Labels

Monday, June 27, 2022

They Have No Idea - Vox Popoli

The globalist media has called me an extremist on the basis of things I don’t believe and opinions I don’t have. This has made it clear they have absolutely no idea what a perspective outside the Empire of Lies actually looks like, or how extremely different it is from their neoliberal programming.

Their whole demonic order is on the verge of collapsing and burning, then being replaced by a variety of far more traditional orders, and the only thing they can think to do is hurl outdated word spells at those whose victory and replacement of them is inevitable.

DISCUSS ON SG

 https://voxday.net/2022/06/27/they-have-no-idea/

Europe’s Third Attempt at Suicide and Generation Z+ | The Vineyard of the Saker

By Batiushka for The Saker Blog

‘The next war in Europe will be between Russia and Fascism, except that Fascism will be called Democracy.’

Fidel Castro, c. 1992

 

Introduction

Europe is a serial suicide. The first attempt began in Sarajevo in 1914 and finished in Versailles in 1919. The second began a generation later in Warsaw in 1939 and ended in Berlin in 1945. Having very nearly succeeded at the second attempt (it missed atomic bombs by mere months), Europe sobered up and slowed down, waiting till the centenary of 1914 before it tried for the third time. This attempt began in Kiev, again in Eastern Europe, in 2014 and is continuing in the Special Military Operation (SMO). At every attempt Europe has lost. The first time it lost three empires (the Russian, the Austro-Hungarian and the German), the second time two Empires, the fatally weakened British and French, so ensuring the supremacy of the American Empire in Europe, as in the rest of the world.

What will Europe lose this time? It will lose the only Empire remaining – the EU. When? Only some time after the conclusion of the SMO. Now, it would be foolish to predict with exactitude when that, which is the culmination of Europe’s third attempted suicide, will be. It could all be over in early July. Alternatively it could drag on for years. However, both those outcomes are extreme possibilities and there are other possibilities inbetween. Nevertheless, some tendencies are clear. It is only the extent and speed at which they will progress that is uncertain. In any case, whatever happens in the Ukraine, Europe will be reformatted. It will never be the same again. The seed sown by the Western elite in Kiev in 2014 is being reaped today in the harvest of division, discontent and poverty in Europe.

If we look at the three aims of the Special Military Operation, we can see that the first and second aims, the liberation of the Donbass and demilitarisation, are both 75% done, despite new arrivals of Western arms to prolong the agony. However, the reality is also that the operation has had to be much extended from the Donbass to the east and south of the Ukraine and there we are not even 50% done. However, the third aim, the denazification of the Ukraine, has not even begun and cannot begin until the murderous Zelensky regime has been replaced with a government which actually cherishes the independence and cultural traditions of the Ukraine. Then it will no longer be a servile chimpanzee of the LGBT West and its Nulands who, very politely speaking, have no time for Europe.

Military

Some have criticised the Allied Special Operation in the Ukraine. After four months, they say, not even the whole of the Donbass has yet been liberated. Such critics should get out of their armchairs and go and fight against NATO. We would soon see how fast they would go. Why has progress been ‘slow’? Firstly, because though the Allied Forces are small in size, they are fighting against the vast bulk of the Kiev Army, which has been trained, retrained, supplied and resupplied and dug into its fortified positions by NATO over eight years. Secondly, because the Allies are trying to avoid civilian casualties and of course casualties to themselves. That is not easy when Kiev is using civilians as human shields and shelling from residential areas. The Allies will not carpet-bomb like the West. There is no hurry.

However, with the very recent events in Severodonetsk and Lisichansk, the gateway to the whole of Central and Western Ukraine is being opened. Thus, we read the report on 25 June: ‘The Office of the President ordered the transfer of all reserves from the Mykolaiv/Odessa/Kharkiv direction for a counterattack in the Severodonetsk direction’. In other words, Kiev has only reserves left and it wants to transfer all of them. This sounds like desperation – the end is near. Judging by the quality of Kiev’s reserves so far, this will be a walkover. And that firstly presumes that the reserves will be willing to be massacred. And that secondly presumes that they can be transferred when all around the roads are occupied by Allied troops, or are controlled by Russian radar, artillery, drones and aircraft.

