Italian police made several arrests and seized a cache of weapons amid a nearly two-year, nationwide investigation of Nazi groups sparked by the participation of Italian fighters in Ukraine’s armed conflict in the Donbass region.
During their probe which stretched from the island of Sicily to the Alps in Northn Italy, Authorities uncovered a plot to form a new Nazi party called the Italian National Socialist Party of Workers, according to Reuters.
Logo of the Italian National Socialist Party of Workers
The probe revealed a “huge and varied array of subjects, residents in different places, united by the same ideological fanaticism and willing to create an openly pro-Nazi, xenophobic and anti-Semitic movement”, a police statement said.
Police did not say how many people joined the group or how many arrests were made. In Italy “defense of fascism” and efforts to revive fascist parties are crimes. –Reuters
The weapons, confiscated during searches of 19 properties, included pistols, hunting rifles and crossbows. Police also found a range of Nazi paraphernalia, including photos of Adolf Hitler and swastikas.
The Nazi network was found to have ties to similar groups abroad, including in France, Britain and Portugal, acording to the report.
In July, investigators in Turin uncovered an even deadlier cache of weapons during raids on neo-Nazis, which included an air-to-air missile in the province of Pavia, roughly two hours away. Three men were arrested, including a customs officer who has previously stood for parliament. In total, 26 guns, 20 bayonets, 306 gun parts and over 800 bullets of various calibers were seized.
Air-to-air missile seized in Pavia province, July 2019
During their raids, police discovered a French-made Matra air-to-air missile that appeared to have once belonged to the Qatar armed forces. Subsequent checks showed the weapon was in working condition but lacked an explosive charge.
Police said the suspects had tried to sell the missile in conversations with contacts on the WhatsApp messaging network. –Reuters
German Chancellor Angela Merkel says that freedom of expression must be curtailed in order to keep society free.
Yes, really.
“For all those who claim that they can no longer express their opinion, I say this to them; If you express a pronounced opinion, you must live with the fact that you will be contradicted,” said Merkel during a speech to the German Parliament.
“Expressing an opinion does not come at zero cost, but freedom of expression has limits,” she added, as some in the Bundestag could be heard voicing their disagreement.
“Those limits begin where hatred is spread, they begin where the dignity of other people is violated. This house will and must oppose extreme speech otherwise our society will no longer be the free society that it was,” said Merkel.
Watch till the end. Angela Merkel says: we have to take away your freedom of speech, or else society won’t be free. pic.twitter.com/Y3qROvDQXg
Of course, what “violates” the “dignity” of other people is completely subjective and could include all manner of speech that most people would find perfectly acceptable.
The debate over free speech in Germany has intensified since the country accepted over a million migrants from the Middle East and North Africa from 2015 onwards.
Many Germans have found themselves hit with charges of hate speech for pointing out ‘hate facts’ like migrants being responsible for crimes and sexual assaults
This happened despite the German government’s own numbers showing violent crime in Germany rose by 10 per cent between 2015 and 2016 and that more than 90 per cent of the rise was attributable to young male “refugees.”
Lawmakers in one area of Germany even attempted to pass a law that would have jailed people for insulting the EU anthem or burning the EU flag.
As we document in the video below, Germans were subjected to a re-education campaign to encourage them to accept their new reality rather than the government actually addressing their concerns about mass migration.
* * *
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
In the lead up to the 2017 general election, YouGov’s MRP projection model accurately predicted a hung parliament at a time when many other pollsters were indicating a Conservative majority. As Statista’s Martin Armstrong details, the MRP technique (Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification) is used to make estimates for small geographies for which only small sample sizes are available. Anthony Wells, Director of Political and Social Research at YouGov, explains:
“It works by using an extremely large number of interviews to model people’s voting preferences based upon their demographics and the local political circumstances. Once this model has been developed it is applied to the demographic make-up and political circumstances of each of the 632 constituencies in Great Britain, providing projected vote shares for each and every seat”.
As the infographic below shows, the projections for 2019 are a far cry from the hung parliament predicted for 2017.
According to this year’s calculations, Boris Johnson’s Conservative party is set for a large parliamentary majority, taking 359 seats to Labour’s 211. That would represent an increase of 42 seats for the tories and a devastating decrease of 51 for Labour – surely prompting a change in party leadership.
In Scotland, the SNP is forecast to gain eight seats, taking five from Labour, two from the Conservatives and one from the Lib Dems. Speaking of the Liberal Democrats, Jo Swinson’s party is apparently also due for a disappointing election night, taking just 13 seats, representing a measly gain of one.
French police recently cleared more than 2,000 migrants from makeshift encampments in northern Paris. The crackdown comes after the government announced a series of measures to curb illegal immigration.
