Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance has warned that the “climate crisis” narrative was “created” by powerful elites who donate to the Democratic Party.
President Donald Trump’s running mate argues that claims of a “crisis” seek to stoke fear among members of the public to push them “to buy more Chinese-manufactured electric vehicles.”
During Monday’s first day of the Republican National Convention, Trump, who narrowly avoided death when he was shot during a failed assassination attempt on Saturday, announced Vance as his running mate for the November election.
Now that the battle for Trump’s VP is over, many are taking a closer look at Sen. Vance (R-OH) and where he stands on certain positions.
When it comes to “climate change,” Vance is extremely dismissive of the globalist green agenda.
Vance’s energy and environmental agenda in the Senate has aligned closely with the Republican Party.
“Even if there was a climate crisis, I don’t know how the way to solve it is to buy more Chinese-manufactured electric vehicles,” he said in 2022.
He warns that the idea of an environmental crisis was “created” to please Democratic Party donors and Chinese elites.
Two years earlier, Vance said society had a “climate problem.”
He argues that Western nations have been under pressure to reduce “emissions,” while China, the largest polluter in the world, gets a free pass.
In recent years, as the nation continues to expand, China has only drastically increased its fossil fuel use.
In fact, China is listed as contributing 26% of the global “greenhouse gas emissions.”
China also produces more emissions than the rest of the top five polluting countries combined.
Yet, China is not under any pressure from the globalist World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) to meet their “Net Zero” goals.
In response, Vance has sought to put significant blame on China for greenhouse gas emissions.
In a 2023 hearing with Kevin Welsh, the Federal Aviation Administration’s top official for environmental policy, Vance criticized the Biden administration’s endorsement of climate policies from the International Civil Aviation Organization.
He also dismissed carbon offsets in aviation as “climate reparations.”
“Why are we doing so much to follow ICAO’s recommendations, when the Chinese themselves are not doing very much?” Vance asked.
“When you think about the fact that China is the dirtiest economy in the world — they emit about two times as much carbon as we do — why are we effectively penalizing the American aviation while we don’t require, or even attempt, to force the Chinese to do the same to their aviation industry?”
Vance, an author and former venture capitalist, last year introduced the “Drive American Act,” S. 2962.
The bill would repeal the federal tax credit for electric vehicles and instead offer tax credits for U.S.-made vehicles powered only by gasoline or diesel.
He also introduced legislation to double the maximum penalties for climate change protesters and others who target exhibits at the Smithsonian Institution and National Gallery of Art.
Vance has opposed and sought to scrutinize EPA regulations, including on gasoline-powered generators.
He’s also warned that “environmental justice” is just an excuse to offshore American jobs.
Vance has called Democrats’ climate agenda “dumb” and warned that it is a “handout to Chinese companies at the expense of Ohio workers.”
He recently told Politico’s E&E News that if some local companies support certain Inflation Reduction Act provisions, lawmakers might want to keep them instead of repealing the entire law.
“The Inflation Reduction Act is mostly a lot of green energy stuff,” said Vance.
“And I think it’s made our economy less energy independent.
“It’s also added a lot of costs out there and a lot of federal spending that’s forced the inflation prices.
“And I also think that it’s sort of hastening a transition away from things like the gas-driven cars that most Americans don’t want.
“So I think there’s a lot of bad policy in there.
“Also a lot of inflationary policy in there.
“And I’d like to see a lot of it gotten rid of.”
Green agenda advocates who support Biden quickly denounced Trump’s choice of Vance as his running mate.
David Kieve, president of EDF Action, complained about Vance running for vice president in a statement.
EDF Action is the advocacy arm of the Environmental Defense Fund.
“Donald Trump’s anti-climate, anti-environment agenda is reinforced with his pick of J.D. Vance as the Republican vice-presidential nominee,” Kieve said in a statement.
Lori Lodes, executive director of the group Climate Power, said:
“J.D. Vance is Donald Trump’s dream come true — a climate denier who is all too happy to do Big Oil’s bidding and pad their profits at the expense of working people.”
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Global Research, July 12, 2024
One result of the just concluded NATO Summit is Germany’s decision to host US intermediate-range missiles. Prior to 2019 when Washington cancelled the INF Treaty, the treaty prevented such deployment.
The INF Treaty was signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev on December 8,1987, and the treaty was ratified on June 1, 1988. The treaty was part and parcel of ending the cold war. Reagan called the treaty a “step toward a safer world.”
“The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty required the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate and permanently forswear all of their nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. The treaty marked the first time the superpowers had agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, eliminate an entire category of nuclear weapons, and employ extensive on-site inspections for verification. As a result of the INF Treaty, the United States and the Soviet Union destroyed a total of 2,692 short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles by the treaty’s implementation deadline of June 1, 1991.”
Blaming Russia the Trump administration pulled out of the treaty. The consequence was to kill the nuclear disarmament that the INF Treaty began and to renew the arms race. If I had to bet I would say Washington’s withdrawal was a consequence of the US nuclear industry needing the source of profits that the arms race provided and the neoconservatives’ determination to revive US hegemony through the buildup of force.
If Russia was truly out of compliance, Trump’s focus should have been to work to bring Russia into compliance, not terminate the treaty.
The efforts of several American presidents and Soviet leaders in the 20th century to defuse tensions and to build trust were squandered by Washington in the 21st century.
Regardless, what is clear is that Washington is pushing both Europe and Russia into preparing for war, and is itself preparing.
The US Senate has joined the House of Representatives in creating a draft registration system from which to field a conscripted army. The Senate’s version includes women in the draft, as equal treatment requires. Clearly, Washington sees the need for a larger army than a volunteer army can provide.
Now that the Biden regime is supplying F-16s and long-range missiles to Ukraine, weapon systems that Biden said would never be given to the Ukrainians, along with targeting information, clearly Washington’s intent is to further widen the war by carrying it deep into civilian areas of Russia. Simultaneously, Washington is using its NGOs in Georgia to orchestrate a color revolution there in order to open a second front against Russia. Putin’s slow forever war in Ukraine has played directly into Washington’s hands.
China is the main focus of Washington’s strategy of isolating Russia. At the recent NATO Summit China was accused of being a “decisive enabler” of Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. By allegedly supplying armaments to Russia, China is accused of challenging “our interests, security and values.”
