Month: October 2024

Authored by Liz Heflin via Remix news,

The Ukraińska Pravda website is accusing the office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of “long-term and systemic pressure” on journalists, saying that representatives of the authorities in Kyiv cannot talk to the portal’s journalists. It also makes clear that they will be making sure the international public knows about the situation. 

The office of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky is putting pressure on the business to bring about the termination of advertising cooperation with the editorial office of the service.

“We draw the attention of our colleagues, partners and international organizations to the long-term and systematic pressure exerted by the Presidential Office on the editorial office and individual journalists of Ukrayinska Pravda,” the portal’s statement reads.

“We would like to remind you that the values ​​of Ukrayinska Pravda since its establishment in 2000 have been editorial independence, objectivity and the ability to speak the truth,” it added.

The journalists stressed that the behavior of the Ukrainian authorities is “exceptionally outrageous” during the aggression from Russia. 

The editorial office of Ukrayinska Pravda intends bring these issues into the international arena, including that the end goal is to discourage advertising on the site, i.e., making it impossible for the portal to operate. 

The portal noted an “openly emotional conversation” between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and journalist Roman Kravets in August, during which Zelensky tried to influence the editorial line of the website. 

This is not the first time Ukraińska Pravda has faced ire from authorities given their dedication to independent journalism, and it is not the first time the portal has found itself in the crosshairs of those in power. Back in 2016, one of their top writers, Pavel Sheremet, was killed in a car bomb. The case has never been solved, with numerous questions surrounding the investigation.

Human Rights Watch said back in 2017 that “Sheremet was known for his incisive journalism, raising issues of public concern – such as violence by volunteer battalions and investigations into corruption – that were often uncomfortable for the authorities.” The organization stated that he had been “harassed, threatened, and detained for his work,” further calling Ukrainskaya Pravda “a fiercely independent newspaper.”

The journalists at Ukraińska Pravda say they will not give in to attempts at censorship. They also called on the international community and all those who value freedom of speech to support the defense of the independence of Ukrainian media. 

“These and other non-public signals indicate an attempt to influence our editorial policy. It is particularly outrageous to realize this during Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, when our common fight for both survival and democratic values ​​is so necessary,” they stated.

Read more here…

By Stefan Koopman, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

New Deal? Big Deal

The UK Labour government pledged to introduce its “new deal” for workers within 100 days of being elected in July. As these first 100 days draw to a close this weekend, Labour will unveil its new Employment Rights Bill today. This bill is being touted as the most significant package of employment reforms in a generation. Key elements include increased protections against unfair dismissal, the removal of the three-day waiting period for statutory sick pay, and the banning of exploitative zero-hour contracts. It also aims to curb unreasonable ‘fire and rehire’ practices and ensure the right to flexible working. Trade unions will gain new rights for the first time in years.

This marks a significant shift towards strengthening workers’ bargaining power and tightening employment protection legislation. Such measures reduce workers’ exposure to negative shocks, which should eventually support consumption by allowing for lower saving rates. However, they also impact employers by limiting their ability to adjust the workforce flexibly in response to changes in demand, thereby raising both hiring and firing costs. The implementation of these measures will exert upward pressure on firms’ marginal costs, which, if demand in the economy is strong enough, can lead to an increase in markups and prices. This dynamic aligns with economic theory, which suggests that countries that tighten employment protection experience a steepening of their Phillips curves post-reform.

It is yet another sign that economies are making a huge departure from the old paradigm, where workers in developed countries saw their middle-class status eroded by decades of neoliberal policies. It’s also a sign markets usually miss, focusing instead on headlines that are more easily tradable. However, in terms of policy rates, it is exactly this type of reforms that separate countries where inflationary pressures could prove a bit more persistent and where not. That new deal also happens to be a big deal.

Labour hasn’t had the best of starts, but yesterday was probably their finest day since July 4. Conservative MPs have eliminated the only leadership contender that Labour had any real concerns about. James Cleverley, who had surged ahead by apologising for the party’s past mistakes and proposing a somewhat moderate Conservatism, has unexpectedly dropped out of the race. Whether through strategic blunders, underhand scheming, sheer political folly, or a mix of all three, the Tory MPs have managed to extinguish the leadership hopes of the one man who might have saved them from disaster.

