” an opinion echoed across Qiryat Arba by neighbors who said variously that they approved of his attack on the Arabs or at the least could not judge him.
At least 100 newspapers covered the racist rabbi’s genocidal decree and the support it received in Israel from admirers of Goldstein’s massacre of Palestinians. The Times further reported that Jewish worshippers came to his grave “by the hundreds…many bowing deeply to kiss the tombstone of the Hebron mass killer and to proclaim him a holy man.” A Jerusalem college professor declared Goldstein the “greatest Jew alive,” and Rabbi Dov Lior proclaimed that Goldstein was “holier than all the martyrs of the Holocaust.”
Goldstein’s deification provides a window into the mind and manner of a strangely violent people who have in recent months perpetrated the open extermination of the Palestinian people. What has become clear is that Zionist Jews are following an ancient script—a largely unknown and unholy book of their own creation. This book prescribes one system of justice for themselves, and a system of slavery and apartheid for everyone else. It explicitly declares that all dark-skinned people (and that’s 91% of the planet) are cursed by God to be their slaves forever. It specifically decrees that Jesus, the messiah to 2.4 billion Christians, is worthy only to be boiled in feces—forever. It asserts that his mother Mary, for whom the central Nation of Islam mosque is named, was a whore. Murder, lying, cheating and stealing are endorsed options for its believers, and the preemptive killing of perceived threats is commanded.
The ~2,000-year old Babylonian Talmud is the document we refer to here. Mass murderer Goldstein was trained in the Talmud at a Brooklyn Jewish school (yeshiva), and it has become the focus of attention as its destructive tenets are applied in a live-streamed, televised genocide. Its lead exterminator is the Caucasian prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, who announced to the world in 2014 that he would establish the Talmud as the “official basis for Israeli state law.” In other words, once passage of Talmud Law goes into effect, Caucasian Jews will be enthroned at the top of a violent race hierarchy of their own design.
And this vile “Jewish fingernail” fraternity is not unique to Israel. In America, the very same Talmudic mentality was openly expressed by a rabbi at a meeting of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)—with DIRECT reference to Blacks. Birmingham, Alabama, was “ground zero” of the civil rights movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and it is where four little Black girls were murdered in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in 1963 by white terrorists. At the time, most of Birmingham’s 4,000 Jews were represented by the notorious racist and white supremacist Rabbi Milton L. Grafman, of Temple Emanu-El synagogue. It was also home to several wealthy Jews in the business community, including Chamber of Commerce president William Engel, who held the group’s meetings under the Confederate flag, with Grafman giving his holy invocation (see photo).
Birmingham’s notoriously vicious Commissioner of Public Safety Eugene “Bull” Connor (in photo) turned fire hoses and attack dogs on Black women and children for the world to see, yet behind the scenes Connor was supported and financed by these Jews, who, according to author Suzanne F. Nossel, “felt safe under his care.” When some progressive Jews criticized Connor, three Birmingham synagogues joined in demanding that they formally apologize to Connor, calling their charges “unfounded, unjust, and irresponsible.” That is the true picture of Black–Jewish relations in America. In fact, Rabbi Grafman was so angered by Dr. King and his freedom movement that he lashed out in that ADL meeting: “The lives of one thousand negroes are not worth a hair on the head of a single Jew!”
At the time, Grafman’s racist bloviations embarrassed the Jewish leadership who were pushing the well-oiled propaganda that Jews were committed “civil rights” crusaders. Grafman’s profile on Wikipedia, the popular on-line encyclopedia, falsely claimed that the Nation of Islam Research Group is the only source for his damning “not worth a hair” statement. The Wiki scribes dismissively wrote: “In 2019, a meme circulated by The Nation of Islam falsely attributed a racist quote to Grafman….This so-called quote was lifted from a 2013 commentary in ‘The Final Call’ by Tingba Muhammad. There is no contemporaneous or current record of the purported remarks, other than in the Final Call article. (see below)”
But that was merely the disingenuous protestation of a culprit caught red-handed. Nonetheless, the Wiki entry provides a great opportunity to see how the history of Blacks and Jews is corrupted and relentlessly filtered to “disappear” Jews like Grafman, Engel and Goldstein from their most egregious crimes. Has the Nation of Islam slandered Grafman, or has Wikipedia slandered the Nation of Islam? This is no small consideration, given that the Talmud’s prescribed sentence for slander is to be cursed with white skin (Arakhin 15b)! Let us now back-engineer the quote to determine whether “The Nation of Islam falsely attributed a racist quote” to Rabbi Grafman.
