The American Journal of Public Health has just released a study about the suffering of — how about this — “public health officials” during the virus hysteria.
STAT, a health division of the Boston Globe, described the study’s findings this way: “Health officials said they were personally attacked, villainized, and their experiences often marginalized. Their work was, at best, underappreciated, and, at worst, blamed for broader problems.”
Folks, we have a crisis on our hands: public health officials may have been underappreciated.
People may even have devalued their work on Twitter.
According to the study, “Public health officials described experiencing structural and political undermining of their professional duties, marginalization of their expertise, social villainization, and disillusionment.”
Imagine. The public health establishment foisted anti-scientific voodoo on the public, destroying people’s mental health, interfering with crucial medical procedures, wrecking people’s livelihoods, decimating their savings, pitting families against each other, marginalizing dissidents (who far more often than not turned out to be right), and of course completely devastating the developing world, which genuinely could not afford any of this nonsense, and the public didn’t respond with unanimous huzzahs. How about that!
For the public health establishment, justly disgraced, to try to portray itself as the victim is really the icing on the cake of what they’ve done for the past two years.
We need more, not less, questioning of authority.
Unfortunately, that’s not what kids are being taught to do in the government’s schools.
Had Americans been raised as independent thinkers, what we laughingly call our public health establishment could never have gotten away with the nonsense of the past two years.
Contrary to what Zelensky, President Biden, the Pentagon, the CIA, members of Congress, and other interventionists would like to believe, the war in Ukraine is not about freedom. It is about NATO, a corrupt bureaucratic entity that should have gone out of existence when the Cold War racket came to an end.
n an emotional appeal that left some members of Congress with tears in their eyes, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky repeated his plea that U.S. officials impose a “no-fly zone” over his country. What he failed to mention during the course of his talk, is the virtual certainty that such an action would lead to nuclear war between the United States and Russia.
Contrary to what Zelensky, President Biden, the Pentagon, the CIA, members of Congress, and other interventionists would like to believe, the war in Ukraine is not about freedom. It is about NATO, a corrupt bureaucratic entity that should have gone out of existence when the Cold War racket came to an end.
Zelensky wanted Ukraine to join NATO. So did Biden, the Pentagon, the CIA, and other interventionists. For some 25 years, Russia has made it clear that that is a “red line” for Russia. Why? Because if Ukraine joins NATO, the Pentagon and the CIA will be able to establish their nuclear missiles, tanks, weaponry, and military bases on Russia’s border. Russia has steadfastly opposed that notion as fiercely as the U.S. government would oppose the same thing happening in Cuba or along the Mexico border.
Moreover, all the way up to the invasion, Russia made it clear that if Zelensky gave up his hopes and dreams of having Ukraine join NATO, there would be no Russian invasion of his country.
Alas, Zelensky could not let go of his love for this Cold War dinosaur. His love of NATO got the best of him. In the final analysis, he decided to sacrifice tens of thousands of his citizens in the hopes that Ukraine could defeat Russia in a war and then join NATO. He undoubtedly figured that he could induce Biden, the Pentagon, and the CIA to come to his aid. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Biden, the Pentagon, and the CIA misled Zelensky into believing that he could count on their support once Russia invaded Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
And now that Zelensky realizes that his high-stakes gamble might not pay off, he’s willing to sacrifice the American people in a nuclear war with Russia. In other words, if he’s going down, which is very possible, he wants millions of Americans to go down with him — again, not for freedom, but for NATO. He wants millions of Americans to be willing to die for NATO, just like tens of thousands of Ukrainians are now dying for NATO.
Let’s break down exactly what a “no-fly zone” is that Zelensky wants the Pentagon to establish over Ukraine. It involves U.S. fighter aircraft shooting down Russian military planes over Ukraine. Those Russian planes would contain Russian soldiers, perhaps even hundreds of Russian soldiers in transport planes.
