Many schools have eliminated recess and long lunch breaks. I was a high energy kid and the teachers and school nurse wanted to put me on ritalin. I lived for recess and lunch because I could burn off some energy, and my mom would never let them drug me. Now they actually expect boys to sit quietly at their desks for seven or eight hours like they were . . . girls. Any kid that “acts up” gets drugged. The drugs make life easier for the teachers, not the kids. From Jeffrey Tucker at The Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:
The last few years have blown wide open a scandal that has long existed but is not that well known aside from specialists. The problem is the collaboration between pharmaceutical companies, government regulators, and the medical industry. The problem is so vast that it is hardly describable in a short article.
(joel bubble ben/Shutterstock)
It turns out that the ineffective COVID shots were just the beginning. As far as we know and have discovered in the course of investigations, the shot was developed quickly as a countermeasure to distract from the problem of a lab leak. The world’s population was held hostage for a year and more while the inoculation was rolled out. But once deployed, it became obvious that it could not actually block infection or stop the spread. So everyone got the bug anyway, and we are left with tremendous damage caused by the shots themselves.
I described this short history to Dr. Drew Pinsky, the famed addiction doctor who now has a popular video podcast. He found no fault with my scenario as mapped above. He immediately added that this has many parallels with the opioid crisis that led him into public advocacy. The pharma companies advertised some miracle drugs to fix pain with no risk of addiction.
The frenzy to prescribe was so intense that some doctors even feared penalties for not prescribing. The result of course was a disastrous addiction crisis that continues to this day. Unlike vaccine companies, the producers were not indemnified against payouts for harms, and as much as $50 billion ended up going to victims just last year. The numbers are mind-boggling.
Yet member states are putting forward this possibility
It’s just another day of mixed messages about whether the lunatics in charge really want to start World War III. Trying to decipher this is mentally draining and I suspect that is the point. I suspect they want to keep the public confused and fearful as much as they do Putin. Fearful people are easier to control.
It’s hard to know exactly what is a bluff and what is for real, but it’s now being reported that if Ukraine faces a sudden collapse, certain NATO member states will send troops to Ukraine, presumably to fight Russia. Even if it were just to train Ukrainians, those foreign troops would become Russian targets.
The fact this is even being talked about suggests a Ukrainian collapse could come at any moment. Whether this is based on specific information or they’re just mooting the possibility, I’m not sure.
One thing is clear, Ukraine’s neighbours don’t want Russian troops amassing on their borders and are suggesting taking matters into their own hands. If their fears of imminent Russian victory are founded, it’s confirmation you’ve been lied to about Ukrainian successes. If their fears are unfounded, this is just needless scaremongering. Either way, we’re being manipulated.
Apparently, the Baltic states are angry that Berlin is seeing sense and refusing to allow NATO weapons to be used on Russian territory, something both David Cameron and Jens Stoltenberg are in favour of. Poland had rejected the idea, but now says it’s not going to wait for the collapse of Ukraine and will send troops over the border before this happens. This leaves us with a major dilemma: if NATO members join the fight, do we trigger Article 5? Do we tell them that if they don’t act with NATO approval, they’re on their own?
There are huge divisions emerging within NATO. Slovakian prime minister Robert Fico said “the Ukraine strategy of the West has completely failed,” but his country would have nothing to do with the deployment of troops to Ukraine.
Italian deputy PM Matteo Salvini is furious with Jens Stoltenberg’s suggestion that NATO weapons should be allowed to target Russian soil and has called on him to retract those worlds or resign. Salvini said:
“I don’t want to leave my children in the third world war at the gates… Stoltenberg should either recant or apologise or resign.”
I don’t think it’s occurred to the some of the geniuses in NATO that if Ukraine strikes Russia with our weapons, they won’t be retaliating on Ukrainian soil, they’ll be striking ours — and they have the capability to strike anywhere in Europe within 20 minutes with ICBMs or 90 minutes with conventional missiles. It’s worth emphasising a recent UK report shows we have no defence capability to stop Russian missiles.
Worryingly, we’re told Kyiv’s flawed air defences are “way, way better” than London’s and Russia has precision missiles that could hit the front door of 10 Downing Street.
Is this starting to feel real yet? Escalating with Russia does not mean you are containing the war in Ukraine, it means you are doing the opposite. You know those awful stories you see of stray Russian rockets flattening markets in Ukraine? How would you like that to be your town? How would you like your local power station to be taken out? How would you like to sit in the dark, praying this thing doesn’t go nuclear? Because hotheadedness could lead to the exact thing you want to prevent.
