We remind readers of a story we published a while back, that the Indian govt had already supplied its people with a cheap home treatment kit comprising ivermectin, an antibiotic and zinc in 2020, called the Ziverdo Kit.
India’s “Covid Crisis” has been hijacked – The Mainstream Media are lying to you
THE DAILY EXPOSE
Do you remember the scenes broadcast on the mainstream news channels, and plastered across the front pages at the start of 2020?
Infamous images of Chinese medical officials in hazmat suits collecting bodies off the pavements of Wuhan, where we were told they had collapsed and died in the street because of a new strain of coronavirus, now knows as COVID-19.
The scenes have not been replicated anywhere else, confirming that it was all a lie and propaganda, used to whip up the hysteria and justify the introduction of medical tyranny across the world, in the name of preventing the spread of COVID-19.
That is of course until now. Because now they are playing the same game, but this time with India.
Infamous image of a resident lying in the street in Wuhan, China early 2020
The Sun newspaper even released a video back at the end of January 2020 which was a compilation of people collapsing on the streets of Wuhan. The headline was ‘DISASTER ZONE – Coronavirus leaves Wuhan a ‘zombieland”. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we can now be 100% certain this was done to deceive the public and whip up fear.
The Guardian newspaper also released an article at the end of January 2020 of which the headline was ‘A man lies dead in the street: the image that captures the Wuhan coronavirus crisis’. How many people have you seen drop dead in your street due to having the alleged Covid-19 disease? We bet the answer is zero.
So isn’t it curious to find that after over a year of nobody dropping dead in the street throughout the world, suddenly the public are being told it is happening again in India. Curious because according to official figures the pandemic is no longer raging throughout the United Kingdom. Curious because according to official figures excess deaths in the UK have now dropped below the five-year average. Curious because authorities will still not grant the British people their former rights and freedoms even though it is no longer justified.
So what better way to justify the continuation of medical tyranny than ramping up the fear of a new variant hitting the shores of the United Kingdom. Because make no mistake, that is exactly what the authorities and mainstream media are doing right now with the constant propaganda on the “dire” situation in India and the potential threat of the new Indian variant.
‘Why India’s worsening Covid crisis is a dire problem for the world’ – this is another headline to an article released by ‘The Guardian’ newspaper. Here’s the opening paragraph of the article:
The catastrophe unfolding in India appears to be the worst-case scenario that many feared from the Covid-19 pandemic: unable to find sufficient hospital beds, access to tests, medicines or oxygen, the country of 1.4 billion is sinking beneath the weight of infections.
That very paragraph alone is enough for us to uncover the barefaced lies within the current narrative that is being portrayed in the mainstream media.
Let’s start with the fact that India has a population of 1.4 billion people. If we look at the number of daily positive tests for SARS-CoV-2, we can see that on the 24th April 2021, India recorded 349,691 positive tests. This equates to just 0.02% of the entire population of India testing positive for Covid on the 24th April 2021. The 24th April has also been the highest day on record in India for the number of positive test results for SARS-CoV-2. Yet the mainstream media have said that “the country of 1.4 billion is sinking beneath the weight of infections”. They’re lying.
The second thing to take into account is that India, for some strange reason has decided to ramp up its testing, and not just of people with symptoms either. They’re carrying out asymptomatic testing. Which test are they using? The PCR test of course.
PCR tests look for genetic matter from the new coronavirus using amplification cycles. However, the number of amplification cycles that was needed to detect genetic matter from the virus, which is referred to as the cycle threshold, typically isn’t included in test results sent to doctors and patients. Many coronavirus tests have fairly high cycle thresholds, with most set at 40 and some set at 37. That means a number of people who aren’t carrying much of the new coronavirus are still testing positive, even though they may not be contagious.
This means that there will be a huge number of false positives across India, even despite the fact more tests equals more cases. But we’ll say it again: on the record breaking day for new infections in India, just 0.02% of the population tested positive for Covid-19.
The next deception being broadcast by the mainstream media in the UK is that there are so many patients needing oxygen across India that there is now a shortage. This simply isn’t true. There has been a shortage of oxygen in India for at least the past six months but the Government have not done anything about it.
An article released by ‘Quartz India’ confirms this in which they describe how 150 district hospitals across India have been waiting for oxygen generation plants to be built nearby since October 2020, but nothing has materialised.
So the situation you are seeing broadcast on your television screen has not arisen because there are vasts amounts of people requiring oxygen. It has arisen because there has always been a shortage of oxygen across India.
So what about deaths? Well the latest data shows us that on the 24th April 2021 2,767 deaths were attributed to Covid-19, the highest to occur in India so far. But let’s put that into context: with a population of 1.4 billion, that is just 0.0001% of the population. And to put it into further context India sees on average 25,270 deaths per day from all causes.
This is not a crisis ravaging the whole of India. Instead what you are seeing is the mainstream media pinpointing two particular areas within India, which have a surge in cases thanks to the rise in asymptomatic testing within those areas, and a shortage of oxygen thanks to the Indian Government’s inability to build oxygen generation plants within the past six months. Step outside of Mumbai and Delhi and you will find that the rest of India is carrying on as normal.
But just showing you the data for India isn’t enough to justify our point that the mainstream media are manipulating you and lying to you. To do this we need to put the data into context and compare it with another country, such as the United Kingdom.
The above graph really does justify just how ridiculous the current narrative being spewed out by the mainstream media is. India is only just faring worse than the United Kingdom is faring at its best in terms of alleged deaths due to Covid-19. But the United Kingdom at its worst has far outranked what we are currently seeing in India.
The same can be said for the number of “confirmed” cases, even though they are wholly unreliable due to the high cycle rate used for the PCR test and the fact that they’re testing millions of people who have no symptoms of Covid-19.
You may have seen our earlier investigation on the shocking rise in the number of care home “Covid” deaths that occurred over eight weeks after the vaccination roll-out began in the UK, even though care home residents were first in line. If you haven’t then you can find it here. Well, here’s where it gets interesting…
Prior to the Covid Vaccine roll-out, the Indian Government had been treating the citizens of India with Ivermectin, a medication that is used to treat many types of parasite infestations, including head lice and scabies. But trials have also shown it to be effective in the treatment of the alleged Covid-19 disease. You could possibly say that the largest trial ever conducted proving the success of Ivermectin against Covid occurred in India with its population of 1.4 billion.
India began using Ivermectin late August 2020, and as you can see from the graph above, it had great success in reducing the number of daily deaths attributed to Covid-19. However, for some strange reason they switched tack in January to the experimental Covid vaccines. But didn’t really get going with the vaccine roll-out until the end of February.
Fast forward two weeks and the deaths attributed to Covid-19, which had almost flat lined, suddenly started to rise at an unexplained and exponential rate compared to the rate previously seen in India.
Correlation does not of course always equal causation, but when we’re seeing this same pattern occur in country after country we have to start to question that this is more than just a coincidence.
Maine, United States
These are just a handful of countries in which the same pattern has occurred, the United Kingdom also being one of them but the list is endless.
Could it be that the rise in Covid deaths in India are actually deaths due to the experimental Covid vaccines? We can’t be certain but it’s one hell of a coincidence.
But we can be certain that the mainstream media including BBC News, Sky News, The Guardian, The Sun, The Daily Mail and so on and so on are lying to you and attempting to maintain the level of fear which has infected the mind of the average Brit since March 2020.
They are doing with India now what they did with China in January 2020. Don’t fall for the trap and give up your rights and freedom’s again without thought when they tell you that the Indian variant is spreading throughout the UK, it is “immune to the vaccines” and they just need “another three weeks to flatten the curve”.
Last week there were some interesting stories that were very definitely underreported partly due to the fact that the mainstream media was heavily into the distraction provided by its beatification of George Floyd. For example, the tale of how a mob consisting of hundreds of Israeli Jews, composed mostly of settlers and the extremist so-called Kahanists, rampaging through Jerusalem and calling for “Death to Arabs,” was largely ignored. Right-wing Israeli lawmaker Itamar Ben-Gvir sent a message to the settlers, encouraging participants to “hang Arabs.” One member responded to the advice to bring their firearms with them with “We’re burning Arabs today, the Molotov cocktails are already in the trunk.”
In spite of the extreme violence and racism behind the attacks, the story did not seem to interest the disproportionate number of Zionists among American news editors and reporters. Along the way, the angry Jews beat Palestinians and attacked their homes and businesses in one of the Old City’s remaining Arab neighborhoods Sheikh Jarrah.