I would have expected a different Chinese reply than was made. China should have said to Washington/NATO: “You started the conflict and your weapons systems and French troops are supporting and widening the conflict. You have blocked all efforts to end the conflict; yet you dare accuse us of responsibility for it.”
Instead, the Chinese disavowed supplying Russia with any military support.
This is an extremely weak response. It suggests that all the Russian-Chinese assurance of a “no-limits partnership” is just words. An appropriate response from China would have been: “We are considering sending 500,000 of our best soldiers to serve under Russian command in Ukraine and have called up another million men for military training.
A response such as this is what would end the conflict before the dumbshit hegemonic West puts us all in a war of annihilation.
In recorded history one can find very few competent civilian and military leaders. Alexander the Great, Constantine, Charles Martel, Charlemagne, the Duke of Marlborough, Robert E. Lee. No such men exist today, but the weapons are far more terrible. Moreover, modern war targets civilians and civilian infrastructure, as the Israelis are doing in Gaza. The goal is less to defeat an opposing army than it is to foreclose an opponent’s ability to conduct war.
In Europe a warrior class no longer exists. European male ethnicities are so oppressed by their own governments and by immigrant-invaders favored by European governments, that the defense ministers of Europe are women. What does a white ethnic European male have to fight for?
In the US the fighting force has always come from the southern states. But what have these traditional Americans, these military families, witnessed? They have seen all southern names struck from military bases. They have experienced their promotions on hold while homosexuals, black females, and transgendered people confused about their own gender are promoted. Taking orders from such people is not a southern man’s idea of the military. So recruitment has collapsed.
There are so few people willing to fight for America that Congress entertains proposals to enroll immigrant-invaders, paid with citizenship for fighting for American hegemony.
America has reached the point that Rome reached. Once the Roman military was German, the Germans became the emperors. The Germans did a fairly decent job compared to the decadent Romans, but the Empire was exhausted by its internal conflicts and collapsed.
Perhaps it is the collapse of the West that Putin and Xi are banking on. Why bother to fight people busy destroying themselves.
*
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
An explosive peer-reviewed study was recently published in a prestigious medical journal which identifies a direct link between Covid mRNA shots and cancer.
As Slay News reported, the study, published in the Cureus journal, found that the risk of dying from cancer dramatically increased each time a patient received an mRNA injection.
The paper for the study is titled: “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan.”
The study was conducted by world-renowned Japanese experts specializing in cardiovascular medicine and cancer research.
However, Cureus has now retracted the study after it sent shockwaves through the scientific community.
In a notice on its website, the journal said:
“Upon post-publication review, it has been determined that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented in this article.”
This invalidated the results, prompting the retraction, the journal claims.
However, the journal only decided to retract the study after it was attacked by one of Facebook’s so-called “fact-checkers.”
Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., all-cause mortality researcher and former physics professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada, blasted the journal over the move.
Rancourt, who also has published in Cureus, slammed the retraction as “baseless” in a post on X.
“Showing data in support of vaccine-induced cancer is not allowed: burn it,” he wrote.
Other scientists also expressed frustration with the retraction.
“Unfortunately, one more scientific study that challenges the established narrative gets retracted,” Panagis Polykretis, Ph.D., a researcher at Italy’s Institute of Applied Physics at the National Research Council said in a statement.
“One more outrageous and unjustified example of censorship takes place!”
The study, published in April, analyzed official Japanese government statistics.
The researchers compared age-adjusted cancer mortality rates during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) with pre-pandemic rates.
The researchers found a 2.1% mortality increase in 2021 and a 9.6% increase in 2022.
They determined that age-adjusted death rates for leukemia, breast, pancreatic, and lip/oral/pharyngeal cancers increased significantly in 2022.
The study notes that cancer rates surged after a large portion of the Japanese population had received the third dose of a Covid mRNA shot.
Overall, they found no significant cancer-related excess mortality in 2020.
However, there a 1.1% increase in 2021 after the rollout of the first and second vaccine doses.
This continued to rise to a 2.1% increase in 2022.
Mortality for some cancers increased by as much as 9.7%, according to the study.
The paper also discussed possible mechanisms by which multiple mRNA vaccines could influence cancer rates and called for further research into the issue.
According to John Campbell, Ph.D., who discussed the study on his YouTube show, the findings suggested the vaccines may be accelerating cancer deaths in patients with preexisting tumors.
The paper went through a “rigorous peer review process” before Cureus accepted the paper on April 8, according to Polykretis, who detailed the retraction saga on his Substack.
Less than a month after the paper’s publication, a “fact check” was conducted on the study by one of Facebook’s “fact-checkers.”
However, while the study was flagged as being false, the so-called “fact check” actually targeted a social media post that cited the paper.
The post that was “fact-checked” was a link to a fake news story that cited the study but added false claims to sensationalize it.
Instead of simply reporting on the bombshell findings in the study, the article made false claims that Japan had “declared a national emergency over the explosion of cancer cases across the country caused by the mRNA vaccines.”
This was completely false, however.
The Japanese government took no action in response to the study.
The article also made the false claim that the study linked “increases in aggressive forms of turbo cancers in the country” to Covid shots.
However, the study made no mention of “turbo cancers.”
The Facebook “fact check,” conducted by Reuters used these false claims to assert that the study itself was “false.”
The “fact check” called the analysis “flawed” and stated the paper offered no proof of “turbo cancers” — a claim the study authors don’t make.
It continued by stating the study “assumes without evidence that vaccines are the cause of the cancer death rates they observe.”
It’s important to note that the “fact check” was not written by a doctor or a scientist, despite their attempts to overrule the top Japanese researchers.
So-called “fact-checkers” are almost always failed journalists who are not able to pursue a career in journalism so, instead, resort to attacking others.
Despite the unreliability of the discredited “fact check,” Cureus responded by pulling the study.
On June 12, Graham Parker-Finger, director of publishing for the Cureus Journal of Medical Science, notified the authors about concerns with their paper.
According to Polykretis, Parker-Finger cited the Facebook “fact check.”
An “expression of concern” was posted that same day and about a month later the journal retracted the article.
The article has been viewed over 287,000 times.
Polykretis asked, since when does a scientific journal’s editorial board judge scientific studies “on the basis of a poorly written, not backed by scientific data and not peer-reviewed fact-checking” article?
M. Nathaniel Mead is co-author of the first peer-reviewed paper to provide an extensive analysis of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trial data and post-injection injuries.
