Europe’s Vaccine Rollout Relies Heavily On Pfizer/BioNTech

Europe’s Vaccine Rollout Relies Heavily On Pfizer/BioNTech

As Europe’s vaccine rollout is picking up pace, Statista’s Felix Richter reports that the European Commission is doubling down on its use of mRNA vaccines, with the Pfizer/BioNTech shot central to its inoculation efforts. According to a statement, the European Commission is about to sign a deal with Pfizer/BioNTech for the delivery of 1.8 billion doses between 2021 and 2023, which would cement the drug’s central role in Europe’s vaccination campaign.

According to the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 80 million doses of Comirnaty – that’s the official name of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine – had been administered across the EU, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland by April 18, accounting for 70 percent of all doses administered by that time.

Infographic: Europe's Vaccine Rollout Relies Heavily on Pfizer/BioNTech | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Following a brief period in which the drug’s share of weekly shots administered dropped below 60 percent as the rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine began, Pfizer’s share of jabs given across Europe has risen back to 67 percent over the past few weeks.

The blood clot incidents associated with AstraZeneca’s vaccine as well as the company’s failure to meet delivery agreements have led the European Commission to prioritize mRNA vaccines going forward, with the new Pfizer/BioNTech deal a critical step in that direction.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/05/2021 – 02:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QSH5eU Tyler Durden

Leaked Docs Expose Chinese Leader Xi Jinping’s Plan To Control The Global Internet

Leaked Docs Expose Chinese Leader Xi Jinping’s Plan To Control The Global Internet

Authored by Nicole Hao and Cathy Ye via The Epoch Times,

Chinese leader Xi Jinping personally directed the communist regime to focus its efforts to control the global internet, displacing the influential role of the United States, according to internal government documents recently obtained by The Epoch Times.

In a January 2017 speech, Xi said the “power to control the internet” had become the “new focal point of [China’s] national strategic contest,” and singled out the United States as a “rival force” standing in the way of the regime’s ambitions.

The ultimate goal was for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control all content on the global internet, so the regime could wield what Xi described as “discourse power” over communications and discussions on the world stage.

Xi articulated a vision of “using technology to rule the internet” to achieve total control over every part of the online ecosystem—over applications, content, quality, capital, and manpower.

His remarks were made at the fourth leadership meeting of the regime’s top internet regulator, the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission, in Beijing on Jan. 4, 2017, and detailed in internal documents issued by the Liaoning Provincial Government in China’s southeast.

The statements confirm efforts made by Beijing in the past few years to promote its own authoritarian version of the internet as a model for the world.

In another speech given in April 2016, detailed in an internal document by the Anshan City Government in Liaoning Province, Xi confidently proclaimed that in the “struggle” to control the internet, the CCP has transformed from playing “passive defense” to playing both “attack and defense” at the same time.

Having successfully built the world’s most sprawling and sophisticated online censorship and surveillance apparatus, known as the Great Firewall, the CCP under Xi is turning outwards, championing a Chinese internet whose values run counter to the open model advocated by the West. Rather than prioritizing the free flow of information, the CCP’s system centers on giving the state the ability to censor, spy on, and control internet data.

Countering the US

The Chinese leader acknowledged the regime lagged behind its rival the United States—the dominant player in this field—in key areas such as technology, investments, and talent.

To realize its ambitions, Xi emphasized the need to “manage internet relations with the United States,” while “making preparations for fighting a hard war” with the country in this area.

American companies should be used by the regime to reach its goal, Xi said, without elaborating on how this would be done.

He also directed the regime to increase its cooperation with Europe, developing countries, and member states of Beijing’s “Belt and Road Initiative,” to form a “strategic counterbalance” against the United States.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a massive infrastructure investment project launched by Beijing to connect Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East through a network of rail, sea, and road linkages. The plan has been criticized by the United States and other Western countries as a conduit for Beijing to increase its political and commercial interests in member states while saddling developing countries with heavy debt burdens.

The BRI has also pushed countries to sign up to “digital silk road” projects—those involving information and communications technology infrastructure. At least 16 countries have signed memoranda of understanding with the regime to work in this area.

Three-pronged Strategy

Xi ordered the regime to focus on three “critical” areas in its pursuit of controlling the global internet.

  • First, Beijing needs to be able to “set the rules” governing the international system.

  • Second, it should install CCP surrogates in important positions in global internet organizations.

  • Third, the regime should gain control over the infrastructure that underlies the internet, such as root servers, Xi said.

Domain Name System (DNS) root servers are key to internet communications around the world. It directs users to websites they intend to visit. There are more than 1,300 root servers in the world, about 20 of which are located in China while the United States has about 10 times that, according to the website root-servers.org.

If the Chinese regime were to gain control over more root servers, they could then redirect traffic to wherever they want, Gary Miliefsky, cybersecurity expert and publisher of Cyber Defense Magazine, told The Epoch Times. For example, if a user wants to go to a news article about a topic deemed sensitive by Beijing, then the regime’s DNS server could route the user to a fake page saying the article is no longer online.

“The minute you control the root, you can spoof or fake anything,” he said.

“You can control what people see, what people don’t see.”

In recent years, the regime has made headway in advancing Xi’s strategy.

In 2019, Chinese telecom giant Huawei first proposed the idea for an entirely new internet, called New IP (internet protocol), to replace the half-century-old infrastructure underpinning the web. New IP is touted to be faster, more efficient, flexible, and secure than the current internet, and will be built by the Chinese.

While New IP may indeed bring about an improved global network, Miliefsky said, “the price for that is freedom.”

“There’s going to be no free speech. And there’s going to be eavesdropping in real-time, all the time, on everyone,” he said.

“Everyone who joins it is going to be eavesdropped by a single government.”

The proposal was made at a September 2019 meeting held at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a U.N. agency responsible for setting standards for computing and communications issues that is currently headed by Chinese national Zhao Houlin. New IP is set to be formally debated at the ITU World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly to be held in March 2022.

Miliefsky said the plan is unlikely to gain widespread support among countries, but may be adopted by like-minded authoritarian states such as North Korea, and later by countries that signed onto BRI and are struggling to repay its loans to China.

This would accelerate a bifurcation of the internet, what analysts such as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt have dubbed the “splinternet,” Miliefsky said. “The communist net and the rest of the world.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Huawei for comment.