Attacks on Palestinians, to include their homes and livelihoods have been increasing in Jerusalem and on the occupied West Bank over the past several months without any intervention by Israeli police. The settlers were reportedly part of a right-wing Israeli group called Lehava which organized the violent demonstration with the objective of “restoring Jewish dignity” by “breaking the faces of Arabs.” Lehava claimed it was only avenging alleged attacks on Jews by Palestinians in and around Jerusalem, but most reports indicated that recent violence was instead caused by small groups of Jewish teenage boys looking for trouble.
During the rioting, Israeli soldiers and police made some arrests but primarily attacked the Palestinian civilians, including children, and some Jewish counter-protesters, with ‘skunk water’ sprayed from trucks, water cannon, tear gas and rubber-coated steel bullets. 105 Palestinians were injured and 22 remain in the hospital. One Palestinian was shot in the head by an armed border policeman who fired into the counter-demonstrators and there are unconfirmed reports that at least four more Arabs died.
In a normal world and if the United States had a normal government that adhered to some kind of moral compass, there might have been a protest coming from the President Joe Biden administration or from the “people’s house” Congress, but there was nary a whimper. On the contrary, though the Congress was thinking about Israel, it was looking in a different direction, towards those whom Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared to be the enemies of his country. The attacks took place on April 22nd, ironically the same day that Congressmen Ted Deutch and Michael McCaul released a letter that they had sponsored. The letter was intended to stop dead any consideration that the United States just might condition its billions of dollars in largesse to the Jewish state annually based on Netanyahu and his band of war criminals restraining themselves just a bit.
Such a possibility has been raised by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, along with a handful of other brave legislators, who expressed concern that Israel will act without restraint as long as it knows that its money from Washington will continue to flow. In particular, Israel is currently pressuring Congress and using its media clout to oppose any re-entry by the US into the multilateral agreement to limit and inspect Iran’s nuclear development program, which Biden is just possibly intending to do. The previous agreement, which was being observed by Iran, became largely a dead letter when President Donald Trump, acting on behalf of major Jewish donors to the GOP as well as his neocon advisers, withdrew from the existing plan, the JCPOA, in 2017.
The letter was signed by 330 Congressmen, roughly half Republican and half Democratic, which is nearly two-thirds of the House and Senate. It begins with “As the United States meets pressing global challenges, we strongly believe that robust U.S. foreign assistance is vital to ensuring our national security interests abroad. One program that enjoys particularly strong bipartisan backing and for which we, Democrats and Republicans, urge your continued strong support is the full funding of security assistance to Israel.” The usual balderdash follows, about how “Israel continues to face direct threats from Iran and its terrorist proxies… Our aid to Israel is a vital and cost-effective expenditure which advances important U.S. national security interests in a highly challenging region.”
Sure it does, just ask the victims of the Israeli attack on the US naval vessel the USS Liberty in June 1967, which killed 34 sailors and injured 171 more. But no matter. The only things missing from the letter was the boilerplate assertion that Israel is America’s best friend in the whole wide world, which is obligatory in such documents, probably because everyone in Congress has already agreed to that. One also has to wonder why the other 205 Congressmen didn’t sign the letter, which is also obligatory, and one has to assume that their mothers had just died or something similar.
The letter also recalls how “President Biden has stated, ‘I’m not going to place conditions for the security assistance given the serious threats that Israel is facing, and this would be, I think, irresponsible’” before adding that “Reducing funding or adding conditions on security assistance would be detrimental to Israel’s ability to defend itself against all threats.”
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), regarded as the most visible component of the Israel Lobby, was very pleased with the letter. Its spokesman Marshall Wittmann told the Jewish Insider website that the letter is “a very strong bipartisan statement that full security assistance to Israel – without additional conditions – is in the national security interest of the United States.”
Just once it might be nice to see someone in Congress or the White House concede that tying one’s security arrangements to a nation that most of the world considers “rogue” is not exactly a smart thing to do, but it all depends on how one defines smart. Smart for a congressman on the make is to have the Jewish dominated media and the invincible Israel Lobby on one’s side. Smart is to receive a pat on the head from AIPAC. It should be noted, of course, that the letter and the commentary surrounding it make no reference to the behavior of the rampaging Jewish mobs in Jerusalem that were out for blood, even though that was taking place as the document was being released to the media.
In addition to the “threat” posed by legislators like Sanders and Warren, the letter was clearly intended to meet a challenge coming from Congresswoman Betty McCollum, who has twice sponsored legislation forbidding the Israeli use of American financial aid to torture Arabs and, in particular, to beat and imprison Palestinian children. Her legislation the Promoting Human Rights for Palestinian Children Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act H.R. 2407 amends a provision of the Foreign Assistance Act known as the “Leahy Law” to prohibit funding for the military detention of children in any country, including Israel. McCollum argues that an estimated 10,000 Palestinian children have been detained by Israeli security forces and prosecuted in the Israeli military court system since 2000. These children between the ages of 11 and 15 have sometimes been tortured using chokeholds, beatings, and coercive interrogation.
The Deutch-McCaul letter not coincidentally appeared less than a week after McCollum joined by 15 progressive Democrat co-sponsors submitted her bill, which admittedly is unlikely ever to emerge from committee for a vote. As of September 2020 there were an estimated 157 children still detained in Israeli prisons and, though it would be difficult to break down the money to Israel which is advanced in a lump sum, one would think the objective to be an admirable one to anyone but the always on-alert and powerful Israel Lobby.
The pledge by Congress together with its clear message that behind it there are enough votes to override any White House attempt to cut the aid, is also intended to send a warning to another perceived threat to Israel, that of the growing non-violent Boycott, Divestments and Sanction movement (BDS). The movement, which is particularly strong on college campuses, is being de facto criminalized in states all over the country, 26 at least and counting, and there are also Congressional bills that would possibly make the issue of boycotting Israel a felony with serious jail time and fines attached.
The overriding message is that Israel’s friends in the United States, and also in countries like Britain, France and Canada, are too strong to confront. In this case, the obvious racism and resort to lethal violence by the large component of the Israeli population should be resonating with a congress and media due to the recent convulsions being experienced here at home. Indeed, most of the “opinion makers” are jumping on the BLM bandwagon. This cheerleading for BLM is ironically highly visible in the actions taken by leading Israeli advocacy groups like AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), but that does not mean that there is any empathy to share for the plight of the Palestinians. Indeed, they are steps taken to get close to blacks to contain any possible pro-Arab sentiment.
A humane response to the suffering of the Palestinians does not surface much in the US because, frankly, Israel and its supporters have assiduously bought control of the US media as well the White House and Congress to such an extent that they can get what they want and never be challenged. That, of course, must end but the real question is how do we accomplish that when we the people have been effectively disenfranchised on the issue. When your government has been bought and your free speech limited by the oligarchs who control what passes for news and information, where do you go? Indeed, that is the dilemma.
Letter To Members Of The European Parliament Asking For The Rejection Of The Green Digital Certificate
Freedom needs no pass; but the people need freedom
Dear Members of the European Parliament,
We write as the Chair of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a non-profit based in the United States, and President of CHD-Europe. Our global advocacy organisation seeks to protect children’s health through exposing causes of ill health and bringing to justice those that are harming their health. We are deeply concerned by the unintended consequences of the COVID crisis, including how they affect children worldwide. We oppose the Parliament’s adoption of the “Green Pass” (Digital Green Certificate, introduced March 17, 2021 with proposal #COM 2021 130) without thorough, vigorous debate. While the intent of the Green Pass is to facilitate travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, we fear it will do the exact opposite: it will stifle travel and human interaction.
I write as Chairman of the Board of Children’s Health Defense Europe regarding the Green Digital Certificate Proposal, and subsequent to my highlypublicised letter of 22 March 2021 on this important subject.
It is clear we are living in exceptional times, as we see the European Union hurrying to erect a new ‘universal framework’ for disease control within the Schengen Zone. It is a response to last year’s sudden cascade of Member States locking their doors to European Citizens in fear of disease.
The EU would now offer us the key: a vaccine card in the form of ‘interoperable’ digital certificates, to be known as the Green Digital Certificate. The GDC Proposal promises freedom. But when the door remains locked, and only keyholders may pass, are we free? A pass to liberty is, in its nature, a guarantee of discrimination.
In fact, on 19 April 2021 the WHO asked that any plans for making proof of vaccination a condition of entry be abandoned because of the unavoidably discriminatory consequences. A Belgian interdisciplinary group of lawyers and scientists has demonstrated inan extensive legal analysis that this proposal is a “disproportionate, inefficient and unfair obstacle to the free movement of European citizens”, in particular given the incomplete and inaccurate scientific claims it relies on for its justification. The Commission’s assertion that introducing restrictions on free movement will somehow facilitate the exercise of that same right is quite simply absurd.