Now, party members must choose between Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch, both right-wingers. While this aligns with the membership’s desires, it leaves voters struggling to distinguish between the Conservatives and Farage’s Reform Party. Essentially, this will pit Reform against ‘Reform 2.0’, splitting the right-wing vote and significantly boosting Labour’s chances of another term in office. And that’s another big deal for UK assets.

Chinese stocks surged once more after the People’s Bank of China unveiled a mechanism to enable institutional investors to purchase more stocks. This move grants the Chinese government some time, as the market waits for a finance ministry press conference scheduled for Saturday. The ministry is expected to unveil the specifics of the fiscal stimulus package, under the banner of “intensifying counter-cyclical adjustment of fiscal policy.” However, should this title imply that Chinese authorities view the nation’s economic challenges as “cyclical” rather than “structural,” the market could be setting itself up for yet another letdown.

As a weakening but still tremendously powerful Hurricane Milton slammed into Florida’s west coast, the FOMC released the minutes of its September meeting. Our Fed-watcher Philip Marey concludes that Bowman was not the only FOMC participant who preferred a 25 basis point rate cut in September. Although a substantial majority supported a 50 basis point cut, some participants would have preferred a 25 basis point reduction at this meeting and a few others indicated that they could have supported such a decision.

Looking forward, several participants said that reducing policy restraint too soon or too much could risk a stalling or a reversal of the progress on inflation. In light of the strong Employment Report for September that was published well after the September FOMC decision, the opposition may feel vindicated, although the CPI report published today will also be a factor. However, during the Q&A at the NABE Conference, Powell already indicated that he does not intend to make another 50 basis point cut and that we should expect 25 in November and 25 in December. This matches our forecast.

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute,

The Hungarian government announced it will seek to prevent a vote on the European Union’s participation in a $50 billion Group of Seven (G7) loan to Ukraine. The G7 will use investments and interest gained from frozen Russian funds to pay off the loans. 

Finance Minister Mihaly Varga explained that Budapest wants the issue decided within the EU after the US election. “We believe that this issue, the prolongation of the Russian sanctions, should be decided after the US elections. We have to see in which direction the future US administration is going with this issue,” he said. 

The $50 billion loan is a scheme devised by Washington and its allies in the G7 to give Ukraine a significant influx of cash without it coming directly from a Western government. The terms of the loan call for Ukraine to receive $50 billion, and then G7 countries that freeze a collective $200 billion in frozen Russian funds will use the interest generated to pay off the loan. 

However, Moscow’s money is frozen as part of the EU’s sanctions on Russia. Those sanctions are renewed every six months, and the loans will take several years to pay off. The White House has refused to sign off on the loan until the EU extends the duration of the sanctions on Russia for at least three years. 

Earlier this month, Western officials said they believed the loan could be approved sometime in October, meaning Kiev would have access to the funds by the end of the year. Budapest’s block will push the loan back at least a week. 

It is unclear what Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán hopes will change by delaying the loan for a few weeks. Orbán has attempted to create the conditions for Russia and Ukraine to come to the negotiation table with little success.

The Hungarian leader has spoken with former President Donald Trump and believes he may attempt to end the conflict between Msocwo and Kiev if he returns to office. According to fresh words from PM Orbán this week:

Speaking at a press conference in Strasbourg on Tuesday, Orban said that should Trump defeat his Democratic rival Kamala Harris, “he will not wait until the inauguration ceremony … in order to manage a peace” in Ukraine.

Trump “will act immediately, so we as European leaders don’t have any time to waste, because there would not be two or three months, as we usually have between the election and the inauguration of the new president,” Orban said.

He urged European leaders to “react first intellectually, philosophically, then strategically, and then at the level of action as soon as possible.”

EU leadership has meanwhile blasted Orban for being too close to Russia and China…

Ursula von der Leyen slammed Viktor Orbán after he spoke to the European Parliament for cozying up to putin, allowing foreign interference by Russia and China.

“Prime Minister,

“I heard your words over the weekend. You said that Hungary is ‘protecting its borders’, and that… pic.twitter.com/0uCOhqT5s4

— Yasmina (@yasminalombaert) October 9, 2024

RT writes, “Orban also pointed to foreign policy differences between the current Democratic administration and the Trump team, and admitted that he is rooting for the GOP candidate.”