Importing Talent

According to the document, Xi ordered the CCP regime to set up “three ecosystems”—technology, industry, and policy—to develop core internet technologies.

Having skilled workers was key to this plan, with Xi directing that talent should be hired from around the globe. This would be done through Chinese companies, Xi prescribed.

He told Chinese firms to “proactively” invite foreign “high-end talents,” and to set up research centers overseas and hire leading ethnic Chinese and foreign specialists to work for them.

Meanwhile, Xi asked the regime to set up a professional training system in China, which can systematically develop a highly skilled workforce in the long run.

He also directed officials in each level of government to guide Chinese companies to develop their business plans to align with the regime’s strategic goals, and encourage capable enterprises to take the lead in developing innovations in core technologies.

Enterprises were to be educated in having “national awareness and safeguarding national interests,” Xi said. Only then should the regime support and encourage their expansion.

Because talent and critical technology are concentrated overseas, the Chinese leader also ordered authorities to support the development of a group of multinational internet companies that can have global influence.

Turning the Internet Red

Xi, in his 2016 speech, described all online content as falling into three categories: “red zone, black zone, and gray zone.”

“Red zone” content refers to discourse aligned with the CCP’s propaganda requirements, while “black zone” material falls foul of these rules. “Gray zone” content lies in the middle.

“We must consolidate and expand the red zone and expand its influence in society,” Xi said in a leaked speech in August 2013.

“We must bravely enter into the black zone [and fight hard] to gradually get it to change its color. We must launch large-scale actions targeting the gray zone to accelerate its conversion to the red zone and prevent it from turning into the black zone.”

Inside China, the CCP has a stranglehold on online content and discussion through the Great Firewall, a massive internet censorship apparatus that blockades foreign websites and censors content deemed unacceptable to the party. It also hires a massive online troll army, dubbed the “50-cent army,” to manipulate online discussion. A recent report found that the CCP engages 2 million paid internet commentators and draws on a network of 20 million part-time volunteers to carry out online trolling.

Freedom House, in its 2020 annual internet freedom report, labeled China as the world’s worst abuser of online freedom for the sixth straight year. Chinese citizens have been arrested for using software to circumvent the Great Firewall and punished for posting comments online unfavorable to the Chinese regime. In a now-notorious incident during the early stages of the pandemic, whistleblower doctor Li Wenliang was reprimanded by police for “rumor-mongering” after warning colleagues in a social media chat group about a SARS-like virus in Wuhan City.

In the 2017 remarks, Xi told the regime to develop a larger group of “red” online influencers to shape users’ perceptions of the CCP. He also called for an expansion of the 50 cent army to operate both inside and outside of China’s internet.

Since the pandemic, the CCP has sharply escalated its efforts to influence online opinion overseas. Using large networks of troll accounts on Twitter and Facebook, the regime has been able to propagate and amplify propaganda and disinformation on topics such as the pandemic, racial tensions in the United States, and the regime’s oppression of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/05/2021 – 02:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3efzArn Tyler Durden

Canceling Student Debt Would Be an Insult to Trade Workers


screen-shot-2021-05-04-at-1-37

Americans took out $1.7 trillion in government loans for college tuition.

Now, some don’t want to pay it back.

President Joe Biden says they shouldn’t have to. He wants to cancel at least $10,000 and maybe $50,000 of every student’s debt.

“They’re in real trouble,” says Biden in my latest video, “having to make choices between paying their student loan and paying the rent.”

Poor students!

But wait: Shouldn’t they have given some thought to debt payments when they signed up for overpriced colleges? When they majored in subjects like photography or women’s studies, unlikely to lead to good jobs? When they took six years to graduate (a third don’t graduate even after six years).

Shouldn’t politicians also acknowledge that it’s taxpayer loans that let bloated colleges keep increasing tuition at twice the rate of inflation?

Yes.

But they don’t.

Dirty Jobs host Mike Rowe points out that students’ demand for loan forgiveness is “kind of self-involved.”

“I know guys who worked hard to get a construction operation running. Some had to take out a loan on a big old diesel truck. Why would we forgive the cost of a degree but not the cost of a lease payment?”

It’s a good question.

“For some reason,” continues Rowe, “we think a tool that looks like a diploma is somehow more important than that big piece of metal in the driveway that allows the guy to build homes that you…are in.”

The political class does focus on subsidizing college.

“Now everybody is armed with a degree. What kind of world is that?” asks Rowe. “Everybody dreams of being in the corner office, but nobody knows how to build the corner office?”

Lots of good jobs in skilled trades don’t require a college degree, he points out. “The push for college came at the expense of every other form of education. Shop class was taken out of high school. We have denied millions of kids an opportunity to see what half the workforce looks like.”

It’s a reason America now has a shortage of skilled trade workers.

Yet, plumbers, elevator mechanics construction managers, etc., make $100,000 a year.

MikeroweWORKS Foundation gives young people scholarships to schools where they learn such trades. He seeks to make skilled labor “cool” again.

One Rowe scholarship recipient, Chloe Hudson, considered college but was shocked at what it cost.

“I was like, ‘I can’t afford this!’ I don’t want to be saddled with student debt the rest of my life!”

Instead, thanks to her Rowe scholarship, she learned how to weld, and now she has no trouble finding work.

“I’ve been under nuclear plants…been in water systems,” Hudson recounts. “Those jobs make me appreciate what I have now so much more.”

“What do you make?” I ask Hudson.

“$3,000 a week,” she responds.

She’s appalled by today’s college student’s demand for loan forgiveness.

“There is not a single loan I have ever taken out where I didn’t have an expectation put on myself that I was going to repay it,” says Hudson. “That’s getting up at four o’clock in the morning and making sure I’m at work on time. That’s staying late. That’s working weekends.”

But now she will have to help pay for all those college students who won’t pay their debts.

“I am taxed heavily,” complains Hudson. “It’s not a good feeling to know that the government thinks that they can spend my dollars better than I can.”

Right. Government doesn’t spend our dollars better than we do. “Forgive student loans” really means workers must pay for privileged students who don’t.

