Claude Monet The Wooden Bridge 1872
Joe Biden Receives Important Security Briefing ⛔️
“We’re in the Capitol Building and you’re going the wrong way. Exit from the other side of the building like we gave you in the map 🗺️”
Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 & now needs a map to find his way to an exit. pic.twitter.com/WUnU5amei3
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) September 14, 2023
War Games in the Black Sea – Now What? w/ Col Doug Macgregor
BREAKING- Impeachment Inquiry FINALLY Happening! Look at this disgusting display of CORRUPTION ⬇️ Hunter NEVER registered as foreign lobbyist. NEVER paid some $2+ mill in TAXES – and don’t tell me Pops didn’t know. Heck, Hunter admitted he had to give him 50%. DISGUSTING. pic.twitter.com/crHdHLP89A
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) September 12, 2023
JUST IN: Rep. Tom Emmer introduces a bill to ban the Federal Reserve from creating a Central Bank Digital Currency.
"A CBDC is nothing more than a CCP-style surveillance tool that can be weaponized to oppress the American way of life." pic.twitter.com/J7mNDhK9KP
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) September 13, 2023
These are the same people who impeached Trump based on lies invented from whole cloth by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Who made sure the FBI sat on the laptop for 4-5 years. Who had 51 intel guys and gals declare all its contents Russian disinformation. Those same people.
White House lawyers have reportedly written a letter directing CNN, the New York Times and other US media outlets to scrutinize Republican lawmakers more aggressively as they try to impeach US President Joe Biden. CNN and other recipients of the letter acknowledged getting the missive on Wednesday. “It’s time for the media to ramp up its scrutiny of House Republicans for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies,” Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, wrote in the letter. He added that the impeachment efforts should “set off alarm bells for news organizations.” US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) launched the impeachment effort on Tuesday, directing committees of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to open a formal inquiry.
He said allegations of influence-peddling and solicitation of bribes by the Biden family “paint a picture of a culture of corruption.” Even before receiving any guidance from the White House, some US media outlets already appeared to be trying to protect the president. CNN and Associated Press, for instance, suggested that Republicans were trying to prosecute Biden without having evidence to justify their investigation. Those outlets apparently ignored such evidence as the sworn testimony of IRS whistleblowers and the records of bank transfers that lawmakers have already revealed. By launching impeachment proceedings, congressional committees will gain more power to subpoena documents that could help prove or debunk the allegations.
Veteran US journalist Matthew Keys, who has worked for such outlets as Reuters and Fox News, said the White House directive on impeachment coverage was “not OK.” He added, “The White House should not be encouraging, influencing or interfering in the editorial strategies of America’s newsrooms, including CNN and the New York Times.” The letter could backfire, Keys said, because “any time the media does try to hold Republicans to account, those lawmakers can simply counter by questioning whether it’s actual journalism or something encouraged by the Biden administration.” Legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University, said the directive “has an uncomfortable feeling of marching orders to the media.”
By trying to influence coverage of the impeachment inquiry, he argued, the administration “removes any pretense of separation between the Biden personal legal team and the White House Counsel’s Office.” Sams, who also serves as a senior adviser to Biden, claimed that Republicans had failed in nearly nine months of investigation to “turn up any evidence of the president doing anything wrong.” He added that impeachment is “grave, rare and historic,” and the press must treat the claims of Republicans with “appropriate scrutiny.” The White House official attached a 14-page appendix to his memo providing talking points to address Republican “lies.” Democrats previously controlled the House and twice impeached then-President Donald Trump.
Turley’s take: “..the White House is now calling for the media to again form the wagons around the President and attack the impeachment effort as it did the laptop and the corruption investigation.”
[..] a system by consent rather than coercion. Given that long concern, a letter drafted by the Biden White House Legal Counsel’s Office was striking in a call for major media to “ramp up their scrutiny” of House Republicans “for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies.” The message is curious and concerning, particularly in the aggressive role being played by the White House Counsel’s office under Stuart Frank Delery. First, as I have previously noted, the White House is now actively involved in pushing narratives and denying factual allegations linked to the Biden corruption scandal. That could create Nixonian-type allegations of the abuse of office in the use of federal employees to counter impeachment efforts. Second, the letter was drafted by Ian Sams, a spokesperson for the White House Counsel’s Office.
