Imagine Elise Stefanik Kwestioning Henry Kissinger...,

newrepublic  |  The question of Kissinger’s alleged antisemitism is a complicated one. Yes, he told a friend in the 1970s that Judaism “has no significance for me,” according to Walter Isaacson’s 1992 biography, and is also quoted as having said in 1972, “If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be antisemitic.” Another gem from that year: “Any people who has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong.”

But to be fair, these views were not as uncommon among German Jews in the United States as one might wish them to have been. One can find similarly disturbing quotes in the private discussions of say, the great pundit and political philosopher Walter Lippmann and the longtime New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger. When confronted with Richard Nixon’s frequently hysterical antisemitic rants about “dirty rotten Jews from New York” who dared to reveal the truth about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in the Times or some such thing, Kissinger usually tried to placate the president without explicitly agreeing or disagreeing. But when he felt Jews, whether American or Israeli, were refusing to cooperate with his plans, he was more than happy to join in, once complaining to Nixon that he had “never seen such cold-blooded playing with the American national interest” as when American Jewish leaders supported Israel’s position over that of the Nixon administration. The Israelis at various times were “as obnoxious as the Vietnamese,” “boastful,” “psychopathic,” “fools,” “a sick bunch,” and “the world’s worst shits.” As for American Jewish leaders, “They seek to prove their manhood by total acquiescence in whatever Jerusalem wants.”

Kissinger was a Jew who found other Jews exceptionally annoying—none more so than Israelis, with whom he frequently negotiated but failed to get to do things his way. The question is, was he worse about Jews and Israel than about anyone else who refused to genuflect before what he understood to be his genius? To be fair to someone who really doesn’t deserve it, Kissinger, like Nixon, would tend toward churlish, racist reactions when anyone rebuffed him. When, for instance, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi refused to go along with his plans for a secret opening to China, he informed the president that “well, the Indians are bastards anyway,” and Gandhi herself was “a bitch.”

But Kissinger also engaged in explicitly antisemitic actions himself. When, in September 1973, Nixon appointed him to be secretary of state, Kissinger thanked him for saying nothing about his “Jewish background.” And as he doled out jobs to his aides, he made certain to count the Jews to ensure there were not too many of them. He explained that while he knew that it required 10 Jews for a minyan (Jewish prayer service), he could not “have them all on the seventh floor.” Kissinger also once removed a counselor, good friend, and fellow German Jew, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, from a list of aides scheduled to accompany the president to Germany because he said, “I don’t think too many Jews should be around.” But here again, he was likely not acting out of personal anti-Jewish animus. Rather he was behaving cravenly in the face of what he judged to be the Jew-hatred of others, especially Nixon, who famously ordered an aide to count the number of Jews working in the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

For the purpose of history, the most important aspects of Kissinger’s hostility to Jews and Israel can be seen in his conduct related to the 1973 “Yom Kippur War.” Kissinger apologists have consistently attempted to give him the credit that belongs almost entirely to Jimmy Carter for the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Martin Indyk, a longtime diplomat and Kissinger acolyte, actually published a 688-page book titled Master of the Game, making exactly this comical claim.

The truth is that Kissinger’s machinations were at least partially responsible for the fact of the war itself. Egypt’s visionary leader Anwar Sadat made clear to Kissinger and company that he was interested in a peace agreement with Israel (and moving his allegiance from the Russians to the Americans). The Israelis expressed interest at the time, but Kissinger instructed them that they were “wasting time” in taking Sadat seriously. To make certain the Israelis went along with his plans, he secretly bribed them with a promise of over 100 U.S. Phantom fighter jets. His overture rejected, Sadat eventually decided that another war to avenge the humiliation of 1967 was his only choice to lay the groundwork for an eventual deal. Even Indyk, who treats Kissinger’s famous “shuttle diplomacy” between Israel and Egypt after the war as one of the great achievements of American diplomatic history, admitted in his book that Kissinger “might have averted the Yom Kippur War” by taking Sadat seriously earlier.

Kissinger also helped ensure that Israel would be unprepared for the Egyptian attack. According to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan’s secret testimony before Israel’s 1974 Commission of Inquiry, just before the war began, Kissinger warned Israel that if it wanted any help from the United States in the event of hostilities, then it should not make a preemptive strike against Egypt or Syria or to mobilize the reserve army before the war actually started. These warnings were given after Kissinger insisted that all other Americans leave the room and no notes be taken. Dayan then canceled his air force’s preemptive operation and objected to Golda Meir’s plan to mobilize the reserves. Kissinger is not known to have given any similar warning to the Egyptians. Indeed, according to Sadat’s memoirs, Kissinger actually encouraged the attack, via secret messages, in order to improve Egypt’s negotiating position in the war’s aftermath. To my knowledge, Kissinger never addressed this.

Kissinger wanted Israel to suffer a significant setback before it finally won the war. He succeeded at this at an enormous cost in lost lives on both sides. As the Egyptian army marched toward Tel Aviv, he informed Sadat and company that the United States was doing merely the minimum to aid Israel that was possible under the circumstances. After eight days of fighting, however, Nixon insisted, over Kissinger’s objections, on implementing a massive emergency weapons airlift. He did this despite Kissinger’s warning that victory would make Israel “even more impossible to deal with than before.”

Kissinger came in for extremely harsh criticism from some American Jews in this period. Hans Morgenthau, a respected international relations scholar whom Kissinger personally revered, went so far as to compare the pressure he was applying to Israel to the way the West had treated Czechoslovakia in 1938 when it was threatened by Hitler. To try to disarm such critics, Kissinger undertook a series of off-the-record meetings with Jewish writers and intellectuals and another with leaders of Jewish organizations.

The former group spanned the political spectrum, from the democratic socialists Irving Howe and Michael Walzer to neoconservatives such as Seymour Martin Lipset and Norman Podhoretz. There was no room for disagreement between the two poles, however, because the only issue discussed was Israel’s security and how to best ensure it. Kissinger posed as Israel’s savior and warned of a noticeable turn against all-out support for Israel in Congress. (Actually, the opposite was true. Congress was far more pro-Israel than Kissinger was.) He pointed out that, given the “critical opposition” to Israel within the international community, the perfidy of the “European vultures,” and the likely success of the “extremely effective” OPEC oil embargo, which would give the Arab world more leverage over the West and turn consumers in both the U.S. and Europe against Israel. Israel was “in great danger.” What he needed, he explained, was for influential American Jews to “privately … make clear to the Israelis that you understand the situation.” The meeting broke up, according to the notes taken by an aide to Kissinger, “with warm expressions of gratitude.”

Kissinger Understood You Can't Be Both Oppressor And Victim

NYTimes  |  Richard M. Nixon has long been the Freddy Krueger of American political life. You know in your bones that he is destined to keep returning.

Sure enough, though dead 16 years, Nixon is back onstage, with the release of a fresh batch of tapes from his Oval Office days. They show him at his omni-bigoted worst, offering one slur after another against the Irish, Italians and blacks. Characteristically, he saved his most potent acid for Jews. “The Jews,” he said, “are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality.”