COPYRIGHT 2021 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3xLOv4q
via IFTTT

Saudi Arabia Poised To Mend Relations With Assad In Major First Since War Began

Saudi Arabia Poised To Mend Relations With Assad In Major First Since War Began

Multiple international reports on Tuesday revealed that Saudi Arabia’s powerful intelligence chief traveled to Damascus Monday to meet with his Syrian counterpart in what’s being seen as a major step toward detente. The two broke off relations since near the start of the war in 2011, especially as it became clear the Saudis were a key part of the Western allied push for regime change, through covert support to anti-Assad insurgents and jihadists which included regular weapons shipments.

Gen Khalid Humaidan, the head of Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Directorate, led a delegation where they were received by Syrian government officials in Damascus. According to The Guardian, Riyadh is currently preparing for a “normalization of relations” – expected to come immediately after the Muslim holiday of Ramadan next week

Central Damascus, file image

One unnamed Saudi official was cited in The Guardian as saying “It’s been planned for a while, but nothing has moved.” He explained that “Events have shifted regionally and that provided the opening.”

“The Saudi delegation was led by Gen Khalid Humaidan, the head of the country’s General Intelligence Directorate,” the report details. “He was received by Syria’s Gen Ali Mamlouk, the architect of the push to crush the early years of the anti-Assad revolution and the key interlocutor with Russian forces, which took a significant stake in the conflict from September 2015.” The Saudis had shuttered their embassy in Damascus by 2012 and simultaneously expelled Syria’s ambassador from Riyadh.

The news could serve to ease the pressure on Damascus, which is desperately attempting to hold things together economically amid severe and far-reaching US-led sanctions, runaway inflation, an American occupation in the northeast which has severed valuable domestic energy resources, and an increasing lack of basic imports and staples for the population.

It also comes amid significant rumors of indirect attempts of the Iranians and Saudis to ease tensions and de-escalate proxy wars in places like Yemen and Iraq.

Interestingly The Guardian and other Western mainstream outlets are now openly acknowledging the proxy war and regime change war nature of the conflict – despite for years the same outlets choosing to only describe it as a “popular uprising” that was an outgrowth of the Arab Spring.

The publication now belatedly writes that “Two years earlier, Riyadh had been central to a plan to oust Assad by arming anti-Assad forces near Damascus and encouraging defections to nearby Jordan, from where the Saudi leadership had expected Barack Obama to launch a push by US proxies to take the Syrian capital.”

Assad emerged victorious, which was pretty much guaranteed after Russia’s 2015 intervention in support of government forces, despite much of the country being in ruins and the economy now suffocating under a sanctions chokehold. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/05/2021 – 01:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QUEQb5 Tyler Durden

Canceling Student Debt Would Be an Insult to Trade Workers


screen-shot-2021-05-04-at-1-37

Americans took out $1.7 trillion in government loans for college tuition.

Now, some don’t want to pay it back.

President Joe Biden says they shouldn’t have to. He wants to cancel at least $10,000 and maybe $50,000 of every student’s debt.

“They’re in real trouble,” says Biden in my latest video, “having to make choices between paying their student loan and paying the rent.”

Poor students!

But wait: Shouldn’t they have given some thought to debt payments when they signed up for overpriced colleges? When they majored in subjects like photography or women’s studies, unlikely to lead to good jobs? When they took six years to graduate (a third don’t graduate even after six years).

Shouldn’t politicians also acknowledge that it’s taxpayer loans that let bloated colleges keep increasing tuition at twice the rate of inflation?

Yes.

But they don’t.

Dirty Jobs host Mike Rowe points out that students’ demand for loan forgiveness is “kind of self-involved.”

“I know guys who worked hard to get a construction operation running. Some had to take out a loan on a big old diesel truck. Why would we forgive the cost of a degree but not the cost of a lease payment?”

It’s a good question.

“For some reason,” continues Rowe, “we think a tool that looks like a diploma is somehow more important than that big piece of metal in the driveway that allows the guy to build homes that you…are in.”

The political class does focus on subsidizing college.

“Now everybody is armed with a degree. What kind of world is that?” asks Rowe. “Everybody dreams of being in the corner office, but nobody knows how to build the corner office?”

Lots of good jobs in skilled trades don’t require a college degree, he points out. “The push for college came at the expense of every other form of education. Shop class was taken out of high school. We have denied millions of kids an opportunity to see what half the workforce looks like.”

It’s a reason America now has a shortage of skilled trade workers.

Yet, plumbers, elevator mechanics construction managers, etc., make $100,000 a year.

MikeroweWORKS Foundation gives young people scholarships to schools where they learn such trades. He seeks to make skilled labor “cool” again.

One Rowe scholarship recipient, Chloe Hudson, considered college but was shocked at what it cost.

“I was like, ‘I can’t afford this!’ I don’t want to be saddled with student debt the rest of my life!”

Instead, thanks to her Rowe scholarship, she learned how to weld, and now she has no trouble finding work.

“I’ve been under nuclear plants…been in water systems,” Hudson recounts. “Those jobs make me appreciate what I have now so much more.”

“What do you make?” I ask Hudson.

“$3,000 a week,” she responds.

She’s appalled by today’s college student’s demand for loan forgiveness.

“There is not a single loan I have ever taken out where I didn’t have an expectation put on myself that I was going to repay it,” says Hudson. “That’s getting up at four o’clock in the morning and making sure I’m at work on time. That’s staying late. That’s working weekends.”

But now she will have to help pay for all those college students who won’t pay their debts.

“I am taxed heavily,” complains Hudson. “It’s not a good feeling to know that the government thinks that they can spend my dollars better than I can.”

Right. Government doesn’t spend our dollars better than we do. “Forgive student loans” really means workers must pay for privileged students who don’t.

COPYRIGHT 2021 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3xLOv4q
via IFTTT

Biden Hedges on His Promise To Free Pot Prisoners


Joe-Biden-4-29-21-Newscom-cropped

Just before he left office, President Donald Trump freed more than a dozen federal prisoners who had received sentences ranging from 15 years to life for growing, transporting, or distributing marijuana. Yet President Joe Biden, who during his campaign said “anyone who has a [marijuana] record should be let out of jail” and promised to “broadly use his clemency power for certain non-violent and drug crimes,” is suddenly reticent about following Trump’s example.

While Biden has come a long way since his days as an ardent drug warrior who bragged about the draconian sentences he helped enact, he still has not caught up with most Americans on marijuana policy. According to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 69 percent of Americans, including 78 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of Republicans, support legalization.

