The Upcoming Putin-Biden Summit Means Russia’s New Hypersonic Nukes Have Finally Gotten Washington ’s Attention

via: Gilbert Doctorow

In the past several days, ever since a firm date and location were announced for a summit between the US and Russian presidents, 16 June in Geneva, American political scientists and journalists have been working overtime to fill newspaper columns and broadcast time with speculation on what should, what could be the agenda for such a meeting. As we all know, meetings of heads of state must be programmed in detail in advance to succeed.

We have heard, read that possible agenda items will include global hot spots such as Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine as well as the management of the Covid pandemic and implementation of the Paris agreement on cutting greenhouse emissions, among others.

Indeed, the foregoing discussion points are “highly likely” to receive attention of the principals and of the task forces in their suites. We may even see some agreements reached on common positions when the leaders present their conclusions at the press conference following their talks. However, this type of discussion leapfrogs over the question which analysts should be asking first: why exactly has the Biden administration moved so quickly to schedule a face to face meeting with Vladimir Putin, whom the American president, as a leader of the Democratic Party, had vilified for the whole of the Trump years in office. Biden was one of those who insisted that the Russians had intervened in the 2016 presidential elections to do dirt on Hilary Clinton and help elect Donald. He believed the Russians were guilty of the Novichok poisoning of the Skripals in English Salisbury in 2018. In his programmatic policy article published by Foreign Affairs magazine at the start of the presidential race early in 2020, he detailed how the Russians had pursued malign policies in Syria and elsewhere.

Most recently, Biden was in line with fellow Democrats in condemning the Russian imprisonment of opposition activist Alexei Navalny. In short, the Democrats, and Biden at their helm, had made Russia into the great villain behind most every development domestically or internationally harmful to American interests. The culmination was Biden’s confirmation a little more than a month ago to a television reporter that Putin “is a killer.”

So why is Joe Biden pressing ahead with a meeting so early in his tenure in office? We are told that the objective is to achieve “greater stability” in bilateral relations. But I have not heard from our commentators what stability is to be addressed. In the brief essay which follows, I will attempt to fill that void. In doing so, I will ignore all the aforementioned agenda items, which I consider to be little more than a distraction to draw public attention away from the essence of the forthcoming meeting, from what is driving the American side since it is simply too embarrassing for hubristic American elites to swallow this truth.

In my reductionist approach, the summit has one driver behind it, namely to put a cap on an arms race that the United States is losing, if it has not already irrevocably lost, and to prevent the adverse shift in the strategic balance against America from getting still worse.

The side benefit would be to strike down planned military expenditures budgeted for well over a trillion dollars to modernize the nuclear triad alone. This would thereby free funds for the massive infrastructure investments that Biden is presently trying to push through Congress.

In saying this, I am not guessing or engaging in wishful thinking. I am basing myself on facts that go back to March 2018. These facts are not being marshalled today by my peers, firstly because foreign policy commentators in the public domain tend not to have memories that go back more than a month or two, and secondly because the facts themselves were officially suppressed at the time and never appeared in the mainstream media. What publication there was occurred in the so-called alternative media, by the efforts of myself and a few other contrarians, as I will detail below.

The events I am alluding to relate to the dramatic disclosure of Russia’s latest cutting edge strategic weapons systems by Vladimir Putin in the last third of his lengthy address to Russia’s joint session of its bicameral legislature, what we commonly call his State of the Nation address. Putin described in detail the operational capabilities of new systems that were ready for release to the active military forces or were far advanced in the testing and production pipeline. These included hypersonic missiles flying at Mach 10 and more. He claimed that the new weapons systems marked the first time in history that Russia had moved ahead of the West in innovative, unparalleled performance of its arms, whereas in the Soviet past, from the end of the Second World War and advent of the nuclear age, they had always been playing catch-up. Moreover, he insisted that the new weapons systems signified the restoration of strategic parity with the United States.

Since the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty in 2002 under George Bush, US policy had aimed at enabling a first strike knocking out Russian ICBMs and then rendering useless Russia’s residual nuclear forces which could be shot out of the air by U.S. anti-ballistic missile systems. Russia’s new, maneuverable and ultra-high speed missiles could evade all known ABMs. According to Putin’s text in March 2018, the new Russian strategic arms relegated the hundreds of billions that the Americans had invested in achieving superiority to the status of a modern day Maginot Line. Whatever Washington could throw at Russia, the residual Russian forces would penetrate American defenses and wreak havoc on the American homeland.

In the days following this “shock and awe” speech, the mainstream U.S. media reacted to Putin’s claims with incredulity. The notion that his relatively poor country could move ahead of the United States in strategic weapons, working from a budget 10 times less, seemed improbable to many. Moreover, skeptics pointed to the context of Putin’s speech, which was in effect his electoral platform for the presidential elections later in the same month. They argued that his grand show before parliament was for domestic consumption, to defend himself against Russia’s Liberals, who had made corruption and theft of state assets their battering ram and who argued, like Yabloko candidate Grigory Yavlinsky, that the country could never be a military match for the West given its low GDP and manufacturing industry.

However, in official Washington, and surely inside the Pentagon, there were those who did not let ubiquitous arrogance and supposed exceptionalism blind them to the facts Putin had produced. If his presentation were a bluff, it would put in jeopardy tens of millions of his compatriots and it was out of character for a leader who had always been restrained and consequential. Among those who were alarmed by Putin’s roll-out of the technical capabilities now possessed by the Russians were four U.S. Senators, three of them full-fledged Democrats and one Independent who otherwise ran as a Democrat when he sought the presidency. The two Senators I call particular attention to here were Dianne Feinstein of California and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the nominal Independent.

I mention Sanders, because he was one of the more visible Putin-bashers among the Democratic Party leadership when he ran for the presidency in party primaries. Feinstein is notable because at the time she was one of the longest serving members of the Senate Intelligence Committee where, from 2009 to 2015, she was the chair. Therefore, we may well assume that what Putin revealed at the start of March 2018 had not figured in the assessments of Russian military might by the whole U.S. intelligence establishment. This was an enormous intelligence failure, but it was not unique as regards U.S. understanding of Russia in those years. Time after time, the Americans had found themselves clueless about Russian demarches, including, for example, the Kremlin’s military intervention in the Syrian civil war in 2015, the establishment of its joint intelligence command with Baghdad, its receiving overflight rights of Iran and Iraq to carry on its mission in Syria. These “surprises” had come despite the presence of thousands of U.S. intelligence officers in Iraq.

In an open letter to then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson published on the Senate website of one of the four signatories, Senator Jeff Merkey (D- Oregon) these four Democratic Senators called upon him to immediately enter into arms control negotiations with the Russians, notwithstanding all of the differences with the Russians in so many other domains.

I quote from the opening paragraphs:

“We write to urge the State Department to convene the next U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue as soon as possible. A U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue is more urgent following President Putin’s public address on March 1st when he referred to several new nuclear weapons Russia is reportedly developing including a cruise missile and a nuclear underwater drone, which are not currently limited by the New START treaty, and would be destabilizing if deployed.”

