by

Tucker Carlson: The truth of what happened on Jan. 6 is still unknown | Fox News

You know it tells you a lot about the priorities of a ruling class that the rest of us are getting yet another lecture about January 6th tonight from our moral inferiors, no less. An outbreak of mob violence, a forgettably minor outbreak by recent standards, that took place more than a year and a half ago, but they’ve never stopped talking about it.  

In the meantime, in the 18 months since January 6, gas prices have doubled. Drug ODs have reached their highest point ever. The U.S. economy is now careening toward a devastating recession at best and scariest and least noted of all, this country has never in its history been closer to a nuclear war.

Yet the other networks can’t be bothered to cover any of that tonight. Instead, they’ve interrupted their regularly scheduled programing to bring you yet another extended primetime harangue from Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney about Donald Trump and QAnon. The whole thing is insulting.  

In fact, it’s deranged and we’re not playing along. This is the only hour on an American news channel that will not be carrying their propaganda live. They are lying, and we are not going to help them do it. What we will do instead is to try to tell you the truth. We’ve attempted to do that since the day this happened. 

We hated seeing vandalism at the U.S. Capitol a year and a half ago, and we said so at the time, but we did not think it was an insurrection because it was not an insurrection. It was not even close to an insurrection. Not a single person in the crowd that day was found to be carrying a firearm – some insurrection. In fact, the only person who wound up shot to death was a protester.  

She was a 36-year-old military veteran called Ashli Babbitt. Babbitt was just over 5 feet tall. She was unarmed. She posed no conceivable threat to anyone, but Capitol Hill Police shot her in the neck and never explained why that was justified. Those are the facts of January 6, but since the very first hours, they have been distorted beyond recognition, relentlessly culminating with last night.  

Last night, CBS Nightly News told its viewers that insurrectionists at the Capitol on January 6 “caused the deaths of five police officers.” That is a pure lie. There is nothing true about it, and they know that perfectly well. Here’s reporter Bob Costa, who should be deeply ashamed to say something this dishonest.  

ROBERT COSTA, CBS: Thursday’s primetime hearing will take Americans back to January 6, when an estimated 2,000 rioters breached the Capitol building, causing the deaths of five police officers. 

It’s hard to believe he said that. Rioters cause the deaths of five police officers. You just heard CBS News tell its viewers that. This must be the big lie theory. The more bewilderingly false a claim is, the more likely you will be to believe it. Apparently, that’s what they’re betting on. In fact, precisely zero police officers were killed by rioters on January 6, not five, none. Not a single one. So, how’d they get to five? Well, CBS is counting the suicides of local police officers that took place after January 6, in some cases, long after January 6.  

Suicide, unfortunately, is pretty common among cops. Policing is a tough job, as we’ve noted. But in these specific cases, the ones CBS is referring to, the chief of Washington DC’s police department told The New York Times that actually he had no idea if his officers were driven to kill themselves by January 6. CBS just made that up. 

The fifth death that CBS News is referring to is of Capitol Hill police officer Brian Sicknick. You will remember his name. Sicknick’s body lay in state at the Capitol after the media told us he’d been beaten to death by Trump voters with a fire extinguisher. Here’s what they told you.  

FREDERICKA WHITFIELD, CNN: Officer Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher.  

CNN REPORTER: Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher.

ANA CABRERA, CNN: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the hour-long attack. 

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC: They beat a Capitol Police officer to death with a fire extinguisher.  

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the fight.

CRAIG MELVIN, MSNBC: He died at the age of 42 after he was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher.  

Once again, that’s not true. Everything you just heard was completely fabricated. The D.C. medical examiner performed an autopsy and the autopsy report showed that Officer Brian Sicknick had not suffered any kind of blunt force trauma. He was not beaten to death. He died of a stroke in his office later. No one has been charged in Officer Sicknick’s death because Officer Sicknick wasn’t murdered.  

They are lying to you. That is provable. Not a single person you just saw has apologized for lying. Not a single one. And it’s not just the news media. Here’s Congressman Pete Aguilar of California claiming that officers lost their lives on January 6.  

PETE AGUILAR: These hearings will be a chance for the country to come together to rally around the truth and unite around the rule of law. We owe it to the officers who lost their lives and the officers who were injured to tell that story and to ensure that this never happens again. 

Let’s rally around the truth, he says, as he lies to you. May those words burn your tongue, liar. But what did happen exactly on January 6? What’s the truth of that day? Well, that’s still unknown. From the extensive video we have of January 6, it’s clear that some in the crowd, more than a few, were encouraging protesters to breach the Capitol, to commit felonies. We’re not guessing at that, we’ve showed you the tape.  

We have pictures of their faces. In the case of a man called Ray Epps, we know his name, but they’ve never been charged. Ray Epps was standing in exactly the same place that a lot of people who went to jail were standing, but he wasn’t charged. His name was taken off the FBI’s Most Wanted list. Why is that? It doesn’t make any sense at all. 

The January 6 committee will not explain that after a year, millions of dollars and a thousand interviews. They won’t tell us, nor will they tell us how many FBI agents and assets were in the crowd that day and what were they doing there. Why can’t we know that? And why are they still hiding thousands of hours of surveillance footage from within the Capitol? If the point of the committee was to get the truth out there, why can’t we see the tape?  

Why did authorities open the doors of the Capitol to rioters and let them walk in, usher them in the doors? That’s utterly bizarre. You saw that live. No one’s ever explained it. What’s the explanation for that? And by the way, whatever happened to the mysterious pipe bomber whose bombs we later learned many months later, Kamala Harris’ bodyguards discovered. Kamala Harris told us she was at the Capitol that day, but she wasn’t. She was at the DNC with a pipe bomb outside. Her bodyguards found that bomb, but she lied about that. She hid that. Why?  

That’s got to be one of the weirdest stories ever. What does it mean, Liz Cheney? Silence. And of course, above all, they lied about the reason that January 6 happened in the first place and you know what it is. The entire country watched Joe Biden get what they claim was 10 million more votes than Barack Obama himself got. Joe Biden got 10 million more votes than Barack Obama got, and a lot of those votes arrived after the election.  