Biden—unlike most of the Democrats he beat for his party’s 2020 presidential nomination, including his vice president—opposes repealing the federal marijuana ban, a position that puts him in the minority even within his age group. Instead he wants to decriminalize low-level possession, an idea that was at the cutting edge of marijuana reform in the 1970s.

Since the Justice Department rarely prosecutes marijuana users, Biden’s proposal would have little impact at the federal level. And it would do nothing to address the untenable conflict between the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the laws that allow medical or recreational use of marijuana in 36 states.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D–N.Y.) plans to reintroduce a legalization bill that was approved by the House of Representatives in December but was never considered by the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) says his chamber likewise will soon consider legislation that would “end the federal prohibition on marijuana.”

When New York Post reporter Steven Nelson asked White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki during a briefing last month whether Biden would sign such a bill, she reiterated his support for reclassifying marijuana “so researchers can study its positive and negative impacts,” for allowing medical use, for letting states legalize recreational use, and for “decriminalizing marijuana use and automatically expunging any prior criminal records.” Pressed to explicitly say whether Biden would sign a legalization bill, Psaki replied, “I just have outlined what his position is, which isn’t the same as what the House and Senate have proposed.”

Unlike legalization, freeing marijuana prisoners would not require an act of Congress, and it is consistent with what Biden said on the campaign trail. His promises created a reasonable expectation that he would show mercy for marijuana offenders who continue to languish in federal prison, such as Ismael Lira and Pedro Moreno, who are serving life sentences for distributing cannabis from Mexico.

As Corvain Cooper, one of the marijuana lifers freed by Trump, told Nelson, “No one should be serving a long prison sentence over marijuana when states and big corporations are making billions of dollars off of this plant.” Yet when Nelson asked Psaki about clemency, she irrelevantly noted Biden’s support for moving marijuana from Schedule I of the CSA to Schedule II.

Nelson tried again the next day, noting that Biden bears personal responsibility for the lengthy sentences imposed on people for peaceful activities that are now legal in most states, including at least 17 that already or soon will allow recreational sales. “Will President Biden honor his commitment to release everyone imprisoned for marijuana?” he asked.

Psaki did not deny that Biden had made that promise. But she brought up “rescheduling” again and claimed she did not know the answer because it depends on arcane legal knowledge.

“What you’re asking me is a legal question,” Psaki said. “I’d point you to the Department of Justice.”

The “legal question” is not complicated. Biden’s commitment to “broadly use his clemency power” has nothing to do with rescheduling marijuana, and he could begin delivering on it today if he were so inclined. Psaki’s obfuscation suggests it is not a high priority.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ej8z6D
via IFTTT

Escobar: The Brave New Cancel Culture World

Escobar: The Brave New Cancel Culture World

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

If we need a date when the West started to go seriously wrong, let’s start with Rome in the early 5th century…

In 2020, we saw the enshrinement of techno-feudalism – one of the overarching themes of my latest book, Raging Twenties.

In lightning speed, the techno-feudalism virus is metastasizing into an even more lethal, wilderness of mirrors variant, where cancel culture is enforced by Big Tech all across the spectrum, science is routinely debased as fake news in social media, and the average citizen is discombobulated to the point of lobotomy.

Giorgio Agamben has defined it as a new totalitarianism.

Top political analyst Alastair Crooke has attempted a sharp breakdown of the broader configuration.

Geopolitically, the Hegemon would even resort to 5G war to maintain its primacy, while seeking moral legitimization via the woke revolution, duly exported to its Western satrapies.

The woke revolution is a culture war – in symbiosis with Big Tech and Big Business – that has smashed the real thing: class war. The atomized working classes, struggling to barely survive, have been left to wallow in anomie.

The great panacea, actually the ultimate “opportunity” offered by Covid-19, is the Great Reset advanced by Herr Schwab of Davos: essentially the replacement of a dwindling manufacturing base by automation, in tandem with a reset of the financial system.

The concomitant wishful thinking envisages a world economy that will “move closer to a cleaner capitalist model”. One of its features is a delightfully benign Council for Inclusive Capitalism in partnership with the Catholic Church.

As much as the pandemic – the “opportunity” for the Reset – was somewhat rehearsed by Event 201 in October 2019, additional strategies are already in place for the next steps, such as Cyber Polygon, which warns against the “key risks of digitalization”. Don’t miss their “technical exercise” on July 9th, when “participants will hone their practical skills in mitigating a targeted supply chain attack on a corporate ecosystem in real time.”

A New Concert of Powers?

Sovereignty is a lethal threat to the ongoing cultural revolution. That concerns the role of the European Union institutions – especially the European Commission – going no holds barred to dissolve the national interests of nation states. And that largely explains the weaponizing, in varying degrees, of Russophobia, Sinophobia and Iranophobia.

The anchoring essay in Raging Twenties analyzes the stakes in Eurasia exactly in terms of the Hegemon pitted against the Three Sovereigns – which are Russia, China and Iran.

It’s under this framework, for instance, that a massive, 270-plus page bill, the Strategic Competition Act , has been recently passed at the US Senate. That goes way beyond geopolitical competition, charting a road map to fight China across the full spectrum. It’s bound to become law, as Sinophobia is a bipartisan sport in D.C.

Hegemon oracles such as the perennial Henry Kissinger at least are taking a pause from their customary Divide and Rule shenanigans to warn that the escalation of “endless” competition may derail into hot war – especially considering AI and the latest generations of smart weapons.

On the incandescent US-Russia front, where Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sees the lack of mutual trust, no to mention respect, as much worse than during the Cold War, analyst Glenn Diesen notes how the Hegemon “strives to convert the security dependence of the Europeans into geoeconomic loyalty”.

That’s at the heart of a make-or-break saga: Nord Stream 2. The Hegemon uses every weapon – including cultural war, where convicted crook Navalny is a major pawn – to derail an energy deal that is essential for Germany’s industrial interests. Simultaneously, pressure increases against Europe buying Chinese technology.

Meanwhile, NATO – which lords over the EU – keeps being built up as a global Robocop, via the NATO 2030 project – even after turning Libya into a militia-ridden wasteland and having its collective behind humiliatingly spanked in Afghanistan.

For all the sound and fury of sanction hysteria and declinations of cultural war, the Hegemon establishment is not exactly blind to the West “losing not only its material dominance but also its ideological sway”.