Mead, whose article also was printed and then retracted by Cureus, described this latest retraction as “unfortunate but also quite revealing.”
In a statement, Mead said:
“The Gibo et al. retraction makes it official: Even though Cureus has now published many counter-establishment narrative papers related to adverse events, it is clearly ‘unsafe’ for any authors presenting papers that expose the likely mortality risk of these gene-based prodrugs.
“As you will recall, our comprehensive ‘Lessons Learned’ review and analysis also was heavily focused on the mortality aspect. So that’s where Springer-Nature seems to be drawing the line — after they accept the paper.
“Scientists seeking to publish on mortality-related aspects of the Covid mod mRNA injections obviously need to be extra cautious when considering their publishing options. These weaponized, predatory retractions will likely continue for as long as these products remain on the market.”
Following a backlash over the retraction and allegations of censorship, Parker-Finger responded by issuing a statement that said:
“Concerns were raised following publication, so we undertook a post-publication review, in line with good publishing practice, which led us to conclude that retraction was warranted for the reasons outlined in the retraction note.”
X (formerly Twitter) is facing persecution by the European Union because it rejected Brussels’ demand to secretly censor opinions on the platform, its owner Elon Musk has revealed.
The EU announced on Friday that it considered X in violation of its Digital Services Act (DSA) and intended to levy massive fines against the company unless it changed its practices.
“The European Commission offered X an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us,” Musk wrote in response. “The other platforms accepted that deal. X did not.”
“We look forward to a very public battle in court, so that the people of Europe can know the truth,” he added.
Musk bought Twitter in October 2022, after voicing displeasure over widespread censorship on the social media platform. He has since unbanned most blocked accounts, including that of former President Donald Trump.
When Musk announced “the bird is freed,” one of the responses came from Thierry Breton, the EU Commissioner for Internal Market.
“In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules,” Breton said, with a reference to the DSA.
On Friday, Breton explained the European Commission’s move against Musk by arguing that X violates the EU’s “transparency requirements” by denying access to “researchers,” among other things.
“Back in the day, BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information. Now with X, our preliminary view is that they deceive users and infringe the DSA,” Breton said.
According to the Commission, allowing anyone to obtain verification in exchange for a subscription fee “negatively affects users’ ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts and the content they interact with.”
The Commission also objected that X does not maintain “a searchable and reliable advertisement repository” that would “allow for the required supervision and research into emerging risks.”
What most bothered the EU body was that X does not allow scraping its public data by “researchers” or grant access to its application programming interface (API), as DSA mandates.
Mike Benz, a former Trump administration official, highlighted this to suggest the EU’s real motivation is to “use the DSA to force X to restaff the censorship squad fired when Elon took over.” He further alleged that people who present themselves as researchers are actually “censorship activities & political operatives.”
Musk reposted Benz’s analysis with just one word of comment: “Exactly.”
X is now expected to respond to the Commission in writing. If the EU upholds Breton’s preliminary findings, X could be fined “up to 6% of the total worldwide annual turnover” and ordered to address its “breach” under “enhanced supervision,” the body said.
Big Tech giant Google is expanding its online censorship as the critical 2024 elections draw near.
The new crackdown is being led by Google’s Jigsaw censorship division.
Jigsaw, originally called Google Ideas, was launched under former CEO Eric Schmidt in 2010.
Schmidt’s idea sought to tackle “issues at the intersection of technology and geopolitics.”
However, the program was later deemed too “open and honest” and was reworked into Jigsaw by Google’s parent company Alphabet.
Google now describes Jigsaw as being a tool for tackling intentionally vague, made-up ideas such as “misinformation,” “hate speech,” and “toxicity.”
The corporation insists that it only weaponizes the information flow to create “a safer internet.”
Jigsaw’s latest weapon in the war on free speech is a new initiative to “identify and mitigate toxicity that frequently reduces participation in online debates.”
The company says it is launching this effort to “protect online spaces from hate and toxicity.”
To meet new censorship standards, Google promises more investment in “moderation” tools.
In a post on Medium, those behind Jigsaw try to suggest their censorship efforts will advance free speech.
They claim that censoring free speech, by excluding those branded as propagators of “toxicity” and “hate,” won’t reduce participation in online “conversation”
Instead, they insist shutting down wrongthink will “enable more voices to participate.”
Back to the vague terms, however, Google doesn’t elaborate on who or what it means by “more voices.”
Presumably, those “voices” are the ones that make approved statements while those expressing wrongthink will be silenced.
Either way, the post says this is what Jigsaw (via its Perspective API, powered by machine learning) has been doing since 2017.
It’s been adopted by as many as 10,000 entities, publishers, and social platforms and is available in 18 languages.
While explaining the features of its censorship software., Jigsaw boasts:
“Moderators can use Perspective to quickly prioritize and review comments that have been reported and give feedback to commenters who post toxic comments.”
The post continues by revealing that Perspective has expanded in scope “to add bridging attributes, a new suite of tools to recognize qualities like reasoning, curiosity, and personal stories that correlate with more constructive contributions and help keep conversations going among disparate groups.”
And it’s only a first step in what Jigsaw calls a shift that will use “deliberative technology” as a foundation to incorporate artificial intelligence (AI).
The end goal is to provide a kind of “puppeteer input” and subsequent influence.
The post explains:
“Jigsaw will explore how the latest AI technology might enhance and scale these technologies, supporting both conversation participants and community leaders to make sense of and act on the opinions shared.”
The plan is to develop the initiative using three paths.
Google will launch a research agenda aimed at developing the tech in question.
Jigsaw will also team up with Google DeepMind on large-scale conversations by exploring “how sense can be made” of them, according to the post.
Additionally, as far as Google is concerned, democracy in Europe needs to find some “resilience.”
To achieve it, Jigsaw will support “an open call for proposals with Google.org to help scale social impact initiatives promoting democratic resilience in Europe.”
As we’ve seen repeatedly in the past, these vague terms will undoubtedly used to target unwelcome conservative voices by branding them as “toxic.”
Those “toxic” opinions will almost certainly be scrubbed from Google’s search results in the run-up to the November elections.
And if they keep President Joe Biden in the race, the Democrats will need all the help they can get.
The status of Stanford University’s controversial Internet Observatory, a research group accused of participating in social media censorship, appears unclear after recent conflicting reports about its future.