But Nixon’s hard-wired anti-Semitism is an old story. What has caused many heads to swivel is a recording of Henry A. Kissinger, his national security adviser. Mr. Kissinger is heard telling Nixon in 1973 that helping Soviet Jews emigrate and thus escape oppression by a totalitarian regime — a huge issue at the time — was “not an objective of American foreign policy.”

“And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union,” he added, “it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”

In New York, the epicenter of Jewish life in the United States, some jaws are still not back in place after dropping to the floor.

Bad enough that any senior White House official would, without prodding, raise the grotesque specter of Jews once again being herded into gas chambers. But it was unbearable for some to hear that language come from Mr. Kissinger, a Jew who as a teenager fled Nazi Germany with his family, in 1938. Had he not found refuge in this country and in this city — the Kissingers settled in Washington Heights — he might have ended up in a gas chamber himself.

“Despicable,” “callous,” “revulsion,” “hypocrite,” “chilling” and “shocking” were a few of the words used this week by some leaders of Jewish organizations and by newspapers that focus on Jewish matters.

Conspicuously, however, many groups and prominent individuals stayed silent. They include people who would have almost certainly spoken up had coldhearted talk of genocide come from the likes of Mel Gibson or Patrick J. Buchanan, neither a stranger to provocative comments about Jews.

Even some who deplored Mr. Kissinger’s remarks tempered their criticism. The Anti-Defamation League called the recorded statements “outrageous,” but said they did not undermine “the important contributions and ultimate legacy of Henry Kissinger,” including his support of Israel. The American Jewish Committee described the remarks as “truly chilling,” but suggested that anti-Semitism in the Nixon White House might have been at least partly to blame.

“Perhaps Kissinger felt that, as a Jew, he had to go the extra mile to prove to the president that there was no question as to where his loyalties lay,” the committee’s executive director, David Harris, said in a statement.

There was no hedging in editorials by Jewish-themed newspapers like The Forward and The Jewish Week. Separately, in a Jewish Week column, Menachem Z. Rosensaft, a New York lawyer who is active in Holocaust-related issues, dismissed Mr. Kissinger as “the quintessential court Jew.” And J. J. Goldberg, a Forward columnist, wrote, “No one has ever gone broke overstating Kissinger’s coldbloodedness.”

Now 87, Mr. Kissinger confined himself this week to a brief statement that said his taped comments “must be viewed in the context of the time.”

Back then, American Jewish groups strongly supported legislation that would have made any improvement in American-Soviet trade relations contingent on freer emigration by Soviet Jews. The president and Mr. Kissinger rejected that approach, which was rooted in human rights concepts not suited to their power politics, or realpolitik. They were bluntly angry at Jewish organizations for pushing hard on the issue.

In his statement, Mr. Kissinger said of Jewish emigration that “we dealt with it as a humanitarian matter separate from the foreign policy issues.” That approach, he said, led to a significant rise in the number of Jews permitted to leave the Soviet Union. In fact, it did, for a while anyway.

Still, that “gas chamber” line is about as ugly as it gets. It seems unlikely to change many views of a man who is both widely admired and widely hated, but there is one word that just might haunt Mr. Kissinger to his final days.

Genocide is “not an American concern,” he said, but “maybe a humanitarian concern.”

Maybe, the man said.

 

 

 

Meanwhile - Back In St. Petersburg Russia - Stunningly Low Prices

TCH  |  I wouldn’t normally write a post like this, but WE ARE NOT going to find this level of ground reporting anywhere in U.S. media.   As you might be aware, I have been doing extensive research on the Russian economy specifically with the outcome of western sanctions.

In his video a Youtuber I follow visited a local supermarket, similar to a WalMart Super Center to share information for his USA followers.

Dima Dear, a remarkably nice young man, lives in St Petersburg, Russia (formerly Leningrad), and he shares various experiences with his audience at their request.  There is a lot of U.S interest as people following his story are starting to realize life in Russia is not what western media portray.

If you are familiar with USA grocery prices, what Dima shares in this ground report is stunning from a U.S. perspective.  If you watch this livestream, keep in mind that 100 rubles equals $1.00.  350 rubles is $3.50.  Additionally for weighted products 1kg equals 2.2 lbs.   So generally speaking, if something is 100 rubles/kg it is $1 for two pounds.

Example from the video:

•Lean ground beef at 329 rubles/kg is less than $1.65/lb.
•Bacon at 250 rubles/kg is less than $1.25/lb.
•20 eggs are 139 rubles or $1.39.
•Boneless skinless chicken breast $4 for 4lbs.
•Typical Bagged salad mixes .79¢ each. etc.

The wild part is that in Russia they are getting worried these prices are too high. 

The average rent for a nicely furnished 2-bedroom modern apartment in St Pete Russia is around $500/month.  Something akin to downtown Manhattan. Including rent, utilities, food, transportation, personal items and purchases, a Russian citizen can live very comfortably, remarkably comfortably, on an income of around $1,200 to $1,500/month.  In downtown St Pete which is considered a more expensive place to live.

Put that into a USA middle-class perspective and evaluate the impact of western sanctions against the average Russian cost of living.

100 rubles = $1.00

Do You Taste Chocolate Or Just Read Its Ingredients? (REDUX 5/7/08)

Of the three lines of evolution perceptible to man (and hence attributed by him to nature), the highest, because the most inclusive, is spiritual evolution defined as the self-perception of self. But between, first, this verbal definition and the realization of its meaning; and secondly, the realization of its meaning and its actualization in being—there may be aeons of difference. From merely understanding that the highest value is self-objectivity (the ability, that is to say, to see everything thought of as self exactly as if it were not self) it does not follow that we have it, any more that it follows that if we understand that gold is of more value than silver, we necessarily possess gold. The attainment of the state of self-objectivity is something totally different from its understanding just as acquiring gold is something totally different from the appreciation of its value.

What I am therefore disposed to say of the problems already referred to is that their understanding and appreciation need to be supplemented by something entirely different before they can be solved; and that, in fact, the modern mind, even when desirous of objectivity, is incapable of solving such problems for the simple reason that the modern mind is not, in actuality, self-objective.

I beg myself as well as my readers not to mistake understanding for attainment; and not to imagine, on the strength of their realization of certain truths, that they possess them, or still less, that they can use them. Our being, in which alone truth is possessed, is still a long way behind our understanding. Is then, Progress a "myth"? I do not know. Is it, on the other hand, a fact in Nature? Again, I do not know. Nor do I find it necessary to settle the question one way or the other for my peace of mind. To understand what the question implies, to be satisfied that one can not answer it now, but to hope to be able one day to answer it, that, I think, is enough. . .