So White House lawyers are now enlisting the media in a counter media campaign against impeachment? The letter removes any pretense of separation between the Biden personal legal team and the White House Counsel’s office. Sams has been the most aggressive White House official in actively swatting down allegations of corruption as well as the President’s documents investigation. Third, the letter calls for the media to actively support the White House account. The draft of the letter is a call for what I have previously criticized as “advocacy journalism” where reporters frame stories to advance their own viewpoints or values. Sam wrote “[c]overing impeachment as a process story – Republicans say X, but the White House says Y – is a disservice to the American public who relies on the independent press to hold those in power accountable.”
In other words, media should (and it has for years) refuse to give equal attention to allegations agains the Bidens and instead tell the public what the truth is. It is a call for media to tailor the coverage to push the position of the White House against this effort to ramp up the investigation into corruption. It is an approach that is already embraced by many in the media. [..] The letter has an uncomfortable feeling of marching orders to the media. This is a media that followed the lead of Biden associates in spreading the false story that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation. This is the media that refused to acknowledge the authenticity of the laptop until only recently — long after the presidential election. This was the media that only recently admitted that President Biden has been lying about denials related to his son’s influence peddling. Yet, the White House is now calling for the media to again form the wagons around the President and attack the impeachment effort as it did the laptop and the corruption investigation.
“..the suit against Ziegler does not admit the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden but does assert the data belongs to him..”
Attorneys for Hunter Biden have filed a suit against Garrett Ziegler, who has been publishing emails and photos allegedly from Hunter Biden’s now infamous laptop, alleging that he violated California state and federal computer fraud laws in doing so. The suit, filed in California, specifically accuses Ziegler and a non-profit organization he runs called Marco Polo, of violating the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. On the Marco Polo website, Ziegler published tens of thousands of emails, photos and videos purportedly from the laptop. Similar to Hunter Biden’s lawsuit against laptop repair shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac, the suit against Ziegler does not admit the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden but does assert the data belongs to him.
The lawsuit also accuses Ziegler of hacking an encrypted backup of Hunter Biden’s iPhone that was on the laptop, something he seemingly admitted to doing during a December 2022 interview. Mac Isaac, who says he first gave the laptop to the FBI and later to former President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, has also sued Hunter Biden, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and two US media outlets for defamation and civil conspiracy. Both lawsuits are pending. Ziegler is a former Trump aide who worked under trade adviser Peter Navarro. The lawsuit describes him as “a zealot who has waged a sustained, unhinged and obsessed campaign against [Hunter Biden] and the entire Biden family for more than two years.”
[..] The California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CCCDAFA) is designed to prosecute hackers. It forbids individuals that “accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network,” with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or commit a crime. However, the law is not clear on who owns the data contained within the laptop. According to Delaware law, where the laptop was reportedly left, abandoned property belongs to the individual tasked with caring for it after reasonable attempts to contact the original owner have been made. But the law is less clear if that would limit ownership to the laptop itself, or if it would include the data contained within.
“RFK Jr. abandoning the Democrats would all but ensure a defeat of the Brandon entity — and a brutal, landslide one at that..”
The Democrat Party has a latent disaster on its hand vis a vis one RFK Jr. On the one hand, they are fully dedicated to sabotaging his campaign. Under no circumstances whatsoever will he be permitted to win the nomination. Even if he had 80%+ support from the electorate, the sick truth is that party leadership (influenced by the consultant and donor classes) would rather lose with Brandon than win with RFK Jr. because of what he’s liable to do to the Deep State and D.C. largesse were he ever to assume office. It would be a proverbial bloodbath for the administrative state and all of the grifters who feed on it. On the other hand, they need to keep RFK Jr. within the Democrat Party fold because if he were to go rogue and run third party — which he, frankly, should have been doing all along — it would be a veritable death knell for the Brandon entity’s prospects in 2024, which are wafer-thin as it is.