Specifically, they proposed that the new Russian weapons systems be brought into the SALT treaty, which they urged him to extend. This would ensure strategic stability.

I quote from their closing paragraph:

“There is no guarantee that we can make progress with Russia on these issues. However, even at the height of Cold War tensions, the United States and the Soviet Union were able to engage on matters of strategic stability. Leaders from both countries believed, as we should today, that the incredible destructive force of nuclear weapons is reason enough to make any and all efforts to lessen the chance that they can never be used again.”

This letter by four U.S. Senators published on the Senate website of one was picked up by the agency RIA Novosti, RBK and Tass within hours of initial posting, from where it went into mainstream Russian news. However, mainstream U.S. and other Western media did not give a single line of coverage to it and it disappeared in days as if down a black hole.

However, all traces of nervousness in official Washington did not end there. Later in the month, following the victory of Vladimir Putin in the elections which took place on the 18th , The New York Times carried on page one a report of Donald Trump’s remarks about his phone call to congratulate his Russian counterpart:

“We had a very good call,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “We will probably be meeting in the not-to-distant future to discuss the arms race, which is getting out of control.”

Yet, even the words of a president led to nothing, and the issue of Russia’s possibly having achieved strategic parity with the United States and reinstated Mutually Assured Destruction was left without public discussion in Washington. The President called for and Congress reacted positively to raising the defense budget and in particular to funding a massively expensive modernization of the country’s nuclear weapons potential.

A year later, in his February 2019 State of the Nation address Vladimir Putin returned to the question of Russia’s new strategic arms and what they meant for bilateral relations with the United States. As he said explicitly now, the country’s new hypersonic weapon systems would enable Russia to reach targeted American cities within the same 10-12 minutes that the Americans would enjoy by lobbing their slower missiles at Moscow from perches in Poland and Romania. Still the United States did not react. America was very busy with its domestic political wars.

In 2020, Russia, the United States and the world at large were wholly absorbed in dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic. However, in 2021 the Kremlin has repeatedly called attention to those of its most advanced weapons that are now integrated into its armed forces and are fully operational. As Vladimir Putin remarked in an address to one professional organization a week ago that was covered extensively on state television’s evening news, the firings of its newest missiles have been followed closely by American intelligence. With more than a dollop of contempt for American pigheaded self-indulgence and denial of reality, Putin said that the Russians stood ready to share their telemetric recordings with the United States so that they could see better what they were now up against.

The caustic disdain for Russia’s ill-wishers implicit in that statement is fully symptomatic of the latest hard line that we see in Russian foreign policy ever since Biden assumed the presidency. Putin is not coddling Joe the way he did Donald. The Kremlin has no illusions about the Cold War mentality of its American and of its European adversaries, and it is responding in kind. This pertains to diplomatic expulsions, to economic and personal sanctions, to whatever slings and arrows come its way.

In recent weeks, we have seen how every affront to Russian national pride and to international diplomatic norms has been met by a Russian response that went one step further against “unfriendly states,” of which the United States is now listed officially.

In this highly charged atmosphere, we may assume that sober reports on Russian military capabilities have been fed to the President by senior Pentagon officials. While politicians have engaged in their blather, for many weeks these military men in the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been engaging their counterpart in the Russian military establishment, General Gerasimov, to keep the peace, avoid misunderstandings where U.S. and Russian forces act in close proximity and to maintain “stability.” It is a safe bet that their concerns are what is driving the agenda for the summit, and it is a safe bet that the Biden-Putin meeting will end in some agreement on procedures for negotiating a broader and deeper arms control treaty. Whatever else happens at the summit in Geneva will be cherries on the cake.

Dr. Fleming: Covid-19, Undisputably a US Bioweapon


This video interview with Richard Fleming PhD., MD., JD. to be extremely understandable and informative. He backs up everything he says with pdfs of papers and support documents on his “published research” page: https://www.flemingmethod.com/documentation.

He covers the following at various time points during the 45min interview, released on 05/13/21:

~5:30 min: Notes the acknowledgment in 2015 Baric, Shi et al. Nature Medicine lab manipulation study of circulating Sars-like bat viruses: Cites partial funding of work by USAID-EPT-PREDICT (this a CIA-controlled entity housed within the NIH, according to Fleming).

~11 min : DoD gave Daszak $39M…”and DoD doesn’t work with the Girls Scouts…”

~18:00- 21:00: Discussion on the Sars Cov2 spike protein viral RNA isolation process and how in Flemings view how the ID of the novel virus satisfies Koch’s Postulate.

Fleming points out unusual/unnatural[?] inserts found in the Cov2 kviral RNA sequence: a self-amplifying mRNA sequence coding for a replicase inserted right before the the spike protein coding sequence; causes many copies of the spike protein to made once virus enters the host cell.

Spike protein has at least 3 unusual inserts not found together in related natural CVs:

1. HIV Pseudovirus glycoprotein glp 120 isert

2. PRRA insert furin cleavage site

3. Prion-like domain at RBS (ACE2 receptor binding site)

~22:30-> Fleming refers to the 60+ pubs listed on his site supporting this picture of the CoV2 spike properties.

Fleming notes that in early 2020 Indian scientists e-published a preprint showing they had found an unusual HIV-like glp120 insert sequence in the SARS 2 spike protein RNA, but this paper was quickly suppressed (‘whitewashed’”) and was not accepted for journal publication.

Fleming points out both the PRRA insert and the HIV-like glyp 120 insert were patented and USG is listed among the patent holders.

Regarding the novel prion-like domain insert in the spike protein coding RNA, Fleming notes two two studies where humanized ACE2 bearing mice were intranasally/intravenously administered Cov2 virions and or Cov2 spike protein subunits [?], and with 2 weeks postinfection 95% of animals died. Postmortem brain pathology slides showed swiss-cheese spongiosis remeniscent of the pathology seen in victims of fatal prion diesease spongiform encephalopathies.

Fleming documentation Ref #28 (lines 315-318): Fatal neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 in K18-hACE2 mice is partially dependent on 2 hACE2 expression  (jan 15 2021): https://21a86421-c3e0-461b-83c2-cfe4628dfadc.filesusr.com/ugd/659775_bf0fc4d9f5f0481a92902d6c1bcf0b1f.pdf (55+ pgs)

Ref#34: Neuroinvasion and Encephalitis Following Intranasal
Inoculation of SARS-CoV-2 in K18-hACE2 Mice
Jan 21,2021: https://21a86421-c3e0-461b-83c2-cfe4628dfadc.filesusr.com/ugd/659775_da4aef19e945411d83f1730a3b92ff0a.pdf (12 pgs)

Also see Fleming Ref#23: The S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 crosses the
blood–brain barrier in mice:
https://21a86421-c3e0-461b-83c2-cfe4628dfadc.filesusr.com/ugd/659775_3c8c7363fd804ab083ae8608e47f240d.pdf (21 pgs). 

The simple fact that China owns none of the major vaccine manufacturers, who oddly had coronavirus vaccines READY TO GO, should be a sign that China didn’t “release a deadly virus”.

Add that to the fact the “covid” inexplicably tore through the Iranian political class, a country neither hostile to nor geographically near China, is another hole in the narrative. (I think we all know who Iran’s true foes are.)