Most significantly of all, this means that Mykolaiv/Odessa/Kharkiv will be left more or less defenceless, without even reserves. According to serious Western data, Ukrainian military losses are about 200,000 killed with nearly three quarters of military equipment and ammunition destroyed. In just four months. This is catastrophic. If even Western spies from MI6, the BRD and Poland say this, then there is little future or hope for the US puppets in Kiev. We can only expect military collapse and the formation of a new government, authentically pro-Ukrainian (that is anti-American) and therefore pro-Russian. What happens after the liberation of the Ukraine? The liberation of Moldova? Of the Baltics? We do not know. But if aggressive NATO/EU sabre-rattling continues, all is possible.

Economic, Political and Ideological

As we know, the Western anti-Russian sanctions, have been a self-imposed economic disaster, an own goal. Blowback has been nasty. Dedollarisation is happening. Pay in roubles, please. Now. Food, fertiliser, oil, gas, all are rocketing in price, and it is not winter. Popular discontent and street demonstrations in Western Europe are mounting. In France the Rothschild candidate Macron has lost control of the French Parliament to the left and to the right. In the UK the ‘delusional’ (the word of members of his own Party) Johnson (a man condemned by his own as ‘an opportunistic journalist who has at his heart a moral vacuum’) is seen as a liability, who will lead the Tory Party to annihilation in any election. We will not speak here of other nonentities like Scholz, Draghi, Trudeau and Biden.

Then there is the formation of alternatives to the Western bloc. A new G8/BRICS+? Russia has seen plenty of discreet and not so discreet support from China, India, Kazakhstan, Brazil, Iran, Indonesia, Africa (from Egypt to South Africa), Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Argentina, Hungary…. That is, from the aptly-named ‘emerging’ world on all five Continents, from those who have raw materials and manufacturing infrastructure. They want to emerge from the ruins of colonialism and neo-colonialism. The isolated West, the US, Canada, UK, EU, Australia, has few friends outside its inward-looking little world. There are just a few occupied vassals in Asia, like Israel, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, who are forced to buy Western arms in order to stop themselves being liberated from themselves, and that is it.

Even the mercenaries of the State-controlled Western media are beginning to go back on their State-paid lies. They are used to turning everything on its head, to inverting it all. Thus, the Russian Army was composed of ‘demoralised and untrained raw conscripts’, who had suffered ‘massive losses’ and ‘lacked fuel and ammunition’, ‘raped children and murdered’, were ‘in full retreat’ and bombed and shelled ‘residential areas and civilians’. Just change the word ‘Russian’ to ‘Kiev’ and we are a lot nearer the truth. Does anybody believe these media lies any more? Surely only the living dead? It must be embarrassing for these hacks who have been telling, or rather were ordered to tell, the opposite of the truth. They used to report their dreams as reality. Now they have to report reality – their worst nightmares.

Conclusion: The Age of Empires Is Over

After the Western defeats, or rather routs, in Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO has no military or political future. In fact, it should have been abolished after the fall of the USSR. The Ukraine (or whatever it will be called in whatever borders it will have when its liberation is complete) is Russian. Just forget it, NATO. You have already lost. The expansion of NATO into Asia? What a joke. Taiwan is Chinese, as will be all the Western Pacific. Just forget it, NATO. You have already lost. The American Century which began in February/March 1917 with the palace revolt by corrupt aristocrats and generals in the Russian Empire, carefully orchestrated from London and New York, is over. Europe no longer needs to attempt suicide, let alone succeed. You are free to restore the sovereignty of your nation states.

The fact is that the Age of Empires is over. 1917 signalled the beginning of this. In 1991 the Red Star (USSR) Empire collapsed. Today the White Star (USSA) Empire, with its Twelve-Star EU (USSE) vassal Empire in tow, is collapsing, and for exactly the same reason: because nobody believes in their ideologies any more. Both Communism and Capitalism have failed. Now is the Age of Free Alliances of Sovereign Nations. What is the future of Europe after its third failed attempt at suicide? It is in reintegrating the Sovereignty of Eurasia, protected by the Russian resource umbrella. The Atlantic never united Europe, it divided Europe. If those who live across the Atlantic want to rediscover from us how to start living normal lives again, they can. But it will be on our terms, those of our Sovereignty, not on theirs.