In a lot of places, voting was stopped in the middle of the night. Why? In the biggest states in the country, voter ID was optional. Why is that okay? A lot of the protesters on January 6 were very upset about that and they should have been. All of us should be, but the January 6 Committee ignored all of that completely. Instead, on the basis of zero evidence, no evidence whatsoever, they blamed the entire riot on White supremacy. Here’s Joe Biden.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: We’re confronting the stains of what remains, a deep stain on the soul of the nation, hate and White supremacy. The violent, deadly insurrection on the Capitol nine months ago was about White supremacy, in my view.

What? There’s no evidence for that – none. The people at the Capitol, including the ones who broke the law by entering the Capitol, which is a crime, those people to a person said they were upset because they believed their democracy had been stolen from them and whether all of their claims are true or not, that’s a valid reason to be upset. But rather than reassure the rest of us that actually our democracy is sound, elections are fair and transparent, there’s no cheating and we can prove it, rather than do that, they call half the country names and not just names, the worst thing you can be called, a White supremacist. And then, most bewilderingly of all, virtually no Republican in Washington pushed back against any of that.  

In fact, Lindsey Graham, violence worshiper to the end, said that his only regret was that the Capitol Police didn’t shoot more Trump voters in the neck and kill them. “You’ve got guns, use them,” Graham said. So here you have a sitting U.S. senator, a Republican, urging police officers to shoot unarmed Americans, many of whom were ushered into the Capitol building by law enforcement.  

How can people talk like that? For more than a year, they justified rhetoric like Lindsey Graham “shoot more” by claiming that January 6 was an insurrection. That’s not a word they were used to describe, say, the monthslong siege of a courthouse in Portland, or the ongoing coordinated effort to intimidate Supreme Court justices at their homes with guns, a story they ignored today. But January 6 was different, they reminded us. It was unique because it was their offices and because it bothered Nancy Pelosi.

ADAM SCHIFF: The president incited an insurrection against Congress to prevent the peaceful transition of power. 

CEDRIC RICHMOND: And then he sat back and watched the insurrection.

REP. HALEY STEVENS: Insurrection, a violent mob.

CORI BUSH: A White supremacist president who incited a White supremacist insurrection. 

REP. ILHAN OMAR: A insurrection against our government.

REP. ILHAN OMAR: A insurrection against our government.

PELOSI: The insurrection that violated the sanctity of the people’s Capitol.

JIM MCGOVERN: This was not a protest, this was an insurrection. 

BIDEN: It’s not protest. It’s insurrection.

We are not defending and would never defend vandalism, violence, rioting. We disapproved of it when it happened. We disapprove of it now, all riots, not just this one. But this was not an insurrection. 

But, you know what will get you to insurrection? If you ignore the legitimate concerns of a population, if you brush them aside as if they don’t matter when gas goes to $5 and you say “buy an electric car.” When cities become so filthy and so dangerous that you can’t live there, when the economy becomes so distorted that your own children have no hope of getting married and giving you grandchildren, when you don’t care at all about any of that and all you do is talk about yourself, nonstop – you might get an insurrection if you behave like that, speaking of insurrection. 

Source: Fox News

by

Rand Paul: This is the danger of a one-world government | YouTube

Kentucky U.S. Senator reacts to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on ‘Jesse Watters Primetime.

Source: YouTube & Fox News

by

While Elites Live It Up In Davos, America Continues To Suffer From Their Stupidity | Daily Caller

By Daniel Turner

Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s definition of the intelligentsia — those educated beyond their intelligence — illuminates the current gathering of global powerbrokers and intellectuals in Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum.

Discussing sophisticated and lofty issues like climate change and the transition to green energy, attendees nod and applaud at one another’s remarks, marveling at their own detached brilliance all while ignoring their own enormous carbon footprint spewed by their private jets and yachts.

One can only wonder if they are reading the same headlines the rest of us are.

“Much of the U.S. could see power blackouts this summer,” declares National Public Radio. “Blackouts possible this summer,” affirms CNN. And to be sure this isn’t just titillating headlines for clicks, the Biden administration’s Department of Energy has recently published a how-to guide preparing your home for a blackout.

Think about the insane and tragic irony of the “Energy” Department authoring a survival guide for no energy.

Our current energy crunch, both domestically and internationally, is a direct result of the Davos crowd, these misanthropic interlopers feigning energy expertise. It’s akin to Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee, the crow’s nest sailors on RMS Titanic, catching sight of the iceberg and deciding to engage in a lengthy debate about the Darwinism. “We are going through this incredible transition,” Biden recently bragged in response to a question about high gas prices. Iceberg? What Iceberg? Keep dancing.

What the Davos crowd will not admit — cannot — admit since it unravels their entire narrative — is that we are headed for a summer of blackouts because of their own green agenda. Biden promised to punish energy, and has he ever.

Since the first day where he signed multiple executive orders to end land access and cripple energy infrastructure projects with unaccountable bureaucracies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), he has scared off investors and caused a dwindling supply.

Biden knows we have a supply problem. It’s why he is asking for more oil from OPEC or lifting sanctions on the rogue, murderous regime in Venezuela. It’s why he has released oil from strategic reserves.

Team Biden knows only an increase in supply will bring down prices. Yet, he has done nothing to increase domestic production. That is something he will not — cannot — do since it undermines his one core campaign promise.

In their hearts, the Davos attendees know their policies have never actually worked. Not one country that has embraced the green agenda has seen success as measured by factors like prosperity, opportunity, costs, or even output. Even the holy grail of metrics, emissions, have gone up in Germany. The only measurable success is self-righteousness. Going green makes the Davos crowd feel good. Judge Davos not on its outcomes, but on the nobility of its intentions.

It is sailors Fleet and Lee shouting, “full steam ahead, Captain!”

The Davos glitterati celebrate the green agenda because they are immune from it. Bureaucrats like WEF Chairman Straus Kahn and European Central Bank Chair Christine Lagarde are safe in their cushy, bubble jobs, blithely unaware that for many $4.60 gas prices are budget busting and forcing difficult choices. Similarly, high gas prices are no problem for Joe Biden’s weekly commute home to Delaware; he’s not paying the jet fuel on Air Force One. We are.

When Davos comes to its merciful end, its cadre of highly educated global elites will have accomplished nothing which improves the life of mankind. A quilting convention has more utility than the lofty thoughts of the Davos disconnected.

Sadly, they have tremendous power and influence. As long as America is run by impressionable and weak men like Joe Biden, men longing to matter and desperate to emit the substance and principles they lack ontologically, then the rest of us are doomed to suffer Davos’ green stupidity.