Also the bizarre coincidence that covid arrived on the scene around the same time as China delivered its first load of goods to Europe by rail, courtesy of the Belt and Road, is noteable. China has already won the economic war. Why would it need to start a biological one?

Trump Phenomenon

by Francis Miville

No, Trump would have lost anyway, even though that would have demanded more efforts from the adverse party and required more promises for centre-left New Deal style measures : the hard fact, established since beginning 2019, was that the rate of satisfaction for the Trump government was stubbornly refusing to climb beyond a 45% ceiling and this according to all opinion studies, including those conducted by Trump’s advisers themselves as well as by foreign powers such as Russia, though Trump’s grip on a certain clientele of adorers was also proved more solid than ever by the same studies.

The main reason alleged by those conducting those studies was the repoliticisation of the American opinion to levels unknown since the 1960-70’s. Trump’s nearly 50% rate of approval in 2016 could only be concomitant with a peak in cynicism resulting in normally left opinions refusing to commit themselves.

A second factor less important is that Trump, though his base had grown in absolute numbers of committed partisans, had lost a small but key part of his electorate composing 7% of his 2016 percentage, the dissident anti-zionist right who then clearly saw that Trump was Netanyahu’s alter ego, as well as traditionally democratic rustbelt voters that had tried Trump to express their rage at the DNC but were very decided to repeat the experiment and now believe only in 1960’s style insurrections to pressure the DNC. Trump had on the other hand gained more attachment among traditional Republicans who vote Republican to be on the side of money and of the love of money as expressed by Christian Zionists, but that attachment to his person on the part of cuckservatives could only fail to translate into greater numbers : after all the Republicans still remained a party vindicating the cause of (non-tech, non-brainy) big business versus labour despite a certain number of workers joining their militant ranks.

All what Trump mainly succeeded to do was to transform an electorate composed of 75% money huggers and Jew-adorers (as representatives of money) into adorers of his person, as a mirror image of those stalinist leaders who regularly succeed in transforming militant workers and union marchers into parishioners of the new cult no longer caring for their own interests. Anyway both the Republican Party and Trump’s mainstay was some art of making stupid people vote against their interests. 45 could thus not go beyond 45%.

He rather could have if he had really shown concern (albeit a purely Hollywood-style, theatrical one) for the sick right at the beginning of the pandemic and for instance never failed to show up in hospitals or street clinics to demonstrate compassion while attacking China and suspecting France of having engineered the disease, instead of golfing and ever more golfing, but Trump clearly refused to take that avenue.

The pandemic did not prevent Trump from winning : it offered him a providential opportunity to win after all, but he did everything to bungle it in as many ways as possible first by denying its existence, then by refusing to invest ressources, then by trusting only big Pharma to produce vaccines : Trump combined the worst of all positions, due to a fault of character of his own, showing that he never gave a damn. Trump really could have divided by 2 or 3 the number of deaths under his guard and place America ahead of Canada , Britain and France in sick care, but he clearly didn’t care and made no efforts to conceal it by showing off Dr. Welby on the screens.

Trump’s real intention was not to win but to gain adorers and since he clearly showed much obedience to Netanyahu and other Zionists who on the other hand had decided that one mandate was enough for him this means every went on perfectly according to the role he had pledged to play, that is to say leading his voter base he clearly despises into economic ruin and planned political defeat.

On the Scamdemic – Well Said

by HorriblyDepressed

So your case is (apparently) that it is simpler to believe that practically every government in the world is in cahoots in manufacturing a fake death toll and fake infection case numbers, than it is to believe in a virus?

It really isn’t that complicated. Our government is clearly up to no good, because people who should (and probably do) know better (like the CDC) are saying things – many things – that are demonstrably false. And everyone is singing from the same hymnal: every Western government and every mainstream news organization. So, we know that the “Narrative” is a big, fat lie. Given that the Narrative is a lie, this leaves us with two likely possibilities:

One possibility is that COVID-19 is a new, man-made, mildly dangerous, but highly contagious virus. It was designed somewhere in the West (probably the United States or Canada). It was released in Wuhan (a major transportation hub in China) and timed to reach peak reproduction rates just before the Chinese New Year when most of the country is travelling somewhere (like Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday travel in the United States all rolled into one). The virus was created to promote an agenda of global surveillance and control, but releasing it in China had some secondary benefits:

A: It might damage China’s economy. China’s economic power has become something of a Frankenstein’s monster to our global elite: a Golem, as the Jews would say. If the virus could take them down a peg or two, that would be helpful.

B: It could also damage China’s international reputation. If the virus arose naturally from the wet-markets, then it makes the Chinese look unsanitary. If the virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, that makes the Chinese look incompetent, sinister or both.

C: Releasing the virus in China provides multiple levels of plausible deniability. “The virus came from China. No matter what the story is, it is China’s fault, somehow.”

So, that is one possible origin for the great crisis of 2020: a designer virus plus a massive, coordinated campaign of propaganda and psychological warfare. However, as Some people point out, perhaps a designer virus was not needed. Perhaps the massive, coordinated campaign of propaganda and psychological warfare was sufficient. In that case there was no virus, or at least there was no man-made virus. As is well known, coronaviruses are extremely common. Both the common cold and the flu can be caused by coronaviruses. Several new variants of the flu arise every year. The annual flu vaccine is a cocktail of vaccines designed to fight the variants deemed most likely to be threatening that year. (Two variants is typical, if I recall correctly, and I believe the flu jab for 2019 contained vaccines for three variants.) So, in that case, the same-old same-old was repackaged and presented as something novel, sinister and threatening.

Either scenario could be true, but the first scenario requires a designer virus plus a massive PR campaign, while the second scenario requires only the massive PR campaign. Unless there is a compelling reason to believe the designer virus exists (and the say-so of media whores and bureaucrats is not compelling), then the second scenario seems more likely. That’s Occam’s Razor.

Yes, Fauci is a mouthpiece. Yes, he is creepy. He looks like a sleazy perv who might prey on little girls (or boys). Who knows? He might be a fraud, but for all I know, that smug, stupid expression on his face might be an act. He might be an evil genius.

However, the emails of his that I have seen reveal nothing startling.

One email says that masks don’t protect you from viruses floating in the air, because the viruses are much smaller than the gaps between the fibers in the mask. That is true. It is also what he (and everyone else) was saying publicly when that email was sent. Later, everyone backtracked and said that wearing masks was vitally necessary. (That second statement is a lie. Cheap paper or fabric masks do not protect you from viruses just as they do not protect you from nerve gas, and for the same reason: the barely visible gaps between the fibers are way larger than the invisible viruses/gas molecules.)

The other email thanks Dr. Fauci for saying that the virus came from bats. That is, indeed, what he was saying publicly at the time. Moreover that was the Official Narrative at the time and remained so until quite recently. All these emails reveal is that Dr. Fauci changed his position on these issues. None of that, however, is a startling revelation, because he publicly changed his positions. These emails do not reveal Dr. Fauci saying one thing in private and a different thing in public.

He is still a creepy, pervy, contemptible mouthpiece, but the emails are a giant red herring to distract you from more important issues.