So the Council on Foreign Relations – in a sort of Bismarckian hangover – is now proposing a New Concert of Powers to deal with “angry populism” and “illiberal temptations”, conducted of course by those malign actors such as “pugnacious Russia” who dare to “challenge the West’s authority”.

As much as this geopolitical proposal may be couched in benign rhetoric, the endgame remains the same: to “restore US leadership”, under US terms. Damn those “illiberals” Russia, China and Iran.

Crooke evokes exactly a Russian and a Chinese example to illustrate where the woke cultural revolution may lead to.

In the case of the Chinese cultural revolution, the end result was chaos, fomented by the Red Guards, which started to wreak their own particular havoc independent of the Communist Party leadership.

And then there’s Dostoevsky in The Possessed, which showed how the secular Russian liberals of the 1840s created the conditions for the emergence of the 1860s generation: ideological radicals bent on burning down the house.

No question: “revolutions” always eat their children. It usually starts with a ruling elite imposing their newfound Platonic Forms on others. Remember Robespierre. He formulated his politics in a very Platonic way – “the peaceful enjoyment of liberty and equality, the reign of eternal justice” with laws “engraved in the hearts of all men”.

Well, when others disagreed with Robespierre’s vision of Virtue, we all know what happened: the Terror. Just like Plato, incidentally, recommended in Laws. So it’s fair to expect that the children of the woke revolution will eventually be eaten alive by their zeal.

Canceling freedom of speech

As it stands, it’s fair to argue when the “West” started to go seriously wrong – in a cancel culture sense. Allow me to offer the Cynic/Stoic point of view of a 21st century global nomad.

If we need a date, let’s start with Rome – the epitome of the West – in the early 5th century. Follow the money. That’s the time when income from properties owned by temples were transferred to the Catholic Church – thus boosting its economic power. By the end of the century, even gifts to temples were forbidden.

In parallel, a destruction overdrive was in progress – fueled by Christian iconoclasm, ranging from crosses carved in pagan statues to bathhouses converted into churches. Bathing naked? Quelle horreur!

The devastation was quite something. One of the very few survivors was the fabulous bronze statue of Marcus Aurelius on horseback, in the Campidoglio/ Capitoline Hill (today it’s housed in the museum). The statue survived only because the pious mobs thought the emperor was Constantine.

The very urban fabric of Rome was destroyed: rituals, the sense of community, singin’ and dancin’. We should remember that people still lower their voices when entering a church.

For centuries we did not hear the voices of the dispossessed. A glaring exception is to be found in an early 6th century text by an Athenian philosopher, quoted by Ramsay MacMullen in Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eight Centuries.

The Greek philosopher wrote that Christians are “a race dissolved in every passion, destroyed by controlled self-indulgence, cringing and womanish in its thinking, close to cowardice, wallowing in all swinishness, debased, content with servitude in security.”

If that sounds like a proto-definition of 21st century Western cancel culture, that’s because it is.

Things were also pretty bad in Alexandria. A Christian mob killed and dismembered the alluring Hypatia, mathematician and philosopher. That de facto ended the era of great Greek mathematics. No wonder Gibbon turned the assassination of Hypatia into a remarkable set piece in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (“In the bloom of beauty, and in the maturity of wisdom, the modest maid refused her lovers and instructed her disciples; the persons most illustrious for their rank or merit were impatient to visit the female philosopher”).

Under Justinian – emperor from 527 to 565 – cancel culture went after paganism no holds barred. One of his laws ended imperial toleration of all religions, which was in effect since Constantine in 313.

If you were a pagan, you’d better get ready for the death penalty. Pagan teachers – especially philosophers – were banned. They lost their parrhesia: their license to teach (here is Foucault’s brilliant analysis).

Parrhesia – loosely translated as “frank criticism” – is a tremendously serious issue: for no less than a thousand years, this was the definition of freedom of speech (italics mine).

There you go: first half of the 6th century. This was when freedom of speech was canceled in the West.

The last Egyptian temple – to Isis, in an island in southern Egypt – was shut down in 526. The legendary Plato’s Academy – with no less than 900 years of teaching in its curriculum – was shut down in Athens in 529.

Guess where the Greek philosophers chose to go into exile: Persia.

Those were the days – in the early 2nd century – when the greatest Stoic, Epictetus, a freed slave from Phrygia, admirer of both Socrates and Diogenes, was consulted by an emperor, Hadrian; and became the role model of another emperor, Marcus Aurelius.

History tells us that the Greek intellectual tradition simply did not fade away in the West. It was a target of cancel culture.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/05/2021 – 00:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3tks7eT Tyler Durden

Biden Hedges on His Promise To Free Pot Prisoners


Joe-Biden-4-29-21-Newscom-cropped

Just before he left office, President Donald Trump freed more than a dozen federal prisoners who had received sentences ranging from 15 years to life for growing, transporting, or distributing marijuana. Yet President Joe Biden, who during his campaign said “anyone who has a [marijuana] record should be let out of jail” and promised to “broadly use his clemency power for certain non-violent and drug crimes,” is suddenly reticent about following Trump’s example.

While Biden has come a long way since his days as an ardent drug warrior who bragged about the draconian sentences he helped enact, he still has not caught up with most Americans on marijuana policy. According to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 69 percent of Americans, including 78 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of Republicans, support legalization.

Biden—unlike most of the Democrats he beat for his party’s 2020 presidential nomination, including his vice president—opposes repealing the federal marijuana ban, a position that puts him in the minority even within his age group. Instead he wants to decriminalize low-level possession, an idea that was at the cutting edge of marijuana reform in the 1970s.

Since the Justice Department rarely prosecutes marijuana users, Biden’s proposal would have little impact at the federal level. And it would do nothing to address the untenable conflict between the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the laws that allow medical or recreational use of marijuana in 36 states.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D–N.Y.) plans to reintroduce a legalization bill that was approved by the House of Representatives in December but was never considered by the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) says his chamber likewise will soon consider legislation that would “end the federal prohibition on marijuana.”

When New York Post reporter Steven Nelson asked White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki during a briefing last month whether Biden would sign such a bill, she reiterated his support for reclassifying marijuana “so researchers can study its positive and negative impacts,” for allowing medical use, for letting states legalize recreational use, and for “decriminalizing marijuana use and automatically expunging any prior criminal records.” Pressed to explicitly say whether Biden would sign a legalization bill, Psaki replied, “I just have outlined what his position is, which isn’t the same as what the House and Senate have proposed.”