A recent report by the tech newsletter Platformer suggested the observatory may be closing after several key staffers, including founding director Alex Stamos, left or did not have their contracts renewed.
Other news outlets reported the observatory was “collaps[ing] under pressure,” being “wound down” and “closing.” Some popular social media posts suggested it was being permanently “shut down.”
However, the university contradicted those reports in a recent statement on the observatory’s website.
“Stanford has not shut down or dismantled SIO as a result of outside pressure,” it stated. “SIO does, however, face funding challenges as its founding grants will soon be exhausted. As a result, SIO continues to actively seek support for its research and teaching programs under new leadership.”
SIO will continue its “critical work” through the “publication of the Journal of Online Trust & Safety, the Trust & Safety Research Conference, and the Trust & Safety Teaching Consortium,” it stated.
Furthermore, the observatory’s staff will be conducting research on “misinformation” during the 2024 election, according to the statement.
The observatory is a non-partisan, on-campus political research group that focuses on the misuse of social media, including issues related to elections and COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, according to its website.
But it has faced criticism for its role in a joint project called the Election Integrity Partnership with the University of Washington during the 2020 and 2022 elections. Its purpose was to “defend our elections against those who seek to undermine them by exploiting weaknesses in the online information environment.” However, reports allege the universities frequently collaborated with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in order to censor what they viewed as “misinformation” online.
According to the Stanford’s recent statement, its SIO project will continue under new leadership. It also stated “Stanford remains deeply concerned” about congressional and legal efforts to “undermine” the legitimacy of “much needed academic research” at universities across the country.
University spokesperson Mara Vandlik directed The College Fix to the statement in an email Wednesday in response to multiple inquiries about the observatory’s future. Vandlik did not respond to a follow-up email asking for more details about the observatory’s 2024 election research and the online censorship accusations.
Meanwhile, a receptionist at the university president’s office told The Fix on Wednesday to send its questions via email, but the office did not respond to the email.
Matt Taibbi, who has written extensively about online censorship as the publisher of Racket News, said he would not be “too quick to celebrate” if the Stanford Internet Observatory truly is closing.
“Rumors persist that even more aggressive EIP-type programs are in development for use in this cycle, perhaps not under Stanford’s roof, but somewhere, using some of the same personnel and making use of support from deep-pocketed funders of anti-disinformation programs,” he wrote in a recent article on his substack.
Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project and former chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, said he also thinks censorship problems are more wide-spread.
“College campuses are the central battlefield for Americans’ freedom to speak their mind. A culture of censorship is pervasive at college campuses, and there’s no reason to believe this was an isolated incident,” he told The Fix in a statement via email this week.
According to a Real Clear Investigations report, the Election Integrity Partnership “surveilled hundreds of millions of social media posts and collected from the cooperating government and non-governmental entities that it calls its ‘stakeholders.’” According to the report, this could be a potential violation of “social media platforms’ policies concerning election speech.”
Team members of the partnership would “highlight a piece of offending social media content, or narrative consisting of many offending posts, by creating a ticket, and share it with other relevant participants by tagging them,” according to the report.
This would then prompt social media companies to take action by “removing the content outright, reducing its spread, or ‘informing’ users about dubious posts by slapping corrective or contextualizing labels on them,” the report states.
During the 2020 election cycle, “EIP generated a total of 639 tickets, covering some 4,784 unique URLs … disproportionately related to the delegitimization of election results,” according to the report.
Platforms such as Twitter, Google, and Facebook responded to tagged tickets at a response rate of 75 percent or higher; the platforms “labeled, removed, or soft-blocked” 35 percent of the URLs shared through EIP, the report states.
Taibbi wrote the EIP scheme occurred on as many as 10 different platforms, including Twitter, now known as X. However, Stanford has outright denied its actions of “switchboarding” and “censorship,” he wrote.
According to Taibbi, Stanford also wrongly claimed the Election Integrity Partnership did not “receive direct requests from the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to eliminate or censor tweets” and “did not make recommendations to the platforms about what actions they should take.”
According to Taibbi, a U.S. House committee investigation, led by Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, found 75 instances of the EIP ticketing system specifically using the words “recommendation” or “we recommend.”
“Imagine the arrogance of denying that one makes concrete recommendations while sitting on a pile of documents doing exactly that,” Taibbi wrote.
“As for not receiving direct requests to eliminate or censor tweets,” he wrote, “a combination of emails Jordan’s team dug up and documents we ourselves either had in the Twitter Files or obtained via FOIA made it clear that the EIP’s labyrinthine reporting system was designed so the government could deny it originated complaints, while EIP could deny it received complaints from the government.”
Moreover, Taibbi wrote EIP’s opinion on removing content had a large effect on whether a social media platform decided to remove the content.
The EIP even allegedly “chastised sites like YouTube that expressed hesitancy about removing ‘misleading’ content,” according to Taibbi.
Additionally, the observatory is being sued. One case accuses the university of “conspiracy” with the federal government to violate the First Amendment rights of social media users, The Fix reported.
A major new study has finally confirmed the cause of soaring heart failure cases among children that are being reported all around the world.
Since early 2021, there has been a global surge in reports of children suffering heart failure and cardiac-related deaths.
The once-rare phenomenon has become almost commonplace in the post-Covid era.
As Slay News has been reporting, cases of cardiac-related deaths and heart failure such as myocarditis and pericarditis have increased dramatically over the past three years.
Myocarditis and pericarditis are inflammatory conditions of the heart and are generally considered to be rare, especially among children.
Severe cases can lead to serious complications and even death.
Both conditions are known side effects of the Covid mRNA shots.
In response, health officials and the corporate media have been pushing the claim that the COVID-19 virus, and not the shots, is behind the phenomenon.
However, a new large-scale study from renowned scientists at the prestigious University of Oxford has just confirmed that myocarditis and pericarditis only appear in children and adolescents after Covid vaccination and not after infection from the virus.
The new study looked at the official government data of more than 1 million English children and adolescents aged between five and 11 and 12 and 15.
The study compared vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects.
The researchers also took into account the number of doses of vaccine received.
In detailing their findings, the researchers wrote:
“All myocarditis and pericarditis events during the study period occurred in vaccinated individuals.”
The study also noted that hospitalization related to COVID-19 was extremely rare among children and adolescents.