The migration crackdown appears to be aimed at blunting the rising popularity of the anti-mass-migration party National Rally and its leader Marine Le Pen. She has dismissed the government’s actions as a “political swindle” that will increase, not decrease, immigration.
On November 28, police began removing hundreds of migrants from a camp at Porte d’Aubervilliers in the 19th arrondissement in northeastern Paris. The clearance operation was delayed by a week due to an insufficient police presence to guarantee security. An estimated 2,000 migrants are living in the camp in squalid conditions.
On November 7, 500 police officers cleared more than 1,600 migrants from two makeshift camps near Porte de la Chapelle in the 18th arrondissement in northern Paris. The camps, consisting mostly of tents, were located under the Boulevard Périphérique, a massive, multi-lane ring road that loops around the French capital.
A total of 1,606 migrants, from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, were put on buses and taken to temporary accommodations in other parts of Paris. Many other migrants, presumably those whose asylum applications have already been denied, fled before the buses arrived to avoid being registered, processed and possibly deported.
Interior Minister Christophe Castaner said that the migrants will be housed at public facilities while their asylum requests are being processed. He added that those whose asylum requests are denied would have to leave France.
Police said that they would maintain a presence in the areas to ensure that the migrants do not return. “I will no longer tolerate these installations by the roadside here or anywhere else on public spaces in Paris,” said Paris Police Chief Didier Lallement.
The Deputy Mayor of Paris, Emmanuel Grégoire, said that in addition to the camp in Porte de la Chapelle, there were another 1,600 migrants in a camp at nearby Porte d’Aubervilliers and more camps at Porte de la Villete and in Seine-Saint-Denis, all in northern Paris.
Observers said that the crackdown in Paris could trigger a mass movement of migrants to the northern port city of Calais, from where they may try to reach Britain by crossing the English Channel. French authorities cleared a sprawling migrant camp in Calais in 2016, and many residents of the camp fled to Paris and set up migrant camps across the city.
The clearing operation in Paris is part of a package of 20 measures announced by Prime Minister Édouard Philippe on November 6 to “take back control” over migration policy.
Philippe, who serves under President Emmanuel Macron, said that the government would clear all the migrant camps in France before the end of the year, restrict access to medical care for migrants who are not authorized to be in France, and establish quotas for migrants with professional skills to offset labor shortages. He also said that the government would create 16,000 more housing spaces for migrants, along with three more detention centers for those not authorized to be in France.
“We want to regain control of our immigration policy. Taking back control means ensuring that when we say yes, it really means yes, and when we say no, it really means no.”
Philippe insisted that the measures were the mark of a “France that is open but not naïve,” adding that they strike the “right balance between reassuring our citizens and not giving ground to populism.”
Critics noted that Philippe’s measures will not resolve the underlying problem — that the French government refuses adequately to secure the country’s borders to prevent illegal migrants from entering France in the first place.
Immigration has become a major political issue ahead of French municipal elections to be held in March 2020, and presidential elections set for 2022. Polls show that Macron’s La République En Marche party (LREM) is currently running neck and neck with Le Pen’s National Rally party, according to an Ifop survey published by Le Journal du Dimanche on November 3.
In September, Macron hinted at a tougher line on immigration, arguing the government must stop voters from drifting to populist parties. “France cannot host everyone if it wants to host them well,” Macron told French radio station Europe 1 on September 25.
Macron’s comments caused a backlash from left-leaning members of his own party who penned two open letters warning against “fueling hatred against all Muslim citizens.” LREM lawmaker Jean-François Cesarini accused Macron of “co-opting the talking points” of Le Pen’s National Rally.
On October 7, during a parliamentary debate on immigration, Philippe tried to present a united front. He told lawmakers at the National Assembly that the government does not seek to crack down on immigration “as a whole,” but rather to simplify some processes and improve the situations of those who are legally in France. He added that the government wanted to crack down on illegal migration and people-smuggling.
Le Pen described the government’s announced crackdown on illegal immigration as a “political swindle” and a “smokescreen” that will lead to even more immigration. Speaking on Europe 1 Radio, she noted:
“The government has decided nothing. There will always be 255,000 legal aliens per year, plus 100,000 asylum seekers, plus all the illegal immigrants that no one has even considered counting, plus thousands of unaccompanied minors.”
Le Pen also questioned the government’s plan to establish quotas for foreign workers: “With six million unemployed, is the urgency not to find employment for the French?”
MP Nicolas Dupont-Aignan of the eurosceptic party Debout la Francesaid that the government’s plan “will bring in migrants to nurture professions that should be nurtured by our youth.”
Independent MP Emmanuelle Ménard dismissed the government’s plan as “symbolic” and a denounced the “absolute record” of new asylum applications since Macron took office in May 2017.