Source: Daily Caller

by

“2000 Mules” based on hard facts | Washington Times

By Bob Segal

I recently watched the Dinesh D’Souza film “2000 Mules.” At the very least, the movie makes a compelling case using what appears to be incontrovertible evidence that not only was there massive “ballot stuffing” fraud in the key swing states, but that the fraud literally stole the election from former President Donald Trump and gave it to President Biden.

“2000 Mules” bases its conclusions primarily upon cellphone tracking data provided by carriers and surveillance video of ballot drop boxes provided by multiple state governments. The only ways to dismiss the film’s conclusion that Mr. Biden’s victory derived from massive ballot stuffing is to show that the data used to track the cell phones was corrupt, the analysis of the data was flawed or the videos received from the respective governments were doctored. No one has established any such improprieties, yet the mainstream media’s knee-jerk reaction is to reject the film and its conclusions and offer absurd suggestions to explain how the data and video evidence is false.

It has been suggested that the people in the videos are election workers retrieving ballots from the boxes or that the cellphone data is of taxi drivers who happen to pass the ballot boxes. All one must do to reject such nonsense is watch the film.

In a perfect journalistic world populated by real journalists, this film would indicate a large amount of smoke worthy of investigation. But again, the same super-partisan, leftist media is making zero effort to get to the truth. I challenge any Democrat, Trump hater, any Never Trumper to watch the film and see whether their rock-solid belief in the honesty of Mr. Biden’s election remains so afterward.

Donald J. Trump: “Highly respected Dinesh D’Souza, working together with Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote, just released a trailer to their new movie, “2,000 Mules,” that shows the world exactly how the 2020 Presidential Election was Rigged and Stolen. The movie exposes the lies of the Democrats, RINOs, and Fake News who say it was the “most secure election in history.” It was, perhaps, the least secure in history. The ballot box was stuffed, and stuffed like never before—and it’s all on video. Ballots were trafficked and sold in a massive operation in each Swing State. The evidence is so damning, what will the cowards who sat and did nothing about the stolen election say now? The way our votes were taken away is a disgrace to our Nation. It must be fixed.”

Source: The Washington Times

by

The Nazification of the West | Forbidden Knowledge

Zelenskyy recently described Putin’s “de-Nazification” of Ukraine as “laughable” and the brainwashed flock of the mainstream media certainly must agree.

They have been told that Nazis wave the American flag and vote Republican and the brainwashed flock always believe what they are told.

But those of us still cleaving to our sanity remember that Nazis were members of Hitler’s National Socialist Party from the 1930s and ’40s.

And not only were there thousands of Nazis in Western Ukraine back then, it is still a big part of their national pride.

Nazi war criminal, Stepan Bandera is a national hero and there are actual Nazi organizations still thriving in Ukraine, including the Azov Regiment, which is now a part of Ukraine’s armed forces.

The Nazification of Ukraine is well-documented and easily-verified, as is the Nazification of America.

During the 1930s, there were many notable Americans who supported the Nazis, such as Prescott Bush, Henry Ford and Fred Koch; banks, such as JP Morgan and Chase Manhattan; companies such as General Motors, Standard Oil, Shell and IBM.

Major General Smedley Butler of the US Marines was asked by these powerful entities to install National Socialism in the United States and when that plan failed, war broke out with the support of the banks and these American entities.

After World War II, only about a dozen were brought to justice at the Nuremberg Trials.

The Catholic Church and the Vatican helped thousands of Nazis evade capture, via the rat lines, which brought them mostly to South America, where they built an entire town in Argentina.

In Operation Paperclip, the United States secretly absorbed thousands of Nazis into the US Government, where they led the NASA Space Program and helped pioneer the military-industrial complex, as well as Big Pharma.

Many believe being a Nazi is synonymous with being anti-Jewish, which may have been true in 1930s Germany but it’s complicated. Many high-ranking Nazis, themselves, including Adolf Hitler were Ashkenazi Jews, who cold be traced back to the notorious Khazars, who mysteriously mass-converted to Judaism about 1,300 years ago in the region now known as Ukraine.

Ashkenazi Jews ran the political Zionist Party in Germany and for several years, the Zionists were the only political party allowed to operate inside Germany by the Nazis.

Both the Zionists and the Nazis wanted their own ethnically-pure state and for years, before their Final Solution, the Nazis helped the Zionists in their efforts to establish the State of Israel within Palestine. It was far more complicated than mere racial hatred.

Nazism can best be described as Fascism and Fascism is godlessness. The word “Nazi” is a made-up slur but the word “Fascist” is clearly-defined. It stems from the Latin word, “Fascis”, which is a bundle of sticks banded together to form a deadly weapon; an old school meme that represents the deadly power of an organized mob, a gang.

When men lack a personal relationship with God, they inevitably band together, out of fear, submitting to the small man for a taste of dominance, they become just another beast in the jungle.

And today, we can clearly see this Fascist mentality in all of these godless groups: the woke, the Satanists, the transhumanists and the genocidal mass-murderers of the Great Reset are all merging together into one giant fascis; godless men and women banded together out of fear; Fascists serving the straw man.

Spiritually-speaking, these are the weakest among us and so far, we’re allowing them to destroy everything.

Source: Forbidden Knowledge

by

Invasion of Ukraine ‘Totally Avoidable: Interview with General Michael Flynn | The Epoch Times

The current Russian invasion of Ukraine could have been avoided, and it demonstrates a failure that the U.S. leadership couldn’t effectively communicate with its Russian counterpart, according to Gen. Michael Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who briefly served as the National Security Advisor to former President Donald Trump.

“Russia, Ukraine, Europe … what’s happening? At the 60,000-foot level, this is a totally avoidable war. Totally avoidable,” Flynn recently told NTD’s “Capitol Report” program.

“It really goes back to 1994, what was called the Budapest Accords, in Budapest, Hungary, at the end of the Cold War,” said Flynn.

On Dec. 5, 1994, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed an agreement with Ukraine called The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in Budapest, Hungary. The three nuclear powers gave their assurances on independence and sovereignty of Ukraine in exchange for removing all nuclear weapons from its territory and becoming a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Two other nuclear powers, China and France, gave their assurances in separate documents.

These nuclear powers also signed identical security assurances with Belarus and Kazakhstan at the time.