 

Reality Mechanics: Meditation? ESP? Or Something Far More Profound? (REDUX 8/9/22)

9:04 that's the only explanation I can get is that that if they if people are here 9:10 from another civilization then they if they've understood the the 9:15 higher the higher the finer points of quantum of quantum physics and how to 9:20 couple that from particles into beings that can do what quantum what particles 

The best way to understand their approach is by considering something else ordered yet non-repeating: "quasicrystals." A typical crystal has a regular, repeating structure, like the hexagons in a honeycomb. A quasicrystal still has order, but its patterns never repeat. (Penrose tiling is one example of this.) Even more mind-boggling is that quasicrystals are crystals from higher dimensions projected, or squished down, into lower dimensions. Those higher dimensions can even be beyond physical space's three dimensions: A 2D Penrose tiling, for instance, is a projected slice of a 5-D lattice.

9:25 can do now when I was at wright-patterson we had the flying saucers it went up I think they covered the distance from 9:32 Columbus to Detroit in something like equivalent of about 20,000 miles an hour 9:39 I don't think anyone in the canoe in the ordinary aerospace business would have 9:46 had any knowledge of what they were even talking about if you mentioned quantum 9:51 physics or or wormholes are the type of things we know now because if you went 9:59 to CERN and talked to the particle physicists they would tell you certainly some of this was possible because they 10:06 see it all the time where they think they see mass they really see they 10:12 really see energy frozen in it in a time quantum and what they're seeing is not 10:18 is this is really a frozen bundle of energy and it moves back and forth 10:25 almost without any restriction 

I thought there were enough credible stories that I may not be able to 10:32 explain them but they weren't phenomenon that were people's imagination whatever 10:41 they saw was real but I couldn't explain how it how it was real what made it real but I think what they I think they saw 10:48 what they saw near st. Louis there was a fairly large triangular object seen and 10:54 it covered the distance down to south st. Louis in some in some of its 11:00 sightings it was moving relatively benign Lee but then it it literally jumped about 20 miles in a sec couple of 11:07 seconds and I've received a lot of phone calls from the local newspapers and TV 11:13 stations is how can that be and 

I said I don't know how it can be except if you 11:18 explain it through something like a quantum physics explanation of time and 11:24 space relationships it gave you time and space travel but other than that I don't 11:30 there's no way I know that I can put the biggest rocket engine I could think of 11:36 on it it still couldn't get there at that speed and the noise and the sounds 11:42 you would make doing something like that would wake everybody up for 10 miles and 11:47 it made no sound at all it's see it starts out at hover and it literally almost disappears and pops 11:53 over here so it's not like it's not like a cartoon where it goes whoosh it's 12:00 almost like it disappears and comes up over here at least that the descriptions 12:06 that some of the police officers gave to it a lot of combat pilots routinely go 12:13 up to 7 and 8 GS but that's a very specific direction that's from your head 12:19 downward along the axis of your spine if you were to take that what's called 12:24 eyeballs in which is when you accelerate the forces this way you literally would 12:32 have your eyeballs and compressed out of their sockets and you have brain damage so that the G's the do that might be in 12:40 the level of order of so no that's not physically possible for any even even insects to take that level 12:48 of acceleration even over a short period of time you might get in an automobile 12:53 accident you might get a hundred two hundred and fifty G's and that's when the car is completely crushed so that's 13:00 what happened would happen to a human being if that were a conventional force accelerator so it's not a conventional 13:06 force accelerator because if there's people in human beings in them or something being in them that isn't 13:13 crushed then it has to be a different way of doing it the hard part is to find 13:19 a way to physically do that 

you know there are people who have been experimenting with zero-point energy or 13:25 try to tap zero-point energy for years every once in a while someone will do it 13:30 accidentally they'll call it cold fusion but I don't think it's cold fusion I just think it's a zero-point energy tap 13:36 except for three people that I know no 13:41 one has been able to control it when it happens it happens for a short period of time 13:47 and it's almost always destructive it's like drilling a hole into the base of Grand Coulee Dam and all of a sudden 13:54 this jet of water comes out that literally has enough pressure to cut you in half without a valve on it you can't 14:02 shut it off does one guy that that that 14:07 a friend of mine actually visited in Ann Arbor Michigan that was I consider a mathematical genius that actually 14:14 figured out a way to control it he was so paranoid he divorced his wife 14:20 left his wife and children and went in hiding because he was terrified that someone 14:26 would would kill him for the knowledge that he had the ability to tap this whenever he chose to and control it we 14:33 don't know worried we haven't seen him in five years I don't worry is you know right now today you've got an energy 

14:39 problem with the price of oil what do you think would happen if you introduced 14:45 an ability to attempt zero-point energy represents about 40 to 50 megawatts of 14:53 power per cubic inch of space that's a lot of power 15:00 that's 4600 million watts of power and 15:07 if you could tap it at will then no one 15:12 would have to sell gasoline or oil anymore you would just tap into it it would be it would be like taking and 15:20 going out to the Great Lakes and taking out one drop and using it it would you'd 15:25 hardly miss it and since it permeates the whole universe and it continually 15:31 fluctuates as it as as that as the matter and antimatter interact it's not 15:40 like it's a steady lake it's um you see it's a pool the size of the universe so 15:45 you'd never for what we've used before you never even miss it the only thing this one guy claimed that happened is if 15:52 you bottle it and move it to another location and release it he sounded 16:00 exactly like mr. Spock he said you create a tear in the in the time time 16:07 domain of the of local space and actually caused a problem which he 16:13 claims he did and he will never do it again which is bottle and move it the other part is that you're knock it 16:19 doesn't work on conventional jet engines one has to create an actual zero point 16:25 energy engine to do that this one guy in Ann Arbor Mich Michigan had one running in his basement 16:30 not connected to any power source whatsoever sitting in the middle of a table and it had been running for a year 

Putin: “100% Sure US-made Patriot Air Defense Systems Will be Destroyed in Ukraine”

This is the first time in history that the U.S. now has absolute proof that Russian systems can penetrate the most advanced U.S. defenses. Recall, that reportedly Ukraine was armed with the latest Pac-3 missiles, not the older Pac-2s, etc. This has dire consequences for all European security as it proves that Russian missiles can now penetrate any NATO base in Poland and elsewhere with full impunity. In fact, these are the types of tectonic moments that create generational doctrinal shifts and change the calculus of defense postures entirely.

militarywatchmagazine  |  On May 16 as part of a complex series of strikes on the Ukrainian capital Kiev the Russian Air Force employed the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal hypersonic ballistic missile to neutralise a unit from an American Patriot air defence system, destroying its a radar and a control centre and reportedly at least one of its launchers. According to Russian sources, the Ukrainian crew operating the Patriot were aware a strike was incoming, but had only a limited warning time due to the Kinzhal missile’s very high speed - limiting opportunities for the missile system to change position or reload. The Patriot system targeted was one of two delivered, with Germany and the United States having each supplied a single unit. The unit reportedly fired 32 surface to air missiles at the Kinzhal on approach, which at approximately $3 million each amounted to a $96 million barrage to attempt to destroy a missile with an estimated cost of under $2 million. The very high cost and limited number of the Patriot’s interceptors was a key argument for not sending the systems to Ukraine, with their effectiveness also having been brought to question not only due to the system’s highly troubled combat record, but also to the advanced capabilities of new Russian missiles such as the Kinzhal, Iskander and Zicron. These are considered nearly impossible to intercept particularly in their terminal stages. The delivery of Patriots was nevertheless seen as necessary due to the near collapse of Ukrainian air defences, as warnings have been given with growing frequency by both Western and Ukrainian sources that the arsenal of S-300 and BuK missile systems protecting the country has become critically depleted.