We have spoken of the Special Military Operation as the culmination of Europe’s third attempted suicide. We have said that Europe will never be the same again after it. This is because, unless Europe is really serious this time about suicide (and it has managed to avoid it twice before), this Operation Z is going to split up the tyrannical Western world, EU and UK Europe, from the USA. It is Operation Z+. And who are we, those who will survive? We are Generation Z+. We are those who will come ‘out of great tribulation’ and survive. We are those who are going to live in the real Global world, not in the Western bubble Globalist world. We are the real Europeans of ancient and new European history, who refused to commit suicide, the Sovereign Europeans. Reality is dawning at last.

 https://thesaker.is/europes-third-attempt-at-suicide-and-generation-z/

The Entire World Order Has Changed – The Burning Platform - Guest Post by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

It was Jim O’Neill, Goldman’s chief economist at the time, who coined the term BRICS in 2001 for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Little did he know. He was talking about emerging economies. 13 years later, they no longer are. They are good for about 40% of the world population, and some 25% of global GDP. The world has not stood still since 2009, and it’s moving faster now.

Ironically, the BRICS countries never looked to be as prominent economically as they are today, they were happy to build up one step at a time. But then NATO decided to move east at a pace that Russia found intolerable, and now the BRICS have taken on a whole new meaning. 25% of global GDP may not seem that much, but the 5 countries hold a much bigger share of -essential- global resources and/or raw materials than that, and China moreover delivers an outsize part of finished products.

And we now know that they won’t be BRICS for much longer. Many countries choose to be affiliated, in one form or another, with the BRICS rather than the “west”. They see that Russia is winning in Ukraine, and they see the damage the sanctions do. It’s just practical considerations. Saudi Arabia and Argentina are interested in joining BRICS. So are Uruguay, Iran, Egypt, Thailand, and a number of post-Soviet States. They see where the real economic power resides.

It’s amusing to see that for this week’s G7 in Germany, the host country has “invited the leaders of India, Indonesia, Senegal, Argentina and South Africa to the summit..” They will not join the G7 instead of the BRICS. Why would they? The world is moving away from unipolar US/NATO power. And as Russia and China have repeatedly said, this move is irreversible. It’s all because of what happens in Ukraine. The west is losing militarily AND economically. Look at where the ruble is. We were “promised” it would dissolve, but it did the opposite.

The US became the no. 1 world power because it had the oil. Now, it has some left, but it has to use energy-intensive processes to produce it. Russia does not. Nor does Saudi Arabia, which therefore has no reason to stick to the petro-dollar system. They’re better off with the BRICS, which moreover plan to introduce a resource-based basket of currencies, which could benefit the Saudis greatly. The world is being rearranged rapidly, a process mightily accelerated by Russia’s special operation in Ukraine.

And NATO can’t even keep up militarily. From Scott Ritter today: “Ukraine is requesting 1,000 artillery pieces and 300 multiple-launch rocket systems, more than the entire active-duty inventory of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps combined. Ukraine is also requesting 500 main battle tanks — more than the combined inventories of Germany and the United Kingdom“. Another headline: “Czech Republic Has Exhausted Its Arms Reserves Supporting Ukraine, PM Reveals”.

Perhaps even more telling is that last week, Ukraine’s President Zelensky addressed the African Union in a virtual session, and only 4 out of 54 invited African Heads of State attended (plus some lower ranked folks). They don’t care about what they see as a European conflict, they don’t believe it’s all Putin’s fault (because: sanctions!), and they won’t commit to a potentially losing side. They have bigger fish to fry at home. Look for many to become a BRICS member.