Despite its inherent dangers, the Proposal for the GDC border control system lacks the usual compliment of impact assessment, cost-benefit analysis and public consultation. As an MEP you will be aware that the Better Regulation rules, recently introduced, emphasise the importance of these procedures in maintaining the balance of power in Europe.
Given that the relevant information is easily to hand, we think that the Commission when drawing up the Proposal may have made this omission in error. In response, popular initiatives have sprung up across Europe, including the Petition on Covid-19 and Fundamental Rights and Freedoms raised by 21 citizens and organisations across 17 Member States to call a Parliamentary Committee to investigate the handling of the crisis; an ad-hoc committee of scientists and lawyers from different countries and organisations to analyse the underlying science and law of the Proposal; and the group Doctors for Covid Ethics, which have warned the Europeans Medicines Agency and the EU parliament of serious risks associated win Covid-19 vaccines in personal letters and open correspondence. In view of the mounting feeling of the European citizenry, it is our duty to ensure that Parliamentarians have what they require for a thorough and open debate.
So out of respect for Parliamentary sovereignty and in the hope of sparking a lively and constructive debate, we would like you to consider the below grounds. If you find our argument convincing, at the Plenary Session you might consider voting in favour of the amendment proposed by Mr Rob Rooken MEP for the complete rejection of this unpopular Proposal.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Chairman of the Board of Children’s Health Defense Europe
Senta Depuydt President, Children’s Health Defense Europe
The Science is wrong
Covid-19 vaccines do not stop the virus spreading
According to the European Medicines Agency and World Health Organisation, there is no proof that vaccination will stop transmission of Covid-19.
Covid-19 vaccines are dangerous
No vaccine for Covid-19 has been fully tested. They remain ‘candidate’ vaccines. We already know they kill people but we don’t know how many. Member States have begun suspending and even outlawing vaccines as their deadliness becomes clear.
Testing does not prove infection
The evidence is and has been that PCR testing, far from being a gold standard, was not designed for diagnosis of diseases such as Covid-19. It was tried for this purpose anyway, and predictably found wanting. This has lead to false diagnosis on a huge scale. The Courts are gradually ruling against its use.
The Proposal is illegal
The Proposal ends freedom of movement
Although not explicitly stated in the Proposal, border guards must inspect travellers and their certificates, including those who are not sick. In the absence of such checks, the certificates would have no useful effect, and the ‘universal framework’ would not exist.
The Proposal robs Europeans of health sovereignty
Although Article 168(7) TFEU prevents the EU from taking responsibility away from the Member States ‘for the definition of their health policy and for the organization and delivery of health services and medical care,’ Articles 5(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of the Proposal de facto harmonize an aspect of health policy; namely the certification of vaccination, testing and recovery. Consequently European citizens will require certain medical interventions or face discrimination in the form of individual travel bans or even prevention, according to French Commissioner Thierry Breton, from leaving their private dwelling.
The Proposal robs Europeans of their privacy
Even in the event that Citizens are able to travel without vaccination or undergoing tests, they will still be required to reveal health information to IT companies, the State, border guards and perhaps other citizens in order to go about their daily business. This is an unprecedented invasion of our privacy and one which is impossible to oversee. Thus discrimination awaits those Citizens who still consider this information private.
The Proposal is permanent; not temporary
The European Commission will be able to impose the GDC controls on Europeans for an indeterminate period of time in consultation with unknown experts. Thus the Member States will cede responsibility for control of their borders under the proposed ‘harmonizing framework’ definitively.
The Proposal gives the WHO too much power
This control is ceded by the Member States not to the EU Institutions which they incorporate, but to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO). If the WHO declares an international emergency because of any infectious disease with epidemic potential, the European Commission will automatically reimpose the Certificate, until the WHO dictates otherwise, with the Member States having no say.
The WHO can declare such an emergency even if there are no deaths because on 4 May 2009 the WHO redefined a viral pandemic as causing ‘cases’, removing any reference to ‘deaths’. Without any need to prove that a disease can kill people, the WHO may, which will be to its infinite profit, condemn us to a global health alert in perpetuity.
Mr Paul Flynn, a member of the Social Health and Family Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, draws attention to this anomoly in his report, ‘The handling of the H1N1 pandemic: more transparency needed’, 7 June 2010.
Thus the Proposal is uncertain, disproportionate and discriminatory
The GDC Proposal is uncertain and rich with contradiction. It states that it ‘cannot be interpreted as establishing an obligation or right to be vaccinated’, while promoting this practice, leading to discrimination against unvaccinated. The Proponent seeks to defer criticism through euphamistic language: a vaccine card which is a ‘Digital Green Certificate’; a new system of EU border controls which are a ‘universal framework’; non-discrimination between vaccinated and non-vaccinated, but nothing said of discrimination between tested and non-tested, or immune and non-immune.
The Proposal even encourages mandatory medical interventions for those who ‘are not part of the target group for which the vaccine is currently recommended, such as children, or because they have not yet had the opportunity or do not wish to be vaccinated.’
These are not interferences in the Fundamental Rights of citizens; they are attacks. They would be disproportionate per se, without regard to the poor underlying science.
The Proposal is not the way
The Proposal destroys democray
The Proposal demolishes a central pillar for the EU, ‘one of its most cherished achievements’ to quote the Proposal, and perhaps the principle reason for the Union’s survival: freedom of movement for Europeans. The Member States will hand their sovereignty in matters of their peoples’ health to an unelected international organisation; an organisationthat that has lead a campaign of fear and has shown more interest in the sale of medical products than in the promotion of health; an organistation that does not care about the rule of law or the damage done by its discriminatory policies.
The Proposal will lead to war
The Proposal will lead to discrimination between peoples on health grounds, a distinction so often falling along lines of religious and racial divide, and on a unimaginable scale—one which outstrips divides of the past. Thus it represents a global Great Apartheid. When combined with the reerection of borders, tensions will rise within Europe and without.
But there is hope
If we can but reject the ‘universal framework’ and instead embrace a democratic attitude of personal responsibility for health, we can prevent the final erosion of European political integrity. Rather than end it, we can bring new life to our historic shared project.
Stories about killer robots, machine-augmented heroes, laser weapons and battles in space – outer or cyber – have always been good for filling cinema seats, but now they have started to liven up sober academic journals and government white papers.
However, war is about much more than combat or how we fight. Is the sensationalism of high-tech weaponry blinding us to technology’s impact on the broader social, political and cultural context that determines why, where and when war happens, what makes it more or less likely, and who wins?
Consider artificial intelligence (AI). The potential for developing lethal autonomous weapons systems grabs headlines (“killer robots!”), but the greatest impact of AI on conflict may be socially mediated. Algorithmically-driven social media connections funnel individuals into trans-national but culturally enclosed echo-chambers, radicalising their world-view.
As robots relieve humans of their jobs, some societies will prove better prepared than others in their use of education and infrastructures for transitioning workers into new, socially sustainable and economically productive ways to make a living. Less prepared nations could see increasingly stark inequality, with economically-excluded young people undermining social stability, losing faith with technocratic governance, and spurring the rise of leaders who aim popular anger at an external enemy.
Looking beyond individual technologies allows us to focus on the broader and deeper dimensions of the transformation coming our way. Professor Klaus Schwab, chairman and founder of the World Economic Forum, argues that the collapse of barriers between digital and physical, and between synthetic and organic, constitutes a Fourth Industrial Revolution, promising a level of change comparable to that brought about by steam power, electricity and computing.
Something that makes this revolution fundamentally different is how it challenges ideas about what it means to be human. For instance, neuroscience is teaching us more about our own fallibility, and also just how ‘hackable’ humans are. As science continues to uncover difficult truths about how we really operate, we will have to confront basic assumptions about the nature of human beings. Whether this deep transformation will reinforce or undermine a shared sense of human dignity, and what effects it will have on our relationship with organized violence, remain open to question.
The experience of past industrial revolutions can help us begin to search for answers about how this will transform the wider context of international security. In the first industrial revolution, deposits of coal and iron ore were one factor determining the “winners” in terms of economic and geopolitical power.
Today, new modes and artefacts of industrial production will also change demand patterns, empowering countries controlling supply and transit, and disempowering others. Progress in energy production and storage efficiency, for instance, is likely to have profound consequences for the petro economies and the security challenges of their regions. Although the set of natural resources critical to strategic industries will change, their use as a geo-economic tool will probably be repeated.