“The number of asylum applications in France increased by more than 20% in 2018 while it is declining everywhere else in Europe. Why is it declining elsewhere and increasing in France? Maybe we need to ask the question, why is this ‘French Eldorado’ being promoted everywhere?”
France received a record 122,743 asylum requests in 2018, a 22% increase over 2017, when France received 100,775 requests, according to the Interior Ministry’s Directorate General of Foreigners in France (DGEF). By comparison, France received 85,726 asylum requests in 2016, 80,075 in 2015, 64,811 in 2014 and 66,251 in 2013.
Asylum seekers in 2018 were mostly from Afghanistan, followed by Guinea, Albania, Georgia, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Bangladesh, Congo and Mali, according to DGEF.
In 2018, 6.5 million immigrants were living in France, representing 9.7% of the total population of 67 million, according to data published on October 8 by the French statistics agency INSEE. In 2018, 46.1% of immigrants living in France were born in Africa; 33.5% were born in Europe.
An estimated 320,000 people were living in France illegally in 2018, according to data compiled by the Ministry of Health. The estimate is based on the 318,106 migrants who have a card that allows free access to state medical services (L’aide médicale de l’État, AME), costing French taxpayers roughly 1 billion euros a year. Not all illegal immigrants have an AME card, so the actual number of undocumented immigrants may be much higher.
Meanwhile, illegal immigration to and through France continues unabated. On November 2, for instance, 31 Pakistani migrants were found in the back of a truck on the A8 motorway during a police check at a toll booth near Nice. The migrants were sent back to Italy. October 28, eight Afghan migrants, including two children, were found with hypothermia in a refrigerated truck at the port of Calais.
On October 19, thirteen migrants, including one child, were found in the back of a cattle truck at the port of Calais. The British driver was detained by French authorities. Four others were arrested by the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) in a string of raids in Romford, London and Brentwood in Essex.
A total of 237 vessels were intercepted in the English Channel during the first nine months of 2019, according to Pas-de-Calais prefecture, the regional government in Calais. British authorities brought 138 boats to the UK, while the rest were intercepted by the French. More than 1,460 migrants have crossed the Channel to England successfully in 2019; another 1,105 were stopped in France.
A fundamental pillar of true free markets is the existence of choice; the availability of options from production to providers to purchase mechanisms without interference from governments or corporate monopolies. Choice means competition, and competition drives progress. Choice can also drive changes within society, for if people know a better or more secure way of doing things exists, why would anyone want to stay trapped within the confines of a limited system? At the very least, people should be allowed to choose economic mechanisms that work best for their particular situation.
This is NOT how our society functions today, and free market do not exist anywhere in modern nations including the US. Whenever I hear someone (usually a socialist) blame free market “capitalism” for the oppressive ailments of the world, I have to laugh. The alliance between governments and corporate monopolies (what Mussolini called national socialism or fascism) makes free markets utterly impossible. What we have today is an amalgamation of socialist economic interference and corporatocracy. Our system is highly restrictive and micro-managed for everyone except the money elites, who do not have to follow the same rules the rest of us do.
Of course, I might be preaching to the choir when it comes to these issues. But, there are some underlying developments being pushed forward by globalists hell-bent on a one world monetary system and a one world government that even many liberty activists are not fully aware of.
In alternative economic circles, the US dollar is seen as the end-all-be-all of fiat currency dominance. Many activists see it as the key to the power of the global elites and they think the Federal Reserve is the top of the globalist pyramid. This is not exactly true.
The US dollar is itself just another tool of the banking cabal, and tools sometimes lose their usefulness over time. While it could be said that for the past several decades the dollar as the world reserve currency was the core of globalist influence, this is about to change and we can see the signs today. The rush towards a cashless society in the past few years is startling and unfortunately too many liberty activists have been suckered into thinking that it’s is a good thing.
There are a number of reasons for this. As mentioned above, activists see the dollar (or Fed note) as fuel for the globalist machine, and so obviously they would like to see it go down in flames. They also are generally proponents of free markets, and the exploding trend of cryptocurrencies has given them the illusion that “choice” is returning to economy through “monetary competition”. I understand the basis for this attitude, and I appreciate where it’s coming from. I also have never been a proponent of the dollar or any other central bank fiat system. This article should not be misinterpreted as a defense of dollar hegemony.
That said, there is a much bigger agenda at play here, and the dollar is only one fading part of it as it is being quietly replaced by a completely digital framework. We have to once again ask ourselves – Who really benefits from a sudden shift in the economic and monetary world? Who gains political and social power through a cashless society? Is it the public? Or, is it the same banking elites and globalists that have always held sway over our economic structure?