For what it’s worth, this is the technique that mostly prevented Donald Trump from accomplishing anything in office. They throw up a veritable blizzard of irrelevant bullshit. If you let them distract you into arguing about their irrelevant bullshit, in no time at all you will have forgotten what it is you were originally trying to do or say.

This is how you start out trying to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and end up spending the day trying to convince your enemies that you aren’t racist.

The Fauci Files, The WuFlu and the War to Come

Fauci
by Tom Luongo

Isn’t is amazing how quickly things seem to change when it’s in the interest of those that think they run the world? For years we’ve been trying to get access to Hillary Clinton’s missing e-mails as Secretary of State but to no avail. However, at the most opportune time in the collapsing COVID story, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails are uncovered and broadcast to the world.

The same mechanism, FOIA, that Hillary has stonewalled us on for six years uncovers Fauci’s emails in six weeks?

Doesn’t that strike you as just the slightest bit odd?

Fauci was the hero bureaucrat facing down the evil and ignorant President Trump over COVID-19. He became a national celebrity playing down treatments like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, flip-flopped on wearing masks and running cover for a corrupt WHO/CDC while whitewashing his own involvement in COVID’s origin.

For all intents and purposes this lying, evil, Janus-faced troll set policy for the entire country.

And from the moment anyone broke a story about the origins of COVID-19, the damage control began behind the scenes and the public shaming and deplatforming began.

And democrats of all stripes cheered him on, simply because he came with the right credentials and an antipathy to Trump.

As the face of the the scientific establishment, he terrorized millions into submission of Americans using fear over a virus not much more deadly than the annual flu. His constant changing the goalposts on ending lockdowns and spread prevention guidelines while needing to remain in front of the narrative kept people crazy with imaginary death statistics, fraudulent models and overwrought case counts while elevating the prevention principle beloved by state-worshipping Boomers and their younger ‘adjacents’ to its most ludicrous extreme.

Because of him we became a nation even more divided than before the Coronapocalypse, which is clear he was an integral part of the operation. Thanks to Fauci the mask became a symbol of virtue for shitlibs and your unadorned face their symbol of evil.

I predicted this would happen in the early months of COVID. I demanded that#FireFauci be the ‘Rallying Cry for a Generation.”

For more than a year we had to suffer this man who:

… never seems to approve or green light treatments that do that {advocate for stronger immune systems}. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking cancer, AIDS, or COVID-19, the man is a walking death sentence. He’s the very essence of regulatory capture and prima facia evidence that power and corruption go together like peanut butter and jelly.

If you squint hard enough he really does look like Gollum.

If there is one thing that this pandemic has exposed, along with the concomitant economic dislocation it is that ‘experts’ better run for cover.

For more than a year we’ve had to suffer insufferable shitlibs (but I repeat myself) telling us to ‘respect the science.’ Well, their high priest of scientism just got caught saying one thing in private and telling them the exact opposite in public, validating everything those dirty spreader Republicans, anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers told them.

Moveover, from the beginning this thing was an operation designed to do exactly what it has done — leave people in love with their mask which makes them sick, genuflecting to Big Brother and doubling down on their paranoia simply because they are too ashamed to admit to themselves (no less those evil MAGA folks) that they were duped by yet another bad script from the House that Klaus Built.

Because Fauci, like all the other so-called experts paraded in front of us for the past year are nothing more than political operatives told to just keep the narrative alive for as long as possible. He’s now being sacrificed alongside Bill Gates and the other hired help like Andrew Cuomo and Gretchen Whitmer while also securing a multi-million dollar book deal as his gold watch for a job well done.

The question I have now for all those terrorized and radicalized into frothing brain-eating zombies will some of them finally wake up from the real virus they succumbed to, the mind virus of government propaganda, and have the kind of memetic collapse which brings them back from the brink of literal insanity?

Or will they simply pivot to the latest deflection of blame from Fauci’s Davosmasters and fall for the simple version of the story, that it was China alone that set COVID-19 on us as a bioterror weapon. Because without this controlling idea and the constant threat of the fake bogeyman of the Omnipotent Russian Secret Agent, who is now being blamed for the JBS cyberattack, how else will they continue doomscrolling through their Twitter feed simping for Rachel Maddow’s quivering Adam’s apple and still be able to scream into their cameras on TikTok?

This is the real problem I see in front of us. That narrative is here now, building on years of propaganda to gin up a war with China. Now, don’t take what I’m about to say as any kind of apologia for China’s involvement in the COVID-19 scam. There is plenty of blame to lay at their feat.

But don’t you think it’s a little convenient to all of a sudden flip the script about COVID on its head overnight in order to spoon feed the Left the new bogeyman, China? Trump did a fine job of this while in office, blaming China for everything and whipping his base into an anti-China frenzy.

However, when Trump was in power and he called it the China Virus, Maddow’s Army was all aTwitter with opprobrium for him and his racism and blamed him for deaths literally caused by Fauci, Gates, Whitmer and Cuomo.

“China was a victim too.” “Trump listen to the SCIENCE!” Blah blah blah.

But the science was wrong and we now know it was all just politics.

Now within the last couple of weeks we have a coherent narrative form around both Bill Gates and Dr. Death that it was, most likely, a man-made virus funded by U.S. taxpayers and visited upon us by the evil CCP while we all huddled in our homes hoping the Angel of Death would pass over us.

This new narrative along with putting all the blame on Fauci and Gates creates the perfect deflection away from Davos who were the ones capitalizing on this, if not behind the whole thing. If you think I’m running out of tin foil spinning out this tale stop and think for just one second and ask the only question that ever matters in matters like these… Cui bono?

Who benefits?

Because if there is one thing that could unite Americans at this point it would be turning on China for having ‘done this to us!’

MAGAtards and Shitlibs, marching down the streets of Atlanta singing the Battle Hymn of the Dying Republic, holding hands (well, okay, bumping elbows) and ratcheting up the belligerence until something dumb happens, like re-electing Trump in 2024.

Who benefits from China and the U.S. at each other’s throats? Who benefits from a collapse of the global economy as trade embargoes proliferate? Who benefits from conflicts in the South China Sea? Taiwan? Hong Kong? Los Angeles? Ukraine? Belarus? Israel? Who benefits from the cyberattacks on our infrastructure, the closing of our pipelines? The Freezing of Texas? Who? Really? China?

No. China loves selling us their stuff. Who actually created the policies which hollowed out our manufacturing, domestic production, turned us into fake-money addicted YouPorners and gender fluid deracinated children? It wasn’t China.

I’ll tell you who benefits. The European Union and Davos.

Why else do you think The Davos Crowd worked so hard to get Biden installed as president? Control of the U.S. military is the main reason. This is why Biden is pulling back from the Middle East. It’s why he’s leaving Israel out to hang while renegotiating the JCPOA. If you want to set yourself up as the next great power how else are you going to do that without fomenting a war between those bigger than you?

Who do you really think controls our courts? Who bought all all of those insane Attorneys General and Secretaries of State? Who actually is actually fighting the election fraud cases? China? Really? If you believe that then I suggest therapy.