 

Africa Is A Hostage Of Russia’s War On Ukraine, Zelensky Says

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called Africa “a hostage” of Russia’s war during an address to the African Union (AU) on Monday. Russia’s invasion, and its blockade of Ukraine’s grain exports, have sparked grain and fertiliser shortages and put millions of people at risk of hunger. The chair of the AU commission said there was an “urgent need for dialogue” to restore global stability. Western countries have urged Russia to release Ukraine’s vast grain stores.


The blockade has sent food prices soaring. “Africa is actually a hostage… of those who unleashed war against our state”, Mr Zelensky said in his speech. He said his government was engaged in “complex negotiations” to unblock grain reserves trapped in Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. “This war may seem very distant to you and your countries,” he told the AU. “But the food prices that are catastrophically rising have already brought [the war] to the homes of millions of African families.”

I think it’s priceless that the BRICS countries took O’Neill’s term and ran with it. In 2016 the BBC said: “Brics ‘grew more than I thought’, says Jim O’Neill”. And so last week we had the 14th BRICS Summit. They are now -arguably- more powerful than the G7, they indeed ‘grew more than I thought’. Unlike in our present -post-WWII- economic system, there is not ONE leader, it’s multipolar. The best of everyone, for everyone. That sounds very idealistic, obviously, and at some point China may try to control it all, like the US does today, but right now that is not the case.

 

Putin Suggests Way Out Of Global Economic Crisis

The West’s selfish attempts to blame the entire world for its own mistakes have led to the global economic crisis, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on Thursday, appearing via video link at the 14th BRICS Summit. “Only on the basis of honest and mutually beneficial cooperation is it possible to find a way out of this crisis situation that has gripped the global economy due to the thoughtless and selfish actions of certain states,” Putin explained.

The Russian leader stressed that today, as never before, the leadership of the BRICS countries is needed in order to develop a unifying policy for the shaping of a truly multipolar system of intergovernmental relations, and that it ought to be based on the universally recognized norms of international law and the key principles of the UN Charter. According to Putin, the BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have a truly enormous political, economic, scientific, technological and human potential.

Their influence on the global arena is increasing with every year, he pointed out. “Russia is ready to continue developing close multifaceted interaction with all the [BRICS] partners and contribute to the enhancement of its role in international affairs,” Putin promised.

As I wrote earlier: “The west is not the future. That time is behind us. And many countries recognize this.”

 

China Promotes ‘Non-Western Multilateralism’ at BRICS Summit

China hosted the first day of the fourteenth annual BRICS Summit—a series of meetings involving the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—on Wednesday, amid a series of major shifts in the global world order and rising geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe and East Asia. Chinese president Xi Jinping opened the summit on Wednesday, emphasizing the five nations’ “shared desire to meet challenges together through cooperation,” according to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency. The Chinese leader also urged the countries in attendance to “embrace solidarity and coordination and jointly maintain world peace and stability.”

The BRICS group comprises the five largest developing economies; together, its members constitute forty percent of the world’s population and one-fourth of global gross domestic product. The group includes the two most populous nations in the world, China and India, as well as Russia, the largest in terms of land. Chinese state media has praised the role of the five-nation grouping, claiming that ties between the BRICS countries had increased “multilateral cooperation with non-Western styles, forms, and principles [of government”—marking a positive contrast to the actions of the United States, which it accused of “pulling its Western allies to ‘rebel’ against globalization.”

Despite considerable internal differences within the bloc, including a decades-old rivalry between China and India, all of the BRICS countries have resisted full political alignment with the West. Of the five BRICS nations, only one, Brazil, voted in the United Nations General Assembly to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine in February; Russia voted against the measure, while the other three countries abstained. Even Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro refused to personally condemn Putin, whom the West has widely framed as the driving force behind the Russian invasion. In his remarks on Wednesday, Xi appeared to criticize the United States and NATO, describing the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a “wake-up call for all in the world.”

 

From Bradley Blankenship, American journalist, columnist and political commentator, published at RT.