Whatever perceived threat Cornel West poses to Brandon’s re-election with his Green Party run, magnify that threat by 10x, 100x and you’re in the ballpark of what RFK Jr. would do to the party. It’s not outlandish to speculate that a strong third-party run by RFK Jr. might literally break the Democrat Party for years or possibly forever. That’s how sick of the party’s BS its own members, not to mention independents and non-voters (the largest, unserviced voting bloc in the country), are. RFK Jr. has already proven himself nearly bulletproof from relentless Democrat Party and corporate state media attacks — arguably on the same level in this regard as “Teflon” Don.
Here is RFK Jr., in an interview with Forbes, explaining what elaborate lengths the Democrat Party has gone to to rig the primary against him, outright threatening that he might drop his intra-party bid and turn his campaign into a third-party run:
“If the DNC is gonna make it, is gonna rig it so that it is simply impossible for anybody to challenge President Biden, and you know I need to look at other alternatives. Because I can’t go back to the people who support me, to my donors, and say you know, I’m just going to, I’m just in this to make a point, I need to show them a road to victory.” What is for now a threat — albeit apparently a sincere and credible threat — needs to be encouraged by everyone to evolve into reality. RFK Jr. abandoning the Democrats would all but ensure a defeat of the Brandon entity — and a brutal, landslide one at that — in 2024, which can be nothing but good news for all Americans, even delusional, loyal Democrats who don’t understand their own self-interest.
Paul Craig Roberts: ” If Putin really wants to save lives, he should hurry up and win the war.”
Militarily and diplomatically weak EU countries, not one of which is capable of going to war, are stealing the cars, cell phones, and even soap of Russians who enter Europe as tourists. Why Russians want to be tourists in the EU that is aligned with the US and Ukraine against Russia is a mystery. Although Germany, for example, would be instantly defeated in a war with Russia, the German government feels secure in robbing Russians who come to Germany as tourists. How is it that such a weak country as Germany can feel secure robbing Russian citizens? Perhaps the answer is that by permitting a conflict to continue for 17 months against an impotent Ukraine, Putin has convinced Europe and the US that Russia is too weak to risk Western ire by winning in Ukraine.
Clearly the West believes this as we can see from humiliation after humiliation delivered to Putin and to Russia. Putin could not even attend the meeting of BRICS, his own creation, in South Africa without being arrested and turned over to the International Criminal Court. Clearly, no one is afraid of Putin and Russia. When you have enemies who do not fear you and even mock you, you can expect provocations to rise in intensity. You can also expect to demoralize your own people and your own army, thus encouraging your opponent to be more aggressive. This has been my concern since February 2022, not because I am on Russia’s side but because I believe the provocations will result in a wider, likely nuclear, war. Col. Douglas Macgregor has come to share my concern.
When asked recently in an interview to assess Putin as a war leader, Macgregor said that Putin is overly cautious and that there is concern in the Russian military that by allowing the conflict to drag on, Putin gives credibility to the propaganda that Russia is weak and this encourages more Western intervention. Prigozhin, the Wagner Group commander, had this opinion, and when he tried to get Putin’s attention he was falsely accused of attempting a coup and treason. It seems the Russian government and media invents false narratives just as does the West. Col. Macgregor says, “I am worried — if you don’t act quickly to end it, at some point, you’re in trouble — and he’s in trouble, his country is. So, I think there has to be an end to this — but you can’t end it at the negotiating table. If you march to the Dnieper River and send your tank columns into Kiev, then you have a shot at ending it. But if he sits where he is, I don’t know . . .”
Neither does Putin, but he continues to sit there all the while convincing the neoconservatives that Russia lacks the strength to launch an offensive even against a defeated Ukrainian army. Does Putin really want to convince the West that Russia is too weak to really fight or that he is too much of a goody two shoes compassionate liberal to be a war leader? It would be irresponsible to lead the West to such a dangerous conclusion. If Putin really wants to save lives, he should hurry up and win the war.
Except for Poland.