Destruction of the Patriot systems comes less than a month after the first systems were delivered in April, and follows a warning in December from Russian President Vladimir Putin that the destruction of the systems was an absolute certainty should they be deployed in Ukraine. He assured that with Washington “now saying that they can put a Patriot [in Ukraine]. Okay, let them do it. We will crack the Patriot [like a nut] too, and something will need to be installed in its place, new systems need to be developed - this is a complex and lengthy process” - indicating that NATO had no newer generations of long range air defence systems available to replace the Patriot once its vulnerability was demonstrated. “Our adversaries proceed from the idea that this is supposedly a defensive weapon. All right, we'll keep that in mind. And an antidote can always be found," Putin added. The United States notably reassured Russia in December that Patriot systems would not be manned by American personnel, which was interpreted by some sources as an effective green light to proceed with strikes. With Ukrainian personnel expected to take until 2024 to learn to operate Patriots, they are thought to have been manned by contractors from NATO member states who are already acquainted with the systems. 

Cornpop An'Em Don't Comprehend How Russia's Warfighting Doctrine Differs From The West

simplicius76  |   An important distinction has been long overdue in the making, as pertains to a topic of much confusion and misinterpretation to a great many people.

There’s an inherent misconception about the conceptual differences between Soviet/Russian military systems (read: weapons) and those of NATO/Western equivalents. Endless debate has been made not only about which side’s weapons are ‘better’, but the doctrinal purpose behind their respective philosophies.

The most inane of these debates revolve around the reductive arguments that Russian weapons are made ‘to be mass-produced’ and ‘cheap’, like some chintzy dollar-store toy, while Western weapons are made to be high-value, advanced, but prohibitively expensive, complexes. This is often supported with the usual assortment of examples, like mass-produced Russian tanks in WW2 getting killed in 10:1 ratios against the much more advanced but fewer in number German tanks. And a generous handful of mis-attributed quotes is then sprinkled in to justify this view. Like Stalin’s purported “quantity has a quality of its own”, etc., not to mention the tired references to Soviet ‘human wave’ tactics.

One need only to look at the Leopard 2 disaster that befell NATO-member Turkey, during an incursion into ISIS-controlled Syria:  

The ‘top-tier’ Western tanks were picked off as easily as if they were Saddam’s knock-off T-72 ‘Asad Babils’, presaging the types of losses Western forces could expect against an actual peer foe with modern weaponry.

But going back for a moment to crew sizes, the American M777’s handed over to Ukraine require a whopping 8 man crew to operate properly. Here a ‘speedy’ Ukrainian team shows their operations on the system with all 8 positions. Meanwhile, a comparable Russian D-30 gun crew does a breakdown in roughly the same time, but with half the men per gun. There’s an anecdote about the Somali Battalion legend, commander ‘Givi’, who taught one of his recruits to shoot a D-20 howitzer at UA positions in the Donetsk Airport by himself. That’s right—a single man loading, aiming, and operating the howitzer—because in Total War, necessity is the virtue which begets victory.

In areas where it lends itself to more utility, Russia shrewdly invests in automation, and shuns it in areas where too much of it makes logistics operations overly reliant and vulnerable to breakdown.

Take the instance of Russian autoloaders vs. the cumbersome manual-loading of Western tank counterparts. 

Russian MBT’s (Main Battle Tanks), too, can be quickly and conveniently snorkeled for safe underwater operation—giving them the rare ability to traverse riverbeds. 

It Will Be Impossible For The 4th Reich To Fight Everyone, Everywhere, All At Once...,

thecradle  |  During his speech on 13 July, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah’s message was clear: No one would be allowed to operate in maritime oil and gas fields if Lebanon was barred from its right to extract energy resources off of its own coast.

The Karish incident early this month was arguably both an espionage raid and a highly accurate political-military security message in its own right.

In its daring operation, Hezbollah calculatingly dispatched three drones of varying sizes and types, flying at different heights, over the disputed Karish gas field. And the resistance group intentionally made it possible for Israeli radar networks to detect the aerial unmanned vehicles in order to gauge Israel’s response capabilities.

Israeli reactions varied between those who considered the drones a serious threat, and those who downplayed the danger, possibly to preserve their military’s prestige that has systematically eroded over years of conflict with Palestine and Lebanon.

And while it is true that Israeli air defenses were eventually able to shoot down the unarmed aircraft after great effort and technical difficulties, as revealed by the Hebrew press, this is only one small part of the story…

The reason Hezbollah sent three different types of drones to Karish was to activate Israeli and American air defense and electronic jamming systems in the region (even their air force), and to test their ability to move, coordinate, and respond within a given time frame. The exercise also intended to test the extent to which these systems are linked to each other.

This meant that Hezbollah had to intentionally leave the drones exposed as easy targets for these systems.

On 25 July, during a live TV interview on Al Mayadeen channel, Nasrallah revealed for the first time that over the “past few years” Hezbollah’s drones “went to occupied Palestine and returned dozens of times without being shot down.”

He then went on to explain their modus operandi in the Karish operation:

“Our two goals of sending the drones are, one, we want to show that we can take this step (escalation), and two, we want the Israelis to fire on that front (near the gas fields). What we did is that we made(forced) the Israelis to open fire…Surely, they fell into the trap…The Air Force planes, F35, and F16, were used to shoot down a drone but could not shoot down the second, so they used the naval surface-to-air missiles (Barak) to shoot down the second. As for the third — let me reveal new information — they did not shoot it down at all, it was of a small type, it went on track and ran out of fuel and fell into the sea, that’s why (the Israelis) only speak of two drones that were shot down.”

A secondary aim of the drone operation was to deliver a message to foreign companies operating in the disputed gas fields.

 

Workers aboard the production vessel were meant to hear and witness the sound and sights of explosions, and the warplanes maneuvering in the skies above them, to alert them to the fact that they were operating in violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial waters, and that these operations would continue to be unsafe.

 

What Happens To Europe When Russia Wins?

thesaker  |  If the unprecedented tidal wave of sanctions which the West had sent toward Russia had produced some sort of tangible effect during the first two or three months of Russia’s special operation in the Ukraine, then this strategy would have been quite enough to ease suffering Western masses through the shock of the unfolding crisis (although the crisis would continue to unfold even if the Russian economy had collapsed). But over the longer term this strategy stops working. First, the “blame Putin” narrative is rather monotonous and gets old quickly. Second, and far more importantly, at the level of mass subconscious, it creates the impression that Putin is a god: super-powerful, super-influential and able to influence processes both global and local through subtle and invisible means. Moreover, Putin the god is Zeus-like and has powerful atomic thunderbolts at his disposal, adding terrifying appeal to his already frightful image.