In 2017 I published an article called ‘The Globalist One World Currency Will Look A Lot Like Bitcoin’. In it, I warned that the trendy marketing of cryptocurrencies to the general public by the mainstream media was extremely suspicious and contrary to the notion that the establishment was “terrified” of Bitcoin or blockchain tech putting them out of business. I also warned of the deep involvement of international banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan in the progress of blockchain infrastructure and more specifically Goldman Sachs and the IMF’s love affair with digital monetary systems. Goldman Sachs even referred to the blockchain as “the new technology of trust…”
Clearly, the banking elites are not worried about this technology. In fact, they have been investing in it heavily. But why? I have long held that current popular cryptocurrencies are nothing more than a beta test for a global digital currency system controlled by the elites.
This is not to say that many people are familiar with using Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. In fact, only a tiny percentage of the population ever comes into contact with or trades crypto. What I am saying is, the terminology, the idea of cryptocurrencies, is now widespread.
Thanks to a vast amount of media attention, Bitcoin is a household brand even though most people have never owned a bitcoin (or a portion of a bitcoin). Whale investors have hyperinflated the price of Bitcoin and certain other coins to levels beyond all reason as demand by the investment world and average people for the mechanism is minimal at best. These price explosions, though brief, have spurred public curiosity. And, in the minds of many if something is considered valuable, no matter how ethereal or arbitrary the measure, there must be a reason…right? Therefore, in the minds of bitcoin cheerleaders high market prices prove by default that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are necessary and desirable and anyone who is critical or skeptical is merely “upset” that they “missed out on the opportunity”.
I have always said when asked about my position on Bitcoin and crypto that if you want to try to make money on one of these coins and think you can play the market, then by all means, the more power to you. But, for those who thought that cryptocurrencies are a tool for activism and fighting the central banks, all I can say is you have been duped.
Over the course of a decade, the masses have been acclimated to the idea of a digital currency system. They are now being acclimated to the idea that physical currencies should be done away with and replaced with the “more efficient” blockchain tech – Death to the dollar, death to the Fed and death to the globalists say activists as they cheer for the new digital landscape! But this is not what is really happening. The death of the dollar and physical cash is only the primer for a new and even more invasive world order.
In the past two years the agenda for a cashless system and a one world currency has gone mainstream. The plans that liberty analysts were once called “conspiracy theorists” for talking about ten years ago are now out in the open. The latest barrage of propaganda was launched by the governor of the Bank Of England, Mark Carney, who openly warned of the end of the dollar’s world reserve status, comparing it to the end of the Pound Sterling’s reserve status after WWII. He also noted that the dollar could be replaced by a new digital currency system and that this would be advantageous the banking system.
This piggybacks on comments made by globalist and PIMCO CEO Mohamed El-Erian in 2017, who stated in an op-ed that the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket system could be used to replace the dollar as world reserve and that this would help to “fight the rise of populism”.
Next, Facebook introduced the concept of the “Libra” digital currency, which Mark Carney also suggested central banks would be watching closely. Libra, in my view, is a test designed to lure wider public into using digital currency on a regular basis. As noted, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies gained exposure but not preference. Where they failed to infiltrate the daily trade of the average citizen, Libra could eventually succeed.
So far I think the reaction is not what the globalists hoped for. Instead, Facebook is taking it slowly by introducing a new internal payment system called “Facebook Pay” similar to Paypal. Libra, or something like it, will likely make a reappearance in the next couple of years on Facebook and on other platforms.
Next, former ECB chief Jean-Claude Trichet argued in favor of a digital version of the SDR basket system at the Caixin conference in Beijing, arguing that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were not stable enough or “legitimate” enough to take on the role of central bank currencies. Many argue that this is proof that the globalists are afraid of cryptocurrencies. On the contrary, I see this as yet another example of the ongoing fake battle between bankers and crypto. They criticize certain aspects of the technology while at the same time investing in it and promoting it. Like the false left/right paradigm, there is a kind of false central bank/crypto paradigm as well.
Trichet’s argument for an IMF dominated crytpocurrency was surely welcomed in Beijing, where the Chinese have long supported the proliferation of the SDR and have called for the SDR to replace the dollar. The Chinese are not the only one’s. The Russian government has also called for the IMF to take over the global monetary system with the SDR basket. Russia has all but decoupled from the dollar, dumping it’s US treasury holding, stockpiling a large supply of gold and removing the dollar in bilateral trade agreements with other nations.
Last year Europe began establishing a new alternative to the US controlled SWIFT payment system. Germany in particular criticized the US system as a geopolitical weapon. Now, an association of major banks in Germany and in the EU is calling for a digital Euro based on the blockchain ledger.