Epoch Times Photo
U.S. President Bill Clinton (L), Russian President Boris Yeltsin (C), and Ukrainian counterpart Leonid M. Kravchuk (R) join hands after signing the nuclear disarmament agreement in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, on Jan. 14, 1994. Under the agreement, Ukraine, the world’s third-largest nuclear power, said it would turn all of its strategic nuclear arms over to Russia for destruction. (Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images)

“One of the big-ticket items that came out of the Budapest accords was no further encroachment of NATO against this new Russian Federation,” Flynn said, explaining that no country leaders wanted to have nuclear missiles across the boundary between Russia and European countries.

The Budapest Memo (pdf) didn’t mention the NATO expansion. However, Western leaders had promised no NATO eastward expansion throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991. The most famous one is then-Secretary of State James Baker’s “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990.

According to recently declassified documents by the National Security Archive at George Washington University published on Nov. 24, 2021, before and after the Budapest meeting in 1994, then-President Bill Clinton kept assuring then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin that any NATO enlargement would be slow, with no surprises, building a Europe that was inclusive not exclusive, and in “partnership” with Russia.

In a Sep. 28, 1994 conversation, Clinton told Yeltsin that he had never said that Russia could not be considered for NATO membership, and that “when we talk about NATO expanding, we are emphasizing inclusion, not exclusion,” and “there is no imminent timetable.”

In a Nov. 30, 1994, letter to Clinton, Yeltsin said, “We have agreed with you that there will be no surprises, that first we should pass through this phase of partnership, whereas issues of further evolution of NATO should not be decided without due account to the opinion and interests of Russia.”

Epoch Times Photo
U.S. President Bill Clinton (R) and Russian President Boris Yeltsin greet each other in the Green room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, on Jan. 13, 1994. (Luke Frazza/AFP via Getty Images)

The war also shows the Biden administration’s failure to communicate with Russia in an effective way to prevent the escalation of the Ukraine situation, said Flynn.

“War is a failure of policy and diplomacy,” said Flynn. “Anytime you see states, nations, nation-states, at war with each other, it’s because there’s a failure to communicate some way somehow. And that’s what happened.”

Flynn said Russian President Vladimir Putin kept saying Ukraine shouldn’t join NATO and it should declare neutrality, but “we won’t come into play here, and they never did.”

Current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had pushed for joining NATO after taking office. Joining NATO and the European Union has been put into the constitution of Ukraine during his tenure.

Last month, Zelenskyy said his country has to accept that it will not become a member of NATOIn a Mar. 26 speech in Poland, Biden said of Putin, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

“Immediately after he said it, they had to start walking it back. They had to start walking it back,” said Flynn. “Because it’s so wrong to say that.”

The White House and the State Department clarified that Biden didn’t talk about regime change.

Biden defended himself two days later.

“I want to make it clear: I wasn’t then, nor am I now, articulating a policy change. I was expressing the moral outrage that I feel, and I make no apologies for it,” Biden said.

Source: The Epoch Times

by

“We’re approaching the most dangerous point in human history” says Noam Chomsky | The New Statesman

By George Eaton

It was as a ten-year-old that Noam Chomsky first confronted the perils of foreign aggression. “The first article that I wrote for the elementary school newspaper was on the fall of Barcelona [in 1939],” Chomsky recalled when we spoke recently via video call. It charted the advance of the “grim cloud of fascism” across the world. “I haven’t changed my opinion since, it’s just gotten worse,” he sardonically remarked. Due to the climate crisis and the threat of nuclear war, Chomsky told me, “we’re approaching the most dangerous point in human history… We are now facing the prospect of destruction of organised human life on Earth.” 

At the age of 93, as perhaps the world’s most cited living scholar, Chomsky could be forgiven for retreating from the public sphere. But in an era of permanent crisis, he retains the moral fervour of a young radical – more preoccupied with the world’s mortality than his own. He is a walking advertisement for Dylan Thomas’s injunction – “Do not go gentle into that good night” – or for what Chomsky calls “the bicycle theory: if you keep going fast, you don’t fall off”. 

The occasion for our conversation is the publication of Chronicles of Dissent, a collection of interviews between Chomsky and the radical journalist David Barsamian from 1984 to 1996. But the backdrop is the war in Ukraine – a subject about which Chomsky is unsurprisingly voluble. 

“It’s monstrous for Ukraine,” he said. In common with many Jews, Chomsky has a family connection to the region: his father was born in present-day Ukraine and emigrated to the US in 1913 to avoid serving in the tsarist army; his mother was born in Belarus. Chomsky, who is often accused by critics of refusing to condemn any anti-Western government, unhesitatingly denounced Vladimir Putin’s “criminal aggression”. 

But he added: “Why did he do it?” There are two ways of looking at this question. One way, the fashionable way in the West, is to plumb the recesses of Putin’s twisted mind and try to determine what’s happening in his deep psyche.

“The other way would be to look at the facts: for example, that in September 2021 the United States came out with a strong policy statement, calling for enhanced military cooperation with Ukraine, further sending of advanced military weapons, all part of the enhancement programme of Ukraine joining Nato. You can take your choice, we don’t know which is right. What we do know is that Ukraine will be further devastated. And we may move on to terminal nuclear war if we do not pursue the opportunities that exist for a negotiated settlement.”

How does he respond to the argument that Putin’s greatest fear is not encirclement by NATO but the spread of liberal democracy in Ukraine and Russia’s “near abroad”? 

“Putin is as concerned with democracy as we are. If it’s possible to break out of the propaganda bubble for a few minutes, the US has a long record of undermining and destroying democracy. Do I have to run through it? Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, on and on… But we are supposed to now honour and admire Washington’s enormous commitment to sovereignty and democracy. What happened in history doesn’t matter. That’s for other people.” 

“What about NATO expansion? There was an explicit, unambiguous promise by [US secretary of state] James Baker and president George HW Bush to Gorbachev that if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin NATO, the US would ensure that there would be no move one inch to the east. There’s a good deal of lying going on about this now.” 

Chomsky, who observed in 1990 that “if the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every postwar American president would have been hanged”, spoke witheringly of Joe Biden. 

“It’s certainly right to have moral outrage about Putin’s actions in Ukraine,” he said of Biden’s recent declaration that the Russian president “cannot remain in power”. “But it would be even more progress to have moral outrage about other horrible atrocities… In Afghanistan, literally millions of people are facing imminent starvation. Why? There’s food in the markets. But people who have little money have to watch their children starve because they can’t go to the market to buy food. Why? Because the United States, with the backing of Britain, has kept Afghanistan’s funds in New York banks and will not release them.” 