Sooner or later the Western mass subconscious will form a simple and perfectly logical thought: if Putin is all-powerful and super-influential, and if we with our feeble “sanctions from Hell” can do nothing to weaken or dislodge him over three, then five, then seven months, then, obviously, we must come to terms with him and accede to his demands before things get any worse for us! And while it would be demeaning for the Western mass subconscious to negotiate with a petty tyrant or a mad despot, negotiating with an all-powerful demigod who holds the fate of humanity in his hands is not shameful at all but a necessary, unavoidable, eminently reasonable measure. Moreover, it should be possible to portray such a compromise in flattering terms: as a magnanimous gift from the community of civilized nations offered in good faith in order to save the world from nuclear armageddon about to be unleashed by an angry, all-powerful demigod.

In turn, if Western politicians are, as one might expect, reluctant to negotiate with Putin and to compromise, suffering Western masses will blame them for any delay. If Putin is all-powerful and super-influential, then why aren’t they negotiating and seeking compromise? What are they waiting for? What’s wrong with them? The better-informed element among the Western masses might even be able to vaguely guess at a seldom-discussed but rather obvious fact: what Putin wants is not at all unreasonable. He just wants some of Ukraine (not necessarily even all of it—just the enthusiastically, patriotically Russian bits) and he also wants NATO the hell away from Russia’s borders. “What do we want this Ukraine for anyway?” this enlightened element might inquire. After all, most people in the West lived many happy years not knowing that the Ukraine even existed. What’s more, their recent discovery of its existence has coincided with the onset of a very nasty crisis—and they still can’t find the damned place on a map! And now they have to suffer with sky-high gas prices, with unaffordable food, galloping inflation, shortages of baby formula—all because some idiot politicians are refusing to give Putin this fucking Ukraine which nobody else wants anyway? (Well, Poland does, but who the heck is Poland?) Come on! Be reasonable! Get rid of this stupid Hunter Biden playground and let’s get on with it!

That is the new narrative that is inevitably forming in the mass subconscious of the West, and as time passes, energy prices continue to increase, shortages of all sorts of things become commonplace… and meanwhile the ruble strengthens and Russia gets richer and richer in spite of “sanctions from Hell,” unhurriedly moving its fabled wall of artillery fire westward across the Ukrainian landscape, this narrative will become stronger and stronger and will eventually become dominant. At that point, any attempt to “blame Putin” will be met with boos, hisses and a volley of rotten vegetables. What should we expect Western politicians to do under such circumstances? We should not expect any surprises; they will do what they have always done: they will try to suppress the new, competing narrative. They will “cancel” anyone who tries to articulate it within the media space. (Tucker Carlson beware!)

In doing so, the West will neatly echo what’s happened within the Ukraine itself—a symptom of a creeping Ukrainization of the West. In the Ukraine, for every single disastrous, catastrophic failure that had occurred in 2014 and 2015, the Kiev regime blamed it squarely on Putin personally. Over time it has succeeded in forming a sort of quasi-cult of Putin as an all-powerful evil deity hell-bent on destroying poor, sore-beset little cuddly Ukraine. As a result, by 2018 give or take a year, in the Ukrainian mass subconscious there formed a new narrative: “What do we need this Russian-infested Crimea or this ornery Donbass for? Why can’t we just give them to Putin, so that he leaves us alone and lets us develop as a European-oriented country?”

What did the Kiev regime do about this new narrative? It did whatever it could to suppress it. This wasn’t any sort of independent initiative on its part; it is, after all, a colonial administration run from Washington. And since Washington was busy architecting a Ukrainian war against Russia, any narrative that involved making peace with Russia was simply not allowed. That’s why all Ukrainian opposition political parties were banned, all non-government-controlled television channels were shut down and anyone who ventured to guess that giving de facto independent territories a chance to decide their own fate might be a good idea were charged with separatism and imprisoned or killed. As a result, the West got what it wanted: a Ukrainian war with Russia.

But then something went horribly wrong. Putin pre-empted the Ukrainian attack and lit a backfire by sending in tank columns into territory previously controlled by the Kiev regime, scrambling its logistics throwing its battle plans into ghastly disarray. Then he set about methodically blowing up the Ukraine’s warmaking capacity using standoff weapons. According to schedule, it will be all gone later this month, Western military aid notwithstanding. And then it turned out that Russia was ready for “sanctions from Hell,” having spent eight years preparing for them, and was able to sustain the blow, which then bounced back onto the West and started smashing it to bits. The West reflexively continued to follow the Ukrainian pattern and blame it all on Putin. By now the alternative narrative of an all-powerful Lord Putin is fully formed and we should expect to hear more and more voices clamoring for negotiation and compromise with him.

The aforementioned Tucker Carlson is one of these voices, and his influence on his vast audience sets the tone for a significant chunk of electorate in the US—not that their vote counts for much. Much more surprisingly, the same opinion was voiced at Davos by none other than that talking fossil Henry Kissinger! In response, the Ukrainians added Kissinger to their… terrorist database. Various Kiev regime mouthpieces positively choked from fury. How could he? Doesn’t he know that negotiating with Putin is strictly verboten? That narrative must be suppressed—in the Ukraine and in the West!

The strategy of blaming it all on Putin has backfired grandly in both the Ukraine and in the West and will continue backfiring, eating away at the social fabric and demoralizing the population. But that’s not all! This strategy is also immensely helpful to Russia. Ignoring the obvious thought that anything that is detrimental to the West is automatically beneficial for Russia, there is another, much more significant benefit that this strategy provides to Russia directly: it works to raise Russia’s, and Putin’s, prestige in the rest of the world, which is already much more important to Russia than the West will ever be again.

Global Redistribution Of Resources And Power CAN NOT Be Peaceful

valdaiclub |  In the event that the growing conflict in and around Ukraine does not lead to irreparable consequences on a global scale in the near future, its most important result will be a fundamental demarcation between Russia and Europe, which will make it impossible to maintain even insignificant neutral zones and will require a significant reduction in trade and economic ties. Restoring control over the territory of Ukraine, which, most likely, should become a long-term goal of Russian foreign policy, will solve the main problem of regional security — the presence of a “grey zone”, the management of which inevitably becomes the subject of a confrontation that is dangerous from the point of view of escalation. In this sense, we can count on a certain stabilisation in the long term, although it will not be based on cooperation between the main regional powers. However, it is already obvious that the road to peace will be long enough and will be accompanied by extremely dangerous situations.

In his speech to the participants in the Davos forum, Henry Kissinger, the patriarch of international politics, pointed to just such a prospect as the least desirable from his point of view, since Russia then “could alienate itself completely from Europe and seek a permanent alliance elsewhere”, which would lead to the emergence of diplomatic distances on the scale of the Cold War. In his opinion, peace talks between the parties would be the most expedient way to prevent this; these would result in Russian interests being taken into account. For Kissinger, this means that in some respect, Russia’s participation in the European “concert” is an unconditional value, and the loss of this must be prevented as long as some chance remains.