And the saddest part is that most people won’t see this coming and we’ll stumble blindly into it as we take our political revenge for Davos’ and China’s dirty deeds in the 2020 election and beyond. At this point there’s no scenario I see that doesn’t have the Republicans return to power in 2022, controlling both the Senate and the House, especially if Democratic opposition to these election audits crumbles.

That’ll happen later this year after the German elections, and just in time for the beginning of the mid-term primary season to begin.

The 2022 mid-terms are shaping up now to be a referendum on the events since the world broke in March 2020. By then the vandals in the White House will have done enough damage that the stage will be set for the final act of this pathetic psychodrama.

The next shift is for the U.S. to redeploy assets away from Central Asia, cede that area to the inevitability of the Russia/China/Iran alliance and the final nail in the coffin of Halford Mackinder inspired Heartland geopolitics. Those assets will be needed for what comes next.

Europe can’t stop the flow of oil globally but it can certainly cripple the U.S. with multiple assaults by foreign powers to weaken it from within. Pipelines shut down, ‘cyberattacks’ on our food and energy production, election integrity destroyed, courts fully politicized, tech corporations turned into behavioral thought police and people fleeing the insanity of cities intentionally allowed to turn into dystopian nightmares that play like a pastiche of a Philip K. Dick novel and a John Carpenter movie.

Let’s call it “Escape of the Electric Sheep from New York”

The Steve Bannonites still want to call him China Joe, but Joe isn’t owned by China, he’s owned by Davos. That conclusion fits the data better.

Because China would never throw Fauci under the bus like this, it doesn’t serve their purpose. China’s MO has always been to suppress criticism of it. They are very predictable that way. Gates didn’t work for China, he worked for Davos. Davos is cleaning out “The Help” and there’s no one for China to negotiate with the U.S. to stop this nonsense.

This is why there’s been such overt diplomatic incompetence since Biden took office. Do you think these provocations of China over Taiwan or the Uyghurs, as amateurish as the are hypocritical, were just gaffes? Really?

Is that air you think you’re breathing?

No, the point here is to cut off any possibility of rapprochement, to permanently sour relations between China (and Russia) and the West. Joe’s going to go to Geneva in two weeks to try and neutralize Putin and buy him off with gas into Europe while turning his focus away from Russia to China. Hopefully it won’t work. Hopefully Putin is too savvy to see what’s happening.

Just wait until Biden and Obama no longer serve their purpose. They’ll be served up like chum to the justified anger of the conservatives who will seek someone to blame. All the while both sides of the political aisle will be united for the first time in trying to ‘get our country back.’

So while I’ve described the benefits to Europe and Davos for this. I haven’t given you the reason why Davos is throwing China under the same bus it’s throwing Gates and Fauci. Simple. It goes back to this year’s virtual Davos summit where Xi gave lip service to the Green New Deal and the Great Reset and Putin told Schwab, politely but firmly to go fuck himself.

So now China has to be neutralized in the longer term by hopefully getting into a war with the U.S. neither wins but cripples both. How else are you going to attract global capital to the economic wasteland that is modern Europe?

I’m not saying this truly insane and megalomaniacal plan will work, I’m just calling it out the way I see it.

I’m happy to hear some other version of these events, but this story makes sense because it truly encapsulates the mindset of those who are they are willing to burn the world to the ground rather than lose their status. That’s the real war we’re fighting, not some Great Powers game of the last century which is the last war, the ones politicians and generals are fantastic at preparing us to fight.

And we all know how well that goes.

Why Is There Such Reluctance To Discuss Natural Immunity?

Authored by Jon Sanders via The American Institute for Economic Research,

If you’re among those of us who aren’t tribally invested in Covid politics but would like good information about when life will resume as normal, chances are you’re interested in herd immunity. You’re likely not interested in having to rely on the Internet Archive for good information on herd immunity. Alas, it’s become a go-to place for retrieving, as it were, previously published information on herd immunity that became inconvenient post-vaccine and then virtually Memory-Holed.

Over the past 15 months, the litany of Experts’ True Facts and Science regarding various aspects of SARS-CoV-2 has changed more often than the starting lineup of a bad minor league ball club. Covid-19 is spread by droplets, especially from asymptomatic people, until one day it was airborne all along and people who weren’t sick in all likelihood weren’t even sick. Stay at home, you’re safer indoors, even stay away from parks and beaches; well, actually, outdoors is the place to be. Masks don’t work against viruses and are actually unhealthy to wear if you’re not sick, then suddenly they did work and without one you might as well be shooting people. Everyone knows and PolitiFact verified that the virus couldn’t have been created in the prominent infectious disease lab doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in bats coincidentally at Covid Ground Zero until, one day, PolitiFact had to retract the entire “Pants on Fire!” article. And so forth.

Unfortunately, information about herd immunity has also not been immune to this kind of meddling. Until recent months, people readily understood that active immunity came about either by natural immunity or vaccine-induced immunity. Natural immunity comes from battling and defeating an actual infection, then having your immune system primed for the rest of your life to fight it off if it ever shows up again. This immunity is achieved at a sometimes very high personal price.

Vaccine-induced immunity is to prime your immune system with a weaker, non-threatening form of the invading infection, so that it’s ready to fight off the real thing should you ever encounter it, and without your having first to risk severe illness or death.

Those interested in herd immunity in itself likely don’t have a moral or political preference for one form of immunity to the exclusion of the other. Immunity is immunity, regardless of whether a particular person has it naturally or by a vaccine. All immunity contributes to herd immunity.

Others, however, are much less circumspect. They seem to have forgotten the ultimate goal of the public campaign for people to receive vaccination against Covid-19. It’s not to be vaccinated; it’s to have immunity. People with natural immunity — i.e., people whose immune systems have faced Covid-19 and won — don’t need a vaccine.

They do, however, need to be considered in any good-faith discussion of herd immunity. There are two prongs to herd immunity, as we used to all know, and those with natural immunity are the prong that’s being ignored. It’s not just mere oversight, however. Fostering such ignorance can lead to several bad outcomes:

  • People with natural immunity could be kept from employment, education, travel, normal commerce, and who knows what other things if they don’t submit to a vaccine they don’t need in order to fulfill a head count that confuses a means with the end
  • The nation could already be at herd immunity while governors and health bureaucrats continue to exert extreme emergency powers, harming people’s liberties and livelihoods
  • People already terrified of Covid — including especially those who’ve already had it — would continue to live in fear, avoiding human interaction and worrying beyond all reason
  • People could come to distrust even sound advice from experts about important matters, as they witness and grow to expect how what “the experts” counsel diverges from what they know to be wise counsel while it conforms to and amplifies the temporary needs of the political class

Those of us wanting good information certainly don’t want any of those outcomes. But others seem perfectly fine to risk them. They include not only elected officials, members of the media, political talking heads, self-important bureaucrats, and their wide-eyed acolytes harassing shoppers, but strangely also highly prominent health organizations.