The IMF has been openly publishing white papers that agree with the assessment that a global digital currency is needed, and with former IMF head Christine Lagarde now in charge at the ECB, it is likely that a Euro cryptocurrency system will soon make a public appearance.
In the meantime, multiple central banks are pursuing a cashless system and digital currencies of their own. China has announced a national digital currency system will be realized in the next 18 months. The Swiss central bank is exploring digital currency options, and Russia is considering launching a cryptocurrency as well.
The rhetoric coming from the mainstream media and the banking establishment is that physical methods of payment will soon disappear. This is being called the “democratization of money”, and the “multipolar world order”; I’m sorry to say that it’s the exact opposite.
The claim is that the end of cash and specifically the end of the dollar will result in more choice in the monetary world. But the end of physical cash is actually a removal of choice and the result is MORE centralization. The banking elites are so excited about the digital currency model because it removes all privacy from trade. As I have outlined in past articles, cryptocurrency and blockchain tech have no anonymity whatsoever despite claims originally circulated by proponents and cypto-activists. It is also clear that central banks intend to introduce their own highly managed currencies and most other coins will be buried in the process.
The multipolar and multilateral world order memes are also a fraud. China, Russia, Europe and other nations are demanding an alternative to the dollar, but if that alternative ends up being a digitized version of the SDR basket under the IMF’s control as these countries have suggested, then this means total global centralization, NOT decentralization.
Real decentralization would mean the removal of bureaucratic oversight and micromanagement. It would mean that physical currencies backed by gold and silver could be offered as an alternative option, not just cryptocurrencies or fiat backed by nothing. After all, gold and silver have far more individual investors worldwide than cryptocurrencies do. How about some real competition instead of price suppression of metals by the likes of JP Morgan?
It would mean localized currencies and payment systems backed by hard commodities, not one worldwide currency and payment system backed by nothing. It would mean nations breaking from dependence not just on the dollar, but also breaking from globalist institutions like the IMF, BIS and World Bank. The globalists are attempting to sell us on slavery by packaging it as “free markets”. The solution is to not use the systems they promote and be ready to fight tooth and nail for real decentralization.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
673 Million People Still Defecate Outdoors (Not Just In San Francisco)
With World Toilet Day having just passed, the United Nations released a report focusing on water, sanitation and hygiene around the world. It has found that approximately 2.2 billion people worldwide lack access to safe drinking water, 4.2 billion have to go without safe sanitation services and three billion lack basic handwashing facilities.
Additionally, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, the report also examined the state of open defecation and progress in eliminating it. As recently as 2015, close to a billion people were still defecating outdoors, resulting in widespread disease and millions of deaths. That drove the UN to call for an end to the practice and some parts of the world have proven hugely successful in eradicating it.
In 2000 for example, the rate of open defecation was even worse with 21 percent of the global population – 1.3 billion people – practicing it.
The impact of the UN’s call to action has been telling and by 2017, the global share of people practicing open defecation had fallen to just 9 percent – 673 million people.
Ethiopia saw the largest fall during that period, -57 percent. Cambodia and India also experienced declines of -53 and -47 percent respectively. The latter has been particularly ambitious in installing proper toilets. Before Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power, just under 40 percent of India’s population had access to a household toilet. He promised to change that and billions of dollars were invested under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (“Clean India”) campaign which kicked off in October 2014. India’s Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation states that toilet coverage today stands at an impressive 99.22 percent.
Altogether, 91 countries reduced open defecation by a combined total of 696 million people between 2000 and and 2017 with Central and Southern Asia accounting for three quarters of that figure.
The news isn’t positive everywhere though and 39 countries experienced increases during the same period, totaling 49 million people. The majority of that increase occurred in Sub-Sahara Africa which has experienced steady population growth since 2000. That of course means that there’s still a lot of work to do but as India has shown with its toilet building marathon, progress can be rapid.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made prudent remarks recently when he said the United States is no longer a uni-power and that it must recognize the reality of China as an equal rival.
The furor over a new law passed by the US this week regarding Hong Kong and undermining Beijing’s authority underlines Kissinger’s warning.
If the US cannot find some modus vivendi with China, then the outcome could be a catastrophic conflict worst than any previous world war, he admonished.
Speaking publicly in New York on November 14, the veteran diplomat urged the US and China to resolve their ongoing economic tensions cooperatively and mutually, adding:
“It is no longer possible to think that one side can dominate the other.”
A key remark made by Kissinger was the following:
“So those countries that used to be exceptional and used to be unique, have to get used to the fact that they have a rival.”
In other words, he is negating the erroneous consensus held in Washington which asserts that the US is somehow “exceptional”, a “uni-power” and the “indispensable nation”. This consensus has grown since the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the US viewed itself as the sole super-power. That morphed into a more virulent ideology of “full-spectrum dominance”. Thence, the past three decades of unrelenting US criminal wars and regime-change operations across the planet, throwing the whole world into chaos.