Sweden has just announced it will allow Swedish weapons to strike targets inside Russia, such as its long-range, precision Archer artillery. Part of the reason for US hesitation to do the same is that Ukraine keeps defying its advice, for example by launching drone attacks on Russian oil refineries. The US clearly does not want its own oil refineries to be attacked in retaliation.
Lack of supplies has forced Ukraine to use “ageing and inadequate weaponry”, but the latest aid package would appear to address this. However, the package is just enough to maintain defensive operations until the end of the year. It is not enough to mount any counter-offensives.
Antony Blinken said the package contains “artillery rounds, Javelin and TOW missiles, ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), demolitions munitions, anti-armour mines, tactical vehicles, and body armour, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear protective equipment.” But that’s just not enough to meet Ukraine’s needs.
An increasingly frustrated Zelensky recently accused NATO of “being afraid of Russia losing the war”, and only wanting Ukraine “to win in such a way that Russia does not lose.” Ukrainian generals and politicians have been making comments such as: “The West is scared of Russia.”
“It seems to me that some have already agreed to the partition of Ukraine,» lamented Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of Ukraine’s Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee. I hope he’s right because it’s the most realistic chance for a stable and lasting peace.
France is pushing for a self-reliant Europe because it knows the US cannot be relied upon to come to Europe’s rescue. This is perfectly sensible as long as we’re doing this for defensive purposes and Macron loses any idea of sending his troops into Ukraine.
Macron is reportedly upset that Germany is turning to the US to help develop the European Sky Shield Initiative (a continent-wide iron dome). Germany points out the European defence industry is not ready to develop the system as quickly as it’s needed, but the need is only urgent if we’re taking the fight to Russia.
We are told the direction of the war will only change when Russia “feels the consequences of the war at home” which is an admission the war is going in the wrong direction.
We might occasionally see a story such as a Russian T-90 tank being taken out by a drone from Ukraine’s 47th Separate Mechanised Brigade, but this is just propaganda. Minor successes have been amplified to give the public false hope the NATO strategy could yet turn things around. A slowing down of Russia’s rapid advance has been celebrated as some sort of victory rather than a delay of the inevitable. However, the optimism of the propaganda is waning and being replaced with realism.
The problem is people who’ve been subjected to one of the biggest and most successful propaganda efforts in history don’t want to hear they’ve been lied to about something they’re so emotionally invested in.
When someone wants something to be true so badly, it can be hard to convince them it’s false. Even when the liars themselves are starting to come clean, some choose to remain in denial. You can quote a mainstream news report word for word and still be accused of sharing Putin propaganda. The NATO propagandists have broken people’s brains.
The reality is Ukraine has lost half of its power grid and a third of its economy with about half a million men either dead or out of action. Ukrainian soldiers openly admit their drones are not enough to turn the tide of battle, given Russia has become effective at jamming them. They claim the conflict could last years or even decades.
While I doubt Ukraine could keep up the fight for more than a year or two at most, if they somehow can, it will be music to NATO’s ears. NATO would love nothing more than to trap Russia in a forever war. Some claim neither side has the ability to deliver a knockout blow and if that were close to being true, it would destroy the idea of Russia marching through Europe.
It has taken Russia two years and three months to capture 18% of Ukraine and it still does not have air superiority. The idea of Russia just rampaging through other countries is implausible. If we take one example, Finland, it has vast bunkers capable of housing almost everyone in the country with enough supplies to last them for years. These bunkers are so vast, they are used as soft plays and restaurants so the public is familiar with them and knows where to go if war starts. Finland has over a million troops and reservists and is protected by a treacherous mountain range that gives it a reputation of being the hardest country in the world to invade.
You could say some Baltic states might be more vulnerable, but not really. You’re talking about tough people with modern militaries who would not be a pushover for anyone.
There is talk of NATO members Latvia or Lithuania being next on Putin’s list, but experts argue it would take Putin 3-8 years to prepare for such an attack, which would also give NATO 3-8 years to prepare. In other words, it would be idiotic for Putin to even try.
Look at it like this: George Bush jr initially planned to not just take Iraq and Afghanistan but a swathe of countries across the Middle East, including Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. However, he was forced to reconsider when faced with the realities on the battlefield. In the 21 years since, it has only got harder to take on smaller countries. Even asymmetric wars are difficult to win, let alone wars between superpowers.