However, with all the highest appreciation of the merits and wisdom of this statesman and scholar, the impeccable logic of Henry Kissinger faces only one obstacle — it works when the balance of power is determined and relations between states have already passed the stage of military conflict. In this sense, he certainly follows in the footsteps of his great predecessors — Chancellor of the Austrian Empire Klemens von Metternich and British Foreign Secretary Viscount Castlereagh, whose diplomatic achievements were the subject of Kissinger’s doctoral dissertation in 1956. Both of them went down in history precisely as the creators of the new European order, established after the end of the Napoleonic era in France and which persisted, with minor adjustments, for almost a century in international politics.

Like his great predecessors, Kissinger appears on the world stage in an era when the balance of power between the most important players is already being determined by “iron and blood.” The time of his greatest achievement was the first half of the 1970s — a period of relative stability. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the ability of states to behave in that way was due not to their wisdom or responsibility to future generations, but to much more mundane factors. The first factor was the completion of the “shrinkage” of the order which obtained its approximate features as a result of the World War II. Over the next 25 years (1945 — 1970), this order was “finalised” during the war in Korea, the US intervention in Vietnam, the USSR’s military actions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, several indirect wars between the USSR and the US in the Middle East, the completion of the process of disintegration of the European colonial empires, as well as a significant number of smaller, but also dramatic events. So now it would be difficult to expect diplomacy to be able to take first place in world affairs at the initial stage of the process, which promises to be very long and, most likely, quite bloody.

The material basis of that order, which was given its final polish by Kissinger’s diplomacy, the policy of “détente” with the USSR and the 1972 reconciliation with China, was the strategic defeat of Europe as a result of two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. The collapse of the European colonial empires and the historic defeat of Germany in its attempt to take centre stage in world affairs brought the United States to the forefront, which made it possible to make politics truly global. As a result of the self-destruction of the USSR, this order turned out to be short-lived. We see now that this was a great tragedy, since it led to the disappearance of the balance of power in favour of the dominance of only one power.

Now we can assume that the massive emancipation of mankind from Western control is of central importance, the most important factor of which is the growth of China’s economic and political power. If China itself, as well as India and other major states outside the West, cope with the task entrusted to them by history, in the coming decades the international system will acquire features that were completely uncharacteristic before.

Most of the significant events that are taking place now, both globally and regionally, are connected with the objective process of the growth in the importance of China and, following it, other large Asian countries. The determination Russia has shown in recent years, and especially months, is also associated with global changes. The fact that Moscow so purposefully stood up to protect its interests and values was due not only to domestic Russian reasons, although they are of great importance. Nor were they predicated upon expectations of direct material assistance from China, which could compensate for the losses during the acute phase of the conflict with the West.

Shrapnel In The Forest And Shells From The Sky

NYTimes |   Under the fire of Russia’s long-range arsenal and facing a desperate need for ammunition and weapons, Ukrainian forces remain outgunned on the long and pockmarked eastern front, according to military analysts, Ukrainian officials and soldiers on the ground.

Just one engagement on Thursday and Friday on a small swath of the line, in a forest north of the town of Sloviansk, sent about a dozen Ukrainian soldiers to a military hospital with harrowing shrapnel wounds.

“You ask how the fighting is going,” said Oleksandr Kolesnikov, the commander of a company of soldiers fighting in the forest, interviewed on an ambulance gurney outside a military hospital in Kramatorsk. “There was a commander of the company. He was killed. There was another commander. He was killed. A third commander was wounded. I am the fourth.”

Out on the highways in the Donbas region, trucks towing howitzers and flatbeds carrying tanks rumbled east on Saturday, suggesting the Ukrainian military was reinforcing its front lines. The army does not disclose its force numbers but has publicized the arrival of Western weaponry, including American M777 artillery guns.

“We needed to move a group to the left flank and they immediately started pounding us with mortars,” said Mr. Kolesnikov. “That is how I was wounded.”

He called for artillery fire from the Ukrainian side to hit the Russian mortar crew, but said the Ukrainian battery was only able to shoot a dozen or so shells, which did not halt the Russian mortar attack.

The deputy commander, Anatoly Ignatyenko, was wounded a day earlier in the same spot. The two soldiers, now off the front line, comforted one another in the ambulance, and Mr. Ignatyenko helped his commander drink from a bottle of water.

Both said President Biden and the leaders of other Western nations need to hasten the supply of long-range weapons, such as rocket artillery, to even the odds in the battle for the Donbas.

“Let Biden not be stingy with weapons,” said Mr. Ignatyenko. Russian artillery attacks were relentless, he said: “There is not an hour without a pause.”

Also on Friday, a Ukrainian logistics unit resupplying the soldiers in the forest suffered losses. Soldiers drove an armored personnel carrier to the position to deliver food and ammunition.

When the soldiers inside stepped out, a mortar landed nearby, killing the commander of the carrier and wounding two others.

“I’ve never seen such hell,” said Mykola Pokotila, a soldier wounded by shrapnel in the forest.

Another wounded soldier, Serhiy Osetrov, sat gingerly in the same ambulance, wincing from shrapnel still lodged in his right leg.

The Ukrainian soldiers were deployed to the forest to repel a Russian advance in the area, on the western edge of the larger battle raging in the east. “We try to push them back but it doesn’t always work,” said Mr. Kolesnikov. “We don’t have enough people, enough weapons.”

Nearby, another more heavily wounded man was wheeled out on a stretcher, his head bandaged. Bloodied field stretchers were stacked up in a line against the wall, traces of the daily cost from the front lines of the Donbas.

Mainstream Confesses Ukraine Getting Boiled In Russian Cauldrons

theguardian |  After several weeks of deadlock, Russia’s military appears to have found a way to advance in the Donbas – pounding it with such intense, unsophisticated artillery that Ukraine’s exhausted defenders are having to yield.

Volodymyr Zelenskiy rarely gives casualty figures but Ukraine’s president said last Sunday that “50 to 100 Ukrainian troops die on Donbas frontlines each day”, meaning perhaps 3,000 a month in the grisly war of attrition.

Wounded will typically be three or perhaps four times as much, a serious loss for a Donbas defence force estimated at 30,000 before the war began, although the numbers increased following Ukraine’s mass mobilisation.

“Russian forces have secured more terrain in the past week than efforts earlier in May,” reported the Institute for the Study of War on Tuesday, in particular approaching the frontline city of Sievierodonetsk and in villages nearby.

“The shelling of Sievierodonetsk is growing exponentially,” said Serhiy Haidai, the governor of Ukraine’s Luhansk region, which is now 95% controlled by the Russians. He estimated 10,000 Russian troops and an extra 2,500 pieces of equipment had been committed to the attack.

The Russian advances are not dramatic but they reflect a new strategy. Gone for now are the attempts at wider encirclements of Ukrainian forces in the Donbas, which included a failed river crossing in early May. Instead units are focused on smaller encirclements – or “cauldrons” – and a sheer concentration at Sievierodonetsk.

That was confirmed by the militia head of the self-proclaimed pro-Russian republic in Donetsk, Eduard Basurin, who said Russian forces had adopted an approach of creating smaller encirclements to deprive Ukrainian troops of logistics and reinforcements, rather than pursuing a single large one.