Chomsky’s contempt for the hypocrisies and contradictions of US foreign policy will be familiar to anyone who has read one of his many books and pamphlets (his first political work, American Power and the New Mandarins, published in 1969, foretold the US’s defeat in Vietnam). But he is now perhaps most animated when discussing Donald Trump’s possible return and the climate crisis. 

“I’m old enough to remember the early 1930s. And memories come to mind,” he said in a haunting recollection. “I can remember listening to Hitler’s speeches on the radio. I didn’t understand the words, I was six years old. But I understood the mood. And it was frightening and terrifying. And when you watch one of Trump’s rallies that can’t fail to come to mind. That’s what we’re facing.”

Though he self-identifies as an anarcho-syndicalist or a libertarian socialist, Chomsky revealed to me that he had voted for Republicans in the past (“like them or not, they were an authentic party”). But now he said, they were a truly dangerous insurgency. 

“Because of Trump’s fanaticism, the worshipful base of the Republican Party barely regards climate change as a serious problem. That’s a death warrant to the species.” 

Faced with such existential threats, it is perhaps unsurprising that Chomsky remains a dissident intellectual – in the manner of one of his heroes, Bertrand Russell (who lived to 97 and similarly straddled politics and philosophy). But he also still spends hours a day answering emails from admirers and critics, and teaches linguistics at the University of Arizona, the state where he lives with his second wife, Valeria Wasserman, a Brazilian translator. 

Chomsky is also still engaged by British politics. “Brexit was a very serious error, it means that Britain will be compelled to drift even further into subordination to the US,” he told me. “I think it’s a disaster. What does it mean for the Conservative Party? I imagine they can lie their way out of it, they’re doing a good job of lying about a lot of things and getting away with it.”

Of Keir Starmer, he scornfully remarked: “He’s returning the Labour Party to a party that’s reliably obedient to power, that will be Thatcher-lite in the style of Tony Blair and that won’t ruffle the feathers of either the US or anyone who’s important in Britain.” 

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci advised radicals to maintain “pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will”. What, I asked Chomsky at the close of our conversation, gives him hope? 

“A lot of young people; Extinction Rebellion in England, young people dedicated to trying to put an end to the catastrophe. Civil disobedience – it’s not a joke, I’ve been involved with it for much of my life. I’m too old for it now [Chomsky was first arrested in 1967 for protesting against the Vietnam War and shared a cell with Norman Mailer]… It’s not pleasant to be thrown in jail and beaten, but they’re willing to undertake it.”

“There are plenty of young people who are appalled by the behaviour of the older generation, rightly, and are dedicated to trying to stop this madness before it consumes us all. Well, that’s the hope for the future.”

Source: The New Statesman

by

The Coming Global Financial Revolution: Russia Is Following the American Playbook | Global Research

By Ellen Brown

No country has successfully challenged the U.S. dollar’s global hegemony—until now. How did this happen and what will it mean?

Foreign critics have long chafed at the “exorbitant privilege” of the U.S. dollar as global reserve currency. The U.S. can issue this currency backed by nothing but the “full faith and credit of the United States.” Foreign governments, needing dollars, not only accept them in trade but buy U.S. securities with them, effectively funding the U.S. government and its foreign wars. But no government has been powerful enough to break that arrangement – until now. How did that happen and what will it mean for the U.S. and global economies?

The Rise and Fall of the PetroDollar

First, some history: The U.S. dollar was adopted as the global reserve currency at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, when the dollar was still backed by gold on global markets. The agreement was that gold and the dollar would be accepted interchangeably as global reserves, the dollars to be redeemable in gold on demand at $35 an ounce. Exchange rates of other currencies were fixed against the dollar.

But that deal was broken after President Lyndon Johnson’s “guns and butter” policy exhausted the U.S. kitty by funding war in Vietnam along with his “Great Society” social programs at home. French President Charles de Gaulle, suspecting the U.S. was running out of money, cashed in a major portion of France’s dollars for gold and threatened to cash in the rest; and other countries followed suit or threatened to.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon ended the convertibility of the dollar to gold internationally (known as “closing the gold window”), in order to avoid draining U.S. gold reserves. The value of the dollar then plummeted relative to other currencies on global exchanges. To prop it up, Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made a deal with Saudi Arabia and the OPEC countries that OPEC would sell oil only in dollars, and that the dollars would be deposited in Wall Street and City of London banks. In return, the U.S. would defend the OPEC countries militarily. Economic researcher William Engdahl also presents evidence of a promise that the price of oil would be quadrupled. An oil crisis triggered by a brief Middle Eastern war did cause the price of oil to quadruple, and the OPEC agreement was finalized in 1974.

The deal held firm until 2000, when Saddam Hussein broke it by selling Iraqi oil in euros. Libyan president Omar Qaddafi followed suit. Both presidents wound up assassinated, and their countries were decimated in war with the United States. Canadian researcher Matthew Ehret observes:

We should not forget that the Sudan-Libya-Egypt alliance under the combined leadership of Mubarak, Qadhafi and Bashir, had moved to establish a new gold-backed financial system outside of the IMF/World Bank to fund large scale development in Africa. Had this program not been undermined by a NATO-led destruction of Libya, the carving up of Sudan and regime change in Egypt, then the world would have seen the emergence of a major regional block of African states shaping their own destinies outside of the rigged game of Anglo-American controlled finance for the first time in history.

The Rise of the PetroRuble

The first challenge by a major power to what became known as the petrodollar has come in 2022. In the month after the Ukraine conflict began, the U.S. and its European allies imposed heavy financial sanctions on Russia in response to the illegal military invasion. The Western measures included freezing nearly half of the Russian central bank’s 640 billion U.S. dollars in financial reserves, expelling several of Russia’s largest banks from the SWIFT global payment system, imposing export controls aimed at limiting Russia’s access to advanced technologies, closing down their airspace and ports to Russian planes and ships, and instituting personal sanctions against senior Russian officials and high-profile tycoons. Worried Russians rushed to withdraw rubles from their banks, and the value of the ruble plunged on global markets just as the U.S. dollar had in the early 1970s.