For example, late last year Jeffrey Tucker showed that the World Health Organization (WHO) suddenly, and “for reasons unknown,” changed its definition of “herd immunity.” Using screenshots from a cached version on the Internet Archive, Tucker showed how the WHO altered its definition in such a way as to erase completely the role of natural immunity. Before, the WHO rightly said it “happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” The WHO’s change stated that it happens “if a threshold of vaccination is reached.” Not long after Tucker’s piece appeared, the WHO restored natural immunity to its definition.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seemingly apropos of nothing, on May 19 issued a “safety communication” to warn that FDA-authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests “should not be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time.” The FDA’s concern appears to be that taking an antibody test too soon after receiving a vaccination may fail to show vaccine-induced antibodies, but why preclude its use for “identifying people with an adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 from a recent or prior infection?” Especially after stating outright that “Antibody tests can play an important role in identifying individuals who may have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and may have developed an adaptive immune response.”

Then there is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, that ubiquitous font of fatuous guidance. He had told people that herd immunity would be at 60 to 70 percent immunity, and then he started publicly cinching those numbers up: 75 percent, 80 percent, 85 percent, even 90 percent (as if Covid-19 were as infectious as measles). He is quoted in the New York Times admitting to doing so deliberately to affect people’s behavior:

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.

Now — or better put, as of this writing — Fauci has taken to arguing herd immunity is a “mystical elusive number,” a distracting “endgame,” and therefore not worth considering. Only vaccinations are worth counting. As he put it recently, “We don’t want to get too hung up on reaching this endgame of herd immunity because every day that you put 2 million to 3 million vaccinations into people [it] makes society be more and more protected.”

While composing an article about natural immunity and herd immunity for my home state of North Carolina, I happened to notice that the Mayo Clinic had removed a compelling factoid about natural immunity. It’s something I had quoted in an earlier discussion of the matter and wanted to revisit it.

Here’s what the Mayo Clinic once wanted people to know in its page on “Herd Immunity and COVID-19” with respect to natural immunity: “[T]hose who survived the 1918 flu (influenza) pandemic were later immune to infection with the H1N1 flu, a subtype of influenza A.” The Mayo Clinic pointed out that H1N1 was during the 2009-10 flu season, which would be 92 years later. That finding attested to just how powerful and long-lived natural immunity could be.

As can be seen from the Internet Archive, however, sometime after April 14 the Mayo Clinic removed that compelling historical aside:

The Mayo Clinic also reoriented its page to feature vaccination over “the natural infection method” (method?) and added a section on “the outlook for achieving herd immunity in the U.S.” This new section stated that “it’s not clear if or when the U.S. will achieve herd immunity” but encouraged people nonetheless that “the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at protecting against severe illness requiring hospitalization and death … allowing people to better be able to live with the virus.”

Why, from people who know better, is there so much interest in downplaying or erasing natural immunity?

Is it because it’s hard to quantify how many people have natural immunity? Is it out of a mix of good intentions and worry, that discussing natural immunity would somehow discourage (“nudge,” in Fauci’s term) people from getting vaccines who otherwise would? Is it simple oversight, being so focused on vaccinations that they just plain forgot about natural immunity? Or is something else at work?

Whatever the reason, it’s keeping Americans in the dark about how many people have active immunity from Covid-19. It’s keeping people needlessly fearful and suspicious of each other. It’s empowering executive overreach. Worst of all, it’s tempting people to consider government and business restrictions on the unvaccinated, regardless of their actual immunity.

‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ on Vaccines

By Joanna Williams, the founder of the think tank Cieo. She is the author of Women vs Feminism, Why We All Need Liberating From the Gender Wars and is a regular columnist for Spiked. Follow her on Twitter @jowilliams293

‘Morally superior’ vaxxed people are dumping friends and relatives who‘ve had the temerity not to get the jab. Is this where we are in Britain today – rather than discussing differences, we must throw out heretics and dissenters?

Have your friends had the Covid-19 vaccine yet? And if not, should you still be mates?

Incredibly, this seems to be a question some are now asking. Earlier this week, ITV’s Good Morning Britain show kicked off the debate by asking whether it was right to stop being pals with people who refused the vaccine. ‘Countdown’ presenter Nick Hewer and host Adil Ray both admitted they would dump refusenik friends.

Rather than being horrified at the thought of sacrificing a friendship on such trivial grounds, others have since joined in with the disowning. One Telegraph commentator described her reaction to discovering a friend would not be lining up for the jab: “I found myself fuming. I feel increasingly angry at those who refuse to be vaxxed,” before concluding, “When I next throw a dinner party, if you’ve not been jabbed, you’re not coming in.” Personally, I’d sooner eat directly from a bin than attend a ‘proof of jab required’ dinner party. But perhaps that’s just me.

What’s wrong with these people? First off, for all their supposedly superior scientific knowledge, they clearly don’t know how vaccination works. The vaccines currently available have surpassed all expectations in their capacity to protect against serious illness and they are proving, so far, to be effective against the full complement of coronavirus variants. What this means is that if you’re vaccinated, you stand very little risk of becoming seriously ill and – even better – this holds true no matter where you go, what you do or who you mix with. Put simply, the jab has no idea who your friends are; it does not suddenly become less effective because you mix with someone with wacky ideas.

For some, anger is directed at vaccine-refusers because the government likes to hold this miniscule proportion of the population responsible for continued restrictions on all of our lives. Since January, we have been told that lifting lockdown is tied to the number of people vaccinated. But what exactly that magical number is, keeps changing. At the start of the year, we were told we could ‘cry freedom’ when the most vulnerable were vaccinated. Since then, the goalposts have shifted. And kept on shifting. Now, with over 39 million – 75% of the adult population – having received a first vaccine dose, it seems we can’t drop social distancing until everyone is vaccinated, including teenagers and children for whom the virus poses very little risk.

We need to be honest. With so many people now vaccinated, and the link between cases and hospitalisations and deaths now thankfully broken, keeping restrictions in place is a political – not epidemiological – decision. We continue with rituals like mask wearing and social distancing for no other reason than the government and its team of behavioural scientists tell us we must. Yet rather than acknowledging this, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Health Secretary Matt Hancock prefer to point the finger at the unvaccinated.

Publicly declaring your intention to unfriend vaccine refuseniks tells the world that you are a good person who follows the rules – unlike all those Covidiots. It is an act of virtue signalling designed to say more about you than your friends. Once, posh people looked down on the great unwashed, now the morally superior people look down on the unvaccinated.

Unfriending is a nasty way of personalising what should be a private medical decision. But it is entirely in keeping with the way so many commentators have responded to the pandemic. Last spring, it became legitimate for people in large houses with big gardens to express contempt for those who sought a few moments of respite from lockdown by sitting on a park bench. Nurses filmed themselves crying at the sight of people relaxing in the sun. People who joined with neighbours for VE Day street parties, queued up outside Primark, or spent a sunny day at the beach were branded Covidiots.

Now, vaccines are getting the personal treatment. The NHS started it. Get vaccinated and you’ll most likely be presented with a sticker like a five-year-old who behaves well for the dentist. Social media companies quickly followed suit with virtual badges that can be pinned to profile pictures. The point seems to be to make visible those who have been jabbed and utilise peer pressure to normalise vaccine uptake.