The Czech Republic announced on Wednesday that it would not send military-age men who came as refugees back to Ukraine to be conscripted. Germany, Austria and Hungary have already made similar declarations. European conventions exclude extradition for things such as desertion or draft evasion, Justice Ministry spokesman Vladimir Repka told the outlet iDnes. However, he added that if Ukraine files individual extradition requests citing a specific criminal act they may have committed, Prague may give them consideration. Hungary has ruled out any extraditions outright. “We are not investigating any Ukrainian refugees to determine if they have been called up for military service. Hungary will not extradite them to Ukraine,” Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjén told the outlet ATV on Wednesday.
“All refugees from Ukraine are safe in Hungary.” German officials who spoke to Deutsche Welle earlier this week said that Berlin did not intend to send draft-eligible refugees back, since desertion and draft evasion are not crimes under German law. There are over 123,000 Ukrainian men of military age who are in Germany as refugees, according to official estimates. Vienna was the first to refuse extradition of military-age men. There are about 14,000 potential draftees among the 101,000 Ukrainian refugees in Austria. “That would be a massive encroachment on our statehood, we would never do that,” a spokesman for the Interior Ministry told the outlet Exxpress on September 7.
On the other hand, Poland has already begun sending some Ukrainian men back, according to Hungarian media reports. A senior lawmaker from President Vladimir Zelensky’s ruling party said in late August that Ukraine might seek extradition of draft-dodgers from the EU. The government in Kiev recently announced another round of mobilization in order to make up battlefield losses, which Russian President Vladimir Putin estimated at over 70,000 in the past three months of heavy fighting. Zelensky fired all draft commissioners last month and ordered a review of all medical exemptions from military service, citing widespread corruption. New rules were adopted allowing for the conscription of people with mental disorders, chronic diseases, tuberculosis and HIV.
How to make friends when you need them most.
The people leading India and China lack the ability to predict the long-term consequences of their policies, a senior aide to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has claimed. Mikhail Podoliak pointed to what he called “the problem of the modern world,” singling out India and China, in an interview with Ukrainian media on Tuesday. “The problem with these countries is that they do not analyze the consequences of their own moves. These countries, unfortunately, have low intellectual potential,” he said. Podoliak suggested that even though India has a lunar exploration program, it “does not mean that this nation understands what the modern world precisely is.”
The dismissive remarks were in the context of Beijing and New Delhi’s refusal to support Kiev in its conflict with Moscow. Podoliak complained that India, China and Türkiye were “profiting” from the war by maintaining trade with Russia. “Technically, it is in their national interests,” he acknowledged, before presenting his view of what would benefit China in the long-run. “China should be interested in Russia disappearing, because it is an archaic nation that drags China into unnecessary conflicts,” he claimed. “It would be in their interest now to distance themselves from Russia as far as possible, take all the resources it has, and take part of the Russian territory under their legal control. In fact, they will do that,” he added.
Following the interview, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman urged Podoliak to clarify his remarks, when asked about them during a media briefing on Wednesday. Podoliak has a record of lashing out at nations, organizations and public figures seen as not sufficiently supportive of Kiev. Among his latest targets was Pope Francis, whom he had branded an “instrument of Russian propaganda” who “continues to reduce the influence of Catholicism in the word to zero.” The pontiff had encouraged Russian Catholics to cherish their nation’s historic legacy. The Ukrainian official also recently hit out at Elon Musk, who Podoliak claimed “enabled evil” by refusing Kiev’s request to use his Starlink communications system to launch drone attacks against the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
“Even if we imagine that we will once again be friends with the West, that they will lift their sanctions, our businesses will not return to the West..”
Russia is steadily reorienting trade and business cooperation toward Asia and away from the “static” West, Presidential Business Rights Commissioner Boris Titov told RIA Novosti on Wednesday. Speaking on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Titov stated that while the process initially started as a political response to Western sanctions against Moscow, it has since evolved and is now based entirely on economics. “Until recently, the process of Russia’s turn to the East was largely due to political reasons, but today everything has changed dramatically… Now we can say with certainty that this turn is irreversible, and it is based not on political, but primarily economic reasons,” the ombudsman said.