Orbán expectations that Trump will try to end the war may be misplaced. As president, Trump significantly increased Washington’s support for Kiev by sending military aid to Ukraine. Additionally, earlier this year, Trump was crucial in breaking the Congressional impasse over the $95 billion foreign military aid bill that authorized over $60 billion for Ukraine. 

While alcoholic beer remains the preferred choice, non-alcoholic options too have made inroads in various markets around the world.

As Statista’s Anna Fleck shows in the following chart, as many as one in five people in Spain said that they regularly drink alcohol-free beer in a survey by Statista Consumer Insights.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Spaniards were particularly partial to alcoholic beer too, with 51 percent of respondents saying they drank it frequently.

In the United States, far fewer people would describe themselves as regular beer drinkers, with only 22 percent drinking alcoholic beer regularly and five percent the non-alcoholic alternative.

In the U.S., a higher share of people drink energy drinks (27 percent) than beer (22 percent), wine (21 percent) or spirits (18 percent).

Authored by RFE/RL staff via OilPrice.com,

• The EU has approved a new sanctions mechanism to target Russian hybrid threats, expanding the scope of existing sanctions beyond geographical limitations and specific actions.

• The new sanctions aim to address a wider range of destabilizing activities, including election interference, disinformation campaigns, and attacks on critical infrastructure.

• The effectiveness of the new sanctions will depend on the ability of EU member states to provide compelling evidence of Russian involvement in such activities.

Ambassadors from the 27 European Union member states on October 2 agreed to a new sanctions mechanism targeting Russian hybrid actions. Broadly, “hybrid” here means actions carried out on behalf of a state to undermine the functioning of another country, so, for example, trying to impact elections or targeting critical infrastructure. It is expected that the new measures will be formally agreed by the bloc’s finance ministers when they assemble in Luxembourg on October 8.

The new sanctions regime is, according to the EU diplomats I have spoken to, meant to plug some of the gaps in the current restrictive measures on the Kremlin.

Essentially, the EU has two types of sanctions regimes: geographical and horizontal. Brussels has mostly used geographical sanctions — which focus on a particular location or political entity — to hit Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. In short, it targets the Russian government, its citizens and entities, such as companies, that the bloc deems to have undermined the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

In this area, Brussels has gone quite far — introducing all sorts of economic sanctions on various Russian industries, such as oil, diamonds, and coal, just to mention a few, as well as imposing visa bans, and asset freezes on around 2,300 people and firms.

Then, on top of that, there are horizontal sanctions that are not limited to one country and that target people and companies around the globe. In this area, the bloc has sanctions pertaining to terrorism, cyberattacks, the use of chemical weapons, and human rights abuses. Russian citizens are blacklisted under these horizontal sanctions as well.

Deep Background: 

Earlier this year, the EU created something of a mix between a geographical and a horizontal sanctions regime — creating a blacklist of people committing human rights abuses in Russia. The sanctions largely targeted people responsible for the jailing and mistreatment of Russian opposition figures such as Vladimir Kara-Murza, who was released from a Russian prison last month in a major prisoner swap between Russia and the West, as well as Aleksei Navalny, who died in mysterious circumstances in a Russian prison in February.

The sanctions just agreed by the EU are a similar mix. But, actually, they go a step further. The text, prepared by the legal service of the Council of the EU, one of the bloc’s main decision-making bodies, and seen by RFE/RL, notes that the EU is free to impose asset freezes and visa bans on people or entities that are “responsible for, implementing, supporting, or benefiting from actions or policies by the government of the Russian Federation, which undermine or threaten democracy, the rule of law, stability or security in the union or in one or several of its member states, in an international organization, or in a third country.”

So, in a sense, it covers not only Russian citizens, but also other nationals working for Russia — and it involves not only actions taken in the European Union but worldwide. Brussels could, in other words, now go after a wide spectrum of Russian activities, not just confined to a narrow geographical area (such as Ukraine) or very specific actions (such as human rights abuses).

The two big challenges going forward, however, will be defining the hybrid actions, or “destabilizing activities,” as the official document puts it, and then proving that Russia is responsible.

It will be up to the member states to present compelling evidence that the bloc’s legal service can approve. This is likely to prove tricky, especially given that all 27 member states must sign off. It is also unclear how far back the sanctions can go — or if potential new listings will only be able to concern recent actions.