Perhaps this manipulation was well-intentioned. But the consequence is that vaccines now risk becoming embroiled in a culture war. Just like with Brexit, we seem to have arrived at a position where there is a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’ view to hold on vaccines. Those who hold the wrong, ‘bad’, view deserve moral condemnation. Rather than remaining friends and discussing differences of opinion, we must throw out heretics and dissenters. Sadly, people seem proud of their partisanship, but all it tells me is that they are closed-minded.

Unfriending people who oppose vaccines, just like yelling “Covidiots” at people sitting on park benches, is a really unhelpful way of dealing with a virus. With greater sympathy and understanding, as well as more openness to discussing different approaches to dealing with the pandemic, we may have fared better – not just at dealing with coronavirus, but with education, mental health, and the long-term social, medical and economic disruption to come. I, for one, am more than happy to say good riddance to friends who only like me because of my vaccine status.

Mach 30 ‘tunnel’ will put China decades ahead

By DAVE MAKICHUK via Asia Times
A formation of Dongfeng-17 missiles takes part in a military parade during the celebrations marking the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China at Tian’anmen Square in Beijing. (Xinhua/Mao Siqian)

“There is a Chinese saying, it takes 10 years to sharpen a sword. We have spent 60 years sharpening two swords … and they are the best.”
— Chinese researcher Han Guilai

Imagine a wind tunnel, capable of simulating flights at Mach 30 — that’s 23,000 mph, or, 30 times the speed of sound.

It may sound like science fiction, but in fact, China has built a hypersonic wind tunnel in Beijing which could put the superpower decades ahead of the West, according to a report in UK’s The Sun.

Researcher Han Guilai, of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said that together with another facility, also in Beijing, China will be about 20 to 30 years ahead of other powers.

Such futuristic aerospace technology could make it possible for super-fast jets to fly anywhere in the world in two hours or less.

It could also make space travel accessible to ordinary people as the hypersonic aircraft could cut costs by more than 90%, reports say.

Of course, the technology is also hugely important when it comes to weapons.

President Xi Jinping has made modernizing the armed forces a key priority and wants to have a “world class military” by 2050 capable of matching the US, the report said.

China has invested a huge amount of time and money developing hypersonic missiles.

The lethal DF-17 “carrier killer” can perform extreme manoeuvers as it hurtles at Mach 10 — some 7,600 mph — towards a target, with any warship unlikely to survive a direct hit.

The older J-12 hypersonic wind tunnel in Beijing is working with the new facility to develop hypersonic aircraft. The JF-22 tunnel is capable of simulating flights at Mach 30 or 23,000 mph – 30 times the speed of sound. Credit: Handout

Even without a warhead, the DF-17 could tear through a big ship like the US Navy’s latest carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford — putting it out of action.

While no launch date has been set for China’s hypersonic aircraft, scientists at JF-22 will work together with experts at JF-12 — another wind tunnel in Beijing which has about fifth of the new facility’s power output, the report said.

Instead of using mechanical compressors, Beijing uses chemical explosions to generate high speed air flow.

Fuel burns in the JF-22 at speeds 100 million times faster than a regular gas stove creating shock waves similar to those experienced by jets at hypervelocity.

At America’s most advanced wind tunnel, named the LENS II (Large Energy National Shock tunnels), simulated flights last 30 milliseconds, running between Mach 3 and 9.

In comparison, JF-22’s average flight simulation can reach 130 milliseconds, Guilai said.

“Our experiment time is much longer than theirs, so the aircraft model can be larger than theirs, and the experiments can be more advanced than theirs.

“This determines our leading position in the world.”

A surface-to-air missile is fired from a missile launcher by the air force under the PLA Southern Theater Command during a round-the-clock air defense training exercise. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Zhang Hengping and Yuan Hai)

Guilai, who works with China’s hypersonic agency the Institute of Mechanics, said a jet travelling at such high speeds could reach 10,000 degrees celsius and break air molecules into atoms — even giving some an electric charge.

He said: “This air is no longer the air we breathe in. The flying vehicle we study is like swimming in mud.”

Qian Xuesen, considered “the father of China’s rocket program,” coined the term “hypersonic” in 1946 after he found that the behaviour of air flow was completely different at five times faster than sound.

The term was used in his research article “Similarity laws of hypersonic flows” to distinguish the flows at speeds much higher than the local speed of sound from supersonic flows where thermal and chemical reaction effects on flow motion can be ignored.

The hypersonic and high-enthalpy flow is referred to as a gas flow with high kinetic energy, in which there may exist thermal and chemical reactions behind the bow shock or within the boundary layer.

After more than sixty years’ research work, hypersonic ground test facilities suitable for exploring aero-thermochemistry still rely on high-enthalpy shock tunnels.

Many shock tunnels have been built around the world.

For example, LENS I and II in the US, the High-Enthalpy Shock Tunnel (HIEST) in Japan, the High-Enthalpy Shock Tunnel (HEG) in Germany and the JF-12 and JF-22 tunnels in China.

The key aerodynamic phenomena and their effects on aircraft performance were first discovered during the atmospheric reentry of the space vehicles such as space capsules or space shuttles.

Such vehicles encounter extremely strong nose shock waves and viscous friction along the surfaces that can heat the surrounding air to a temperature up to thousands or even ten thousand degrees.

Tsien Hsue-Shen confers with his lawyer, Grant B. Cooper, during his deportation hearing on Nov. 16, 1950. (Bettmann Archive)

Molecule vibration excitation, gas dissociation and atom ionization may occur successively as the gas temperature increases. In such a situation, air will no longer be an ideal gaseous mixture, but a chemically reacting media varying with the flow temperature.

The substantial change in the flow media results in changes to the constitutive relation of the high-enthalpy flows in which the energy transition takes place within chemically reacting gases and flow motions.

This is the fundamental issue of hypersonic and high-enthalpy flows and boosts study on the chemical physics of gas dynamics.

As well as his work on hypersonics, it was Qian who single-handedly led China’s space and military rocketry efforts after he was drummed out of the United States during the red-baiting of the McCarthy era.

A former US Secretary of the Navy, Dan Kimball — later head of the rocket propulsion company, Aerojet — would later say it was “the stupidest thing this country ever did.”

But in the US of the 1930s and 1940s, Qian was no less valuable, if not so publicly celebrated, as a pioneer in American jet and rocket technology.

As a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and later as a scientist and teacher at the California Institute of Technology, Qian, also known as Tsien Hsue-shen, played a central role in early US efforts to exploit jet and rocket propulsion.

On the war front in Germany, he advised the US Army on ballistic-missile guidance technology.

At the war’s end, holding the temporary rank of lieutenant colonel, he debriefed Nazi scientists, including Werner von Braun, and was sent to analyze Hitler’s V-2 rocket facilities.

In 1955, Qian was sent back to China, where he was proclaimed a hero and immediately put to work developing Chinese rocketry.

Under his leadership, China developed its first generation of “Long March” missiles and, in 1970, launched its first satellite.