In fact, Rabbi Grafman’s “one thousand negroes” statement has been revealed in several places, but often in ways designed to obscure Grafman and the congregation that supports him. In her unpublished 1991 Harvard study titled “Weathering the Storm: The Jewish Community in Birmingham, Alabama, During the Civil Rights Revolution,” Suzanne F. Nossel writes that Jewish leaders (see screenshot) “were forced to accept that Rabbi Grafman voiced a sentiment common in Birmingham when he said, ‘the lives of one thousand Negroes are not worth a hair on the head of a single Jew.’”
Dr. Clive Webb’s 1997 dissertation, which earned him a Ph.D. from University of Cambridge, is titled “A History of Black–Jewish Relations in the American South, 1790-1970.” It is also unpublished and thus far more difficult for the average reader to access. Webb wrote that Grafman made the following remark at that above-mentioned Anti-Defamation League meeting: “Better a hundred Negroes be hurt than that harm come to the head of a single Jew.” Webb quoted another Jew who was present who recounted that “one rabbi stood up and exclaimed that he would not risk ‘one hair on the head of my members for the life of every shvartzeh in the state’.” Shvartzeh, of course, is the Yiddish word for nigger, and that “one rabbi” is obviously Grafman. At the time, “every shvartzeh in the state” amounted to a Black population of about 1.1 million, bringing Grafman’s holocaust to Palestinian proportions.
In his posthumously published 2016 book To Stand Aside or Stand Alone: Southern Reform Rabbis and the Civil Rights Movement, Rabbi P. Allen Krause reiterates (on page 74 n45) the “hundred negroes” quote that Dr. Webb revealed. On page 309 of his 2019 book American Judaism: A History, second edition, Brandeis professor Dr. Jonathan D. Sarna tried to obscure Grafman’s klanism by identifying him only as “A prominent Birmingham rabbi, who later modified his views.” Yet Sarna admits that the good rabbi “told a meeting…that he ‘wouldn’t risk one hair on the head of one of my members for the life of every shvartzeh (black) in this state.’”
Certainly, the actual beliefs held by Rabbi Grafman and his Birmingham synagogue— filled with Confederate flag-waving, segregationist backers of Bull Connor—are exactly the opposite of the carefully crafted but absolutely false image of an alleged Black–Jewish civil rights alliance. Grafman is one of many, many Jewish leaders who spoke and acted forcefully to keep Blacks from receiving true justice in America. And that is why it is no mystery why Blacks can see themselves in the plight of the world’s 15 million Palestinians, rather than in the single Jewish hair of Rabbi Grafman or the fingernail of a Baruch Goldstein.
What do Justin Trudeau and Kristi Noem have in common? Both want to put you in jail for having unpopular opinions
Chuck Baldwin Live | March 21, 2024
The left and right sides of an ellipse are descriptive of Left and Right politics. At the top of the ellipse is Liberty. At the bottom of the ellipse is Tyranny. Republicans and Democrats spend most of their time arguing over things that fall in the middle of the ellipse.
I define Tyranny as anything that promotes the power of the state to control people’s lives and liberties beyond the Natural Laws of our Creator. I define Liberty as anything that constrains the power of the state to control people’s lives and liberties beyond the Natural Laws of our Creator.
The problem with so many people from both the political Left and the political Right is that, regardless of their differences over middle elliptical issues, they meet in unison at the bottom of the ellipse. Both Trump and Biden, Republicans and Democrats, want to use the power of government to coerce, intimidate or force the American citizenry to do what THEY want us to do. Whether we agree or not with either side is irrelevant. The fact that we would allow them to exercise governmental power to enforce THEIR personal opinions upon us should be anathema to any true freedomist.
And there are no God-ordained liberties more precious to free men and women than the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion (conscience).
And there is currently a perfect depiction of what I said above being played out before our very eyes with the Leftist Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and South Dakota’s conservative governor, Kristi Noem.
The Liberal Justin Trudeau
The Canadian government is rapidly advancing plans to usher in full-blown tyranny and will soon begin sentencing citizens to life in prison if they are found guilty of committing the “crime” of so-called “hate.”
Many are likening the new laws to George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984” as Canada will soon start handing out severe penalties for wrongthink.