That’s not all. From the ground, Russian forces will be firing missiles intended to shoot down American planes. Thus, it would be necessary for American planes to fire missiles at the ground with the aim of knocking out those anti-aircraft missile facilities. People near those areas would be incinerated. (In fact, when U.S. officials established a “no-fly zone” over Iraq during the 1990s, I recall one incident in which an errant U.S. missile killed a young boy tending his sheep.)
The moment one Russian plane is shot down, the United States and Russia will be in a state of war. At that point, anything can happen. All bets are off. The war might remain conventional, in which case the United States would be almost certain to win, given its vast military superiority.
But it then becomes in Russia’s interests to employ tactical nuclear weapons. But if that’s the case, everyone know where that is going to lead. Therefore, almost immediately both sides would have to calculate whether to be the first to fire their strategic missiles. There would be little time for thought and reflection. In a nuclear war, no one wants to be firing his nuclear arsenal second. It becomes in the interests of both nations to fire their nuclear arsenal first.
That’s what Zelensky is willing to risk with his call for a Pentagon-enforced “no-fly zone” over Ukraine — the entire United States radiated — hundreds of millions of Americans suddenly and unexpectedly killed in an all-out nuclear exchange — most of our country destroyed — just so that Ukraine can join NATO.
Statists are referring to Zelensky as a “George Washington.” But George Washington would never have been willing to sacrifice even one American or even one foreigner, much less millions of innocent people, for the sake of joining a corrupt bureaucratic entity like NATO or any other “entangling alliance.”
Indeed, if one were to enumerate the greatest threats to the republic to which all of us pledge allegiance, the outcome of that war halfway around the world would not make the list.
Speaking to Congress, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asked for many things from the United States.
He wants us to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. He wants the Soviet-era MiGs that NATO allies (from their Warsaw Pact days) have in their arsenals. He wants Russian-made S-300 antiaircraft systems in NATO inventories transferred to Kyiv.
He wants the U.S. to sanction every Russian official who does not repudiate this war on Ukraine. He wants all U.S. companies to pull out of Russia. He wants all Russian-made goods kept out of U.S. markets.
In short, Zelenskyy wants the U.S. as a full-fledged ally in Ukraine’s war against the Russian invaders.
But while America also seeks a defeat for Russia’s aggression, President Joe Biden has a higher imperative: to avoid a war between the United States and the world’s other nuclear superpower, Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
On Jan. 20, 2021, Joe Biden took an oath:
“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
And when the issue arose as to whether he, as president and commander in chief, would transfer MiG-29s to Ukrainians fighting Russians for their independence and freedom, Biden said no.
“The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews — just understand, don’t kid yourself, no matter what y’all say, that’s called World War III,” Biden told House Democrats in Philadelphia.
Biden was saying that, no matter how noble the cause or how just the war Ukrainians are fighting, his first duty is to America. And as president of the United States, he will put U.S. national interests first and not risk a war with the largest nuclear power on earth.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s reaction: Biden runs “the most timid, cowardly and pathetic administration in modern American history.”
If our “enormous capacity” and “very competent people … were unleashed,” said Gingrich, “we would…end up defeating Putin, and he would end up being ousted from power by his own government. But instead, we are intimidated by him. We allow him to get away with war crimes.”
In this Ukraine war, Gingrich is the interventionist, and Biden is putting his own country, America, first. On this one, put me down with Joe.
GOP Sen. Marco Rubio has also spoken out for America First:
A no-fly zone “means flying AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control Systems) 24 hours a day. That means the willingness to shoot down and engage Russian airplanes in the sky. That means, frankly, you can’t put those planes up there unless they’re willing to knock out the anti-aircraft systems that the Russians have deployed, and not just in Ukraine, but in Russia and also in Belarus.
“So basically a no-fly zone … means World War III. It means starting World War III. It’s not some rule you pass that everybody has to oblige by. It’s the willingness to shoot down the aircrafts of the Russian Federation, which is basically the beginning of World War III.”
While the threat to the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine may be an existential one for that nation, it is no such peril to our nation.
Indeed, if one were to enumerate the greatest threats to the republic to which all of us pledge allegiance, the outcome of that war halfway around the world would not make the list.
What would be on the list?