Additionally, there were no deaths from the virus recorded among the entire subject population.
The English data show that myocarditis and pericarditis were only recorded in vaccinated children and adolescents.
Other studies have claimed that myocarditis risk is higher after infection with the virus.
Adolescents had a significantly higher risk of contracting the conditions than children.
The vast majority of myocarditis and pericarditis cases occurred after the first dose of the vaccine, the study found.
Over half of the adolescents who suffered from the conditions visited the hospital as a result.
This news follows another recent study, from some of America’s most well-respected researchers, that found that Covid shots were responsible for soaring sudden deaths around the world.
As Slay News reported, the case study was conducted by Harvard Medical School and chronicled soaring cases of fatal
cerebral ischemia over the past three years.
Cerebral ischemia is a form of deadly brain damage triggered by insufficient blood flow to the brain.
The Harvard researchers found that Moderna’s Covid mRNA injections specifically caused the recent spike in the fatal disorder.
Leading experts have been responding to the explosive study by raising the alarm about the mRNA vaccines.
The Harvard study is the latest in a long line of studies linking the shots to sudden death and potentially fatal side effects.
In response to the Harvard study, Dr. John Campbell – a top British oncologist, immunologist, and immunotherapy expert, published a video breaking down the results.
“This could not be a more serious report,” Campbell warns.
Dr. Peter McCullough also discussed this case study on his Substack.
“We are becoming accustomed to unexpected death after COVID-19 among young persons who have taken one or more injections of the COVID-19 vaccine,” McCullough said.
“It is important to realize that not all deaths after vaccination are cardiac.”
Slay News recently reported on the bombshell admission from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that the Covid mRNA sots have killed hundreds of thousands of American children and young people.
The explosive admission was uncovered in a secret CDC report showing that a staggering half a million American hildren and young adults have been killed by Covid shots.
The CDC report has revealed that almost 500,000 Americans aged between 0 and 44 years old died from the angerous side effects of the Covid mRNA injections.
The recorded deaths occurred between the start of the public rollout of the shots in early 2021 and October 9, 2022.
However, due to the timeline of the data, the already shocking figures do not include deaths recorded over the past year and a half.
The Ukraine War was started in February
2014 by a U.S. coup which replaced the democratically elected and
neutralist Ukrainian President, with a U.S. selected and rabidly
anti-Russian leader, who immediately imposed an ethnic-cleansing program
to get rid of the residents in the regions that had voted
overwhelmingly for the overthrown President.
I shall here state and — by means of links to my sources — document,
the actual history of the war in Ukraine, and then will present the
Russian version of this history, as that was stated at the U.N. Security
Council on July 16th by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The most important difference between these two historical accounts
is that whereas mine attributes Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion of
Ukraine, to Russia’s main reason for the invasion being Russia’s need to
prevent the U.S. Government from achieving its long-held dream of
placing its nuclear missiles a mere 317 miles away (five minutes of
missile-flying time away) from The Kremlin (since only Ukraine is even
nearly that close to the Kremlin); Russia’s instead attributes its 24
February 2022 invasion of Ukraine to Russia’s main reason for the
invasion (“Special Military Operation”) being Russia’s desire to protect
the residents in the breakaway far-eastern former Donbass region of
Ukraine (which by then had separated itself from Ukraine), to protect
them from the military attacks that ever since April 2014 Ukraine’s
government was making against the residents there.
Did Russia do it to protect itself, or to protect the Donbassers?
(I note here that buried in the middle of the Russian explanation is the statement that, “A special military operation was
launched to eliminate threats to Russia’s security and protect people
who feel that they are part of Russian culture and live on lands that
were settled by their ancestors for centuries, and to save them from
legislative and physical extermination.” However, though Lavrov mentions
first there the “eliminate threats to Russia’s security,” no clear
amplification is provided in his speech as to what that phrase is
actually referring to. And this has been the way all official Russian
explanations of the 24 February 2022 Russian invasion have been.
Furthermore, I am not disagreeing with anything that was said in the
Russian presentation; I believe all of it to be true. But I do think
that its primary emphasis upon the admirable but nonetheless secondary
reason for the 24 February 2024 invasion — to protect the residents in
Donbass — tends to give a distorted view of why Russia invaded, and is
also otherwise entirely unconstructive. Moreover, I believe that the
true primary reason for that invasion would be MUCH more persuasive to
people in The West — and even elsewhere — than a continuation of
reliance upon the secondary reason for that invasion would be.)
Any reader-comments about these two contrasting historical accounts —
these very different attributions of what Russia’s main reason was for
the 24 February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine — will be appreciated.
The U.S. Government had engaged the Gallup polling organization, bothbefore and after the coup,
in order to poll Ukrainians, and especially ones who lived in its
Crimean independent republic (where Russia has had its main naval base
ever since 1783), regarding their views on U.S., Russia, NATO, and the
EU; and, generally, Ukrainians were far more pro-Russia than pro-U.S.,
pro-NATO, or pro-EU, but this was especially the case in
Crimea; so, America’s Government knew that Crimeans would be especially
resistant. However, this was not really new information.
In other words: what Obama did was generally successful: it grabbed Ukraine, or most of it,
and it changed Ukrainians’ minds regarding America and Russia. But only
after the subsequent passage of time did the American billionaires’
neoconservative heart become successfully grafted into the Ukrainian
nation so as to make Ukraine a viable place to position U.S. nuclear
missiles against Moscow (which is the U.S. Government’s goal there).
Furthermore: America’s rulers also needed to do some work upon U.S. public opinion. Not until
February of 2014 — the time of Obama’s coup — did more than 15% of the
American public have a “very unfavorable” view of Russia.
(Right before Russia invaded Ukraine, that figure had already risen to
42%. America’s press — and academia or public-policy ‘experts’ — have
been very effective at managing public opinion, for the benefit of
America’s billionaires.)