The push for life sentences is part of “liberal” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “anti-hate” legislation.
The shocking new law, buried in bill C-6, states:
Everyone who commits an offense under this act or any other act of Parliament, if the commission of the offense is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for life.
The new law from Canada comes as Trudeau’s World Economic Forum-controlled administration seeks to rapidly advance the nation’s descent into globalist tyranny.
The government has been pushing several new laws that seek to strip the public of their freedoms.
As Slay News reported, among the draconian new laws are powers that allow authorities to begin jailing citizens who “might” commit a crime.
Trudeau’s government is pushing for the new “pre-crime” authority which officials claim will help to tackle so-called “hate crimes.” (Source)
Naturally, conservatives on the right side of the ellipse are aghast and angry at such a tyrannical proposal—and justifiably so. There is no question that Fidel Castro’s Canadian son wants to turn our northern neighbor into a cold-climate communist state like the balmy prison island of Cuba.
But now let’s visit the other side of the ellipse, the right side, the conservative side.
The Conservative Kristi Noem
In signing a draconian, tyrannical “hate” law of her own in South Dakota, USA, Governor Kristi Noem (on the short list to be Trump’s running mate) said the following (reported by Chris Menahan at InfoWars):
When I was growing up, my dad would always gather our family together and we would pray for Israel. It was instilled in me from a very young age that the Jews were Gods [sic] chosen people, that Israel was the Holy Land, and that we should always pray for them.
I brought those fundamental ideals with me when I was in the State Legislature, when I served in Congress, and now as Governor of South Dakota. Supporting the State of Israel and our Jewish community has always been extremely important to me. It’s important to support Israel for spiritual, historical, and national security reasons. I am continuing to stand with the Jewish people by signing historic legislation to protect them from antisemitism.
I was very proud to sign HB 1076, a very important bill to combat antisemitism. This bill defines antisemitism and makes it easier to prove when discriminatory conduct is motivated by antisemitism. It is an impactful piece of legislation that will ensure the safety of Jewish people and strengthen South Dakota’s anti-discrimination laws.
We held a beautiful, moving signing ceremony for this bill in the Rotunda of our State Capitol in Pierre. Many prominent Jewish leaders attended, including Elan Carr, the CEO of the Israeli-American Council for Action, nationally renowned Jewish leader and founder of the Jacobson Society Dan Rosen, Rabbi and Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Rabbi Mendel Alperowitz of the Chabad Jewish Center of South Dakota, Renie Schreiber on behalf of Yinam Cohen, Consul General of Israel to the Midwest, and Jordan Cope from Stand With Us. A few of our special guests said some words about the impact this legislation will have for the Jewish people.
This bill puts the gold standard International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance [IHRA] definition of antisemitism into state law.
I hope that more states across our great nation will follow this example that we are setting here in South Dakota. It is more important now than ever for our nation’s leaders to stand up and fight against antisemitism. We must always work to ensure the security of God’s chosen people.
Menahan writes:
The IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism is completely antithetical to the First Amendment.
The IHRA defines anti-Semitism as:
– Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
– Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
– Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
– Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
– Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
– Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
– Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
– Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
No other ethnic or religious group in America is afforded any such privileges.
Notice that virtually everything in this list defining “antisemitism” focuses on speech, attitudes or thoughts. “Allegations.” “Accusing.” “Denying.” “Accusing.” “Accusing.” “Denying.” “Applying.” “Using.” All of this refers to speech, attitudes or thoughts.
Kristi Noem is abusing the power of government in an attempt to deny people their First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
If Noem wants to believe that the Ashkenazi Jews in the Middle East are “God’s Chosen People,” it is her religious right to believe that. And if she wants to publicly say she believes that, the freedom of speech gives her the right to do so.
BUT . . .
1. That doesn’t mean she is right; in fact, she is NOT right. The Ashkenazi Jews in Palestine today are no more God’s Chosen People and the blood descendants of Abraham than you or me or the man in the moon.
2. That doesn’t give her the right or authority to force people to believe as she does, to share her religious persuasion or to use the power of government to punish them for taking a contrary position.
For your information, Kristi,
I DO believe that the popular scope ascribed to the German Holocaust IS “exaggerated.”
I DO believe that Jewish Zionism IS a radical racist ideology—and so do many Israelis, by the way.
I DO believe that Zionist Jews DO have an extraordinary influence over our media, Federal Reserve, government and societal institutions—and it appears that by signing this bill, Kristi, you are proving my assertion.