BRICS Members Represent The Best Hope For A Fairer World Order

The 14th BRICS Summit in Beijing is just wrapping up amid a turbulent international geopolitical landscape, which highlights the importance of the organization in general. Given the combined challenges of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, global conflict, a looming economic crash and climate change – the current international system is failing and a new, multi-polar alternative must take its place. It’s worth noting the context of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) format. Started in 2009 amid a financial crisis, the main goal of that year’s first BRICS (or BRIC as it was then) summit in Yekaterinburg was to improve the global economic situation and reform financial institutions.

Although these countries are not joined by any particular ideology, each saw the need to democratize the global economic system that had been crashed pretty much single-handedly by the United States in an extraordinarily irresponsible – even illegal by US law, in some instances – manner. The head of China’s Central Bank bluntly called for abandoning the dollar as the global reserve currency in 2009 because of a lack of faith in US monetary leadership. That was 13 years ago, yet the necessity of a new reserve currency could not be more relevant these days. In fact, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on June 22 just ahead of the latest BRICS summit that the group was indeed developing its own reserve currency based on a basket of their currencies. With this, Putin said the group is hoping to develop alternatives to the existing international payment scheme.

While this could be seen as provocative in the West, it is actually for the betterment of mankind and is not aimed strictly at one country or one coalition of countries. To note, India pushed back against any “anti-US” rhetoric in the group’s joint statement, being a country that is considered part of the Global South, e.g., a developing country, and also has strong relations with the West. Yet, at the same time, it’s clear that all BRICS states, including India, would benefit from a democratized global economic and financial system. That is why New Delhi has not joined Western-led sanctions against Russia over the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, because doing so does not serve India’s economic interests – and it would also establish a bad precedent where countries could essentially be excluded from the international community over political disagreements.

Indeed, BRICS and its members have gone a long way to pursue zero-strings-attached development cooperation. China alone had already replaced the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank as the world’s largest net creditor at the beginning of the last decade, expanding investments in tangible assets across the Global South (and beyond) through the Belt and Road Initiative. But in a direct challenge to these two previously mentioned US-led institutions, which have morphed into weapons of economic coercion, BRICS established the New Development Bank in 2014.

[..] At a minimum, BRICS has a serious role in balancing out the malignant influence of the US, NATO and the prevailing Western-led world system. Finance and economics are no small part of this, and BRICS’ drive to establish alternatives to the dollar-based Bretton Woods system, providing credit to the Global South without political conditions and establishing a new reserve currency, is an extraordinary push toward a multi-polar future.

The question is of course how the reigning order will react to losing its power. Will they drop nukes? If they do, it would every likely be suicidal. But some people are very particular about control, and about losing it. Thing is, it’s already lost, they just don’t realize it yet.

While you were watching the abortion debate, and Zelensky’s heroics, the entire world order has changed. How about that?

 https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/06/27/the-entire-world-order-has-changed/#more-272831

The Plot Behind Covid - By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (If you are not familiar with Lew Rockwell, it is beyond time to do so - there is a reason his site is linked here. - CL)

One of the saddest aspects of the fake propaganda about Covid-19 is that it is being used to stir up hostility toward China. Didn’t the virus start there, the propagandists suggest, maybe as the result of experiments in a Chinese lab in Wuhan? Brain-dead Biden and the gang of neocons that controls him would like nothing better than to inflame the American people for a war against China. Already the anti-Chinese campaign has had results. People have brutally beaten Chinese people, and other Asians as well, because they blame China for the “pandemic.”  Here are some examples.

“DENVER – Helen Oh was walking down the sidewalk of the downtown 16th Street pedestrian mall in April when two young men approached from the other direction.

The coronavirus pandemic had been spreading in the United States for a month, and Asian American community groups were warning of a disconcerting surge of hateful and racist language directed toward them, tied to the virus’ origins in China. Oh, an attorney, was on her guard.

The two men drew closer.

‘Infected and disgusting,’ one called out as they passed, she said.

Heart racing, she ducked into a drugstore.

‘I didn’t think to say anything back when I heard it,’ she said. ‘It really only sunk in as I was walking away.’

Stepping back onto the street, Oh, 30, walked toward her car as an older couple approached. The woman made a show of detouring around her, she said.