For instance, this is widely thought to have happened when, in the midst of a maritime dispute with Japan in 2010, China restricted export of “rare earths” that are critical for computing, sensors, permanent magnets and energy storage. With ever more commercial and military value embedded in the technology sector, such key materials will be deemed “critical” or “strategic” in terms of national security, and be subject to political as well as market forces.
The 19th Century Industrial Revolution showed how technological asymmetry can translate into geopolitical inequality – in the words of Hilaire Belloc’s poem ‘The modern traveller’, spoken by a European about Africa: “Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim Gun, and they have not”. (The Maxim Gun was the first recoil-operated machine gun).
What will be the Maxim Gun of our time? Who will have it, and who will not? In the 20th Century, the “haves and have-nots” of the nuclear weapons club membership became the major determinant of the post-war global order, and – as seen in the cases of Iran and North Korea today – this continues to be relevant. Stealth technology and precision guided missiles used to impose a “new world order” in the early 1990s showed how the gap in military capability separated the United States from others, sustaining its leadership of a “unipolar” order.
According to the current US deputy secretary of defence Robert Work, “There’s no question that US military technological superiority is beginning to erode”.
History can only tell us only so much. There is a need for fresh thinking about the implications of the Fourth Industrial Revolution for international security.
1. Waging war may seem “easier”. If increased reliance on machines for remote killing makes combat more abstract from our everyday experience, could that make it more tolerable for our societies, and therefore make war more likely? Those who operate lethal systems are ever more distant from the battlefield and insulated from physical danger, but this sense of advantage may prove illusory. Those on the receiving end of technological asymmetries have a stronger incentive to find other ways to strike back: when you cannot compete on a traditional battlefield, you look to where your adversary is vulnerable, such as through opportunistic attacks on civilians.
2. Speed kills. “The speed at which machines can make decisions in the far future is likely to challenge our ability to cope, demanding a new relationship between man and machine.” This was the assessment of US Major General William Hix at a conference on the future of the Army in October 2016. The speed of technological innovation also makes it hard to keep abreast of new military capabilities, easier to be misled on the actual balance of power, and to fall victim to a strategic miscalculation. The fact that some capabilities are deliberately hidden just makes it harder. Because offensive cyber capability relies so much on exploiting one-off vulnerabilities, it is difficult to simultaneously demonstrate and maintain a capability. Once a particular vulnerability has been exploited, the victim is alerted and will take steps to fix it. General Hix again: “A conventional conflict in the near future will be extremely lethal and fast, And we will not own the stopwatch.”
3. Fear and uncertainty increase risk. The expectation that asymmetries could change quickly – as may be the case with new strategic capabilities in areas like artificial intelligence, space, deep sea and cyber – could incentivise risk-taking and aggressive behaviour. If you are confident that you have a lead in a strategically-significant but highly dynamic field of technology, but you are not confident that the lead will last, you might be more tempted to use it before a rival catches up. Enhanced capacity to operate at speed puts security actors into a constant state of high alert, incentivises investment in resilience, and forces us to live with uncertainty. Under these conditions, war by mistake – either through over-confidence in your ability to win, or because of exaggerated threat perception – becomes more likely.
4. Deterrence and pre-emption. When new capabilities cause a shift in the balance between offensive and defensive advantage – or even the perception of such a shift -, it could increase the incentives for aggression. For example, one of the pillars of nuclear deterrence is the “second strike” capability, which puts the following thought into the mind of an actor contemplating a nuclear attack: “even if I destroy my opponent’s country totally, their submarines will still be around to take revenge”. But suppose swarms of undersea drones were able to track and neutralize the submarines that launch nuclear missiles? Long-range aerial drones can already navigate freely across the oceans, and will be able to fly under the radar deep into enemy territory. Such capabilities make it possible in theory for an actor to escape the fear of second-strike retaliation, and feel safer in launching a pre-emptive strike against aircraft in their hangars, ships in port, and critical infrastructure, with practically no chance of early warning. Indeed, cyberattacks on banks, power stations and government institutions have demonstrated that it is no longer necessary to fly bombers around the world to reach a distant enemy’s critical infrastructure without early warning. The idea of striking a `knockout blow` may come to seem feasible once more.
5. The new arms race is harder to control. One of the mechanisms for strategic stability is arms control agreements, which have served to limit the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. When it comes to the multiple combinations of technology we see as a hallmark of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, one of the obstacles to international agreement is caused by uncertainty about how strategic benefits will be distributed. For instance, the international community is currently debating both the ethics and practicality of a ban on the development of lethal autonomous weapons systems. One of the factors holding this debate back from a conclusion is a lack of consensus among experts about whether such systems would give an advantage to the defender or the attacker, and hence be more likely to deter or incentivize the escalation of conflict. Where you stand on the issue may depend on whether you see yourself as a master of the technology, or a victim. Another obstacle to imposing control is the wider cast of players –
6. A wider cast of players. As cutting-edge technology becomes cheaper, it spreads to a wider range of actors. Consider the development of nuclear bombs – the last breakthrough in weapons technology that re-wrote the rules of international security. Although the potential for a fission bomb was understood in terms of theoretical physics, putting it into practice involved thousands of scientists and billions of dollars – resources on a scale only a few nations could muster. Over 70 years later, the club of nuclear weapons states remains exclusively small, and no non-state actor has succeeded in acquiring nuclear capability.
In contrast, there are more than 70 nations operating earth-orbiting satellites today. Nano-satellites are launched by Universities and Corporations. A growing list of companies can launch and recover payloads on demand, meaning even small states can buy top-notch equipment “off the shelf”. As Christopher Zember put it, “Once the pinnacle of national achievement, space has become a trophy to be traded between two business owners”. These days, even a committed enthusiast can now feasibly do genetic engineering in their basement. Other examples of dual-purpose technologies include encryption, surveillance, drones, AI and genomics. With commercial availability, proliferation of these technologies becomes wider and faster, creating more peer competitors on the state level and among non-state actors, and making it harder to broker agreements to stop them falling into the wrong hands.
7. The grey zone. The democratisation of weaponisable technology empowers non-state actors and individuals to create havoc on a massive scale. It also threatens stability by offering states more options in the form of “hybrid” warfare and the use of proxies to create plausible deniability and strategic ambiguity. When it is technically difficult to attribute an attack – already true with cyber, and becoming an issue with autonomous drones – conflicts can become more prone to escalation and unintended consequences.
8. Pushing the moral boundaries. Institutions governing legal and moral restraints on the conduct of war or controlling proliferation date from an era when massively destructive technology was reserved to a small, distinct set of actors – mostly states or people acting under state sponsorship. The function of state-centric institutions is impaired by the fact that states’ militaries are no longer necessarily at the cutting edge of technology: most of the talent driving research and development in today’s transformative dual-use technologies is privately employed, in part because the private sector simply has access to more money. For example, the private sector has invested more in AI research and development in five years than governments have since AI research first started. Diminishing state control of talent is epitomised by Uber`s recruitment of a team of robotics researchers from Carnegie Mellon University in 2015, which decimated the research effort they had had been working on for the United States department of Defence.
The fact that the trajectory of research – and much of the infrastructure critical to security – are in private hands need not be a problem if state actors were able to exercise oversight through traditional means such as norms development, regulation and law-making. However, the pace and intensity of innovation, and difficulty of predicting what new capabilities will be unleashed as new technologies intersect, makes it difficult for states to keep up. State-centric institutions for maintaining international security have failed to develop a systematic approach to address the possible long-term security implications of advances in areas as diverse as nanotechnology, synthetic biology, big data and machine learning. Nor have industry-led measures yet filled the gap.
9. Expanding domains of conflict. Domains of potential conflict such as outer space, the deep oceans, and the Arctic – all perceived as gateways to economic and strategic advantage – are expanding via new technologies and materials that can overcome inhospitable conditions. Like cyberspace, these are less well-governed than the familiar domains of land, sea and air: their lack of natural borders can make them difficult to reconcile with existing international legal frameworks, and technological development is both rapid and private sector-driven, which makes it hard for governance institutions to keep up.
Those who secure “first mover” advantage may also seek to defend it against the establishment of regulation and governance in the common interest. Access to the technology needed to reach and exploit space, for example, allows belligerents to compromise the effectiveness of defensive measures that rely on satellites for communications, navigation, command and control technology. Even a very limited strike on a satellite would likely cause space debris, damaging systems used by the wider community. Despite a 1967 United Nations treaty calling for the peaceful use of Space, the United States Deputy Secretary of the Air Force recently warned that “there is not an agreed upon code of conduct” for space operations.