Drilling Down:

The legal text lists eight different examples that are sanctionable.

The first one is perhaps the most wide-ranging: “the obstruction or undermining of the democratic political process,” which includes trying to tamper with elections or challenging the constitutional order of a country.

It will likely be hard to prove that Russia is effectively interfering in an EU member state. However, the new sanctions may open up the possibilities of the bloc punishing Russians attempting to interfere in vulnerable third countries. Two cases in point: both Georgia and Moldova are holding crucial elections this month. Georgia is holding parliamentary elections on October 20.

The second example listed in the EU’s legal document concerns the planning, directing, or engaging in violent demonstrations. Diplomats I spoke to said that this could apply to a situation such as recent riots in the United Kingdom, which began in July after the fatal stabbing of three young girls in the northern English town of Southport. Disinformation helped fuel the riots, which developed strong anti-Muslim and anti-migrant sentiments. If it was proven that Russians were fanning the protests online, they could be targeted if something similar were to occur.

The third sanctionable offense is activities that “silence, intimidate, coerce, or exact reprisals against persons critical of the actions or policies of the Russian Federation.” So, for example, that could apply to something like the hammer and tear-gas attack in Lithuania earlier this year on Leonid Volkov, a former close aide to Navalny.

Then there is “coordinated information manipulation.” A good example of the type of activity this could apply to would be the Prague-based Voice of Europe website that both the Czech Republic and the EU placed sanctions on earlier this year for running a Russian influence operation.

Another sanctionable offense would be the targeting of critical infrastructure in EU member states. This includes crimes such as damaging undersea cables, but could also include arson attacks on buildings and public transportation.

What the EU called the “instrumentalization of migrants” could also be targeted, with examples seen at the borders of Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, where the Belarusian authorities, often supported by Russia, have been accused of flying in migrants, mainly from Asia, and then sending them to the borders of nearby EU countries.

The last two items on the EU’s list are activities that Wagner and other Russian-sponsored mercenary groups would most likely carry out. The EU would target actions such as “instigating or facilitating an armed conflict in a third country” and exploiting such armed conflicts through “the illicit exploitation or trade of natural resources and wildlife in a third country.” That is a reference to illegal ivory or diamond trading.

A woman in Denmark is being sued for $14,000 due to allegations of “harassment and defamation” for misgendering a “trans-identified male with masculine pronouns”. To be honest, after reading that line multiple times, we still don’t know what gender the “victim” was formerly, and claims to be now.

Psychotherapist Lotte Ingerslev, a critic of gender ideology, “misgendered” Nadia Jacobsen while alerting her female followers about his hardcore fetish porn content. According to Reduxx:

Ingerslev’s blog post had documented the pornographic videos and images Jacobsen had posted to his social media and various fetish pornography websites. In one post made by Jacobsen to his now-defunct Tumblr account, nadiatv, he can be seen engaging with his male followers by way of gamifying his own sexual masochism.

After warning her followers, on August 29, Ingerslev received a letter from Jacobsen’s attorney demanding she delete a blog post exposing his sexual behavior and his role in drafting “inclusivity” policies for the Danish Football Association.

The post, published March 6, was titled: “Man whose pornographic, fetish-focused videos are available for public viewing online helped draft DBU’s new ‘inclusive’ recommendations to allow men into girls’ changing rooms.”

“To make it a little more interesting I am going to let you all decide for how long I should refrain from masturbating. I can’t wear a chastity cage all the time, but when I am home I will… For every ‘like’ you add one day. For every reblog you add 3 days… I will only come [sic] as a girl for the rest of my life,” Jacobsen had written. Reduxx notes:

There are also several photos and videos of Jacobsen masturbating himself anally with a sex toy while pretending to be a woman and wearing lingerie. Within the transgender pornography fetish community, a man’s rectum is described using terms typically associated with female genitalia.

The letter also sought compensation of at least DKK 100,000 ($14,000 USD) and accused her of harassment, defamation, and misgendering, according to Reduxx.

The Reduxx report notes that lawyer Nikolaj Nielsen wrote: “Lotte Ingerslev has unlawfully violated Nadia Jacobsen’s privacy and honor by publishing on her website transkoen.dk an article that contains a number of information and images of an intimate nature, untrue claims, as well as by harassing Nadia Jacobsen in the article because of Nadia Jacobsen’s gender identity.”