Then there’s the fact mobilisation is costing Putin popularity in Russia. If he endlessly mobilises his population, his public support could plummet. It’s just not realistic that he is going to plough through Europe like a second Hitler. Even if he wanted to, he would find it almost impossible, and he would have little to gain and plenty to lose. If Putin has guarantees of no more NATO expansion and Ukrainian neutrality, he will be incentivised to stop the fighting.
If NATO is reluctant to negotiate, one option for Putin would be escalate to de-escalate, with smaller attacks that would force NATO to back down or start World War III. This is all the more reason to get to the negotiation table now. Either you want to risk nuclear annihilation for the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine or you think that makes no sense. I know which camp I’m in.
International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan dismissed the allegation that he has equated Israel with the terrorist group Hamas as “nonsense”. This after Karim Khan sought arrest warrants against the leaders of Israel and Hamas over the Gaza war. Israel had slammed ICC prosecutor’s move, alleging Khan drew a “despicable” parallel between Israel and Hamas. Watch this video to know more.
Quel est l’enjeu du grand conflit civilisationnel qui atteint aujourd’hui un niveau de tension explosif ? C’est la confrontation entre deux projets pour le monde : d’un côté l’hégémonie des États-Unis, soit la loi du plus fort. De l’autre, la multipolarité, un monde basé sur le Droit international, c’est-à-dire des principes rationnels s’appliquant à tous.
Le droit est au service de la justice. Et la justice ne peut être fondée que sur la recherche sincère de la vérité. Celui qui place la vérité au cœur des relations internationales valorise aussi le respect de la parole donnée.
Inversement, la loi du plus fort s’impose par le mensonge, la tricherie, la trahison. On peut considérer que le gros mensonge du 11-Septembre marque la transformation complète des USA en Empire du mensonge. Ce fut un coup d’État mondial par lequel les néoconservateurs ont réussi, provisoirement, à imposer leurs règles du jeu. Qui sont les néoconservateurs ? Des crypto-sionistes, qui se drapent dans le manteau de l’impérialisme américain pour entraîner les États-Unis dans des guerres hybrides au profit d’Israël.
Le 11 septembre 2001 et la présidence de Bush II marquent la prise de contrôle quasi complète de la politique étrangère américaine par Israël. Mais le gros mensonge du 22 novembre 1963 fut aussi une étape importante : par l’assassinat de Kennedy, Israël mit son homme de main à la Maison Blanche. Les néoconservateurs sont arrivés peu après.
Il y a bien à Washington, notamment au sein du Council on Foreign Relations, une tradition de politique étrangère fondée sur le Droit international, hostile donc aux violations d’Israël, et privilégiant la bonne entente avec l’Arabie Saoudite et le monde arabe. Mais cette école a été infiltrée et marginalisée par les conservateurs et leur Project for a New Israeli Century déguisé en Project for a New American Century. Les USA, du point de vue politique comme du point de vue civilisationnel, sont aujourd’hui une colonie d’Israël (Israël entendu non comme État mais comme projet), ou, pour le dire plus clairement, un empire secrètement gouverné par une cabale de suprémacistes juifs entièrement dévoués à la réalisation d’Isaïe 2 : «De Sion viendra la Loi», de sorte que «Yahvé jugera entre les nations.». On peut donc dire que les USA, c’est Jérusalem.
Son contraire, le Droit international, auquel s’oppose Israël, peut être symbolisé par Rome. C’est en effet un héritage de Rome, fondé sur la raison grecque, c’est-à-dire sur la conviction que l’homme peut accéder à la vérité et donc à la justice (l’action juste des stoïques) ou en tout cas aller vers elle par la raison. Tous les pionniers du Droit international de l’époque moderne, comme Hugo Grotius (Sur les lois de la guerre et de la paix, 1625), s’appuyaient sur le droit romain.
On peut donc symboliser les deux projets qui s’opposent aujourd’hui par Rome et Jérusalem. Rome est un universalisme certes agressif, mais fondé tout de même sur le droit, c’est-à-dire sur la raison comme faculté humaine universelle. C’est pourquoi Rome, au IIIe siècle, a donné la citoyenneté romaine à tous les hommes libres vivant dans les provinces de l’Empire. Rome est partout.