10. What is physically possible becomes likely. History suggests that any technology – even one that gives moral pause – will eventually be developed in order to be used as a weapon. As the political theorist Carl Schmitt explained, political conflict is the “realm of exception” in all sorts of ways that make the morally unthinkable not only possible, but more likely. Professor Ole Wæver and the Copenhagen School of international relations developed the concept of “securitisation” to describe how a security actor invokes the principle of necessity as a way of getting around legal or moral restraints. Policy-makers can argue that because non-state actors, terrorist and criminal groups can access new technology, they are obliged to pursue weaponization, in order to prepare an adequate defence. Public disquiet can also be bypassed by conducting research in secret; we now know from de-classified accounts of Cold War studies that soldiers were used as guinea pigs to research the effects of new weapons, and military experiments may well be underway today in areas such as human enhancement. The tendency for the logic of conflict to drive the development of technology beyond what is considered acceptable by society under normal conditions is one more reason to pay closer attention to trends in this field.
International Security is destabilised at the institutional level by the way the 4th Industrial Revolution is empowering the individual through technology, and the way that blurs the lines between war and peace, military and civilian, domestic and foreign, public and private, and physical and digital. The democratisation of destruction has been mentioned above, but non-state groups’ leveraging of global social media – whether to gain support, undermine the morale of opponents, sow confusion, or provoke a response that will create an advantage – has increased the strategic importance of shaping perceptions and narratives about international security. ISIS’s use of online videos provide an extreme example of a non-state actor using social media to drive recruitment, while state security services in select countries employ online “trolls” on a large scale. Consider the implications for democratic control over armed force when technologies like big data analytics, machine learning, behavioural science and chatbots are fully enlisted in the battle over perceptions and control of the narrative.
The hacking attack suffered by Sony Pictures Entertainment in 2014, allegedly motivated by North Korea’s political grievance, highlights these blurring lines – and the resulting difficulty of deciding who should be responsible for security in this new reality. If someone were so offended by a movie that they burned down the studio’s warehouse, one would expect the police to step in. But is it ultimately the responsibility of the state or of corporations to prevent or deter the kind of attack experienced by Sony Pictures? What is the appropriate response? When does an attack on a private company constitute an act of war? As an increasing proportion of what we value gets uploaded onto a global infrastructure of information and communications technology, do we expect it to be protected by service providers like Apple, or by our state’s security agencies?
Little by little, the responsibility for defending citizens is effectively shifting away from the state and towards the private sector. It is, for example, your bank’s security chief who bears responsibility for protecting your money from international cyber theft, whether it comes from straightforward criminal groups or those acting under the sponsorship of sovereign states. A report by Internet security company McAfee and the think-tank CSIS estimated the likely annual cost to the global economy from cybercrime at more than $400 billion – roughly equivalent to the combined defence spending of the European Union, or the Asia region.
According to 17th century political theorist Thomas Hobbes, the citizen agrees to give up some freedom and render loyalty in exchange for protection and to escape the “natural condition” of life, which was otherwise “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. In return, the state expects respect for its laws. But if citizens lose confidence in the state’s capacity to guarantee their security, be it through military protection or domestic justice and policing or social safety nets, they may also feel less of an obligation to be loyal to the state in return. In effect, the unravelling of the Hobbesian ”social contract”. This can undermine mechanisms for global governance, which consist of inter-state institutions that rely on state power for their effectiveness.
Could the relative loss of state power fatally undermine the system of international security? Several well-known tech entrepreneurs have talked in ways that suggest they see national governments not as a leader in norms development, but as an unnecessary inconvenience. Genetics innovator Balaji Srinivasan has envisioned “Silicon Valley`s ultimate exit” from the USA. Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel has floated the idea of establishing a sea colony to literally offshore himself from government regulation. Elon Musk has talked about colonising Mars. There is serious interest in businesses formulating their own foreign policy. These are interesting ideas, but until there is a credible rival the state for the role of main international security actor to meet the challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the character of state action on security will need to adapt to the new environment, re-position itself to accommodate other actors, and renegotiate relations across a widespread network of partnerships.
What is to be done?
As attitudes adapt to the new distribution of security responsibility between individuals, companies and institutions of governance, there is a need for a new approach to international security. There is plenty of room for debate about how that approach should look, but the baseline can be drawn through three points: it will need to be able to think long-term, adapt rapidly to the implications of technological advances, and work in a spirit of partnership with a wide range of stakeholders.
Institutional barriers between civilian and military spheres are being torn down. Outreach to Silicon Valley is a feature of current US Defence policy, for example, as are invitations to hackers to help the Department of Defence to maintain its advantage in the digital domain. The “third offset strategy” promoted by US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter is based on a recognition that private sector innovation has outstripped that of military institutions in the post-Cold War era, and a more open relationship with business as well as with academic and science institutions could prove vital to maintaining the dominance of US military capabilities.
Such is the speed, complexity and ubiquity of innovation today, we need a regulation process that looks ahead to how emerging technologies could conceivably be weaponized, without holding back the development of those technologies for beneficial ends. “Hard governance” of laws and regulations remain necessary, but we will also need to make more use of faster-moving “soft governance” mechanisms such as laboratory standards, testing and certification regimes, insurance policies and mechanisms like those set up by academics to make potentially dangerous research subject to approval and oversight. This will need to proactively anticipate and adapt to not only technological changes, but also macro-cultural ones, which are a lot harder to predict.
States and other security actors need to start exploring with each other some of the concepts and modes of operation that would make such a networked approach sustainable, legitimate and fit for the ultimate purpose of maintaining stability and promoting peaceful coexistence in the emerging international security landscape.
Instead of meeting each other in court, as the FBI met the Apple Corporation to settle their dispute about encryption, security providers could meet across a table, under new forms of public oversight and agile governance, as partners in a common endeavour. Instead of struggling along in denial, or wasting energy trying to fight the inevitable, stakeholders who have been working in parallel siloes can learn to collaborate for a safer world. What cast of actors populate this wider security ecosystem? What are shared priorities in terms of risks? What are some of the potential models for peer to peer security? How can the 4th Industrial Revolution be used to give citizens a stronger sense of control over choices of governance, or to deny space to criminal organizations and corrupt practices? Can smart contracts using block chain technology be applied to build confidence in financial transactions and peace agreements? Can defensive alliances be expanded to include or even consist entirely of non-state actors? Should international law extend the right to use proportionate force in self-defence in cyber conflict to commercial actors? What aspects of these challenges are a matter for legal instruments and regulation, and what aspects will require a new approach?
The future of national security may lie in models of self-defence that are decentralised and networked. As Jean-Marie Guéhenno, CEO of the International Crisis Group, wrote: “distribution of security measures among a multiplicity of actors – neighbourhoods, cities, private stakeholders – will make society more resilient. And over time, smaller but well-connected communities may be more effective at preventing and identifying terrorist threats among their members.” Several of the critical ingredients of such a de-centralized model are becoming available: more security responsibility is being taken up by city mayors and even civil society groups like the global hacktivist collective “Anonymous”, who declared war on the self-styled Islamic State. So far, however, this has been a haphazard phenomenon and its impact is diminished by a lack of coordination.
The answers that may emerge to these questions are unpredictable – but what is clear is the need to have a conversation that reaches across generations and across disciplines. This conversation has to be global. International security is threatened by a loss of trust, in particular between those who drew power from the last industrial revolution and those whose power is rising within a fluid and complex environment. The conversation needs to foster mutual understanding, dispel unjustified fears, and revive public confidence in new forms of responsive leadership that manifestly serve the common good.
The U.S. military has offered a recently incarcerated James Comey a plea deal: No death sentence in exchange for future testimony against the Deep State’s preeminent architect, Barack Hussein Obama.
As reported previously, U.S. Marines on April 20 raided Comey’s posh Mansion in McClean, Va., where they arrested the traitor and shipped him to Camp Lejeune, N.C. There, the military has been interrogating him in advance of his eventual trip to Guantanamo Bay to stand before a military tribunal.
A confidential source involved in Trump’s operation to invalidate the 2020 election and arrest the traitors told RRN that Trump agreed to remove capital punishment from the table if, and only if, Comey signs an attestation linking Obama to the tragic deaths of 16 patriots. According to the military, Barack Obama had on July 31, 2013 authorized an airstrike against a Colorado militia group after learning its members had obtained photographic evidence of guillotines being installed at FEMA camps in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming.