Then came the Minsk Agreements (#1 & #2, with #2 being the final version, which is shown here, as a U.N. Security Council Resolution),
between Ukraine and the separatist region in its far east, and which
the U.S. Government refused to participate in, but the U.S.-installed
Ukrainian government (then under the oligarch Petro Poroshenko) signed
it in order to have a chance of Ukraine’s gaining EU membership, but
never complied with any of it; and, so, the war continued); and, then,
finally, as the Ukrainian government (now under Volodmyr Zelensky) was
greatly intensifying its shelling of the break-away far-eastern region,
Russia presented, to both the U.S. Government and its NATO military
alliance against Russia, two proposed agreements for negotiation (one to
U.S., the other to NATO), but neither the U.S. nor its NATO agreed to
negotiate. The key portions of the two 17 December 2021 proposed
Agreements, with both the U.S. and with its NATO, were, in regards to NATO:
Article 1
The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of
cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen
their security individually, within international organizations,
military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other
Parties. …
Article 4
The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member
States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997,
respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the
territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces
stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all
the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to
eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.
Article 5
The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and
short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of
the other Parties.
Article 6
All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO,
including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.
The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international
organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one
of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the
Charter of the United Nations.
Article 3
The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a
view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other
Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other
Party.
Article 4
The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further
eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny
accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics.
The United States of America shall not establish military bases
in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or
develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
Any reader here can easily click onto the respective link to either
proposed Agreement, in order to read that entire document, so as to
evaluate whether or not all of its proposed provisions are acceptable
and reasonable. What was proposed by Russia in each of the two was only a
proposal, and the other side (the U.S. side) in each of the two
instances, was therefore able to pick and choose amongst those proposed
provisions, which ones were accepted, and to negotiate regarding any of
the others; but, instead, the U.S. side simply rejected all of them.
Washington and NATO have formally rejected Russia’s key demands
for assurances that the US-led military bloc will not expand closer
towards its borders, leaked correspondence reportedly shows.
According to documents seen
by Spanish daily El Pais and published on Wednesday morning, Moscow’s
calls for a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted as a
member of NATO were dismissed following several rounds of talks between
Russian and Western diplomats. …
The US-led bloc denied that it posed a threat to Russia. …
The US similarly rejected the demand that NATO does not expand
even closer to Russia’s borders. “The United States continues to firmly
support NATO’s Open Door Policy.”
NATO-U.S. was by now clearly determined to get Ukraine into NATO and
to place its nukes so near to The Kremlin as to constitute, like a
checkmate in chess, a forced defeat of Russia, a capture of its central
command. This was, but in reverse, the situation that America’s
President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962
Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if
Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he
did, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev
was reasonable, Biden is not; and, so, we again stand at the brink of
WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (Biden — no better
than Obama), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink in order
to become able to achieve world-conquest.
Russia did what it had to do: it invaded Ukraine, on 24 February 2022.
Statement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the UN
Security Council meeting on Multilateral Cooperation for a More Just,
Democratic and Sustainable World Order, New York, July 16, 2024
I would like to extend a warm welcome to the distinguished high representatives present in the Security Council Chamber.
Their participation in today’s meeting confirms the importance of the
topic under discussion. In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s
provisional legal procedures, I invite the representatives of Australia,
Bangladesh, Belarus, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil,
Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala,
Hungary, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq,
Kazakhstan, Kuwait, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Viet Nam to
participate in the meeting. Maldives, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, United
Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Syrian Arab Republic,
Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Uganda, Chile, Ethiopia and South Africa.
In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional legal
procedures, I invite His Excellency S. Lambrinidis, Head of the
delegation of the European Union to the United Nations, to participate in this meeting.
The UN Security Council will now begin its consideration of agenda
item 2. I would like to draw the attention of the Council members to
document S/2024/537 – Letter dated 9 July 2024 from the Permanent
Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations addressed
to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Guterres, transmitting a
concept note on the item under consideration.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
Your Excellency,
Today, the very foundations of the international legal order –
strategic stability and the UN-centered system of world politics – are
being tested for their strength. It is impossible to resolve the
multiplying conflicts unless we understand their root causes and restore
faith in our ability to join forces for the common good and justice for
all.
Let’s be frank: not all the States represented in this Hall recognize the key principle of the UN Charter:
the sovereign equality of all States. The United States has long
declared its own exclusivity through the mouths of its presidents. This
concerns Washington’s attitude towards its allies, who are required to
obey unquestioningly, even to the detriment of their national interests.
Rule, America! This is the essence of the notorious “rules – based
order” – a direct threat to multilateralism and international peace.
The most important components of international law – the UN Charter
and the decisions of our Council – are interpreted by the “collective
West” in a perverse and selective way, depending on what attitude came
from the White House. And many Security Council resolutions are ignored
altogether. Among them are resolution 2202, which approved the Minsk
Agreements on Ukraine, and resolution 1031, which approved the Dayton
Agreement on Peace in BiH on the basis of the principle of equal rights
of three state-forming peoples and two entities. You can talk endlessly
about sabotage of resolutions on the Middle East – what is the value of
A. Blinken’s statement in an interview with CNN in February 2021 in
response to a question about what he thinks about the decision of the
previous US administration to recognize Israel’s ownership of the Syrian
Golan Heights. If anyone doesn’t remember, I’ll refresh your memory. In
response to this question, the Secretary of State said: “Leaving aside
the question of legality, from a practical point of view, the Golan is
very important for ensuring Israel’s security.” And this is despite the
fact that UN Security Council Resolution 497 of 1981, as we all know
very well, which no one has canceled, qualifies Israel’s illegal
annexation of the Golan Heights. But, according to these “rules”, it is
necessary-to quote A. Blinken – “to leave aside the question of
legality”. And, of course, the statement of the US Permanent
Representative that resolution 2728, adopted on March 25 this year,
demanding an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, “is not legally
binding” is fresh in everyone’s memory. In other words, American “rules”
are more important than Article 25 of the UN Charter.
In the last century, J. R. R. Tolkien, Orwell, in Animal Farm,
already foresaw the essence of “rule-based order”: “all animals are
equal, but some are more equal than others.” If you do the will of the
hegemon, you are allowed to do anything. And if you dare and start
defending your national interests, you will be declared an outcast and
subject to sanctions.
Washington’s hegemonic policy has not changed for decades. Without
exception, all Euro-Atlantic security schemes were based on ensuring US
dominance, including subjugating Europe and “containing” Russia. The
main role was assigned to NATO, which eventually “crushed” the European Union, which was supposedly created for Europeans. The OSCE structures were shamelessly privatized in gross violation of the Helsinki Final Act.
The reckless expansion of NATO, despite repeated warnings from Moscow
over the years, has also triggered the Ukrainian crisis, starting with
the coup d’etat organized by Washington in February 2014 to establish
full control over Ukraine in
order to prepare an offensive against Russia with the help of the
neo-Nazi regime brought to power. When P. A. Poroshenko and then V. A.