 

 

After Months Of Hyping Ukraine - Russian Military Supremacy Has Become Undeniable

WaPo  |  The ambulances hurtled into the parking lot one after the other, each carrying wounded troops directly from the nearby front line. One young man stared straight ahead, his face swollen, his neck and back dripping with blood. Others lay silently under foil blankets.

Some stumbled out the back doors and collapsed into wheelchairs as staff members rushed to push them inside. Nearby, bloodied cots sat propped against a tent and other wounded soldiers lingered about, their faces grim, their heads, arms or legs bandaged as the sound of outgoing artillery boomed across the sky.

About 10 wounded soldiers arrived at this hospital in eastern Ukraine in less than an hour Sunday morning — the latest military casualties as Ukrainian forces, outgunned by Russia in the country’s east, continue to lose territory at a critical moment in the war.

The Washington Post is withholding the name and precise location of the hospital out of concerns from staff members that it could be targeted by Russian forces.

“Seventy people from my battalion were injured in the last week,” said a soldier and ambulance driver just outside the hospital gates who identified himself only as Vlad, 29. “I lost too many friends; it’s hard for me. I don’t know how many. … It’s getting worse every day.”

The night before, he said, the shelling was so loud he hardly got any sleep. “It’s all artillery bombing down,” he said. “All the wounded are coming from shrapnel. Most guys in the trenches haven’t even seen the enemy face-to-face.”

Last week, one battalion of young soldiers on a road near Kramatorsk spent their days digging defensive trenches in a pocket not far from the front line.

They were gearing up to provide additional support for the soldiers battling the Russians head-on, preparing for a worst-case scenario in which Russian forces continue or accelerate their current advance. That would be a potential turning point on the battlefield.

It would come at a particularly desperate moment for the Ukrainians. Kyiv is already enraged that some Western voices are floating the idea of ceding territory to Moscow. And the Biden administration is taking weeks to decide whether to provide heavier weaponry that could aid Ukrainian troops at this critical juncture in the war.

“Everyone’s tired,” said Bohdan, a 30-year-old soldier and officer in the battalion who spoke on the condition that only his first name be used and his precise position not be given. “But we are ready to stand and protect until the last man.”

 

 

Aerodynamics, Materials, Propulsion - Real Supremacy Can't Be Defended Against

Ivano-Frankivsk got zero attention in the news.  It was an old mine turned in 1955 into a nuclear weapons storage facility. It was emptied in 1993 when the weapons were transferred to Russia. In 2018 it was reopened as the barracks for 2 battalions of 10th Mountain Assault Brigade.  Apparently also a conventional weapons storage, since the Ukrainians announced several secondary explosions on the site. It’s supposed to be nuclear missile proof, though, so either it actually wasn’t or there was a load of ammunition leaving or entering the place.

A warhead that weighs 500 kg travelling at hypersonic speed carries kinetic energy equivalent to the explosive force of 4000 odd kg of TNT.  Delivered directly to the roof of an underground bunker, the kinetic punch would be greater than a small nuclear bomb exploding in the air above. The blast ‘overpressure’ would be as lethal as explosions and flying objects.

Just like with other previous weapons of such a nature, the ‘overpressure’ can be the killer, not just explosions and flying objects.

sciencedirect |  Vapor cloud explosions are caused by the rapid combustion of flammable gas, mist, or small particles that generate pressure effects due to confinement; they can occur inside process equipment or pipes, buildings, and other contained areas. A vapor cloud explosion can be either a deflagration or a detonation (the distinction is important when deciding on whether or not to use a flame arrestor in pressure relief systems).

A deflagration occurs when a flame front propagates by transferring heat and mass to the unburned air-vapor mixture ahead of the front. The combustion wave travels at subsonic speeds to unburned gas immediately ahead of the flame front. Flame speeds range from 1 to 350 meters per second. At low speeds there is little effect from the blast overpressure while at high speeds, peak overpressures can be as high as 20 times the initial pressure. Most vapor cloud explosions are deflagrations.

A detonation occurs when the flame velocity reaches supersonic speeds above 600 meters per second (they are generally in the 2000 to 2500 meter per second range). Peak overpressures can be 20 to 100 times the initial pressure. Detonation can be initiated either by use of a high explosive charge or from a deflagration wave that accelerates due to congestion and confinement. Certain chemicals are more prone to create detonations than normal hydrocarbons. These include ethylene, acetylene, and hydrogen.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides tables and simple equations for some of the more common chemicals to calculate the distance of the overpressure waves. These tables are generally conservative, i.e., they predict greater impact than would be likely to actually occur. Nevertheless, they do provide a useful starting point.

Blast effects

The calculation of explosion effects is a complex topic involving many variables. Table 9.5 shows some overpressure values with typical effects.

Table 9.5. Effect of Overpressure

Overpressure (psi)	Damage
0.15 to 1.0	Glass failure
1.0	Person knocked down
0.4	Minor structural damage
2.0	Partial collapse of walls and roofs
3.0	Eardrum damage
3.0 to 4.0	Light buildings demolished; storage tanks ruptured
5.0 to 7.0	Complete destruction of domestic buildings; loaded rail-cars overturned
10.0	Total destruction of buildings
15.0	Lung damage
35.0	Fatalities

Jewishness (And Anti-Semitism) Is WTF WE TELL YOU IT IS!!!

israelnationalnews |  The Anti-Defamation League, which has faced charges in recent years that it has become too politically active, changed its definition of racism for the second time in two years after critics attacked its previous definition as narrowly focused.

According to a report in Breitbart, the ADL’s original definition of racism was: ”Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics.”

In late 2020, during the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, the ADL changed its definition of racism to state: “The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.”

The ADL said that the new definition was created to “reflect that racism in the United States manifests in broader and systemic ways.”

Yet, critics argued it was too narrow and left out other types of racism. The ADL also began to categorize Jews based on skin color – with fellowships aimed at “Jews of Color,” Breitbart reported.

But this week, the ADL again changed its definition of racism to an “interim” definition that was broader and was more reflective of the previous definition.

The interim definition states: “Racism occurs when individuals or institutions show more favorable evaluation or treatment of an individual or group based on race or ethnicity.”

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt explained the change in a Medium op-ed published on Wednesday, saying that while the updated definition “explicitly acknowledged the targeting of people of color – among many others – by the white supremacist extremism we have tracked for decades,” the “new frame narrowed the meaning in other ways.”

“By being so narrow, the resulting definition was incomplete, rendering it ineffective and therefore unacceptable,” Greenblatt said. “It’s true, it’s just not the whole truth. It alienated many people who did not see their own experience encompassed in this definition, including many in the Jewish community.”

 

Whoopi Didn't Learn From The Example Made Of Nick Cannon (REDUX 7/25/20)

For 100 minutes, not a single truth was discussed outside the truth that Abraham Cooper is supremely arrogant about being in a position of strength and control, and very explicitly says as much to the slobbering, grinning, and thoroughly chastened and humiliated negroe "celebrity".