Titov claimed that while the Western economy is well-developed, it is already “too heavily invested and sluggish.” “In the East, on the other hand, everything is booming, moving forward rapidly, developing rapidly. And this applies not only to China, India, and Indonesia, but also to many other countries. They are the center of development today, not Europe, our main consumers of energy are there, finally,” the Russian official added. According to Titov, Russian entrepreneurs have already realized that doing business in the East is more lucrative.
“Even if we imagine that we will once again be friends with the West, that they will lift their sanctions, our businesses will not return to the West… It is much more interesting to enter the developing markets of the East and grow together than to remain static in the West,” Titov concluded. Russia has steadily developed ties with countries in the Global East and South in recent years, although the process has greatly accelerated due to the conflict in Ukraine and the ensuing Western sanctions against Moscow. In recent months, Russia has become the top supplier of oil to both China and India, as well as the largest European exporter to China overall.According to a recent survey by the state-owned Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM), 67% of Russians approve of the eastward pivot, with only 11% against it.
“By some estimates, that seabed may contain 1,000 times more rare earth elements than those below dry ground..”
You could call it a race to the bottom, with China leading the charge. In December 2022, that country unveiled its Ocean Drilling Ship, a deep sea mining (DSM) vessel the size of a battle cruiser set to be operational by 2024. Instead of weaponry, however, the ship is equipped with advanced excavation equipment capable of drilling at depths of 32,000 feet. On land, the Chinese already hold a virtual monopoly on metals considered vital to “green” energy development, including cobalt, copper, and lithium. Currently, the Chinese control 60% of the world’s supply of such “green” metals and are now eyeing the abundant resources that exist beneath the ocean’s floor as well. By some estimates, that seabed may contain 1,000 times more rare earth elements than those below dry ground.
It’s difficult to believe that devastating the ocean’s depths in search of minerals for electric batteries and other technologies could offer a sustainable way to fend off climate change. In the process, after all, such undersea mining is likely to have a catastrophic impact, including destroying biodiversity. Right now, it’s impossible to gauge just what sort of damage will be inflicted by such operations, since deep-sea mining is exempt from environmental impact assessments. (How convenient for those who will argue about how crucial they will be to producing a greener, more sustainable future.)
The U.N.’s High Seas Treaty, ratified in March 2023, failed to include environmental rules regulating such practices after China blocked any discussion of a possible moratorium on seabed harvesting. As of 2022, China holds five exploration contracts issued by the U.N.’s International Seabed Authority (ISA), allowing the Chinese to conduct tests and sample contents on the ocean floor. While that U.N. body can divvy up such contracts, they have no power to regulate the industry itself, nor the personnel to do so. This has scientists worried that unfettered deep-sea mining could cause irreparable damage, including killing sea creatures and destroying delicate habitats.
“We’ve only scratched the surface of understanding the deep ocean,” said Dr. Andrew Chin, a scientific adviser to the Australian-based Save Our Seas Foundation. “Science is just starting to appreciate that the deep sea is not an empty void but is brimming with wonderful and unique life forms. Deep sea ecosystems form an interconnected realm with mid and surface waters through the movement of species, energy flows, and currents. Not only will the nodule mining result in the loss of these species and damage deep sea beds for thousands of years, it will potentially result in negative consequences for the rest of the ocean and the people who depend on its health.”
The biographer didn’t understand everything Musk told him. That leads to strange confusion.
Elon Musk gave the US military full control over a “certain amount of Starlink equipment” and can no longer influence how the system is being used to aid Kiev’s war effort, his biographer has unveiled, claiming the tech mogul wished to end his involvement in a scheme that could “cause a nuclear war.” Speaking to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius for an interview published on Wednesday, Musk biographer Walter Isaacson was asked about the billionaire’s decisions regarding Starlink, a constellation of satellites designed to provide global internet access and phone service which has also been used by the Ukrainian military.