The trust placed in the U.S. dollar as global reserve currency, backed by “the full faith and credit of the United States,” had finally been fully broken. Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a speech on March 16 that the U.S. and EU had defaulted on their obligations, and that freezing Russia’s reserves marks the end of the reliability of so-called first class assets. On March 23, Putin announced that Russia’s natural gas would be sold to “unfriendly countries” only in Russian rubles, rather than the euros or dollars currently used. Forty-eight nations are counted by Russia as “unfriendly,” including the United States, Britain, Ukraine, Switzerland, South Korea, Singapore, Norway, Canada and Japan.

Putin noted that more than half the global population remains “friendly” to Russia. Countries not voting to support the sanctions include two major powers – China and India – along with major oil producer Venezuela, Turkey, and other countries in the “Global South.” “Friendly” countries, said Putin, could now buy from Russia in various currencies.

Russia Finance Minister: We May Abandon Dollar in Oil Trade as It Is Becoming “Too Risky”

On March 24, Russian lawmaker Pavel Zavalny said at a news conference that gas could be sold to the West for rubles or gold, and to “friendly” countries for either national currency or bitcoin.

Energy ministers from the G7 nations rejected Putin’s demand, claiming it violated gas contract terms requiring sale in euros or dollars. But on March 28, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia was “not engaged in charity” and won’t supply gas to Europe for free (which it would be doing if sales were in euros or dollars it cannot currently use in trade). Sanctions themselves are a breach of the agreement to honor the currencies on global markets.

Bloomberg reports that on March 30, Vyacheslav Volodin, speaker of the lower Russian house of parliament, suggested in a Telegram post that Russia may expand the list of commodities for which it demands payment from the West in rubles (or gold) to include grain, oil, metals and more. Russia’s economy is much smaller than that of the U.S. and the European Union, but Russia is a major global supplier of key commodities – including not just oil, natural gas and grains, but timber, fertilizers, nickel, titanium, palladium, coal, nitrogen, and rare earth metals used in the production of computer chips, electric vehicles and airplanes.

On April 2, Russian gas giant Gazprom officially halted all deliveries to Europe via the Yamal-Europe pipeline, a critical artery for European energy supplies.

U.K. professor of economics Richard Werner calls the Russian move a clever one – a replay of what the U.S. did in the 1970s. To get Russian commodities, “unfriendly” countries will have to buy rubles, driving up the value of the ruble on global exchanges just as the need for petrodollars propped up the U.S. dollar after 1974. Indeed, by March 30, the ruble had already risen to where it was a month earlier.

A Page Out of the “American System” Playbook

Russia is following the U.S. not just in hitching its national currency to sales of a critical commodity but in an earlier protocol – what 19th century American leaders called the “American System” of sovereign money and credit. Its three pillars were (a) federal subsidies for internal improvements and to nurture the nation’s fledgling industries, (b) tariffs to protect those industries, and (c) easy credit issued by a national bank.

Michael Hudson,  a research professor of economics and author of “Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire” among many other books, notes that the sanctions are forcing Russia to do what it has been reluctant to do itself – cut reliance on imports and develop its own industries and infrastructure. The effect, he says, is equivalent to that of protective tariffs. In an article titled “The American Empire Self-destructs,” Hudson writes of the Russian sanctions (which actually date back to 2014):

Russia had remained too enthralled by free-market ideology to take steps to protect its own agriculture or industry. The United States provided the help that was needed by imposing domestic self-reliance on Russia (via sanctions). When the Baltic states lost the Russian market for cheese and other farm products, Russia quickly created its own cheese and dairy sector – while becoming the world’s leading grain exporter.

Russia is discovering (or is on the verge of discovering) that it does not need U.S. dollars as backing for the ruble’s exchange rate. Its central bank can create the rubles needed to pay domestic wages and finance capital formation. The U.S. confiscations thus may finally lead Russia to end neoliberal monetary philosophy, as Sergei Glaziev has long been advocating in favor of MMT [Modern Monetary Theory]. …

What foreign countries have not done for themselves – replacing the IMF, World Bank and other arms of U.S. diplomacy – American politicians are forcing them to do. Instead of European, Near Eastern and Global South countries breaking away out of their own calculation of their long-term economic interests, America is driving them away, as it has done with Russia and China.

Glazyev and the Eurasian Reset

Sergei Glazyev, mentioned by Hudson above, is a former adviser to President Vladimir Putin and the Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasia Economic Commission, the regulatory body of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). He has proposed using tools similar to those of the “American System,” including converting the Central Bank of Russia to a “national bank” issuing Russia’s own currency and credit for internal development. On February 25, Glazyev published an analysis of U.S. sanctions titled “Sanctions and Sovereignty,” in which he stated:

[T]he damage caused by US financial sanctions is inextricably linked to the monetary policy of the Bank of Russia  …. Its essence boils down to a tight binding of the ruble issue to export earnings, and the ruble exchange rate to the dollar. In fact, an artificial shortage of money is being created in the economy, and the strict policy of the Central Bank leads to an increase in the cost of lending, which kills business activity and hinders the development of infrastructure in the country.

Glazyev said that if the central bank replaced the loans withdrawn by its Western partners with its own loans, Russian credit capacity would greatly increase, preventing a decline in economic activity without creating inflation.

Russia has agreed to sell oil to India in India’s own sovereign currency, the rupee; to China in yuan; and to Turkey in lira. These national currencies can then be spent on the goods and services sold by those countries. Arguably, every country should be able to trade in global markets in its own sovereign currency; that is what a fiat currency is – a medium of exchange backed by the agreement of the people to accept it at value for their goods and services, backed by the “full faith and credit” of the nation.

But that sort of global barter system would break down just as local barter systems do, if one party to the trade did not want the goods or services of the other party. In that case, some intermediate reserve currency would be necessary to serve as a medium of exchange.

Glazyev and his counterparts are working on that. In a translated interview posted on The Saker, Glazyev stated:

We are currently working on a draft international agreement on the introduction of a new world settlement currency, pegged to the national currencies of the participating countries and to exchange-traded goods that determine real values. We won’t need American and European banks. A new payment system based on modern digital technologies with a blockchain is developing in the world, where banks are losing their importance.

Russia and China have both developed alternatives to the SWIFT messaging system from which certain Russian banks have been blocked. London-based commentator Alexander Mercouris makes the interesting observation that going outside SWIFT means Western banks cannot track Russian and Chinese trades.

Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar sums up the plans for a Eurasian/China financial reset in an article titled “Say Hello to Russian Gold and Chinese Petroyuan.” He writes:

It was a long time coming, but finally some key lineaments of the multipolar world’s new foundations are being revealed.