The annual invasion of our country from across the southern border by millions of illegal aliens. The depreciation of the dollar through inflation, which is destroying the value of the earnings and savings of the American people.
The 100,000 Americans dying yearly from fentanyl and drug overdoses. The 1,500 daily deaths from COVID-19. The thousands of Americans shot, stabbed and beaten to death on the streets of once-great American cities every year.
During the Cold War between the Soviet Empire and the West, the great achievement of presidents from Harry Truman to George H.W. Bush was that they avoided the kind of war that consumed millions of lives of Western peoples from 1914 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945.
Consider what became of those nations and empires that entered the 20th century as great or aspiring great powers.
The Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, Romanov and Ottoman empires fell in World War I. The British and French empires did not long survive their “victory” in the Second World War that they declared on Sept. 3, 1939. The Soviet Union was bankrupted and broken by the cost of waging a four-decades-long Cold War.
Wars finished all the great powers of the 20th century, save the USA.
America’s desire today may be to inflict a defeat on Putin’s Russia.
U.S. vital national interests, however, dictate a negotiated peace.
The Abraham Accords just happen to be one Trump accomplishment that most Democrats, including Joe Biden, love. In January the House and Senate both created bipartisan Abraham Accords Caucuses “to build on the success of the historic” agreements. According to the House news release:
For decades, Congress [back pat] has played a key role in promoting peace between Israel and its neighbors. The Caucus will provide an opportunity to strengthen the Abraham Accords by encouraging and [sic] partnerships among the existing Abraham Accords countries and expanding the agreement to include countries that do not currently have diplomatic relations with Israel.
To judge by what Congress is up to these days, one would think that it wants to reward Israel for its relentless confiscation of Palestinian land and continued ethnic cleansing.
Congress — which is not only interested in “the Benjamins,” that is, Israel Lobby contributions — is surely operating in what Yakov Hirsch calls “hasbara culture,” according to which anyone who objects to any action of the state of Israel, especially where the Palestinians are concerned, is without question an anti-Semite. In this view, the presence of anti-Semitism is a certainty; the only question is how it manifests itself in any given situation. (The resemblance to critical race theory is striking.)
How do hasbara culturalists know that Israel’s critics are anti-Semites?
They know because, by unexamined yet indefeasible assumption, no other explanationis conceivable. If you offer an alternative, good-faith explanation for the objection, then you too must be an anti-Semite. After all, again by indefeasible assumption, if Israel is the paragon of virtue, if its military is the most moral military on earth, how could any objection be made in good faith? It certainly can’t be that Zionists, whether acting individually or through the Jewish State, could have done anything wrong. That would be blaming the victim, which is (in this case only) is strictly forbidden. (I say Zionist because not all Jews are Zionists — far from it — and not all Zionists are Jews, even if most are. And yet even that term is unsatisfactory because some self-identified “liberal Zionists” also condemn Israeli apartheid.)
Of course, the flip side of hasbara culture is the dehumanization of Palestinians, who are always to blame — even when they appear to be victims. (Readers can sort out that horrifying irony for themselves.) One must never regard the Palestinians as bonafide rights-bearing individuals and members of an ethnic group who could have real century-old grievances against the Zionist movement, the group of European Jews who settler-colonized Arab-majority Palestine and created a Jewish State (in an ethnic, not religious, sense). Rather, the Palestinians are merely the latest rightless embodiments of a permanent and evil, almost nonmaterial, historical force — anti-Semitism — that has taken different physical forms throughout history. By that assumption, Palestinian anger at the self-proclaimed Jewish State can be nothing but anti-Semitism, full stop.
The Viennese social critic Karl Kraus (1874-1936) once said that you can identify a madman by how agitated he becomes when locked up in a madhouse. By the same token, you can identify an anti-Semite by how agitated he becomes when dispossessed by a Zionist settler. Only an anti-Semite would fuss about that rigged game.
Anyway, though the year is still young, members of the House and Senate have been busy finding ways to help Israel. Understanding hasbara culture helps us make sense of it.