“As illustrated by the title of the article, Lotte Ingerslev chose to misgender Nadia Jacobsen throughout the blog post and consistently refer to Nadia Jacobsen as a man, as well as to use the pronouns he/his when she refers to Nadia Jacobsen in the third person,” the suit continues. 

“In Danish law, it is generally recognized that deliberate misgendering of a trans person constitutes harassment.”

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Concern among Spaniards about immigration has surged in the past year with 57 percent of citizens believing there are now “too many” immigrants in the country, new polling shows.

A recent survey by the 40dB Institute for El País and Cadena SER revealed that 75 percent of Spaniards now associate immigration with negative concepts such as insecurity, crime, and overburdened public services. The increase in concern — up by 16 points over the last year and a half — reflects a considerable shift at a time when the migrant crisis, particularly on the Canary Islands archipelago is at the forefront of public debate.

A total of 41 percent of respondents described immigration as a significant concern with a growing unease particularly prevalent among Gen Z males who broadly agree with the description of Vox leader Santiago Abascal, who has described the current migration crisis as an “invasion,” and the center-right opposition leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo, who has linked immigration with crime and called for “mass deportations.”

The survey reveals significant differences in opinions based on political affiliation. Among supporters of the hard-right SALF, 93.4 percent believe there are too many immigrants, with Vox supporters close behind at 86.1 percent. However, 4 out of 10 left-wing PSOE voters (41 percent) also share the belief that there are too many immigrants, while 27.7 percent of Sumar voters and 24.2 percent of Podemos voters express similar views.

The majority of respondents (74.8 percent) link immigration to various negative outcomes, such as increased insecurity (29.5 percent), strain on public services (27.2 percent), social divides (21.2 percent), and crime (19.2 percent). A significant portion also associates immigration with unemployment (16.7 percent) and a “loss of cultural identity” (7.6 percent).

Despite these concerns, there remains support for humanitarian immigration policies. A majority (64.3 percent) agree that Spain should welcome people fleeing war or political persecution, though over half (52.8 percent) believe this should come with limitations.

A significant takeaway from the survey is that 1 in 4 Spaniards would halt immigration from North Africa’s Maghreb region, while 1 in 6 would restrict immigrants arriving from sub-Saharan Africa.

Respondents also saw a difference in the origin of immigration when asked whether they would be happy with a family member marrying a foreign national. While nearly half (49 percent) would approve of a son or daughter entering into a relationship with someone from northern, central, or southern Europe, just 22.8 percent would be happy for a child’s partner to originate from North Africa.

Despite its current handling of immigration, the incumbent PSOE was still seen as the most competent party to address the issue among the wider population with 20.5 percent, followed by Vox (17.7 percent) and the center-right PP (16.2 percent).

Vox supporters, however, were the most convinced their party was the best equipped to tackle the issue with 83 percent of support. In contrast, 67.7 percent of PSOE voters believed their party had the best approach, and 57.3 percent of PP voters supported their own party’s stance.

Read more here…

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

Remember the last time the globalists took the mask off?  It wasn’t that long ago, but some people might have already forgotten how the western world almost lost all individual freedom under the guise of an over-hyped health emergency.  When globalists are honest about what they truly want, it usually coincides with an engineered calamity.

In the two years since the failure of the covid pandemic narrative I have argued that globalist organizations are trying to regroup under a new plan. The evidence suggests that these people suffered a shocking revelation after their attempt to implement perpetual medical tyranny. They’ve realized they don’t have as much control over the flow of information and public discourse as they originally assumed.

Even with full-spectrum censorship using algorithms to bury contrary data, even with the full force of the government partnering with social media to silence dissent, even with the threat of economic exile for anyone refusing to take a steady series of mRNA jabs, they still failed. The truth about covid’s minimal Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) still spread, along with data proving the uselessness of the mandates and lockdowns.  There was nothing they could do about it.

Their golden ticket to total control was pushing the vaccine passport concept; the alternative media crushed that agenda like a pestilent cockroach. If the passport had been successful we would not be having this conversation now. Everyone would be in fear of having their passport rescinded. Everyone would be afraid to lose their economic access for saying the wrong thing. Everyone would be afraid of being forced into covid camps (which were indeed a real agenda). Or, we would be in the middle of a bloody civil war.