On Friday [March 11], after a videoconference meeting, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and China agreed to design the mechanism for an independent international monetary and financial system. The EAEU consists of Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia, is establishing free trade deals with other Eurasian nations, and is progressively interconnecting with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

For all practical purposes, the idea comes from Sergei Glazyev, Russia’s foremost independent economist ….

Quite diplomatically, Glazyev attributed the fruition of the idea to “the common challenges and risks associated with the global economic slowdown and restrictive measures against the EAEU states and China.”

Translation: as China is as much a Eurasian power as Russia, they need to coordinate their strategies to bypass the US unipolar system.

The Eurasian system will be based on “a new international currency,” most probably with the yuan as reference, calculated as an index of the national currencies of the participating countries, as well as commodity prices. …

The Eurasian system is bound to become a serious alternative to the US dollar, as the EAEU may attract not only nations that have joined BRI … but also the leading players in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as well as ASEAN. West Asian actors – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon – will be inevitably interested.

Exorbitant Privilege or Exorbitant Burden?

If that system succeeds, what will the effect be on the U.S. economy? Investment strategist Lynn Alden writes in a detailed analysis titled “The Fraying of the US Global Currency Reserve System” that there will be short-term pain, but, in the long run, it will benefit the U.S. economy. The subject is complicated, but the bottom line is that reserve currency dominance has resulted in the destruction of our manufacturing base and the buildup of a massive federal debt. Sharing the reserve currency load would have the effect that sanctions are having on the Russian economy – nurturing domestic industries as a tariff would, allowing the American manufacturing base to be rebuilt.

Other commentators also say that being the sole global reserve currency is less an exorbitant privilege than an exorbitant burden. Losing that status would not end the importance of the U.S. dollar, which is too heavily embedded in global finance to be dislodged. But it could well mean the end of the petrodollar as sole global reserve currency, and the end of the devastating petroleum wars it has funded to maintain its dominance.

Source: Global Research

Author: Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

by

The War Propaganda Changes Its Shape | Lew Rockwell

By Thierry Meyssan

If the Russian army has won the war against the Banderites in Ukraine, NATO has won the cognitive war against its own citizens in the West. The Atlantic Alliance has developed a new form of propaganda based on what it denounced a short time ago: Fake News, that is to say not false information, but biased information. The question is, how to protect yourself from it?

THE NATO DEVICE

“Subduing the enemy by force is not the highest art of war, the highest art of war is to subdue the enemy without shedding a single drop of blood.
~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

French General Philippe Lavigne of NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (ACT) oversees research on new propaganda methods.

His command has 21 centers of excellence, including one for propaganda, the Strategic Communications Center of Excellence (STRATCOM) in Riga, Latvia. It has created the NATO Innovation Hub (iHub) under the direction of Frenchman Francois du Cluzel, a former professor at the Collège militaire interarmes de Coëtquidan. It funds research at John Hopkins University and Imperial College of London on cognitive abilities (similar cohorts who engineered the COVID-19 propaganda machine). This research covers the entire cognitive domain with various applications ranging from bionic soldiers to war propaganda.

NATO’s general idea is to add to the five usual domains of intervention (air, land, sea, space and cyber), a sixth: the human brain. “While actions in the five domains are carried out in order to have an effect on the human domain, the objective of cognitive warfare is to make each one a weapon,” writes François du Cluzel.

If war propaganda was based, during the First World War, on false information popularized by great writers; then on the repetition of selected messages during the Second World War; today it is conceived as an illusionist’s act. It is about moving people to distract their attention and hide from them what they should not see. They judge what they see with the uninteresting information they are fed. In this way, we manage, without lying to them, to make them take bladders for lanterns.

We are living the first application of this technique, on the occasion of the war (or Russian police action) in Ukraine.

To make myself understood, I will first present some information to be ignored, then come back on the treatment of the war by French State television. I would have obtained the same result if I had used a German, British or American example.

(Number of explosions recorded in Donbass (February 14-22, 2022)

You can download the daily reports of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) observers at: https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WESTERN LEADERS FOR THE WAR IN UKRAINE

In the West, the narrative of the war in Ukraine places all the blame solely on the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and secondarily on the political and financial figures of his regime. However, this version is clearly false if one considers the daily reports of the observers of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

They testified that they heard an attack from the Donbass (still Ukrainian) by Kiev forces on the afternoon of February 17. All news agencies reported that at least 100,000 civilians had fled into the Donbass or to Russia. In addition, the main political leaders of NATO heard Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy tell them at the Munich Security Conference that he intended to acquire nuclear weapons against Russia. It is clear that it was not Moscow, but Kiev, that triggered the hostilities.

No one can imagine that Kiev has unleashed this war against a far superior enemy without having received prior assurances from allies apparently capable of defending the country against Russia. This can only be NATO or the United States and possibly the other two nuclear powers, France and the United Kingdom.

The first meeting where this war was presented as desirable was held to our knowledge in the House of Representatives on September 5, 2019. It was organized by the Rand Corporation, the think tank of the US military-industrial lobby. The purpose was to present two reports, “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia” and “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground”  to the congressmen/women. The main idea is to use against it the particularity on which Russia bases its defense. Since it is a huge territory that the Russians defend by moving around and practicing the “scorched earth strategy”, it is enough to force them to move abroad to exhaust them.

The importance of this event is shown to us by the incident that affected our collaborator, the Italian geographer Manlio Dinucci. His article on the subject was censored by his newspaper, Il Manifesto, which he had to leave.

Three events attest to the involvement of the United States, the United Kingdom and France in the secret preparation of the war.

On March 24, 2022, a video of a 22-minute telephone conversation between the British Minister of Defense, Ben Wallace, and two Russian comedians Vladimir (Vovan) Kuznetsov and Alexei (Lexus) Stolyarov was published. One of the Russians was posing as the Ukrainian Prime Minister, Denys Shmyhal, whom Wallace never met.

1) Asked whether the UK would help Kiev to acquire nuclear weapons, the Rt. Hon. Wallace replied that he had to consult with Prime Minister Boris Johnson and that “The principle is that we will support Ukraine as a friend in whatever choice you make.”. In one sentence, he swept aside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT).
2) On the subject of the Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW) missiles that the United Kingdom has just sent to the Ukrainian army, Ben Wallace admitted that they were not working properly and that spare parts had also been sent.
3) But it is especially on the subject of NATO that Ben Wallace’s language has been too prolix. The British minister once again invited Ukraine to join the Atlantic Alliance. In passing, he unwittingly revealed that the United Kingdom had been sending military instructors to prepare the Ukrainian army for several years.