Just a few days ago the House and Senate passed the Israel Relations Normalization Act of 2021 (H.R. 2748). Writing at Mondoweiss.net, the invaluable watchdog site for Israel’s apartheid oppression of Palestinians, Nadya Tannous and Cat Knarr point out that the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights has dubbed the bill “the Normalizing Israeli Ethnic Cleansing Act.”
The bill would accomplish several things. For example, Tannous and Knarr write, it
expands the Abraham Accords, Trump-era weapons and business deals between apartheid Israel and other authoritarian regimes. These deals bribe Arab countries in the region to both ignore Israel’s settler colonialism and constant human rights violations and, indeed, to regionally align with the US and Israeli policy and aspirations for the region in exchange for large weapons packages.
You’ll recall that when Donald Trump and his underachiever son-in-law, Jared Kushner, failed to broker the “real estate deal of the century” between the Israelis and Palestinians — because it ignored Palestinians’ rights — Team Trump tried something else: so-called peace deals between Israel and (so far) these Arab states: the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. These are the Abraham Accords, which entail allegedly breakthrough mutual diplomatic recognition. Saudi Arabia already has a close working relationship with Israel.
How did Trump do it? As Tannous and Knarr note, by offering arms and business deals to the participants. The Trump administration, in other words, bought the cynical Arab regimes, which have always been ready to sell out the Palestinians for the right price. And what did Israel get? Further Arab acquiescence in its intolerable treatment of the Palestinians.
The past few weeks have been tough for Hunter Biden and, by extension, the rest of the Biden family. On March 1, news broke that Hunter Biden’s longtime business partner and friend Devon Archer was sentenced to a year in federal prison for defrauding a Native American tribe. Then just yesterday, the New York Times published an investigation revealing that although the younger Biden had paid his outstanding tax liability – which was reportedly greater than $1 million, and which required him to take out a loan to pay it off – a federal investigation into his failure to pay taxes on his earnings from overseas has continued.
Much lower in the NYT story, America’s “paper of record” mentioned the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was reportedly abandoned at a computer repair shop, and subsequently became the heart of a NY Post story published shortly before the 2020 election (which was subsequently ignored by the MSM because of unfounded rumors that the materials had been stolen by Russian hackers, or that the laptop itself was some kind of plant). It didn’t only mention the laptop, but also confirmed that it was authentic. We previously reported on how the NYT sued to obtain copies of emails mentioning Biden and his exploits allegedly gleaned from Romanian embassy officials.
And in the latest blow to the reputation of the president’s perennially troubled son, a lawyer for the mother of Hunter Biden’s 3-year-old daughter (who was born out of wedlock to a woman who allegedly slept with the younger Biden while working as an exotic dancer) said during an interview with CNBC that he expects the younger Biden “to be indicted” for tax fraud.
Attorney Clint Lancaster told CNBC that his client, Lunden Roberts, had recently testified in Delaware before a federal grand jury in the criminal investigation into the 52-year-old presidential scion. The lawyer based his commentary on “what I saw” in Biden’s financial records.
Lancaster said he and Roberts were interviewed by an assistant U.S. attorney, an FBI agent and an IRS agent — “one that carries a badge and gun” — more than a year ago about Biden in Little Rock, Ark., where Lancaster practices law.
“I expect him to be indicted,” the lawyer said about Biden. “Just based on what I saw in his financial records, I would be surprised if he’s not indicted.”
Lancaster later added that neither he nor his client want Hunter Biden to go to jail.
“It’s not my goal, much to the unhappiness of many people in the Republican Party,” said Lancaster, a supporter of former President Donald Trump who in late 2020 worked on a legal challenge to results that showed Biden had won the state of Wisconsin that year.
He also confirmed that the younger Biden hadn’t visited his 3-year-old daughter with Roberts, “which is sad because the baby looks like him, with blonde hair.” He also explained that he had come into possession of a vast trove of the younger Biden’s financial records as part of his work on Roberts’ child-support suit. When asked about the number of records, Lancaster said it was around “10 gigs of data”.