Nick Cannon's jaws and knees must really, really hurt after a hundred minutes of grinning, bowing and scraping before this nasty little Brooklyn mensch.

Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”? Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight?

Tried to tell you where this is headed last week Manifesto of Secure Tolerance

Love Me Some Vika, But GOTTDAYYUM - Naomi Is The GOAT!!!

大阪直美-ほとんど無料の黒人女性

Nick Bostrom Proposed A Preposterously Butt-Licking Design On Your Future Little Man...,

Have one AI with godlike powers monitor everyone at all times but only interfere if a little man commits a thought crime that poses an existential risk. Bostrom imagines that you little men could easily get used to living in such a world, particularly once you  realize that it doesn't make any noticeable difference. 

Many little men already believe that there is literally a conscious being who watches everything they do - and - they're cool with that. All Bostrom is suggesting is that the status quo establishment implement an unconscious mechanism that monitors everything that you little men think, express, and potentially do. 

Think about it, FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, that doesn't seem like it's worse, does it?

Here's Bostrom in conversation with Chris Anderson, the head of TED. Bostrom suggests implementation of a system of mass government surveillance in which each little man is fitted with necklace-like “freedom tags” with multi-directional cameras. 

Information gathered by these “freedom tags” would be sent to “freedom centers”, where artificial intelligence monitors the data, alerting human officers if they detect signs of a possible “black ball” idea. 

We are at greater risk from societal collapse arising from poorly functioning social systems.  We are at VASTLY greater risk from our subjugation to the corporate profit seeking egregoric structure and the specific extractive interaction with the environment that this demonic construct demands. (our economizating virtual reality)  than from some sort of Pandora's box technological black ball. 

We seem spastically incapable of eliminating fission and fusion weapons while struggling to implement and benefit from superior and safer thorium fission power generation technology. Rather than using improvements in photovoltaics and batteries to raise the resilience of individuals and small communities to natural disasters, we are using them to make the overall electrical power distribution system less resilient. 

Fermi's Paradox doesn't pivot on black ball technologies, rather, it pivots on primitive status seeking within a perversely incentivized archaic material culture. Intelligent species self-destruct because they fail to achieve their own possible psychological development.  Fist tap Dorcas Dad.

I Had No Idea Peter Strzok's Wife Melissa Hodgman Was The SEC's Insider Trading Point Man....,

CTH |  Most people who are not in the securities industry would NOT understand how this works. But Trump certainly does and Mnuchin definitely does. Bannon for sure understands this.

If you are a big trader – like Soros, Gates, Goldman Sachs, or a major bank – having inside information is a freebie – no risk – goldmine.

If you are a greedy political family like Pelosi, Clinton, Bushes, Feinstein, Burr, McCain, Obama; Biden Family – inside information is a freebie no risk goldmine for the entire family.

I guess if you are John Brennan or a foreign intelligence service, and you want to finance a nefarious off the books black op operation FOR FREE, outside of your normal budget, you can use inside information and stock trades to finance your operations.

What kind of inside information can be freely gleened from the NSA database? Correspondence between PUBLIC COMPANY CEO’s who are looking to do a merger, acquisition or spinoff of another public company; confidential audits of a company that may be in discussions to be acquired by a public company; confidential emails, phonecalls, texts between CEO’s, their accountants, their lawyers, their bankers, their competitors; their R & D department; their patent department.

Once the secret NSA information is obtained, stock trades are placed (by the ELITES and their families/cohorts) to capitalize and monetize the information. On any stock exchange anywhere in the world.

It would be great to have a securities lawyer or an outstanding journalist – who is familiar with insider securities trading – write an ariticle on this topic. So far, I have not seen anything. Everyone is too focused on the big distractions: russia, impeachment, racism, covid, election.

But my instincts tell me this is a BIG DEAL COVER UP. per Hillary, “If revealed, they will all hang.” They’s why the elites want Trump out so badly. This is about money & theft on a GRAND GLOBAL SCALE.

We Will Coup Whoever We Want! Deal With It!!!

“Renewable” energy kingpin Elon Musk practically takes credit for the Bolivian lithium coup just months after planning a meeting with Bolsonaro ahead of a Tesla factory in lithium rich Brazil https://t.co/PcizH4pLfQ https://t.co/7kTrA7fPsV pic.twitter.com/zaVqte1KHW

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) July 25, 2020

 

strategic-culture |  A recent off-hand remark by one of America’s oligarchs points toward a new methodology for undermining what is left of international law and order. Speaking in earnest or in jest, nobody really knows, but smart money would certainly bet on the former, when admonished that the Bolivian coup that toppled President Evo Morales last year “wasn’t in the best interests of the Bolivian people,” Elon Musk, the Tesla electric car magnate, brazenly tweeted: “We will coup whoever we want. Deal with it!”

There is, of course, room for plausible deniability here because Musk was responding to another tweet calling the U.S. government, not Musk directly, to account for “organizing a coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia so you could obtain the lithium there.” Musk’s “we” response could theoretically be interpreted as not a personal confession of responsibility for the dastardly deed but, rather, a good citizen’s loyal expression of support for his country’s foreign policy. Charitably speaking such a reading is possible. But speaking more realistically Musk, although associated in the public mind with a pioneering electric car design, did in fact have a very vital interest in the Bolivian regime change operation. Electric cars, to put it very simply, run on lithium batteries, and Bolivia just happens to be a major supplier of that ore. No lithium, no Tesla or any other electric vehicles.

To fill in some more blanks, it also happens that just weeks before the coup in November of 2019, President Morales issued a decree essentially nationalizing Bolivia’s mineral wealth, including lithium deposits. Bolivia watchers, of course, could see it coming for some time. The politically artless President disclosed his audacious game-plan to empower the Bolivian people to enjoy the benefits of their country’s wealth two years before. Just read and weep at his naiveté: “Bolivian President Evo Morales sees a prosperous future for his currently impoverished South American nation, pinning his hopes on the rapid rise in the global price of this valuable resource. ‘We will develop a huge lithium industry, over $800 million have already been made available,’ Morales told the German DPA news agency.”

So the jackals were put on notice as early as 2017. Morales’ “sins” were numerous enough and he would have been targeted for removal anyway even if he had not antagonized the lithium cartel by announcing the ambitious project to extract a fair price from it. But now we have at least established that Elon Musk and his local agents “highly likely” were not neutral observers while preparations for the coup were being conducted. Musk may have made his “we can coup whoever we want” remark as a loyal citizen who supports his country’s hemispheric interests, but clearly he also had significant financial interests of his own in this controversy.

Indeed, the contest between the individual by the name of Elon Musk and the country of Bolivia was anything but the “level playing field” that noble U.S. diplomacy insisted on in Bosnia while their local team was losing. Musk’s personal worth of $68 billion contrasts rather conspicuously with Bolivia’s GNP of $40.58 billion in 2019. Quite simply, the American oligarch could buy Bolivia and have plenty of change left over. But why buy it if you can far more cheaply organize a coup, put your people in charge, and then own it, including the lithium? That is a much more sensible business plan.