‘The woman literally walked off the sidewalk to be as far from me as possible,’ Oh said. ‘There was no one else around and it was so obnoxious.”

One incident, she might have written off as the kind of casual racism she has encountered all her life as the daughter of Korean immigrants. But two, in such a short time? It was clear, she said, that she was being targeted because she is Asian.

‘You could feel the sense of hatred and scapegoating that was being built,’ Oh said. ‘I avoided going out by myself for a while.’

Among recent incidents: In January, an 84-year-old Thai American man was brutally shoved in San Francisco and later died. That same month, police in Oakland, California, said a young man shoved three elderly people to the ground from behind in the city’s Chinatown neighborhood, knocking out one. And this week, a 36-year old Asian man in New York’s Chinatown neighborhood was stabbed and taken to a hospital in critical condition. The suspect in that assault faces charges that include attempted murder as a hate crime and assault as a hate crime, among other charges, the New York Police Department said.”

Here is another example:

Yuanyuan Zhu was walking to her gym in San Francisco on March 9, thinking the workout could be her last for a while, when she noticed that a man was shouting at her. He was yelling an expletive about China. Then a bus passed, she recalled, and he screamed after it, ‘Run them over.’

She tried to keep her distance, but when the light changed, she was stuck waiting with him at the crosswalk. She could feel him staring at her. And then, suddenly, she felt it: his saliva hitting her face and her favorite sweater.

In shock, Ms. Zhu, who is 26 and moved to the United States from China five years ago, hurried the rest of the way to the gym. She found a corner where no one could see her, and she cried quietly.

‘That person didn’t look strange or angry or anything, you know?’ she said of her tormentor. ‘He just looked like a normal person.’

As the coronavirus upends American life, Chinese-Americans face a double threat. Not only are they grappling like everyone else with how to avoid the virus itself, they are also contending with growing racism in the form of verbal and physical attacks. Other Asian-Americans — with families from Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Myanmar and other places — are facing threats, too, lumped together with Chinese-Americans by a bigotry that does not know the difference.

In interviews over the past week, nearly two dozen Asian-Americans across the country said they were afraid — to go grocery shopping, to travel alone on subways or buses, to let their children go outside. Many described being yelled at in public — a sudden spasm of hate that is reminiscent of the kind faced by American Muslims, Arabs and South Asians in the United States after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

But there is good reason to think that the Chinese shouldn’t be blamed for the virus. The intrepid Ron Unz has argued that Covid-19 was part of an American biological warfare campaign against China. Writing about two books about Covid-19, he says “Both these authors seem to assume that there exist only two possible scenarios: a natural virus that suddenly appeared in Wuhan during late 2019 or an accidental lab-leak of an enhanced disease agent in that same city. But there is an obvious third case as well, clearly suggested by Baker’s focus on America’s own very active biowarfare program, which he extensively discussed both in his long article and in his highly-regarded book. We must surely consider the possibility that the Covid-19 outbreak was not at all accidental, but instead constituted a deliberate attack against China, occurring as it did near the absolute height of the international tension with America, and therefore suggesting that elements of our own national security apparatus were the most obvious suspects. Given the realities of the publishing industry, any serious exploration of such a scenario would probably have precluded the appearance of the important Baker or Lemoine articles in any respectable publication, perhaps helping to explain such silence. . .

According to the widely accepted current chronology, the Covid-19 epidemic began in Wuhan during late October or early November of 2019. But the World Military Games were also held in Wuhan during that same period, ending in late October, with 300 American military servicemen attending. As I’ve repeatedly emphasized in my articles and comments for more than a year, how would Americans react if 300 Chinese military officers had paid an extended visit to Chicago, and soon afterward a mysterious and deadly epidemic had suddenly erupted in that city?

It surely would have been very easy for our intelligence services to have slipped a couple of their operatives into that large American military contingent, and the presence of many thousands of foreign military personnel, traveling around the large city and doing sightseeing, would have been ideally suited to providing cover for the quiet release of a highly-infectious viral bioweapon. None of this constitutes proof, but the coincidental timing is quite remarkable.