Kissinger’s frank assessment is a breath of fresh air amid the stale and impossibly arrogant self-regard held by too many American politicians who view their nation as an unparalleled power which brooks no other.
The seasoned statesman, who is 96-years-old and retains an admirable acumen for international politics, ended his remarks on an optimistic note by saying: “I am confident the leaders on both sides [US and China] will realize the future of the world depends on the two sides working out solutions and managing the inevitable difficulties.”
Aptly, Kissinger’s caution about danger of conflict was reiterated separately by veteran journalist John Pilger, who warned in an exclusive interview for Strategic Culture Foundation this week that, presumed “American exceptionalism is driving the world to war.”
Henry Kissinger is indeed a controversial figure. Many US scholars regard him as one of the most outstanding Secretaries of State during the post-Second World War period. He served in the Nixon and Ford administrations during the 1970s and went on to write tomes about geopolitics and international relations. Against that, his reputation was badly tarnished by the US war in Vietnam and the horrendous civilian death toll from relentless aerial bombing across Indochina, believed to have been countenanced by Kissinger.
Kissinger has also been accused of supporting the military coup in Chile in 1973 against elected President Allende, and for backing the dirty war by Argentina’s fascist generals during the 1970s against workers and leftists.
To his credit, however, Kissinger was and is a practitioner of “realpolitik” which views international relations through a pragmatic lens. Another realpolitik US state planner was the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, who died in 2017 at the age of 89. Both advocated a policy of detente with the Soviet Union and China.
President Richard Nixon’s groundbreaking visit to China in 1972 is credited to the advice given by Kissinger who was then National Security Advisor to the White House.
That same year, the US and the Soviet Union signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, also under the guidance of Kissinger on the American side. The US would later withdrew from the treaty in 2002, a move which has presaged a long deterioration in bilateral relations between the US and Russia to the present day.
For all their faults, at least people like Kissinger and Brzezinski were motivated by practical goal-orientated policy. They were willing to engage with adversaries to find some modus vivendi. Such an attitude is too often missing in recent Washington administrations which seem to be guided by an ideology of unipolar dominance by the US over the rest of the world. The current Washington consensus is one of hyper-ideological unrealism and hubris, which leads to a zero-sum mentality of antagonism towards China and Russia.
At times, President Donald Trump appears to subscribe to realpolitik pragmatism. At other times, he swings to the hyper-ideological mentality as expressed by his Vice President Mike Pence, as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mike Esper. The latter has labeled China as the US’s “greatest long-term threat”.
This week President Trump signed into law “The Human Rights and Democracy Bill”, which will impose sanctions on China over alleged repression in its Hong Kong territory. Beijing has reacted furiously to the legislation, condemning it as a violation of its sovereignty.
This is exactly the kind of baleful move that Kissinger warned against in order to avoid a further poisoning in bilateral relations already tense from the past 16 months of US-China trade war.
One discerns the difference between Kissinger and more recent US politicians: the former has copious historical knowledge and appreciation of other cultures. His shrewd, wily, maybe even Machiavellian streak, informs Kissinger to acknowledge and respect other powers in a complex world. That is contrasted with the puritanical banality and ignorance manifest in Trump’s administration and in the Congress.
Greeting Kissinger last Friday, November 22, during a visit to Beijing, President Xi Jinping thanked him for his historic contribution in normalizing US-China relations during 1970s.
“At present, Sino-US relations are at a critical juncture facing some difficulties and challenges,”said Xi, calling on the two countries to deepen communication on strategic issues. It was an echo of the realpolitik views Kissinger had enunciated the week before.
While sharing a public stage with Kissinger, the Chinese leader added:
“The two sides should proceed from the fundamental interests of the two peoples and the people of the world, respect each other, seek common ground while reserving differences, pursue win-win results in cooperation, and promote bilateral ties to develop in the right direction.”
Likewise, China and Russia have continually urged for a multipolar world order for cooperation and partnership in development. But the present and recent US governments refuse to contemplate any other order other than a presumed unipolar dominance. Hence the ongoing US trade strife with China and Washington’s relentless demonization of Russia.
This “exceptional” ideological mantra of the US is leading to more tensions, and ultimately is a path to the abyss.
Henry Kissinger gets it. It’s a pity America’s present crop of politicians and thinkers are so impoverished in their intellect.
Virginia Gun Owners Could Face Felony Charges Under New ‘Paramilitary Activities’ Amendment
A proposed amendment to a 30-year-old Virginia law would make it illegal to bring a firearm to any gathering if it can be proven that the goal was to ‘intimidate any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm.”