Boris Johnson’s government used every means at its disposal to conceal, or rather minimize, these statements. It claimed that the interview lasted only 10 minutes and forbade YouTube/Google to broadcast the entire sketch. The Western media was asked to talk about his blunder on the atomic bomb and to cover up the other two points. This is how the British always do it: not to deny everything, but to make the most dangerous points disappear.

On March 25, 2022, President Joe Biden visited the Congress Palace in Rzeszów, Poland. He was accompanied by the director of USAID, Samantha Power (former ambassador to the UN), and the Polish president, Andrej Duda. It is worth noting that Andrej Duda had his parliament passed a law denying the role of the Polish state in Nazi crimes and authorizing legal action against anyone who mentions them.

Joe Biden spoke with various NGOs to praise their assistance to Ukrainian refugees. Afterwards, he gave a speech to his soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division, stationed there. He also visited them in the dining hall and spoke to them without a teleprompter or cameras. As always at such times, the old man (79 years old) revealed state secrets. According to the witnesses, he thanked them for their commitment in Ukraine for a long time, even though officially there have never been any US soldiers in that country.

On March 29, 2022, General Eric Vidaud, director of French military intelligence, was dismissed. No official explanation was given. It seems that in reality, General Viaud had deployed men on the direct instruction of President Macron’s private staff, in 2021 when he was commander of special operations, to supervise the Azov Banderites regiment. Immediately, five Ukrainian helicopters tried to flee Mariupol, the stronghold of the Azov regiment. Two were shot down on March 30. The survivors were taken prisoner by the Russian army. They spoke immediately. The soldiers of the Special Operations Command are placed for all logistical matters under the orders of the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, General Thierry Burkhard, but they take their orders directly from the head of the armed forces, President Emmanuel Macron.

Afterwards, relations between Presidents Macron and Putin cooled sharply.

HOW WAR PROPAGANDA MASKS REALITY

In France the state has France-Télévision for its own population, with France-2 being the most watched channel, and France Médias Monde for abroad. The latter group depends directly on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and broadcasts France-24 in several languages.

To begin with, France 2 proposed a live newscast from Lviv (Ukraine) presented by its star, Anne-Sophie Lapix, on March 14, 2022 [6]. This newscast gathers every day a little more than 20% of the public. The young woman showed a lot of destruction and traumatized refugees. She walked through the city, but did not notice the imposing monument to Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators. She also questioned the mayor of Lviv, Andriy Sadovy, without explaining that he is one of the country’s leading oligarchs. She did not ask him about his media group, of which his wife is the director. So she did not ask him about the remarks made the previous day on his channel, 24 Канал, calling for the killing of all Russians, women and children included, according to the method advocated by SS Adolf Eichman. At no time was it specified that this program was an initiative of the Banderite oligarch Andriy Sadovy and his wife, both former clients of the Publicis agency of Arthur Sadoun, the husband of Anne-Sophie Lapix.

The viewer who ignores Ukrainian tributes to the Nazis and exhortations to follow their example can only weep at the accumulation of suffering that was shown to him. He cannot doubt that the Russians are liars and criminals and that Ukrainians in general are innocent victims.

On March 25, France 24 in English, in its column Truth or Fake, reported on the interview of British Defense Minister Ben Wallace by Russian comedians. Following the instructions of Boris Johnson’s cabinet, the French Foreign Ministry’s television channel mocked his statements on the atomic bomb in order to better conceal those on the inefficiency of his anti-tank weapons and especially those on the presence of British military instructors in Ukraine for several years. The journalist presented the comedians as youtubers, whereas they work for the NTV channel, which allowed her not to mention that they are censored on YouTube in the country of the 1st amendment and freedom of expression. The column was produced by journalist Catalina Marchant de Abreu, a specialist in debunking fake news (sic)

The peak was reached on March 31 with France 2 news. France-Television, which until now denied the ideological character of the Azov regiment, broadcast a report on this formation. The public television admitted that it had, in 2014, been infiltrated by neo-Nazi elements, citing one of its founders, Andriy Biletsky, but assured that it had since changed into a respectable Defense force. France-2 did not mention one of its other founders, Dmytro Yarosh, a NATO agent and former coordinator of European neo-Nazis and Middle Eastern jihadists against Russia, who has become a special advisor to the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armies.

France-2 referred to an old UN report on torture, but not to the discovery of his special prisons by the Russian army, nor to recent UN statements on the subject. The report also failed to explain what Banderites are in Ukrainian history and reduced the importance of neo-Nazis to the wearing of the swastika. Having thus glossed over the problem, the channel estimated the danger to be between 3,000 and 5,000 men, while Reuters assures us that the Banderite paramilitaries today represent 102,000 men divided into numerous militias incorporated into the Territorial Defense.

Source: Lew Rockwell

by

Former Telecom Exec Reveals How ‘5G’ is Globalist Lynchpin for ‘Total Social Control’ | Tucker Carlson Tonight

By Kyle Becker

5G wireless technology has become the source of much controversy, and not just whether or not it interferes with aviation or people’s health concerns.

Tucker Carlson sought to unpack the push for 5G with telecom veteran Jonathan Pelson on Monday night’s episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Fox News. Pelson is the author of “Wireless Wars, China’s Dangerous Domination of 5G and How We’re Fighting Back.”

“You may have noticed something called 5G is coming to the United States,” Tucker Carlson said. “We were told that it might interfere with airplanes. We just had the most interesting conversation of the year with Jonathan Pelson. He said 5G is not actually about your cell phone at all and it’s controlled by China. This is one of those conversations that we got increasingly wide eyed. You should watch the whole thing but here’s part of it.”

“5G despite the advertisements is not just a faster 4G,” Pelson said. “The real pay-off of 5G is that factories are going to use it to totally interconnect themselves. This thing called ‘the internet of things.’ Their traffic systems. License plate readers. Facial recognition systems. The way farms operate. There are devices now and sensors, wire lessens source on tractors, put sensors in the soil to test moisture levels, all of this will be connected.4-g network can’t handle that. If they can handle a thousand calls in one sector, 5G can handle a hundred thousand, so even though commercials talk about it being a lot faster than 4G…”

Source: Becker News & Trending Politics