Isaacson said Musk had also developed a “military version of the Starlink” dubbed “Starshield,” suggesting that he hoped to pass off the project to the military. “I think that was his way of saying, ‘I got to get out of this. Even I don’t believe I should have this much power,’” the biographer continued. Musk has come under fire over his refusal to help Ukrainian forces attack Moscow’s Black Sea fleet in the Crimean port of Sevastopol – a revelation which only came to light in an excerpt from Isaacson’s biography published last week. The tech billionaire reportedly opted to prevent Kiev from using Starlink to guide naval drone strikes on Russian ships, fearing Russia might use nuclear weapons in retaliation to what he called a “mini-Pearl Harbor.”
While Ukrainian Digital Transformation Minister Mikhail Fedorov purportedly demanded that Musk turn the system back on, he was refused, with Musk explaining that Kiev “is now going too far and inviting strategic defeat” by attacking Crimea. The SpaceX CEO later claimed their services in the region around Crimea were not turned on at the time because his company was not allowed to provide coverage there due to US sanctions against Russia.
“..the reason it was turned off was because the United States has sanctions against Russia, which includes Crimea, and we are not allowed to turn on connectivity to a sanctioned country without explicit permission..”
Note that Musk calls Crimea Russian…
“I don’t know really what their issue is.” That’s how the world’s richest man describes the apparent ‘beef’ that the Biden administration has with him (apart from him calling them on their bullshit and enabling a free-speech platform for others to discuss non-approved narratives). Specifically, Elon Musk told the panel on the ‘All-In’ Podcast Summit yesterday: “…there does seem to be some significant increase in the weaponization of government and really sort of misuse of prosecutorial discretion in many areas… I think this is really a dangerous thing for there to be partisan politics with government agencies.” “Elon, does the Biden administration have it out for you, and why?” All-In host entrepreneur David Sacks asked Musk. “Ha. What ever gave you that idea?” Musk joked.
“I don’t think the whole administration has it out for me,” he added. “But I think there’s probably aspects of the administration… or aspects of interests aligned with President Biden who probably do not wish good things for me.” As a reminder, DOJ and SEC are currently investigating Tesla for allegedly allocating funds to a secret project to build Musk a house – which Musk has denied (and Walter Isaacson’s biography also confirms has been dropped). Additionally SpaceX is being investigated by DOJ for not hiring illegal immigrants (no, seriously). Then there’s the FAA nitpicking over SpaceX approval: “The only thing holding back the second planned Starship at this point is regulatory approval,” signifying that they are only waiting for FAA for their next launch.
Regarding Tesla, Musk focused on the company’s operations in China. He expressed concerns about China’s military capabilities, noting, “there will come a point in the not too distant future where China’s military strength in that region far exceeds America’s.” This point underlined the broader geopolitical considerations he takes into account in his business ventures, which brings us back to Starlink and the recent controversy over Ukraine demanding him enable the satellite web service for an attack on Crimea. Musk made it clear that Walter Isaacson – his biographer – had misunderstood the situation and that the initial decision to not allow access to Starlink around the Crimean border was due to sanctions from the Biden administration.
“Starlink have provided connectivity to Ukraine since the beginning of the war and as the Ukrainian government has said, Starlink was instrumental in the defense of Ukraine – although the media forgets to mention that.” Musk explains that “at the time [the attack] happened, the region around Crimea was turned off… and the reason it was turned off was because the United States has sanctions against Russia, which includes Crimea, and we are not allowed to turn on connectivity to a sanctioned country without explicit permission – which we did not have from the US government.”
Work from home.
The Center for the History of the Russian Diplomatic Service, a Moscow-based museum, proudly guards a mysterious gift that then Secretary of State of the United States Hillary Clinton handed over to her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, during a meeting in Geneva in 2009: a button to be pressed symbolically to reboot the relationship between the two countries. However, the gadget carried the Russian imprint peregruzka The Center for the History of the Russian Diplomatic Service, a Moscow-based museum, proudly guards a mysterious gift that then Secretary of State of the United States Hillary Clinton handed over to her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, during a meeting in Geneva in 2009: a button to be pressed symbolically to reboot the relationship between the two countries.