In short, if someone brings a firearm to a permitted event such as the ill-fated United the Right rally, and it can be argued that their goal was to intimidate Antifa counter-protesters as opposed to carrying in self-defense, that person could be subject to Class 5 felony charges under the amendment introduced by State Senator Louise Lucas (D-18th District).
The amendment stems from a lawsuit brought against Unite the Right organizer (and professional provocateur) Jason Kessler and several militia groups, accusing them of violating the state’s existing statute governing “unlawful paramilitary activity.” As a result of the lawsuit, “eleven named defendants had signed consent decrees in which they are “permanently enjoined from returning to Charlottesville, Virginia, as part of a unit of two or more persons acting in concert while armed with a firearm, weapon, shield, or any item whose purpose is to inflict bodily harm, at any demonstration, rally, protest, or march.”,” according to IREHR.
Of note, the statute does not declare tactical training illegal as has been reported elsewhere, as the existing law – which has been on the books more than 30 years – already makes it illegal if someone “teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device” if said training “will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.“
Given that most firearms instruction is intended for self-defense in all situations and not specifically during “civil disorder,” we don’t envision Virginia authorities barging in on training courses anytime soon.
The amendment can be seen below. New portions are italicized.
SENATE BILL NO. 64
Offered January 8, 2020
Prefiled November 21, 2019
A BILL to amend and reenact §18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to paramilitary activities; penalty.
———-
Patron– Lucas
———-
Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
———-
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That §18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:
A person shall be is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:
1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or
2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or
3. Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof.
2. That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment. Pursuant to §30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of imprisonment in state adult correctional facilities; therefore, Chapter 854 of the Acts of Assembly of 2019 requires the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission to assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000. Pursuant to §30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of commitment to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice.
Scientific fraud – falsifying scientific data or manipulating the scientific evaluation process – has become a serious problem. At best, it is a threat to public confidence in science. At worst, if the fraud is not revealed, then public policy could be shaped by bogus data. This problem is universal. But there are distinct national patterns. In particular, fraud is endemic in non-Western countries—and among non-Western scientists who immigrate here.
Clearly, any sensible scholar is going to be very cautious about citing anything ever written by Diederik Stapel, even if it has not been retracted. Indeed, lay readers should be careful to ask for the author of any Leftism-helpful social psychology finding, when told about it by acquaintances, lest its author turn out to be Diederik Stapel.
But—breaking news—microbiologist Elizabeth Bik just went public alleging astonishingly massive scientific fraud, between 2004 and 2019, among academics at Annamalai University in Tamil Nadu in India. This may lead to the retraction of up to 200 papers by microbiologists at the university.[ Research fraud in over 200 Annamalai University papers, alleges US scholar, by Megha Kaveri,The News Minute, November 15, 2019]
And this is much more typical. Scientists from some countries are systematically more inclined to make up data or corrupt the peer-review process, than are scientists from others.
In the peer-review process, an academic journal sends a study out to other academics for scholarly evaluation. Many scientists research extremely narrow fields, meaning there are very few people in the world who are qualified to judge the merits of their studies. Consequently, when scientists submit an article to a journal, they are often asked to nominate potential peer-reviewers, and also to provide their email addresses.
A conscientious editor would check who these nominees were and make an informed choice as to whether they were suitable reviewers. But apparently many editors, even of prestigious journals, do not practice due diligence.
Corrupt researchers realize this. Accordingly, they invent a couple of fictitious researchers and provide emails to which they—the study’s authors—have access. Sometimes they give real researchers’ names, but create a new email, bogus addresses for them. They are then able to peer-review their own papers and recommend that they be accepted. Journal editors have gradually got wise to this ruse and are able to see that the that IP address of the author and reviewer are the same, leading to the corrupt scientist being caught out.
There are clear national differences in this practice. The world leader: China. Between 2012 and 2016, 276 studies by Chinese academics were retracted for fake peer review. In a distant second place was Taiwan, with 73, followed by Iran, with 65, South Korea, 33, Pakistan, 19, and India, 16. [The Economy of Fraud in Academic Publishing in China, by Mini Gu, WENR, April 3, 2019].
In terms of fake peer review per head of population, these figures suggest that the most corrupt country, by far, is Taiwan (population 23 million) then Iran, then South Korea.
In other words, you should be generally cautious about trusting the accuracy of scientific papers authored by scholars from these countries.
Author Mini Gu notes some systemic factors behind this corruption. In much of Northeast Asia, as well as in the developing world, many scientists are, in effect, “on commission.” If they land an article in a high-impact academic journal, then they get paid much more than if it is published in a less prestigious journal. Without publishing these articles their salaries are extremely low. Not only are they paid “by result,” but they also paid “per article,” naturally pushing them towards quantity over quality.