The militia members, the military claims, had gathered at a secluded safehouse in northwest Colorado to discuss methods of disseminating their evidence without endangering themselves and their families. Unbeknownst to them, an Obama spy had, apparently, infiltrated their ranks and communicated knowledge of the meeting to the Obama hierarchy. As the meeting progressed, an F-16 from Cheyenne Mountain homed in on the safehouse and released a pair of Mark 83 1000-lb bombs. The resulting explosion laid waste the area and killed everyone in attendance, including women and one child.
“Obama tried to destroy evidence of the attack, but seems he missed some. Trump and the military believe Comey knew about it an advance. So did Susan Rice and John Brennan, who’s already at GITMO. Comey’s not getting out of a tribunal, but Trump wants Obama. It’s possible Brennan has already spilled some info on this. Trump’s willing to spare some lives to get to Obama,” our source said.
After an exhaustive search, RRN was unable to find evidence of the aforementioned attack. There are no public records of explosions or forest fires in northwest Colorado that day. Nor have members of the three-percenters, the militia group named on military records, ever spoken publicly on the attack.
“The Deep State are masters of coverups and deception, and their reach is unlimited. They could have threatened people into silence. Look what’s happening now, even the Oath Keepers are flipping and ratting one another. Trump thinks it’s legit. And the military, it seems, has evidence. And they must think Comey can put the nail in Obama’s coffin,” our source said.
The question is, will Comey talk, or is his fear of his Deep State masters greater than his fear of the hangman’s noose.
Author’s note: We asked our source why Obama, a fan of drone strikes, didn’t use a drone, which would have been less conspicuous. He seemed sure it was an airstrike and that the pilot was told he was bombing an Islamic terrorist hideout.
As the closing arguments of the Derek Chauvin trial wrap up today those who want to advance racial hatred attempt to intimidate a prior defense witness. Former police training officer Barry Brodd testified for the defense. His former home in Santa Rosa, California, was attacked Sunday with a pigs head left on the blood-splattered front porch. Fortunately Mr. Brodd had previously moved away from that location, but the current owner was obviously mortified.
The far-left is once again using every resource to trigger violence and hatred around this case. Without a doubt the activists inside Obama’s Chicago network are coordinating the effort. They have been exploiting the death of George Floyd for maximum political value and antagonism from the outset.
CALIFORNIA – A group of as of yet unidentified vandals reportedly threw a bloody severed pigs head on the porch of the former home of a retired California cop who served as a defense witness in the trial of Derek Chauvin, the ex-Minneapolis police officer currently standing trial for the murder of George Floyd.
According to NBC, the current resident of former training officer Barry Brodd’s former home in Santa Rosa found the animal’s head on their blood-splattered front porch around 3 a.m. Saturday morning in what appears to be a case of mistaken identity – or, just stupidity by vandals too dumb to realize that Brodd hadn’t lived at the house for years.
The local police department says it seems the home was targeted because of Brodd’s witness testimony in Chauvin’s trial, in which Brodd likened Floyd’s death to an “accidental death.”
“That isn’t an incident of deadly force,” Brodd said during the trial, according to the Associated Press. “That’s an incident of an accidental death.”
The unfortunate current resident of Brodd’s old house called the police after seeing multiple suspects, dressed in all black, fleeing the scene. The same group is thought to have soaked a local statue in blood and left a sign reading “Oink Oink” about 45 minutes later.
Brodd, on the other hand, hasn’t even worked for the Santa Rosa Police Department since 2004 and doesn’t even live in California.
“Mr. Brodd has not lived at the residence for a number of years and is no longer a resident of California,” the Santa Rose Police Department said. “Because Mr. Brodd no longer lives in the city of Santa Rosa, it appears the victim was falsely targeted.”
Rage, hatred and violence is the mantra of the far-left….
The people behind the coordination of this national division are the same communists who indoctrinated Barack Obama into the Alinsky methods. It is all one large soup mix of various racial antagonizers in the same pot. This is what they do…. this is how they drive division.
Wednesday’s proceedings at Guantanamo Bay began with Vice Adm. John G. Hannink showing the three-officer panel a series of email exchanges between Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, that occurred on September 28, 2016 and October 10, 2016—the evenings after the first and second presidential debates, respectively. The emails, he pointed out, were not sent or received from Clinton’s infamous private email server—which had been long dismantled by then—but rather a public, free email service called Yandex, an alternative to Gmail. The email content, Vice Adm. Hannink opened, would illustrate how Clinton’s arrogance and Hubris—bolstered by her co-conspirators—imbued her with a misguided sense of invulnerability.
“How the military obtained these emails is less important than the content contained here. What’s paramount is digital forensics conclusively proved that these unencrypted messages originated from the detainee’s laptop with an internet protocol address tied to her Chappaqua, NY home,” Vice Adm. Hannink said.
The first email, sent from Clinton to Podesta was timestamped September 28, 2016, 6:45 p.m. In it, Clinton expressed anger at the number of people in the debate audience who seemed to favor Trump’s vision for America over hers.
Vice Adm. Hannink recited the brief message to the tribunal. “He [Trump] is a pompous fool, but his message resonates, dangerously, with his fucking mob of deplorables. The idiot speaks, and they listen. Not worried but we should’ve kept a closer watch. We must keep a closer watch now. Accidents happen.”
“Thirty minutes later, Podesta replied to Clinton,” Vice Adm. Hannink said, reading from a printed copy of Podesta’s response. “They’ve happened before and can happen again. That’s why people must be careful to avoid accidents.”
Vice Adm. Hannink admitted the message, without further context, was nothing more than a mishmash of doublespeak that could be interpreted as nebulously as a daily horoscope. But when taken in context with the October 10, 2016 email swap, Clinton and Podesta’s veiled innuendos suddenly became overt threats against a presidential candidate.
“Authored by Clinton, this letter was sent to Podesta the evening after the second presidential debate. And I’ll read: Still can’t believe that fucker said I’d be in prison when he becomes president. Like he could send me to prison, or become president, for that matter. And those idiots giving him a thunderous applause. His money doesn’t make him invincible. I’m giving serious consideration to acid-washing—I love when he uses phrases he doesn’t understand—him out of existence. He doesn’t stand a chance of ever touching me. We can do it. Thoughts?”
Vice Adm. Hannink looked at a handcuffed Clinton, asking if she cared to speak on her behavior. She turned her dark, smoldering eyes on him but said nothing, observing the same reticence she has since the tribunal began.
“Your silence speaks volumes, detainee Clinton, and you do not intimidate this commission,” Vice Adm. Hannink said. “Podesta sent her a reply an hour later: I don’t know if you’ve been drinking tonight. Careful with words. He’s not a nobody, and it would require tedious precautions to remove him from the stage. Might need a plumber.”
“I argue they tacitly conspired to murder Donald Trump,” Vice Adm. Hannink continued. “Still, reasonable officers like yourselves probably recognize that verbal and written threats are commonplace in today’s society, especially on social media. The Secret Service in four years investigated over 132,000 threats made against Donald Trump. And those people aren’t here facing a tribunal. Clinton, as Trump’s rival at the time, must be held to a higher standard than the average disgruntled Trump hater. In addition, she had a back and forth with Podesta, and that equals conspiring. Still, there’s more.”
He asked the military police guarding the chamber doors if the military’s witness was ready to testify. The M.P.s left the room a moment and returned with none other than John Podesta, shackled at the wrists and donning a white prison jumpsuit. As reported previously, U.S. Special Forces operating on Trump’s authority had arrested Podesta and his wife, Mary, on Easter Sunday.
The M.P.s seated Podesta directly opposite Clinton. Clinton opened her eyes to narrow slits, like knife cuts, peering intently at her former friend and campaign manager.
Vice Adm. Hannink continued: “Detainee Clinton, this man faces his own tribunal soon, but, unlike you, he is willing to talk. I want yes or no answers, detainee Podesta, so please do not expound on answers unless I tell you to. The emails aside, did Hillary Clinton explicitly tell you, in face and in person, that she intended to have Donald Trump assassinated?”
“Yes,” Podesta said, his voice a tremulous whisper.
“Please tell this tribunal, and now you may qualify your answer, exactly what Clinton said,” Vice Adm. Hannink asked.
“Hillary and I got together in Chappaqua, it was three days after debate number 2, and she asked me to hire someone to kill Trump. In the end we never did it, too risky, but for days she kept nagging me incessantly to take care of it. She was ready to pay $5,000,000,” Podesta said.
Vice Adm. Hannink asked Podesta whom he had planned to hire.
“She has many ex-agency—CIA—friends. I had a list of four or five,” Podesta said. “I paid one 2.5, wired to an offshore account, and would’ve paid the remainder on completion of the contract.”
Hannink asked the name of the would-be assassin, and Podesta said he was promised he wouldn’t have to disclose the names of contract killers with whom he and Clinton had associated.