“Oh, hell, it was a bunch,” said Lancaster when asked how many records there were related to Hunter Biden’s finances. The documents were part of the case file for an Arkansas court child-support lawsuit that Roberts filed against Biden in 2019 in connection with their daughter.
“They’re all in electronic form,” Lancaster said. “I would estimate it was anywhere from 10 gigs of data.”
“I saw a lot of information” that is “problematic” for Biden, he said.
Finally, Lancaster told CNBC that his client hadn’t received immunity before testifying because she hadn’t committed any crimes. The NYT on Thursday reported that Roberts had been questioned about the provenance of the child support payments she had received from Biden. Prosecutors were apparently investigating whether the same corporate entity from which she received the payments was also used by Biden to receive payments from Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company from which he received a salary of $50K per month just for sitting on its board.
Given all the information on the investigation that’s just come to light, we wouldn’t be surprised if the grand jury hearing the evidence is soon asked to vote on whether federal charges should be brought against the younger Biden. His father, the president, has already recused himself from the case as his DoJ has continued with the investigation. If charges are brought and Hunter Biden is convicted (or pleads guilty), his father would then have the option of pardoning him. From this vantage point, it’s not too difficult to imagine a scenario where Biden pardons his son after deciding not to seek another term in office.
But it is becoming clear that most of the world’s regimes don’t plan on voluntarily casting Russia into the outer darkness. That means if the US wants to truly isolate Russia, Washington will have to threaten and coerce other regimes that aren’t going along with it.
Some US policymakers and pundits are declaring that Russia—and its population—are cut off from the rest of the world. For example, political scientist Nina Khrushcheva has declared “Russia is hated by the rest of the world” and that “Russia is the global enemy.” The New York Timesconcludes Russia is now “an economic pariah” and that a “new iron curtain” is falling.
There is no doubt that the sanctions imposed by wealthy Western nations will negatively impact the Russian regime, the Russian economy, and the Russian people. Ordinary Russians, who currently enjoy a GDP (gross domestic product) per capita that is only a fraction of the size of that of many Western countries, will suffer greatly.
But when it comes to the degree of Russia’s isolation, those gloating about Russia being “cut off” are overstating the case. In fact, many of the world’s largest countries have shown a reluctance to participate in the US’s sanction schemes and have instead embraced a far more measured approach. So long as China, India, and other large states continue to be at least partially sympathetic toward Moscow, they will provide a large market for Russia’s natural resources and its other exports. And these nations have signaled they’re not cutting off Russia just yet.
Moreover, if the US is going to demand that the world fall into line behind US sanctions, that means the US is going to have to enforce its policy on reluctant nations. That ultimately means the US will need to threaten—or in some cases, implement—secondary sanctions designed to punish nations that don’t sanction Russia as well. The long-term effects of constructing a coerced global anti-Russia bloc may prove costly for Washington, and in any case, pronouncements of a new iron curtain falling around Russia appear premature.
Thirty-Five UN Member States—Representing Half the World’s Population—Abstained
For Americans watching TV news, it no doubt sounds like the entire world has united behind an American-led campaign of moral righteousness against the Russians. Out in much of the real world, however, things look a little different. Anthony Faiola and Lesley Wroughton summed up the situation in the Washington Post last week:
Many countries in the developing world, including some of Russia’s closest allies, are unsettled by Putin’s breach of Ukrainian sovereignty. Yet the giants of the Global South—including India, Brazil and South Africa—are hedging their bets while China still publicly backs Putin. Even NATO-member Turkey is acting coy, moving to shut off the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits to all warships, not just the Russians.
Just as Western onlookers often shrug at far-flung conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, some citizens in emerging economies are gazing at Ukraine and seeing themselves without a dog in this fight—and with compelling national interests for not alienating Russia. In a broad swath of the developing world, the Kremlin’s talking points are filtering into mainstream news and social media. But even more measured assessments portray Ukraine as not the battle royal between good and evil being witnessed by the West, but a Machiavellian tug of war between Washington and Moscow.