Even Western academics must publish a certain number of articles every few years for their contracts to be renewed. But the pressure here is extreme. We can understand how corruption will result. It ranges from self-plagiarism—presenting, essentially, the same paper as though it were two different ones—to the much more serious issue of simply making data up.
A useful leader board on the latter is maintained by the website Retraction Watch . It lists the 32 scientists who have had to retract the most papers for scientific fraud of various kinds. Being slightly woke itself, Retraction Watch gloats that “We note that all but one of the top 32 are men, which agrees with the general findings of a 2013 paper suggesting that men are more likely to have papers retracted for fraud.” But, needless to say, it doesn’t say anything about the national origins of its top 32 most prolific retractors.
However, the results parallel, quite well, retractions for corrupting the peer-review process. Thus six of these scientists are Japanese, 4 are Indian, 3 are Iranian, 3 are South Korean, 3 are from the USA, 2 are Taiwanese, 2 are Chinese. Interestingly, some of these Third World scientists have corrupted other countries, most notably the USA. Indian Bharat Aggarwal was based at the University of Texas. Fazlul Sarkar, originally from Iran, was at Wayne State University in Detroit.[Researcher Fazlul Sarkar Has 12 More Papers Retracted, by Sukanya Charuchandra, The Scientist Magazine, September 17, 2018]
Note that one of the people on the list was Taiwanese education minister Wei-ling Chiang! He was forced to resign in 2014 when his role in a peer-review corruption ring was unearthed.[Peer Review Scandal Takes Down Taiwanese Minister, by Yu-Tzu Chiu, IEEE Spectrum, July 16, 2014]
The corruption of science in countries like India, Iran and China is unsurprising. They either have low average IQs and/or are poor and these factors tend to predict corruption. (This tendency is discussed by Richard Lynn & Tatu Vanhanen in their 2012 book Intelligence, pages 152-157).
Quite why scientific corruption should be so prevalent in high IQ and wealthy Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea is less clear. One suggestion: they are strongly shame-oriented—saving face is all important—rather than guilt-oriented, like the West, where individual conscience will sometimes stop people from doing things even when they can get away with them. Shame cultures arguably lead people to be dishonest in order to achieve much prized social status, in a way that they wouldn’t otherwise be[Science as a Matter of Honour: How Accused Scientists Deal with Scientific Fraud in Japan, by Pablo Pellegrini, Science and Engineering Ethics, 2018].
Put simply, some countries are more prone to scientific corruption—and so are people from those countries. I reported a while ago on how trust in universities may be gradually undermined by Political Correctness and the driving of genius scientists from universities due to increasing female dominance of academe.
Perhaps the habit of importing scientists from non-Western countries will be further nail in the coffin of universities.
Massive Explosions Rock Texas Chemical Plant, Putting 16% Of North America’s Rubber Production At Risk
Several explosions rocked a TPC Group Southeast Texas chemical manufacturing plant in the hours leading up to Thanksgiving, which could have a profound effect on the production of synthetic rubber used primarily in the automotive industry heading into the end of the year.
There were zero fatalities, but more than 50,000 people within a 4 mile radius of the blast were ordered to evacuate, according to FreightWaves. The first explosion happened at about 1AM on the day before Thanksgiving, injuring three people.
TPC Group said on its website: “TPC Group – is working with the authorities and are forming a team to complete a full investigation and root cause examination once the event has been mitigated.”
There were 30 people at the plant when the first explosion occurred. Additional explosions continued throughout the afternoon of November 27 and fires continued to burn throughout Thanksgiving day. Local officials indicated they intended to let the fire burn out on its own.
Jefferson County (Texas) Judge Jeff Branick said at a press conference: “I don’t think the focus is on putting the fire out, but letting the materials in there burn themselves out.”
Jefferson County is located about 95 miles east of Houston and the plant is located at Port Neches. The city runs “along the Beaumont-Sabine Pass ship channel near the Gulf of Mexico.”
The 218 acre plant produces butadiene and raffinate, and stores a gasoline additive called methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE).
Butadiene is used in synthetic rubber used for tires and automobile hoses and the TPC plant produces about 16% of the continent’s supply.Among TPC’s customers are Firestone Tires, Goodyear Tires and Dow Chemical.
The company’s website says: “Combined production capacity for this facility is more than 900 million pounds per year [of butadiene and raffinate]. Logistics infrastructure capabilities [at the Port Neches site] include pipeline, barge, rail and tank car.”
“TPC has not yet determined the full impact on TPC’s plant, operations or financials. It is not clear at this time for how long the plant will be shut down,” the company concluded.