Sources: The Sun, BBC News, Wikipedia, The New York Times, ScienceDirect.com

Murder by Decree: The Crime of Genocide in Canada. “The Indian Residential Schools”

By The International Tribunal for the Disappeared of Canada, May 31, 2021

Seven aboriginal leaders died after naming the killers of children :

Virginia Baptiste, died suddenly January 29, 2004 of unstated causes while in hospital
Louis Daniels, died suddenly February 4, 2006 of unstated causes while in hospital
Harriett Nahanee, died February 24, 2007 shortly after her release from prison
Johnny “Bingo” Dawson, died December 6, 2009 after a police beating
William Arnold Combes, died February 26, 2011 after a lethal injection in St. Paul’s Hospital
Ricky Lavallee, died January 23, 2012 after severe blows to the head and chest
Harry Wilson, died April 4, 2013 of unknown causes

1. Our research has established that the crimes represented a deliberate campaign of depopulation.

2. The primary agents responsible for this genocide were the Canadian federal government and the Crown of England, the Vatican, and Roman Catholic, Anglican and United churches of Canada.

3. During the 107 year period of the residential schools’ operation, the perpetrators were routinely protected by both government and church officials.

4. Native children began dying in droves the very first year the residential schools opened in 1889.

5. The enormous mortality was the result of institutionalized germ warfare.

6. The ongoing high mortality rate was also caused by a continual denial of regular food, clothing and proper sanitation to children interned in the schools, amidst a regime of routine and systemic rapes, beatings, tortures and killings: conditions that continued unabated for over a century, from 1889 to 1996.

canada%2Bindian%2Bkids.jpeg

Kent Monkman.

7. Despite these murderous conditions, attendance in the residential schools was made mandatory for all native children under a federal law enacted in 1920. Significantly, all government medical inspection of the schools was terminated that same year.

8. In the decade that followed this institutionalization of mass murder, special laws were passed across Canada that a) allowed the involuntary sexual sterilization of any residential school child, b) denied Indians the right to hire a lawyer or bring a case into court, and c) made the churches that ran the schools the legal guardian of the children.

9. Despite the death or disappearance of at least 66,000 children in these schools over a century and numerous statements of eyewitnesses to killings, not a single person has ever been charged or tried in a Canadian court for the death of one of these children.

canada%2Bindian%2Bkids%2B3.jpg

10. The Canadian government and the Catholic, Anglican and United churches have engaged in a continual and illegal obstruction of justice for decades to conceal and destroy the evidence of their residential school crimes.

They have done so by obliterating school records, silencing and killing eyewitnesses and survivors as well as in-house whistleblowers, destroying the remains and mass graves of children who died in the schools, and constructing a false narrative about the schools.

This enormous falsification and cover up culminated in an official whitewash of their genocide established by them known as the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (TRC), which censored and misrepresented the residential schools genocide from start to finish.

11. Extermination of indigenous nations is not only continuing but is expanding because of its continued importance to the resource extraction-based Canadian economy.

Both foreign capital and domestic politics require that Indians in Canada continue to be made landless, impoverished and eradicated, and profited from in the process.

Click here to read the full report. More details from http://murderbydecree.com.

Hamas Has Establishing Itself as a Player That Cannot Be Ignored

by Shir Hevervia: Middle East Eye

As an uneasy ceasefire hangs over Gaza and Israel, differing accounts have emerged as to who “won” the round of violence in May.

Much of Gaza once again lies in ruins with Israeli air strikes killing 253 Palestinians, including 66 children, and wounding more than 1,900, according to the health ministry in Gaza. Hamas rockets also killed 13 Israelis.

However, a consensus is emerging in the Israeli media – and among politicians and military command – that Hamas effectively defeated Israel.

Military officials have concluded that, from a strategic point of view, Hamas achieved its goal of establishing itself as a player that cannot be ignored when it comes to Jerusalem and al-Aqsa Mosque. Israel’s “mowing the lawn” doctrine of repeated strikes on the Gaza Strip in order to prevent Palestinian resistance movements from accumulating military power, has largely failed.

A principal reason for this is the narrowing of the military imbalance that has long existed between the de facto rulers of Gaza and the Israeli army.

The new military capabilities of Hamas – long-range and more accurate rockets, drones and an unmanned submarine – have taken the Israeli military by surprise.

Imad Alsoos, research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, told Middle East Eye that he estimated that the Hamas leadership also created a distribution of labour in resisting the Israeli assault. The group provided low-range mortars to the left-wing Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), while they focused on operating long-range weapons instead.

The absence of Israeli tanks – apparently largely withdrawn after an Israeli soldier was killed on May 12 by an anti-tank missile – also allowed mortar operators to approach the Gaza border fence and bring the mortars within range of the Israeli communities around the besieged enclave.

According to Haaretz, in those communities, over 3,400 residents requested psychological treatment as a result of trauma during the 11 days of the fighting, compared with 2,200 requests received in the region during the 51 days of fighting in 2014.

“In the 2014 war the border area was the deadliest for the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces):the use of mortars and anti-tank weapons on mustering troops, the tunnel attacks on border posts, and frogmen attacks from sea all loomed large in this round of fighting,” said Canadian journalist and researcher John Elmer.

“The IDF quite apparently wanted no part of that area this time.”

Stock falls in arms companies

Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told Middle East Eye that the Israeli military relies on arms supplied by the US, followed by Germany and Italy.

Wezeman mentioned that Germany provided Israel with submarines, frigates, torpedoes and engines for Merkava tanks – all are weapons which did not play a visible role in the recent attack. The aerial bombardments, however, were achieved by using US-made planes by pilots trained with Italy-supplied trainer aircraft.

When it comes to Israeli-made weapons, however, the defence companies were relatively silent during the last round of bombardments of Gaza. The websites of the three largest companies, Elbit Systems, IAI and Rafael did not upload any comments on the recent conflict.

The most visible system deployed by the Israeli military was Iron Dome, which is heavily subsidised by the US but still costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per interception.

As a result of the fact that the Iron Dome system erroneously shot down a drone produced by Elbit Systems, Elbit weapons were revealed to have been used in the bombardment of Gaza, with activists in the UK barricading themselves on top of the roof of an Elbit Systems factory to protest the use of its weapons against civilians in the strip.

Antony Loewenstein, an independent journalist who was recently based in Jerusalem and is writing a book on how Israel’s occupation has gone global, pointed out that Palestine is often a testing ground for new Israeli weapons and defence equipment.

“In the recent conflict between Gaza and Israel, it seems that Hamas improved its weaponry with more accurate, long-range missiles. However, historically, many of Israel’s most sophisticated surveillance technology and weapons were first developed for use against Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and Israeli itself,” he told MEE.

“Israeli companies still talk about ‘battle-tested’ weapons for global sale. Many of the key ‘innovators’ in this space work for Israel’s notorious cyber Unit 8200 and take this experience into the private sector, leading to techniques perfected in Palestine used and abused in global conflicts.”

However, Elbit Systems, the only privately owned company in Israel’s top three, saw its stock price mostly go down during the recent round of fighting – as opposed to in previous rounds, in which it went up.

The gap in military power between the Israeli military, considered to be the 14th strongestmilitary in the world, and the Palestinian armed resistance groups, which amount to poorly equipped militias, remains very real, but the recent fighting shows that it is gradually narrowing.