Zelensky waged a war against their own citizens in the Donbas, legally
destroyed Russian education, Russian culture, Russian media and the
Russian language in general, banned the UOC [Ukrainian Orthodox Church],
no one in the West noticed this, did not demand that their wards in
Kiev “observe decency”, do not violate international conventions on the
rights of national minorities, and the Constitution of Ukraine itself,
which requires that these rights be respected. A special military operation was
launched to eliminate threats to Russia’s security and protect people
who feel that they are part of Russian culture and live on lands that
were settled by their ancestors for centuries, and to save them from
legislative and physical extermination.
It is significant that even now, when numerous initiatives are being
put forward for the Ukrainian settlement, few people remember Kiev’s
violation of human rights and national minorities. Only recently did the
EU documents on the start of negotiations on Ukraine’s accession
formulate a corresponding requirement, mainly due to the principled and
persistent position of Hungary. However, the real possibilities and
desire of Brussels to influence the Kiev regime are questionable.
We call on all those who show a sincere interest in overcoming the
crisis in Ukraine to take into account in their proposals the key issue
of the rights of all national minorities without exception. Its silence
devalues peaceful initiatives, and V. A. Zelensky’s racist policy
actually gets approval. It is characteristic that in 2014 (ten years
ago) V. A. Zelensky said: “If in the East of Ukraine and in Crimea
people want to speak Russian-let go, leave them alone, legally let them
speak Russian. The language will never divide our native country.” Since
then, Washington has successfully re-educated him, and already in 2021,
Vladimir Zelensky in an interview demanded that those who feel involved
in Russian culture should go to Russia for the sake of the future of
their children and grandchildren.
I appeal to the masters of the Ukrainian regime: force them to comply
with Article 1.3 of the UN Charter, which guarantees the fundamental
rights and freedoms of all people “without distinction between race,
gender, language or religion.”
Dear colleagues,
The North Atlantic Alliance is no longer satisfied with the war that
it unleashed against Russia at the hands of the illegal authorities in
Kiev, and the entire OSCE space is not enough for it. Having almost
completely destroyed the fundamental agreements on arms control, the
United States continues to escalate the confrontation. The other day, at
a summit in Washington, the leaders of the alliance countries confirmed
their claims to a dominant role not only in the Euro-Atlantic region,
but also in the Asia-Pacific region. It is declared that NATO is still
guided by the task of protecting the territory of its members, but for
this, they say, it is necessary to extend the alliance’s dominance to
the entire Eurasian continent and adjacent sea areas. NATO’s military
infrastructure is moving into the Pacific with the obvious goal of
undermining the ASEAN-centric architecture that has been built on the
principles of equality, mutual interests and consensus for decades. To
replace the inclusive mechanisms created around ASEAN,
the United States and its allies are putting together closed
confrontational blocks subordinate to them, such as AUCUS and other
various “fours” and “threes”. The other day, the deputy head of the
Pentagon, K. Hicks, said that the United States and its allies “must
prepare for protracted wars, and not only in Europe.”
In order to “contain” Russia, China and other countries whose
independent policies are perceived as a challenge to hegemony, the West
is aggressively breaking the system of globalization that was originally
formed according to its own patterns. Washington did everything
possible to blow up (including literally – by organizing terrorist
attacks on the Nord Stream gas pipelines) the foundations of mutually
beneficial energy cooperation between Russia and Germany and Europe as a
whole. Berlin was silent then. Today we see yet another humiliation for
Germany, whose government has implicitly obeyed the US decision to
deploy US medium-range ground-based missiles on German territory. The
German Chancellor, O. Scholz, simply said: “The United States has
decided to deploy high-precision strike systems in Germany, and this is a
good decision.” The US decided.
And with all this, Mr. J. Kirby, Media Coordinator in Washington, on
behalf of the President of the United States, states: “We are not
looking for a third world war. This would have terrible consequences for
the European continent.” As they say, a Freudian caveat: Washington is
convinced that the new global war will not affect the United States, but
its European allies. If such an analysis is the basis for the strategy
of the J. P. Morgan administration, Biden, then this is an extremely
dangerous misconception. But Europeans, of course, must realize what a
suicidal role they are destined to play.
The Americans, having put the entire collective West “under the gun”,
are expanding the trade and economic war with the undesirable ones,
unleashing an unprecedented campaign of unilateral coercive measures
that boomerang primarily in Europe and lead to further fragmentation of
the world economy. The neocolonial practices of Western countries affect
the countries of the Global South in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Illegal sanctions, numerous protectionist measures, and restrictions on
access to technology directly contradict true multilateralism and create
serious obstacles to achieving the goals of the UN development agenda.
Where are all the trappings of the free market that the United States
and its allies have taught everyone for so many years? The market
economy, fair competition, inviolability of property, the presumption of
innocence, freedom of movement of people, goods, capital and services –
all this is now being scrapped. Geopolitics has buried the once sacred
laws of the market for the West. Recently, we have heard public demands
from US and EU officials for China to reduce “excess production” in
high-tech industries, as the West has begun to lose its long-standing
advantages in these areas. Now, instead of market principles – the same
“rules”.
Dear colleagues,
The actions of the United States and its allies hinder international
cooperation and [the goal to] build a more just world, take entire
countries and regions hostage, prevent peoples from exercising their
sovereign rights set forth in the UN Charter, and distract from
much-needed joint work to resolve conflicts in the Middle East, Africa,
and other regions, reduce global inequality, and eliminate the threats
of terrorism and drug crime, hunger and disease.
I am convinced that this situation can be corrected – of course, if
there is good will. In order to stop the negative scenario from
unfolding, we would like to propose a number of steps aimed at restoring
confidence and stabilizing the international situation.
1. The root causes of the current crisis in Europe must be addressed
once and for all. The conditions for establishing sustainable peace in
Ukraine were set out by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir
Putin, and I will not repeat them.
A political and diplomatic settlement should be accompanied by
concrete steps to remove the threats to the Russian Federation emanating
from the western, Euro-Atlantic direction. When agreeing on mutual
guarantees and agreements, we will have to take into account the new
geostrategic realities on the Eurasian continent, where a continent-wide
architecture of truly equal and indivisible security is being formed.