However, the gadget carried the Russian imprint peregruzka, meaning “overload,” instead of the deceptively similar word perezagruzka, which is the correct translation of “reset.” Likewise, recent transformative changes to the post-pandemic workplace around the globe seem to indicate that the much-touted Great Reset of capitalism increasingly is viewed as a burden too heavy to bear for humankind and an idea soon to be shelved in a virtual cabinet of curiosities. In June 2020, only months after the outbreak of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the World Economic Forum (WEF), in cooperation with the Prince of Wales, started the Great Reset Initiative. Its basic idea was to leverage the fluidity of the dramatic global health crisis to push through lasting fundamental changes to capitalism on a world-wide scale and thus avoid a rerun of the Great Depression.
Thinking about the aftermath of the pandemic, Klaus Schwab, the chief executive officer of the WEF, rejected incremental, ad hoc and stop-gap measures. Instead, he envisioned a systemic revolution, encompassing radical transformations in every country, every aspect of society and economy, and every industry. The seemingly all-inclusive Great Reset Transformation Map, which features several overlapping categories, shows that the vision also includes one aspect of the future of work, that is, redesigning jobs.
To achieve his lofty aspirations, which he described as “unprecedented,” Schwab promulgated the following three broad priorities of a Great Reset agenda, which partially builds on ideas that he had already suggested prior to the pandemic: (1) interventions to achieve fairer market outcomes, (2) investments to reach shared goals such as equality and sustainability, and (3) leveraging the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” for the public good, especially in health care and the social sphere. In a Foreign Affairs article published in 2015, Schwab conceptualized the Fourth Industrial Revolution as a set of radical breakthroughs benefiting humankind, achieved by a convergence of emerging technologies in the physical, digital and biological domains. It follows the preceding three industrial revolutions, which were triggered by mechanical, electrical and digital inventions and innovations respectively.
“The “Muslim threat” was played to such an extent that the Attorney General said, “we need every tool available to us,” by which he meant getting rid of the US Constitution.”
In response to 9/11, Republican Attorney General John Ashcroft told an obedient Congress on a Wednesday to have a sweeping expansion of executive power and dramatic curtailment of American’s civil rights ready in bill form by the end of the week. As Matt Taibbi reminds us, “Congress quickly delivered with ‘roving’ wiretaps, warrantless searches, ‘trap and trace’ searches, law enforcement and intelligence access to grand jury information, use of FISA monitoring for non-foreign situations, reduction or elimination of predicate requirements for FBI investigations, and elimination of judicial review for most of these activities, among many other things in the USA PATRIOT Act. It all passed on October 26th.”
These measures had nothing whatsoever to do with fighting Muslim terror. To the contrary, these measures gave the government the power to terrorize Americans. Try to name Muslim terror attacks on America other than, if you believe the official narrative, 9/11. You can’t, because there aren’t any. Terror attacks on America were so non-existent that the FBI had to search for confused people and groups, convince them, enhanced with monetary bribes, to adopt a FBI prepared terror attack, and then arrest them before the attack could be attempted. The FBI always explained that “the public was never in danger” as control of the operation was in FBI’s hands. But the public is very much in danger from the police state measures that Taibbi lists. “Muslim terror” was so conspicuous by its absence that Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano announced that Homeland Security was being refocused on domestic American “extremists,” which has come to mean Trump supporters against whom the US government is deploying the police state measures.
The first part of the “war on terror” was against Americans’ civil liberties. The second part of the war was on Israel’s opponents in the Middle East. In the case of Iraq and Libya entire countries were destroyed, millions killed and maimed, and displaced to Europe and the US with the strange result of importing Muslims who were said to be terrorists into the Homeland. Ask yourself how Americans managed to fall for the propaganda that the US was under widespread attack from Muslims. The “Muslim threat” was played to such an extent that the Attorney General said, “we need every tool available to us,” by which he meant getting rid of the US Constitution.
The foundation of the American police state was established on the basis of only one attack, 9/11, falsely attributed to Muslims. If the Muslims were really capable of outwitting the entirety of the US national security apparatus, why did they stop with the WTC? With such glorious success, why did they not continue? Why instead did the FBI have to create fake terror events in order to keep the public believing we were under attack? Notice how we are always “under attack.” If it is not Muslims, it is Covid, or Donald Trump.
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.