And, yes, I also believe that the Jews who coerced and manipulated Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus ARE blood libel for His death. As a matter of fact, Kristi, the Pharisees and Jews that murdered Jesus admitted their liability for Christ’s death when they shouted, “His blood be on us, and on our children.” (Matthew 27:25)
If I lived in South Dakota, I suppose I would be guilty of a “hate” crime and open to government reprisal.
So, how are Noem and Trudeau any different? Both of them want to use the power and force of government to punish people for exercising their God-ordained freedom of religion and freedom of speech in a manner that doesn’t comport with theirs.
Noem’s tyrannical “hate” bill is not motivated by greed and ambition, using this bill as a means of holding her hand out to the Israeli lobbyists for more campaign cash, is it?
Ditto Trudeau’s tyrannical “hate” bill?
Naw!
Left. Right. Liberal. Conservative. Secularist. Religious. It all spells tyranny if they are meeting at the bottom of the ellipse, as Justin Trudeau and Kristi Noem are doing right now.
© Chuck Baldwin
Featured Video
Iran Walks Out On Peace Deal Due To Trump’s Threats
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Neocons confess: “We did 9/11-anthrax”
By Kevin Barrett | Press TV | September 6, 2014
As the 13th anniversary of the crimes of September, 2001 approaches, the neoconservatives are shrieking from the rooftops – and effectively confessing that they were the real perpetrators of the 9/11-Anthrax false flag operation. (The neocons, you may recall, openly called for a “new Pearl Harbor” in September, 2000 – and got one exactly one year later.)
Every year at this time, the neocons orchestrate and hype a series of public relations stunts designed to magnify fears of “radical Islam” and reinforce their crumbling 9/11-Anthrax cover story. But this year’s propaganda campaign is so extreme that it represents a tacit confession: The neocons know that the truth about the 9/11-Anthrax operation is slowly closing in on them; so they are over-reacting by desperately trying to stoke the dying embers of the so-called War on Terror, in order to maintain the myth that Muslims (rather than neoconservative Zionists) attacked America in the autumn of 2001.
When a hysterical person exhibits guilty demeanor by trying too hard to blame a crime on someone else, that person is almost certainly the real perpetrator. As the neocons try much too hard to blame Islam for 9/11 and “terrorism” in general, their hysteria inadvertently reveals their own culpability. Like Shakespeare’s Lady MacBeth, the neoconservative movement has blood on its hands and “doth protest too much.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- What Is Hay Fever?
- IRAN WALKS OUT ON PEACE DEAL DUE TO TRUMP’S THREATS – w/ Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi
- Moderna’s mRNA Flu Vaccine Gets Unanimous Thumbs-Up Despite Risks, Low Efficacy
- UK Speech Regulator’s Telegram Questions Point Toward Private Chats
- Cuban FM blasts Rubio for ‘chronically lying’ about US fuel blockade
- Al-Jazeera demands punishment for Israeli officials following latest assassination of cameraman
- Iran opens hundreds of legal cases over US, Israeli aggression: Prosecutor general
- Iran delegation protests Trump’s threat at Switzerland talks, weighs ‘proper’ response: Source
- Terms of US capitulation to Iran presage new era for the region
- Strategic Oil Reserve Nears Collapse… US Must Choose: Guns or Butter
- If Americans Knew
- JNS Policy Summit to kick off in Israel
- Fatalities From Israel’s Vast Gaza Genocide Deliberately Undercounted
- ‘Reproductive genocide’ in Gaza; death toll in Lebanon tops 4,000 (during a ceasefire) – Daily Update
- Israelis Invaded Lebanon And Then Cried Victim When Their Soldiers Got Killed
- FARA Docs: Israel is Spying On Millions Of Christian Americans In Their Churches
- Why US presidents from both parties end up cursing Benjamin Netanyahu
- Israel Asked Facebook to Censor Iran War Content, Internal Documents Show
- Deaths in Gaza undercounted, possibly by 100s of thousands; “Psychopath” Ben-Gvir talks trash – Daily Update
- UNICEF: “Trauma is woven into the very fabric of childhood in Gaza”
- 15 articles a day: The extent of the Israeli army’s media interference
- No Tricks Zone
- THE TRANSCEIVER PARADOX: Why Organoid Intelligence (OI) Could Become Our Ultimate Alien Predator
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
Aletho News 