Unlike legalization, freeing marijuana prisoners would not require an act of Congress, and it is consistent with what Biden said on the campaign trail. His promises created a reasonable expectation that he would show mercy for marijuana offenders who continue to languish in federal prison, such as Ismael Lira and Pedro Moreno, who are serving life sentences for distributing cannabis from Mexico.

As Corvain Cooper, one of the marijuana lifers freed by Trump, told Nelson, “No one should be serving a long prison sentence over marijuana when states and big corporations are making billions of dollars off of this plant.” Yet when Nelson asked Psaki about clemency, she irrelevantly noted Biden’s support for moving marijuana from Schedule I of the CSA to Schedule II.

Nelson tried again the next day, noting that Biden bears personal responsibility for the lengthy sentences imposed on people for peaceful activities that are now legal in most states, including at least 17 that already or soon will allow recreational sales. “Will President Biden honor his commitment to release everyone imprisoned for marijuana?” he asked.

Psaki did not deny that Biden had made that promise. But she brought up “rescheduling” again and claimed she did not know the answer because it depends on arcane legal knowledge.

“What you’re asking me is a legal question,” Psaki said. “I’d point you to the Department of Justice.”

The “legal question” is not complicated. Biden’s commitment to “broadly use his clemency power” has nothing to do with rescheduling marijuana, and he could begin delivering on it today if he were so inclined. Psaki’s obfuscation suggests it is not a high priority.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ej8z6D
via IFTTT

Top Australian General’s Leaked Classified Briefing Says War With China A “High Likelihood”

Top Australian General’s Leaked Classified Briefing Says War With China A “High Likelihood”

The leaked content of a fiery anti-China speech and secretive briefing to elite military personnel by one of Australia’s top generals has landed on the front pages of major newspapers from Sydney to Melbourne to London on Tuesday. The confidential address issued by Major-General Adam Findlay, who was then commander of Australia’s special forces and currently advises the Australian Defense Force, had focused on a coming war with China which he said is a “high likelihood”. Publication of the speech’s full key controversial contents is now threatening to plunge China-Australia relations past breaking point.

The April 2020 briefing given to the country’s most elite special forces units was obtained and first published by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, and quickly spread to the front page of London’s The Times. The general’s words were leaked by anonymous sources. He had detailed that China is now engaged in “grey zone” covert operations against Australian and Western allied interests and that Aussie defense forces must prepare for the “high likelihood” of this turning into direct war.

Major-General Adam Findlay

Major-General Findlay was heard in the leaked briefing saying:

“Who do you reckon the main (regional) threat is?” General Findlay asked his troops and officers before answering: “China.”

He continued: “OK, so if China is a threat, how many special forces brigades in China? You should know there are 26,000 Chinese SOF (Special Operations Forces) personnel.”

The revelation comes at a moment of hardened and tense relations with Beijing on trade, diplomatic, and even military fronts, despite China long being Australia’s biggest single trading partner.

The Sydney Morning Herald summarized further of the leaked briefing’s contents as follows:

They say General Findlay told his troops that, if the threat of conflict was realised, the ADF needed to rely not only on traditional air, land and sea capabilities but also on Australia’s ability to use cyber and space warfare.

He also highlighted the need for the ADF to reassert its presence and play “first grade” in south-east Asia and the south-west Pacific, describing how the military had uncovered information showing China was seeking to exploit “our [Australia’s] absence” in the region.

“We need to make sure we don’t lose momentum… get back in the region,” General Findlay said, highlighting Australia’s close ties to Indonesia.

In words sure to add more fuel to the fire of Chinese officials’ outrage, Findlay was further described as saying China knew “Western democracies have peace, and then, when they cross a line, we get really angry.”

“Then we start bombing people. China said, let’s be smarter. Let’s just play below the threshold, before it goes to war,” The Sydney Morning Herald quoted him as saying.

Image source: Royal Australian Navy

And more:

General Findlay said that to “stop war from breaking out” Australia’s military must compete against the “coercive constraints” imposed on Australia by China. In undertaking its own grey zone missions, Australia’s aim was to “put the adversary at a disadvantage, put us at an advantage” and avoid war.

He’s certainly not the first top Aussie official to strongly suggest that a near-future war is coming, but it’s being viewed as more serious given it was a classified briefing to special forces commanders, and thus can’t be chalked up to a politician expressing opinion or speculation, however provocative. 

For example just the day before the leaked contents were exposed Tuesday, Senator Jim Molan wrote in an op-ed in The Australian newspaper that he believes a war is “likely”

It wouldn’t start as a direct war between Australia and China, but would more likely be a war that Australia could find itself fighting on behalf of its most powerful ally, Senator Molan said.

“Many ordinary Australians, not just those who have personally experienced global conflict, are awakening to the sombre reality that war is not just possible in our region, but likely,” he wrote.

“Armed to the teeth, adversaries are maneuvering ships and planes around each other, intimidating and threatening, loaded with real weapons of war, forging alliances.”

He said Australia would be making a mistake if leaders do not act now to strengthen a military that is not capable of winning a war against “a peer opponent”.

Of course, the “most powerful ally” being referenced here is the United States, revealing the apparent increased anxiety in Canberra that the confrontational attitude between Washington and Beijing being played out even on the ground in places like the South China Sea will inevitably drag Australia into the mix.

There’s also the distinct possibility that all of this “drums of war” rhetoric of late coming out of Australian officials’ mouths and pens may be part of a coordinated effort at drastically increasing defense spending and psychologically preparing the public for a more confrontational bit of muscle-flexing with Beijing.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 05/04/2021 – 23:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3bkzgGb Tyler Durden

From Mind Control To Viruses: How The Government Keeps Experimenting On Its Citizens

From Mind Control To Viruses: How The Government Keeps Experimenting On Its Citizens

Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“They were monsters with human faces, in crisp uniforms, marching in lockstep, so banal you don’t recognize them for what they are until it’s too late.”

– Ransom Riggs, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children

The U.S. government, in its pursuit of so-called monsters, has itself become a monster.

This is not a new development, nor is it a revelation.

This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.

Mind you, there is no greater good when the government is involved. There is only greater greed for money and power.