“Was it Hillary Clinton’s idea to call it off?” Vice Adm. Hannink asked.
“No, it was mine. In fact, I thought it so risky, I went behind her back to abort it. The guy kept the 2.5, per the arrangement,” Podesta replied.
“And you’re not fabricating testimony because you’ve been guaranteed a sentence less than capital punishment in exchange for your cooperation?” Vice Adm. Hannink said.
“What I’ve said today is the truth. Hillary Clinton is a murderous, narcissistic, vicious woman,” Podesta said, and was escorted from the tribunal chamber.
In closing, Vice Adm. Hannink told the tribunal he would present his final evidence on Thursday afternoon and urged the officers judging the military’s case against Clinton to carefully and meticulously weigh each piece of evidence.
NEW ORLEANS – In the wake of last month’s deadly shootings in Colorado and Georgia, President Joe Biden recently announced six executive orders his administration believes will lead to some reduction in gun violence.
The United States is unique among developed nations in the high number of gun-related deaths in the country. While nearly all Americans understand there’s a problem, there are widely differing views on what’s causing the epidemic of deaths, and how to solve it.
Those contrasting opinions are on full display when discussing the March 22 mass shooting at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado that left 10 innocent people dead.
“Easy access to guns played a critical role in that shooting,” explained Patrick Armstrong, whose father taught gun control law. Armstrong lives in New Orleans, Louisiana, which had the fourth-highest murder rate among large American cities in 2019.
Armstrong said it’s discouraging how easy it was for the suspect in Boulder to purchase the firearms he used to end so many lives, despite having several past incidents that could have been grounds to disqualify him from gun ownership.
“Better gun laws, and more consistent enforcement of existing gun laws could have at least made it much more difficult for the suspect,” he told VOA.
Aidan Johnston has a very different view on what caused the tragedy. He’s the Director of Federal Affairs at Gun Owners of America, a gun rights organization with more than 100,000 members.
“Gun control groups spent years harassing stores [like the one in Boulder] under The Kroger Co. into banning the open carry of firearms,” Johnston explained. “The corporation finally capitulated in 2019. By demanding law-abiding gun owners shop elsewhere, they turned that store into a soft target ripe for exploitation by criminals like this mass murderer.”
Americans and Guns – Differing PerspectivesIn a five part series, VOA’s Deepak Dobhal profiles gun owners, people affected by gun violence, and a scholar who sees the contradictions and, perhaps, a way forward.
A country divided
There are few issues more contentious in the United States than guns. A Pew Research Center poll from 2017 asked respondents what is more important, controlling gun ownership or protecting the right to own guns?
It was a near-even split with 51% favoring controlling gun ownership, 47% prioritizing protecting the right to ownership, and the remaining 2% withholding their answer.
Despite there being no clear consensus on a path forward, many of the country’s leading voices leave little room for compromise.
“All gun control laws violate the Second Amendment rights of Americans,” explained Johnston. “The constitutional mandate ‘shall not be infringed’ does not leave any room for President Bident to arbitrarily ban or further regulate…firearms.”
The case for guns
It’s unlikely a debate about guns in America will take place without at least some reference to that Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As is the case for many pro-gun advocates, that text is the heart of Mark Shreve’s beliefs on the issue.
“The 2nd Amendment is an unalienable right. It isn’t up for interpretation,” explained Shreve, who is a former New Orleans police officer and currently teaches gun classes.
Shreve said his passion is helping his students learn how they can keep themselves from becoming victims of violent crime. An incident his wife experienced underscored the importance of this to him.
“Someone tried to carjack her car,” Shreve remembered. “The guy pulled on the door handle and pounded on the window, and all she had to do was retrieve her handgun from the console and point it in the air. As soon as he saw it, he ran. But what would have happened if she didn’t have the gun? Would she have been kidnapped? Raped? Murdered?”
Many pro-gun advocates point to their belief that making it more difficult to buy guns benefits criminals.
“You’ve got millions of responsible gun owners in America who follow the law,” said Isaiah Stewart, who owns a firearms training center in New Orleans. “But if you try to take or regulate guns, you know who won’t comply? Criminals. They’ll still have their guns.”
The case for gun control
In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court added a statement that the right to bear arms outlined in the Second Amendment is not unlimited. The statement included “dangerous and unusual weapons” as a limitation, as well as “the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”
Laura Devitt thinks this, and President Biden’s executive orders are all positive steps. Devitt is a lead volunteer for the New Orleans chapter of Moms Demand Action, a national organization fighting for public safety measures they believe can protect people from gun violence. She said she became passionate about addressing gun violence after the 2012 school mass shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut.
“I was in labor with my first child when it happened, and I was so shaken that I was bringing a child into the world during this horrific event,” she said. “I’m not against the Second Amendment. I just think we can do more to work together and end gun violence by enacting laws and closing loopholes that already have the support of lots of gun owners.”
Pro-gun advocates are quick to point out that there are already hundreds of federal and state laws in existence that attempt to mitigate gun violence.
Devitt said many of those laws need to be updated.
“It’s not about the number of laws that exist, it’s about having the right laws,” she said. “Armslist.com — the largest online gun marketplace — doesn’t require background checks when the sale is by a private seller. But the website didn’t even exist when our federal background check law was enacted 25 years ago.”
In addition to bolstering background checks, those who favor gun control also point to the patchwork of state laws as evidence laws need updating.
“People like to point to Chicago as an example of how stricter gun laws lead to more gun-related crime [because only criminals are left with firearms],” Devitt said, “but what we’re actually seeing is many of those guns are being traced back to neighboring states with weaker gun laws. It’s why we need strong federal laws.”
A History of Mass ShootingsWho commits public mass shootings? What motivates them to kill? With the help of a landmark database, VOA examines the social, psychological, emotional and environmental factors that contributed to these rare crimes.
Summer Gebhart’s friend was murdered in Austin, Texas. She and her boyfriend got into a verbal fight at a local bar. The argument became physical when they got back to the house and ended when the man retrieved his gun from his truck and shot his girlfriend in the face.
When Gebhart thinks about what could have happened for her friend to still be alive, she looks to the world’s other developed nations, and the success they’ve had curtailing gun violence.
“Look at Japan, Australia, Germany and Switzerland,” she said. “They’ve all taken action — whether it be a 28-day cooling-off period before you can buy a gun, extensive psych testing to qualify for a firearm, or a properly-locked storage case with code or key.”
It’s not about taking away all guns, Gebhart said, it’s just about reducing the danger of gun violence.
But when Isaiah Stewart looks to other countries, he sees something different.
“They banned handguns in England,” he said, “but you know what happened next? Stabbing rates went up. Now they’re trying to ban knives.”
Stewart is right that knife violence hit a record high in England in 2019, but he also acknowledged it’s much harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. And that’s the point, according to those in favor of gun restrictions in the U.S.
Still, it doesn’t change Stewart’s belief that people should have the right to protect themselves. He believes President Biden’s executive orders hinder law-abiding citizens’ ability to do that.
“I think people who want to commit crimes are going to commit crimes and there’s no stopping their desire,” he said, before adding how he thinks the number of gun tragedies can be reduced. “But maybe we can focus more on training and educating responsible gun owners on how to better take care of their weapon.”
Stewart noted that in New Orleans, alone, in 2017, 756 guns were reported lost or stolen, and 253 of those were recovered in the use of a crime.
Gebhart doesn’t think such a limited focus on “responsible gun owners” goes nearly far enough, but she agrees it’s a problem that needs addressing. It also underscores the idea that any major gun regulation will need the help of at least some of America’s many gun owners to become law.
“We need good gun owners to help reduce gun harm,” she said. “We won’t get far without them.”
Conflict with Russia may be inevitable. Kiev’s strident threats to resolve the crisis in Eastern Ukraine with force of arms, combined with Washington’s refusal to acknowledge that Moscow actually has legitimate national security interests in Eastern Ukraine, makes it so. Equally troubling, the president sees no particular reason why he should explain to the American people why Washington’s readiness to support Kiev’s use of force against Russia makes strategic sense for America.
In 1937, when the Imperial Japanese government expressed sincere regret for attacking and sinking the U.S.S. Panay, an American gunboat that had been patrolling China’s Yangtze River, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew was not satisfied. He warned the Japanese Foreign Ministry that “Facts mean more than Statements.”
Grew was right. A Biden-Harris guarantee of support for the Ukrainian government’s plan to reconquer its lost territories, including Luhansk, Donetsk, or Crimea, is about as meaningless as the British government’s 1939 guarantee of assistance to the Poles in the event of a German attack on Poland.