Meanwhile, James Pindell at the Boston Globe concludes,
Possibly lost in all the headlines [about the whole world being united against Russia] is that it is not the entire world against Russia. In fact, most of three huge continents—Asia, Africa, and South America—are either still working with Russia or trying to project the image of neutrality.
It easy to see why so many come to the wrong conclusions, however.
The media outlets which spread this lie from ex-CIA officials never retracted their pre-election falsehoods, ones used by Big Tech to censor reporting on the front-runner.
One of the most successful disinformation campaigns in modern American electoral history occurred in the weeks prior to the 2020 presidential election. On October 14, 2020 — less than three weeks before Americans were set to vote — the nation’s oldest newspaper, The New York Post, began publishing a series of reports about the business dealings of the Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in countries in which Biden, as Vice President, wielded considerable influence (including Ukraine and China) and would again if elected president.
The backlash against this reporting was immediate and intense, leading to suppression of the story by U.S. corporate media outlets and censorship of the story by leading Silicon Valley monopolies. The disinformation campaign against this reporting was led by the CIA’s all-but-official spokesperson Natasha Bertrand (then of Politico, now with CNN), whose article on October 19 appeared under this headline: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”
Natasha Bertrand, Politico, Oct. 19, 2020
These “former intel officials” did not actually say that the “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo.” Indeed, they stressed in their letter the opposite: namely, that they had no evidence to suggest the emails were falsified or that Russia had anything to do them, but, instead, they had merely intuited this “suspicion” based on their experience:
We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
But a media that was overwhelmingly desperate to ensure Trump’s defeat had no time for facts or annoying details such as what these former officials actually said or whether it was in fact true. They had an election to manipulate. As a result, that these emails were “Russian disinformation” — meaning that they were fake and that Russia manufactured them — became an article of faith among the U.S.’s justifiably despised class of media employees.
Very few even included the crucial caveat that the intelligence officials themselves stressed: namely, that they had no evidence at all to corroborate this claim. Instead, as I noted last September, “virtually every media outlet — CNN, NBC News, PBS, Huffington Post, The Intercept, and too many others to count — began completely ignoring the substance of the reporting and instead spread the lie over and over that these documents were the by-product of Russian disinformation.” The Huffington Post even published a must-be-seen-to-be-believed campaign ad for Joe Biden, masquerading as “reporting,” that spread this lie that the emails were “Russian disinformation.”
This disinformation campaign about the Biden emails was then used by Big Tech to justify brute censorship of any reporting on or discussion of this story: easily the most severe case of pre-election censorship in modern American political history. Twitter locked The New York Post‘s Twitter account for close to two weeks due to its refusal to obey Twitter’s orders to delete any reference to its reporting. The social media site also blocked any and all references to the reporting by all users; Twitter users were barred even from linking to the story in private chats with one another. Facebook, through its spokesman, the life-long DNC operative Andy Stone, announced that they would algorithmically suppress discussion of the reporting to ensure it did not spread, pending a “fact check[] by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners” which, needless to say, never came — precisely because the archive was indisputably authentic.
The archive’s authenticity, as I documented in a video report from September, was clear from the start. Indeed, as I described in that report, I staked my career on its authenticity when I demanded that The Intercept publish my analysis of these revelations, and then resigned when its vehemently anti-Trump editors censored any discussion of those emails precisely because it was indisputable that the archive was authentic (The Intercept‘s former New York Times reporter James Risen was given the green light by these same editors to spread and endorse the CIA’s lie, as he insisted that laptop should be ignored because “a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation.”) I knew the archive was real because all the relevant journalistic metrics that one evaluates to verify large archives of this type — including the Snowden archive and the Brazil archive which I used to report a series of investigative exposés — left no doubt that it was genuine (that includes documented verification from third parties who were included in the email chains and who showed that the emails they had in their possession matched the ones in the archive word-for-word).