Jérusalem, au contraire, est un chauvinisme absolu déguisé en universalisme, fondé sur une Loi tombée du ciel au profit d’un seul peuple, qui a fait de son Temple le nombril du monde. Au droit rationnel de Rome s’oppose le droit divin d’Israël (droit divin de voler la terre d’un autre peuple, droit divin de commettre un génocide contre Amalek, donc contre Gaza, etc.). Le droit divin est une fiction, c’est un mensonge, et c’est une innovation hébraïque, comme l’a bien démontré Jan Assmann dans Le Prix du monothéisme. Israël et son roman national sont entièrement fondés sur le plus gros mensonge et le plus gros blasphème jamais proféré : l’élection.
Le droit divin est incompatible avec le droit romain. Le droit divin, par définition, se place au-dessus du droit élaboré par les hommes. Voilà pourquoi l’État d’Israël, comme Israël depuis toujours, méprise le Droit international. Israël a la Loi, un droit divin fait spécialement pour lui, qui l’autorise à génocider Amalek, donc Gaza.
Mais voilà aussi pourquoi nous pouvons avoir espoir et confiance dans l’avenir. Car devant l’évidence de cette incompatibilité entre Israël et le Droit international, il est inévitable que les dirigeants du monde parviennent ensemble à cette conclusion : nous allons devoir choisir entre le Droit international et Israël. Les deux sont incompatibles car ils s’excluent mutuellement. L’un des deux va inévitablement être détruit par l’autre. Soit Israël meurt, soit le Droit international meurt. Or la perspective d’un monde sans Droit international, à l’ère nucléaire, est terrifiante. Le génocide de Gaza par Israël sous la protection des États-Unis, accélère cette prise de conscience globale. Le Droit international, le respect des traités et des engagements, la justice dans la résolution des conflits, la diplomatie fondée sur bonne foi, le respect et la confiance, sont des choses qu’Israël méprise profondément. Israël est et restera toujours le peuple du mensonge. Le Droit international, c’est la quête de la justice et de la vérité ; Israël, c’est le pouvoir du mensonge, de la tricherie, de la corruption et du chantage.
Un exemple : l’une des missions historiques les plus importantes du Droit international est celle que voulait confier John Kennedy à l’ONU : le désarmement nucléaire et l’abolition des armes de destruction massive. C’est la raison principale pour laquelle Israël a fait assassiner Kennedy (ceux qui ne l’ont pas encore compris peuvent lire mon livre Qui a maudit les Kennedy ?). Cette mission devra être accomplie un jour ou l’autre. Or, jusqu’à preuve du contraire, Israël est le seul pays doté de l’arme atomique qui n’a jamais signé le Traité de non-prolifération, et refuse d’admettre l’existence de son arsenal nucléaire, tout en menaçant ouvertement le monde de l’Option Samson. Et le monde entier commence à réaliser ce que signifie le fait d’avoir laissé Israël devenir la seule puissance nucléaire au Moyen Orient. Croit-on sérieusement qu’Israël oserait se comporter comme il le fait aujourd’hui sans un arsenal d’une centaine de têtes nucléaire ?
Entre Israël et le Droit international, il n’y a plus de compromis possible. L’un des deux doit l’emporter. La victoire d’Israël signifierait la mort du Droit international. Et plus rien n’arrêterait plus Israël. Les dirigeants du monde sont en train de comprendre qu’ils n’ont pas le choix : tôt ou tard, les Nations Unies vont devoir briser Israël. Et le temps presse.
Dans un article ultérieur, j’analyserai l’histoire millénaire de la lutte à mort entre Rome et Jérusalem, pour dégager une continuité sur le très long terme et montrer qu’il s’agit d’une opposition dialectique extrêmement ancienne et centrale dans le destin de l’Occident. Ce sera aussi l’objet de ma conférence à Toulouse le 1er juin.
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev lashed out at the West, warning America against launching any strikes on Russian targets in Ukraine. Medvedev warned that any U.S. strike on Russian positions will lead to a World War. This after Polish foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski claimed that U.S. has threatened to retaliate if Russia uses nuclear weapons. Medvedev also warned that in case of a nuclear confrontation, “Warsaw won’t be left out, and will surely get its share of radioactive ash.” Watch this video to know more.
France has warned the European Union of ‘existential threat’, saying the bloc is in a serious danger. Emmanuel Macron said that the European Union is facing a record number of “external and internal enemies”, who pose an existential threat to the block. Macron further reiterated his warning that “Europe could end up dying”. Watch this to know more.
Der Friedensstifter 