Europe risks falling behind in this objective historical process. We are
ready to find a balance of interests.
2. The restoration of the regional and global balance of power should
be accompanied by active efforts to eliminate the injustices in the
global economy. In a multipolar world, by definition, there should be no
monopolists in monetary and financial regulation, trade, or technology.
This point of view is shared by the overwhelming majority of members of
the world community. Of particular importance is the rapid reform of
the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO, whose activities should
reflect the real weight of non-Western growth and development centers.
3. Major, qualitative changes must also take place in other
institutions of global governance if they are to work for the benefit of
all. First of all, this concerns our Organization, which still, despite
everything, is the epitome of multilateralism, has a unique, universal
legitimacy and a generally recognized breadth of competencies.
An important step towards restoring the effectiveness of the UN would
be for all its members to reconfirm their commitment to the principles
of the UN Charter, not selectively, but in their entirety and
interrelation. We can think together about what form such a
re-confirmation might take.
The Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, formed on the
initiative of Venezuela, is doing a lot of work. We invite all countries
that still believe in the rule of international law to join its work.
A key element of UN reform should be a change in the composition of
the Security Council, although this in itself will not help to establish
productive work if there is no basic agreement on working methods among
the permanent members. This consideration, however, does not negate the
imperative of eliminating geographical and geopolitical distortions in
the Security Council, where today the countries of the collective West
are clearly overrepresented. A long-overdue step is to reach the
broadest possible agreement on the specific parameters of reform aimed
at strengthening the representation of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Changes in the personnel policy of the Secretariat are also needed to
eliminate the dominance of citizens and subjects of Western countries
in the administrative structures of the Organization. The
Secretary-General and his staff must strictly observe, without any
exceptions, the principles of impartiality and neutrality, as prescribed
by Article 100 of the UN Charter, which we do not tire of reminding.
4. In addition to the United Nations, other multilateral
organizations should contribute to strengthening the multipolar
principles of international life. Among them is the Group of Twenty,
which includes both World-majority countries and Western states. The
G20’s mandate is strictly limited to economic and development issues, so
it is important that the substantive dialogue on this platform is
spared from opportunistic attempts to throw in geopolitical plots.
Otherwise, we will ruin this useful platform.
BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are
playing an increasingly important role in building a just multilateral
order based on the principles of the UN Charter. They bring together
countries representing different regions and civilizations, cooperating
on the basis of equality, mutual respect, consensus and mutually
acceptable compromises – the “gold standard” of multilateral interaction
involving great Powers.
Such regional associations as the CIS, CSTO, EAEU,
ASEAN, GCC, LAS, Afro-Union, CELAC are of practical importance for the
establishment of multipolarity. We see it as an important task to
establish diverse relations between them, including involving the UN’s
potential. The Russian Presidency of the Council will focus one of its
upcoming meetings on cooperation between the UN and Eurasian regional
organizations.
Dear colleagues,
Speaking at the BRICS Parliamentary Forum on July 9 this year In
St. Petersburg, Russian President Vladimir Putin said: “The formation
of a world order that reflects the real balance of power is a complex
and in many ways even painful process.” We believe that discussions on
this topic should be organized without falling into fruitless polemics,
based on a sober analysis of the totality of facts. First of all, it is
necessary to restore professional diplomacy, a culture of dialogue, the
ability to listen, and preserve channels of crisis communication.
The lives of millions of people depend on the ability of politicians
and diplomats to formulate something like a unified vision of the
future. Whether our world will be diverse and just depends only on the
Member States. I would like to emphasize once again that there is a
point of support – this is the Charter of our Organization. If everyone,
without exception, follows its spirit and letter, then the United
Nations will be able to overcome the current differences and reach a
common denominator on most issues. The “end of history” did not take
place. Let us work together for the beginning of a history of genuine
multilateralism, reflecting the richness of the cultural and
civilizational diversity of the world’s peoples. We invite you to
discuss it, of course, it should only be honest.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change,
is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to
enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the
world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social
‘sciences’ — duping the public.
The Biden Administration pressured Amazon to hide books for sale on its platform that were critical of vaccines during the pandemic, it has been revealed.
The findings were presented by the House Judiciary Committee and Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government in documents that show Amazon reduced the visibility of titles that the government deemed overly critical of big pharma shots.
The documents show that some books were simply generally critical of vaccines, with several written by medical professionals. Some were even just reviews of scientific studies.
The Federal government compiled a “Do Not Promote” list, to which more than 40 titles were added.
In a series of X posts, Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jim Jordan explained how internal emails from Amazon contain employees revealed that “the impetus for this request is criticism from the Biden Administration.”
In response to a subpoena from @JudiciaryGOP, @Amazon revealed the 43 book titles it censored because of the Biden White House’s pressure.
Whether you love or hate the books on this list, no bookstore should be censoring books because of government pressure. pic.twitter.com/64PGF1fxJU — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) June 21, 2024
They even targeted a children’s book that they deemed to be too friendly toward the unvaccinated.
The children’s book said the vaccinated & unvaccinated can be friends.
Instead of censoring it, Amazon should have sent the book to Fauci, @GavinNewsom, and @JoeBiden. Remember when they said everyone had to comply with their made-up rules and vax mandates or lose their jobs? pic.twitter.com/32rkxBaqnm — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) June 21, 2024
And if these efforts weren’t enough to effectively deamplify opposing viewpoints, Amazon also censored books reviewing scientific papers.
The book also had the audacity to address whether Big Pharma’s funding of research has the potential to create conflicts of interest. pic.twitter.com/U1UiJYwpLP — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) June 21, 2024
“Don’t let the Biden Admin tell you that their censorship campaign was about concerns of misinformation going viral on social media,” Jordan wrote.
He further urged “They were going after BOOKS too. This is–and always has been–about suppressing difavored views, not purported challenges of new technologies.”
This is unconstitutional government censorship, full stop.
Whether you agree with this speech or not, free speech is free speech and the Biden Admin pressured private companies to censor constitutionally protected speech. — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) June 21, 2024
There is a deep irony attached to this story in that the Biden Administration has repeatedly accused Republicans of trying to ‘ban’ books nationwide.
While in almost all of these cases, the likes of Florida governor Ron DeSantis were expressing opposition to school libraries carrying sexually explicit books aimed at children, it turns out the Biden Administration was actively working to censor books for adults.