Unfortunately, the public has become so easily distracted by the political spectacle out of Washington, DC, that they are altogether oblivious to the grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions that have become synonymous with the U.S. government.

These horrors have been meted out against humans and animals alike.

For all intents and purposes, “we the people” have become lab rats in the government’s secret experiments.

Fifty years from now, we may well find out the whole sordid truth behind this COVID-19 pandemic. However, this isn’t intended to be a debate over whether COVID-19 is a legitimate health crisis or a manufactured threat. It is merely to acknowledge that such crises can—and are—manipulated by governments in order to expand their powers.

As we have learned, it is entirely possible for something to be both a genuine menace to the nation’s health and security and a menace to freedom.

This is a road the United States has been traveling for many years now. Indeed, grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions have become synonymous with the U.S. government, which has meted out untold horrors against humans and animals alike.

For instance, did you know that the U.S. government has been buying hundreds of dogs and cats from “Asian meat markets” as part of a gruesome experiment into food-borne illnesses? The cannibalistic experiments involve killing cats and dogs purchased from Colombia, Brazil, Vietnam, China and Ethiopia, and then feeding the dead remains to laboratory kittens, bred in government laboratories for the express purpose of being infected with a disease and then killed.

It gets more gruesome.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has been removing parts of dogs’ brains to see how it affects their breathing; applying electrodes to dogs’ spinal cords (before and after severing them) to see how it impacts their cough reflexes; and implanting pacemakers in dogs’ hearts and then inducing them to have heart attacks (before draining their blood). All of the laboratory dogs are killed during the course of these experiments.

It’s not just animals that are being treated like lab rats by government agencies.

“We the people” have also become the police state’s guinea pigs: to be caged, branded, experimented upon without our knowledge or consent, and then conveniently discarded and left to suffer from the after-effects.

Back in 2017, FEMA “inadvertently” exposed nearly 10,000 firefighters, paramedics and other responders to a deadly form of ricin during simulated bioterrorism response sessions. In 2015, it was discovered that an Army lab had been “mistakenly” shipping deadly anthrax to labs and defense contractors for a decade.

While these particular incidents have been dismissed as “accidents,” you don’t have to dig very deep or go very back in the nation’s history to uncover numerous cases in which the government deliberately conducted secret experiments on an unsuspecting populace—citizens and noncitizens alike—making healthy people sick by spraying them with chemicals, injecting them with infectious diseases and exposing them to airborne toxins.

At the time, the government reasoned that it was legitimate to experiment on people who did not have full rights in society such as prisoners, mental patients, and poor blacks.

In Alabama, for example, 600 black men with syphilis were allowed to suffer without proper medical treatment in order to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis. In California, older prisoners had testicles from livestock and from recently executed convicts implanted in them to test their virility. In Connecticut, mental patients were injected with hepatitis.

In Maryland, sleeping prisoners had a pandemic flu virus sprayed up their noses. In Georgia, two dozen “volunteering” prison inmates had gonorrhea bacteria pumped directly into their urinary tracts through the penis. In Michigan, male patients at an insane asylum were exposed to the flu after first being injected with an experimental flu vaccine. In Minnesota, 11 public service employee “volunteers” were injected with malaria, then starved for five days.

As the Associated Press reports, “The late 1940s and 1950s saw huge growth in the U.S. pharmaceutical and health care industries, accompanied by a boom in prisoner experiments funded by both the government and corporations. By the 1960s, at least half the states allowed prisoners to be used as medical guinea pigs … because they were cheaper than chimpanzees.”

Moreover, “Some of these studies, mostly from the 1940s to the ’60s, apparently were never covered by news media. Others were reported at the time, but the focus was on the promise of enduring new cures, while glossing over how test subjects were treated.”

Media blackouts, propaganda, spin. Sound familiar?

How many government incursions into our freedoms have been blacked out, buried under “entertainment” news headlines, or spun in such a way as to suggest that anyone voicing a word of caution is paranoid or conspiratorial?

Unfortunately, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the atrocities the government has inflicted on an unsuspecting populace in the name of secret experimentation.

For instance, there was the U.S. military’s secret race-based testing of mustard gas on more than 60,000 enlisted men. As NPR reports, “All of the World War II experiments with mustard gas were done in secret and weren’t recorded on the subjects’ official military records. Most do not have proof of what they went through. They received no follow-up health care or monitoring of any kind. And they were sworn to secrecy about the tests under threat of dishonorable discharge and military prison time, leaving some unable to receive adequate medical treatment for their injuries, because they couldn’t tell doctors what happened to them.”

And then there was the CIA’s MKULTRA program in which hundreds of unsuspecting American civilians and military personnel were dosed with LSD, some having the hallucinogenic drug slipped into their drinks at the beach, in city bars, at restaurants. As Time reports, “before the documentation and other facts of the program were made public, those who talked of it were frequently dismissed as being psychotic.”

Now one might argue that this is all ancient history and that the government today is different from the government of yesteryear, but has the U.S. government really changed?

Has the government become any more humane, any more respectful of the rights of the citizenry? Has it become any more transparent or willing to abide by the rule of law? Has it become any more truthful about its activities? Has it become any more cognizant of its appointed role as a guardian of our rights?

Or has the government simply hunkered down and hidden its nefarious acts and dastardly experiments under layers of secrecy, legalism and obfuscations? Has it not become wilier, more slippery, more difficult to pin down?

Having mastered the Orwellian art of Doublespeak and followed the Huxleyan blueprint for distraction and diversion, are we not dealing with a government that is simply craftier and more conniving that it used to be?

Consider this: after revelations about the government’s experiments spanning the 20th century spawned outrage, the government began looking for human guinea pigs in other countries, where “clinical trials could be done more cheaply and with fewer rules.”

In Guatemala, prisoners and patients at a mental hospital were infected with syphilis, “apparently to test whether penicillin could prevent some sexually transmitted disease.” In Uganda, U.S.-funded doctors “failed to give the AIDS drug AZT to all the HIV-infected pregnant women in a study… even though it would have protected their newborns.” Meanwhile, in Nigeria, children with meningitis were used to test an antibiotic named Trovan. Eleven children died and many others were left disabled.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Case in point: back in 2016, it was announced that scientists working for the Department of Homeland Security would begin releasing various gases and particles on crowded subway platforms as part of an experiment aimed at testing bioterror airflow in New York subways.