All the evidence thus far presented has merely been circumstantial, strongly establishing that elements of the American national security establishment had the means, motive, and opportunity to stage a biowarfare attack in Wuhan. However, in April additional facts appeared that some have characterized as ‘smoking gun’ evidence of that disturbing scenario:

But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental inaction being obvious, elements within our intelligence agencies have sought to demonstrate that they were not the ones asleep at the switch. Earlier this month, an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far back as late November, a special medical intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a report warning that an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in the Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout the top ranks of our government, warning that steps should be taken to protect US forces based in Asia. After the story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report, while various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to comment. But a few days later, Israeli television mentioned that in November American intelligence had indeed shared such a report on the Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC News story and its several government sources.

It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge of future fires.

In a devastating addition to his argument, Unz in an article this month draws attention to an article by a well-known “establishment” economist that suggests Covid originated in an American lab:

“My suggestion of a central American role in the creation of this global epidemic has been excluded not only from the mainstream media but from virtually all of the alternative media as well, presumably because the possibility is simply too horrific to contemplate. However, this situation may now be starting to change.

Last month, the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences carried an opinion article authored by prominent Columbia University economist Jeffrey D. Sachs and a medical colleague suggesting an American role in the creation of the virus and arguing for an independent inquiry into that possibility.

Their paper also presented some of the very considerable evidence that the virus had been artificially engineered in a laboratory, providing a comparison chart noting the striking difference in structure between Covid and all of its closest natural relatives. Indeed, the former seems to have the sort of human-insert sequence that American researchers had been exploring in their scientific papers.

Sachs and his co-author also emphasized that the Eco-Health Alliance, heavily funded by our own Department of Defense, had been very active in organizing the collection of SARS-like bat-viruses from China, exactly the sort of viruses that probably would have constituted the precursor stock to a genetically-engineered Covid virus.

These sorts of implications are hardly surprising to those who have been following my own writings of the last couple of years, but they obviously have vastly greater impact when made by top mainstream scholars writing in one of America’s most influential academic journals. Although the two authors are careful to avoid touching upon the central thesis of my own articles, their analysis is entirely consistent with that framework.” See this.

The propaganda campaign involving Covid has already caused an untold number of deaths through phony “vaccinations” and has crippled our economy with masks and lockdowns. We must not let Covid nonsense get us into a war with China as well.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and . Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/06/lew-rockwell/the-plot-behind-covid/

bionic mosquito: A God of Confusion?

 Continuing with the examination by Paul VanderKlay (PVK) of the results of the recent synod of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) on the subject of gay marriage.  Regarding the result, and as a reminder:

The Christian Reformed Church, a small evangelical denomination of U.S. and Canadian churches, voted Wednesday (June 15) at its annual synod to codify its opposition to homosexual sex by elevating it to the status of confession, or declaration of faith.

The vote was overwhelming.

PVK has released a third video looking at the vote and the aftermath, entitled “What is a Confessional Conversation and How it Could Help the CRCNA Sort out its Future.”  Through it, he expands on his thoughts of the need of just such a conversation within the CRC.

I commented at this video, and will expand on these comments here.  These comments are relevant to his denomination, the broader Church, and overall, regarding society – as the same issues tearing apart one are tearing apart all.

--------------------------------------------

A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.  To be or not to be, and all that…. “Or,” not “and.”

There is a standard or there isn't a standard; there is an ideal or there isn't an ideal; there is objective truth or there isn't objective truth; there are borders or there aren’t borders; there are boundaries or there aren’t boundaries; there is a created order or there isn't a created order; there is natural law or there isn't natural law.

1 Corinthians 14: 33 (a) For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

How might we understand a God of confusion as opposed to a God of peace?  What characteristics would describe one verses the other?  And, as God is a God of peace, what might this mean regarding these characteristics?

Imagine a world built on standards, ideals, objective truth, borders, boundaries, created order, natural law.  Then imagine a world with no standards, no ideals, no objective truth, no borders, no boundaries, no created order, no natural law.  The first would be peaceful, the second would be confusing.