Any residual doubts that the Biden archive was genuine — and there should have been none — were shattered when a reporter from Politico, Ben Schreckinger, published a book last September, entitled “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power,” in which his new reporting proved that the key emails on which The New York Post relied were entirely authentic. Among other things, Schreckinger interviewed several people included in the email chains who provided confirmation that the emails in their possession matched the ones in the Post‘s archive word for word. He also obtained documents from the Swedish government that were identical to key documents in the archive. His own outlet, Politico, was one of the few to even acknowledge his book. While ignoring the fact that they were the first to spread the lie that the emails were “Russian disinformation,” Politico editors — under the headline “Double Trouble for Biden”— admitted that the book “finds evidence that some of the purported Hunter Bidenlaptop material is genuine, including two emails at the center of last October’s controversy.”
The vital revelations in Schreckinger’s book were almost completely ignored by the very same corporate media outlets that published the CIA’s now-debunked lies.
As President Biden tries to pin blame elsewhere on the rip-offs at the gas pump, the fact remains that the policies of his administration are the chief culprit. Yes, his administration has had some help, primarily from the counterfeiting Federal Reserve, but whether it’s through domestic policies or the foreign policy of empire, the Biden Administration has hit American wallets where it hurts.
While we’re all over-focused on “Ukraine,” our overlords are moving quietly, and swiftly, to take ALL cash away, in favor of a global social credit system. We can’t let them get away with it.
While they have us freaking out about “Ukraine,” our overlords are moving swiftly to rendition all of us into the global cyber-gulag of a social credit system, enabled by a digital currency doled out (or not) by the central banking system.
This report, from December, 2021, “assess[es] market opportunities for infrastructure support of the social credit market”—i.e., how to make a lot of money helping to set up that cyber-prison. Unless you’re reading it for “market opportunities,” you’re likely to be chilled by its dystopian implications.
One way to start fighting this development is to go back to using cash instead of cards as much as possible—starting with #CashFriday, as urged by Catherine Austin Fitts. This means that, every Friday, we use only cash to buy what we may need: https://home.solari.com/cash-friday/.
Think about what this development portends: No cash will mean no autonomy, as every purchase that you’ll want to make must be approved on high—approval that will be contingent on your social credit score.
ancel Culture British Publishers Self Censor to Maintain Ties with China Photo by Ajay Suresh — Creative CommonsThe Financial Times reported that two British publishing houses are removing content the CCP finds objectionable to allow their books, intended for western distribution, to be printed in China. Octopus Books and Quarto have stripped references to Taiwan and Hong Kong and altered character nationalities, changing Taiwanese to “East Asian.” Mentions of dissident artist Ai Weiwei were also deleted. Changes came after Chinese suppliers said they could not, by law, print the original versions.
Other publishing houses, such as US printing company RR Donnelley & Sons, have faced similar pressures. The company authored a memo highlighting restrictions from its Chinese printers on mentions of human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Covid-19 origins.
While some alternate printing locations are employed, price pressures prevent publishing houses from relocating their entire catalog. A spokesperson for Quarto stated the company had “a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of our shareholders.” Octopus Books said changes made “are not material and we always ask the permission of the author first to check they are comfortable to proceed.”
Free Speech Yale Bipartisan Free Speech Event Disrupted by ProtestersSterling Law Building, YaleA panel hosted by the Yale Federalist Society was met with 120 protesters against one of the participants, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The discussion, also featuring the American Humanist Association, was intended to demonstrate that liberals and conservatives could find common ground on free speech issues.
The protesters carried anti-ADF signs and vocally disrupted the event. Kate Stith, a professor at the law school, reminded the crowd that Yale’s policies do not permit protesting that “interferes with speakers’ ability to be heard and of community members to listen.” The students were asked to leave but continued to chant “protect trans kids” and “shame, shame” outside the room. After the event, nearly 2/3rds of the law school students signed a letter supporting the protesters.
Central to the students’ objections was a 2015 brief by the ADF, asserting that EU member states should have the option of requiring medical transition before allowing a legal change of gender. The stance led to the ADF being labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The nonprofit ADF has argued several Supreme Court cases, including Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, establishing religious exemptions from civil rights laws.
Photo by Ajay Suresh — 
Sterling Law Building, YaleA panel hosted by the Yale Federalist Society was met with 120 
MCViewPoint 