The government insisted that the gases released into the subways by the DHS were nontoxic and did not pose a health risk. It’s in our best interests, they said, to understand how quickly a chemical or biological terrorist attack might spread. And look how cool the technology is—said the government cheerleaders—that scientists can use something called DNATrax to track the movement of microscopic substances in air and food. (Imagine the kinds of surveillance that could be carried out by the government using trackable airborne microscopic substances you breathe in or ingest.)

Mind you, this is the same government that in 1949 sprayed bacteria into the Pentagon’s air handling system, then the world’s largest office building. In 1950, special ops forces sprayed bacteria from Navy ships off the coast of Norfolk and San Francisco, in the latter case exposing all of the city’s 800,000 residents.

In 1953, government operatives staged “mock” anthrax attacks on St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Winnipeg using generators placed on top of cars. Local governments were reportedly told that “‘invisible smokescreen[s]’ were being deployed to mask the city on enemy radar.” Later experiments covered territories as wide-ranging as Ohio to Texas and Michigan to Kansas.

In 1965, the government’s experiments in bioterror took aim at Washington’s National Airport, followed by a 1966 experiment in which army scientists exposed a million subway NYC passengers to airborne bacteria that causes food poisoning.

And this is the same government that has taken every bit of technology sold to us as being in our best interests—GPS devices, surveillance, nonlethal weapons, etc.—and used it against us, to track, control and trap us.

So, no, I don’t think the government’s ethics have changed much over the years. It’s just taken its nefarious programs undercover.

The question remains: why is the government doing this? The answer is always the same: money, power and total domination.

It’s the same answer no matter which totalitarian regime is in power.

The mindset driving these programs has, appropriately, been likened to that of Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews. As the Holocaust Museum recounts, Nazi physicians “conducted painful and often deadly experiments on thousands of concentration camp prisoners without their consent.”

The Nazi’s unethical experiments ran the gamut from freezing experiments using prisoners to find an effective treatment for hypothermia, tests to determine the maximum altitude for parachuting out of a plane, injecting prisoners with malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, yellow fever, and infectious hepatitis, exposing prisoners to phosgene and mustard gas, and mass sterilization experiments.

The horrors being meted out against the American people can be traced back, in a direct line, to the horrors meted out in Nazi laboratories. In fact, following the second World War, the U.S. government recruited many of Hitler’s employees, adopted his protocols, embraced his mindset about law and order and experimentation, and implemented his tactics in incremental steps.

Sounds far-fetched, you say? Read on. It’s all documented.

As historian Robert Gellately recounts, the Nazi police state was initially so admired for its efficiency and order by the world powers of the day that J. Edgar Hoover, then-head of the FBI, actually sent one of his right-hand men, Edmund Patrick Coffey, to Berlin in January 1938 at the invitation of Germany’s secret police, the Gestapo.

The FBI was so impressed with the Nazi regime that, according to the New York Times, in the decades after World War II, the FBI, along with other government agencies, aggressively recruited at least a thousand Nazis, including some of Hitler’s highest henchmen.

All told, thousands of Nazi collaborators—including the head of a Nazi concentration camp, among others—were given secret visas and brought to America by way of Project Paperclip. Subsequently, they were hired on as spies, informants and scientific advisers, and then camouflaged to ensure that their true identities and ties to Hitler’s holocaust machine would remain unknown. All the while, thousands of Jewish refugees were refused entry visas to the U.S. on the grounds that it could threaten national security.

Adding further insult to injury, American taxpayers have been paying to keep these ex-Nazis on the U.S. government’s payroll ever since. And in true Gestapo fashion, anyone who has dared to blow the whistle on the FBI’s illicit Nazi ties has found himself spied upon, intimidated, harassed and labeled a threat to national security.

As if the government’s covert, taxpayer-funded employment of Nazis after World War II wasn’t bad enough, U.S. government agencies—the FBI, CIA and the military—have since fully embraced many of the Nazi’s well-honed policing tactics, and have used them repeatedly against American citizens.

It’s certainly easy to denounce the full-frontal horrors carried out by the scientific and medical community within a despotic regime such as Nazi Germany, but what do you do when it’s your own government that claims to be a champion of human rights all the while allowing its agents to engage in the foulest, bases and most despicable acts of torture, abuse and experimentation?

When all is said and done, this is not a government that has our best interests at heart.

This is not a government that values us.

Perhaps the answer lies in The Third Man, Carol Reed’s influential 1949 film starring Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles. In the film, set in a post-WW II Vienna, rogue war profiteer Harry Lime has come to view human carnage with a callous indifference, unconcerned that the diluted penicillin he’s been trafficking underground has resulted in the tortured deaths of young children.

Challenged by his old friend Holly Martins to consider the consequences of his actions, Lime responds, “In these days, old man, nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don’t, so why should we?

“Have you ever seen any of your victims?” asks Martins.

“Victims?” responds Limes, as he looks down from the top of a Ferris wheel onto a populace reduced to mere dots on the ground. “Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax — the only way you can save money nowadays.”

This is how the U.S. government sees us, too, when it looks down upon us from its lofty perch.

To the powers-that-be, the rest of us are insignificant specks, faceless dots on the ground.

To the architects of the American police state, we are not worthy or vested with inherent rights. This is how the government can justify treating us like economic units to be bought and sold and traded, or caged rats to be experimented upon and discarded when we’ve outgrown our usefulness.

To those who call the shots in the halls of government, “we the people” are merely the means to an end.

“We the people”—who think, who reason, who take a stand, who resist, who demand to be treated with dignity and care, who believe in freedom and justice for all—have become obsolete, undervalued citizens of a totalitarian state that, in the words of Rod Serling, “has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom.”

In this sense, we are all Romney Wordsworth, the condemned man in Serling’s Twilight Zone episode “The Obsolete Man.”

The Obsolete Man” speaks to the dangers of a government that views people as expendable once they have outgrown their usefulness to the State. Yet—and here’s the kicker—this is where the government through its monstrous inhumanity also becomes obsolete. As Serling noted in his original script for “The Obsolete Man,” “Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man…that state is obsolete.

How do you defeat a monster?

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, you start by recognizing the monster for what it is.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 05/04/2021 – 23:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2SgZxOH Tyler Durden