One could consider the characteristics of “peace” as traditional conservatism.  As I have written in the past, the only meaningful thing to conserve – as all other markers are just points at which conservatives attempt to slow down the momentum of progressives – is a natural law ethic.

One could consider the characteristics of “confusion” as progressivism, modern liberalism, leftism, etc.  But this isn’t quite true.  These groups do have a standard – and that is to have no standard; they do have ideals – and that is to have no ideal; they have an objective truth – that there is no such thing as objective truth.  So, while the statement isn’t quite true of these groups (no standard, no ideals, etc.), the practical result and application is the same.

A society without borders or boundaries – no right to justly acquired property, no right to one’s bodily integrity and life.  Is this a peaceful society?  A society with no commonly accepted standard or ideal – will this lead to peace or confusion?

So, in this discussion / debate in the CRC, the broader Church, and society overall, which side is the side of peace, and which side is the side of confusion?  Can there be a meaningful and successful conversation (a conversation moving closer to common understanding) between those on the side of peace and those on the side of confusion?

Are there objective truths, ones above question, obvious for all to see, inherent in the design of creation (or, if you prefer, a lucky outcome of random atoms smashing together randomly)?

Once this question is addressed one can then consider which side is serving God – who is, as the verse says, the God of peace, not the God of confusion.

Which comes to the hope PVK has in holding a confessional conversation.  PVK notes, rightly, that each side is just repeating the same points (as I am for the most part doing in this post and have been doing in all of my posts on the topic of natural law, liberty, the meaning crisis, etc.). 

We are just talking past each other, each talking past the other side, repeating the same arguments that haven't worked thus far. 

But is there any hope for a change, for some way to break past this roadblock?  Is there a way to have a conversation between groups which disagree on the reality and existence of standards, ideals, objective truth, borders, boundaries, created order, natural law – with one side saying such things exist and the other side saying they don’t?

Can there be a meaningful conversation without a common foundation of knowledge?

Frank van Dun offered the answer to this question:

‘Conscientious’ means heeding conscience. Conscience (conscien­tia) is, of course, knowledge shared in common. It is a necessary condition of argumentation and, by implication, of all actions that can be justified argumentatively.

After all, in argumentation, arguers appeal to knowledge shared in common to expand the range of things on which they can conscientiously agree (even if it implies critical revisions of what was supposed to be common knowledge).

In any argument, there must be an agreement beforehand of knowledge shared in common.  In other words, a standard, an ideal, an objective truth.

Without such shared knowledge, the argumentative exchange of questions and answers degenerates quickly into negotiations (which are appeals to one another’s particular interests, prejudices, fears or desires), dialogues of the deaf or pointless shouting matches.

Without commonly held truths (truths accepted without question; objective truths) underlying any argument, there can never be logical, rational conclusions or resolutions.

At best, it degenerates into mere debates, which differ from argumentations in that they consist of attempts to secure the agreement of a third party, an audience, a jury or a judge, by appealing to its prejudices. In debates, ignoring or ridiculing one’s opponent’s arguments is standard practice, as rhetoric usually trumps logic.

At best it degenerates into debates.  At worst…a split – call it divorce, civil war, global war, or just a new Protestant denomination.

Knowledge held in common is required for peace.  Such knowledge must be above and outside of man’s control.  This is the value and meaning of objective truth. As C.S. Lewis puts in, in The Abolition of Man:

This thing which I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value.  It is the sole source of all value judgements.  If it is rejected, all value is rejected.  If any value is retained, it is retained.  The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory.  There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgement of value in the history of the world.

Absent acceptance of this truth, there will only be confusion; there can be no peace.

Conclusion

1 Corinthians 14: 33 (a) For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

God is a God of peace, not of confusion.  His enemies, starting with Satan, sow confusion.  There can be no meaningful conversation – confessional or otherwise – when one is swimming in confusion, when there is no common conscience.

There is only the possibility of separation or of war.  Sooner or later, it always comes to this.

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2022/06/a-god-of-confusion.html