In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided not to retaliate against the Japanese. FDR knew there was no public support in the United States for a war with Japan or any other great power. FDR also resisted pressure from the U.S. Navy’s admirals to retaliate because he knew America’s armed forces were not ready for a full-scale war. As for our British friends, they were not ready to weaken their fleet in the Atlantic to join a fight against Japan when the threat of war with Germany was growing.
It is easy for presidents to moralize and posture in public about matters thousands of miles from America’s borders when it currently costs nothing in terms of American blood. Unfortunately, this condition won’t last. Fighting in Eastern Ukraine will produce heavy casualties on both sides. Russian and Ukrainian soldiers are courageous, intelligent, and ruthless. None of them are “woke.” All are motivated by patriotism, ingrained discipline, and a strong professional military ethos.
Because the Russian military is larger and better armed, the most likely outcome is a Russian victory. Moscow is then likely to direct its forces to swallow Ukraine’s territory east of the Dnieper River making matters far worse for Kiev. As Angela Merkel observed in 2015, Putin is confident that the battle in Eastern Ukraine is one that he can definitely win.
If Russian military power prevails, President Biden’s promise of support means U.S. or Allied NATO air or ground forces may intervene to rescue the Ukrainians from defeat. In Europe, U.S. Army and Marine ground forces are too weak to intervene 500 miles east of the Polish border, even if reinforced in a timely manner by armored brigades. None of NATO’s ground forces are ready to cope with Russia’s BM-30 SMERCH Rocket Artillery Formations. Rockets fired from just five of Russia’s BM-30 SMERCH rocket launchers can devastate an area the size of New York City’s Central Park (843 acres, or 3.2 square miles) in minutes.
Thus, if U.S. and allied forces do intervene, they are likely to do so with air assets. How effective Russian integrated air defenses will be is unknown, but it would be ill-advised to underestimate the impact of Russian IADs with phased array radars. Some of the newest air defense systems—like the Russian S-500—are so capable that many U.S. Defense officials privately worry that even warplanes like the F-22, F-35, and the B-2 risk destruction if they attempt to penetrate them.
Since prevailing winds in Eastern Europe would spread nuclear fallout across Russia and Central Asia all the way to Korea, the Russian use of nuclear weapons is very unlikely—unless of course, U.S. forces use so-called “tactical nuclear weapons,” which would trigger Russian escalation to the strategic nuclear level with ominous consequences for planet Earth. However, virtually all U.S. and allied military installations, from Estonia to Spain, will be within range of Russian Kalibr Cruise Missiles carrying 1,000 pound, high explosive, conventional warheads.
President Biden’s apparent guarantee of U.S. support to Ukraine’s president suggests he’s also drinking deeply from the poison well of failed American statecraft and generalship, a wellspring of uncreative minds with no appreciation for real warfare. Twenty years of desultory battles against weak opponents (insurgents without armies, air forces, and air defenses) has not elevated much warfighting talent to the senior ranks of the armed forces to cope with a radically changed warfighting environment.
Equally serious is America’s deteriorating societal cohesion, which was on full display during the summer of 2020. When added to the dramatic spike in illegal human and drug trafficking pouring across the southern border, it seems certain that a major war in Eastern Europe would expose not only serious vulnerabilities in the U.S. armed forces, but the fragility of American society to the whole world.
It is worth remembering that when the Trump administration’s hawkish advisors and secretaries of State and Defense urged military action that threatened conflict with Iran in 2019, President Trump just said, “No.” Today, it appears that strategy sessions in the White House are little more than a façade behind which wish-based, “woke” ideology dominates discussions. The implication is there is no adult present in the Oval Office capable of just saying “No.”
In 1937, FDR was the adult in the Oval Office who understood that American public opinion exacts obedience. He knew the enormous demands war would place on America’s economy and its armed forces during a Depression. For FDR, these realities made military retaliation against Japan impossible.
Unlike FDR then, now Biden, Harris, and their “woke” advisors are throwing caution to the wind. Whether they realize it or not, they are also playing with the survival of their own administration.
As a professional physician having always lived in a big city, I never imagined that at some point in my life, the social and economic situation of my country, Venezuela, would lead me to learn and use survival skills that I had read about but never even thought of applying.
Without being in a declared war or a formal armed conflict, we have experienced different situations of chaos for about 10 years in Venezuela. But in the last three years, the country has become a true SHTF scenario, where the only way to move forward is to learn how to survive.
I feel that the lack of food, clean water, and, at the lowest point of the situation, electricity, has given me new skills that have undoubtedly prepared me for any catastrophic situation.
After three years in this contingency, I can now share every situation that took me by surprise and the techniques I had to learn by doing.
There is no such thing as “too much” stored water
Water is one of the most important resources we need for life. Unlike other supplies, it is not interchangeable with another product, and to be ingested, it must go through a purification process.
I have never been prepared for a water shortage before. Now I know it is important to keep water stored safely in closed containers. If water is not drinkable, it must be purified before ingesting it since contaminated water can cause serious gastrointestinal diseases.
Water is not just for drinking but is used in many other activities, such as cooking and cleaning, so I had to learn some purification techniques that can be done at home.
One of the most popular techniques to decontaminate water is to boil it for three minutes. Purification tablets are also very useful, not that expensive, and easy to use.
Adding five drops of chlorine per liter of water as an emergency measure is another way to clean the stored water.
Grains are my friends
To eat properly, it is necessary to consume proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.
The moment I realized that animal protein was scarce—in addition to the fact that the electricity problems spoiled it—I had to investigate the nutritional content of other foods in order to keep myself well-fed.
Lentils are grains that are easy to store, non-perishable, and high in protein. Together with a cereal like rice, they make a complete meal that keeps us well-nourished and in good health.
Let there be light: candles, matches, flashlights, and batteries
After spending more than four hours without power, I began to worry. I had some candles saved, but I did not know where they could be. I also had a couple of flashlights, but I had removed the batteries to prevent them from being sulfated.
Candles and matches must be in several easily accessible places. Likewise, the batteries should be in the same place where the flashlights are kept, and we must be sure that they have a charge.
During this year, the country suffered the most serious electrical crisis. In several areas, there were blackouts of up to five days.
After a couple of days without electricity, the candles will not be enough, so learning to make oil lamps becomes a vital skill in this situation.
The lack of electricity can lead to a state of anguish that grows with the passage of time. It is important to do everything possible to minimize that effect.
Be prepared with medicines, but it’s better to learn from nature
Due to my profession, I am always very attentive about keeping basic medications, such as anti-inflammatories, analgesics, and antibiotics, in the cabinet.
When I had to live in an SHTF situation, my medical supplies became insufficient, and I couldn’t find any in the pharmacies or they were too expensive. So I had to learn a little more about natural medicine, its uses, and its benefits.
I must say that this is one of the most important things I learned during that time.
Many anti-inflammatory drugs and synthetic analgesics damage the stomach mucosa as a side effect. In situations of stress, there is a large production of acids in the stomach, so using drugs that further damage this organ is not the best idea.
Roots such as ginger and turmeric are excellent anti-inflammatories. They are easy to get and easy to store. Likewise, garlic is a potent analgesic.
In the case of presenting wounds or cuts and not having antibiotic ointments, honey, ginger, and cloves are foods that have scientifically proven antibiotic properties.
Chamomile and lavender are natural relaxants and help fight stress and insomnia.
No matter how big the supply of medicines we have, it will always be more economical, favorable, and easy to store the natural product, with equal and, in some cases, greater effects.
Banks have made life easier for us with the use of debit and credit cards. However, there are situations in which having a lot of money in the bank does not help much, and I learned it the hard way.
When there is an electrical fault, despite the fact that light and other electrical services have been restored already, the digital communication of the points of purchase become so affected that it is impossible to buy anything in this way.
For this reason, I understood that it is always important to keep some amount of cash for this type of contingency.
Take advantage of any time you get to replace supplies
Although during those years I did not have to be locked in a bunker without being able to leave, the feeling of confinement was quite similar. When, in spite of having the money, you can’t find what you need to eat or, despite having a private vehicle, you can’t move for lack of gasoline, the situation becomes desperate.I understood that in those moments in which there was an opportunity to replace the supplies I had at home, especially water and non-perishable food, I had to do it.
The situation in my country has improved. Although still not at the best economic and social level, and with many problems of scarcity and lack of some supplies, society has been regularized.
However, I appreciate the years that taught me these valuable lessons that I still apply.
The most important thing I learned was to be prepared for when an SHTF situation strikes again.
This guide below can help you in a survival situation