The events of 2020 were meant to initiate the ultimate coup against humanity. The globalists admitted to their plans over and over again. Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum proudly declared covid the catalyst for the “Great Reset” and the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” They asserted that the lockdowns were just the beginning and that the sweeping restriction on our freedoms would be extended to climate change as well.

They thought they had won without firing a shot, but it’s not that easy. Far more people are awake and aware of their motives than they realized, and, at least in America, over 50 million of those people are armed.  The lockdowns are now gone, almost no one took the vax boosters, far fewer people took the vaccine than the CDC claims, and the vax passports were defeated. This victory was made possible due to the efforts of alternative media platforms circumventing Big Tech censorship. It’s that simple.

This is why the next event will probably be far worse in scale and consequence, and the globalists are already attempting to rectify their previous mistake of underestimating citizen journalism. They will try to silence us if they can and they are openly admitting to it in recent conferences and mainstream articles.  The mask is coming off once more and this suggests to me that something very bad is about to happen.

As I noted in 2023 in my article ‘From Covid To Climate Change: Vehicles For Global Authoritarianism’, the globalists seem to have shifted their more tyrannical efforts away from the pandemic and into the climate discourse. If you really want to know what they are up to these days, you have to watch the climate conferences.

At the end of September there was a host of climate change summits including one held by the WEF in New York called the Sustainable Development Impact Meeting.  It was held by the WEF in tandem with the United Nations General Assembly. Not surprisingly, discussion often veered away from climate into “threats to democracy” as well as bitter complaints about the “spread of disinformation.”

John Kerry, former Democratic presidential candidate, former Climate Czar under Joe Biden and a longtime participant in the WEF, said the quiet part out loud at the summit. He argued that the 1st Amendment was a “roadblock” to proper governance and was preventing the elites from controlling public consensus.

His statements are quite blatant.

First of all, consensus is highly overrated and often poisonous. The very basis of science is that it is always up for debate according to the evidence. Once you have forced a “consensus” you have abandoned all due diligence under the scientific method.

This was made obvious during covid, where the “consensus” was exposed as utterly fabricated and most of the claims made by governments and puppet “medical experts” have been proven false. Keep in mind, these were the same people that tried to ban YOU from going to parks and waterboarding at the beach in the name of “flattening the curve.”

I mean, how retarded do you have to be to believe that outdoor activities will lead to viral transmission? That’s not science, that’s hysteria promoted by people claiming to represent science. The same thing goes for the mask mandates, social distancing, the lockdowns, etc. Not one measure they enforced was legitimate.

If we are talking about the concept of man-made climate change, the claim of consensus in science is a lie. The data suggests there is simply no such thing as man-made climate change. There is no evidence of causation between carbon emissions and global warming. No evidence that global warming causes extreme whether. No evidence that our current warming cycle is significant or unique compared to any other warming cycle in history.

In fact, the Washington Post recently and accidentally proved the alternative media’s point on climate change when they tried to map the temperature history of the Earth over 450 million years, only to discover what I have been saying for the longest time – Today’s temps are far lower than they have been through most of the Earth’s history.

But the more important issue here is John Kerry’s assertion that governance requires public information control. Kerry’s fundamental disconnect is his notion that it’s the job of the elites and the government to moderate information for the greater good. No one gave them permission to do this. The government does not exist to create consensus.

The people are in charge, John. As a politician you are just a public servant, nothing more. Your opinions on free speech don’t matter.

Some of the most egregious disinformation is often released to the public by the government and their approved media sources in the name of “saving democracy.” They lie constantly. John Kerry is just angry because now the public has the means to expose him and his cohorts. If a “democracy” requires censorship in order to survive, then it’s not worth saving.

Finally and hypocritically, Kerry suggests that democracy is “too slow” in implementing the changes to society that he views as necessary to create consensus and “unity.” If the 1st Amendment is a “roadblack” to more effective information control and governance, then he and his slimy brethren must intend to remove it. In other words, he believes tyranny would work better because it’s much faster that trying to manipulate the public with propaganda.

He doesn’t explicitly say this, but that’s exactly what he’s inferring.

Besides some of the speeches made by Klaus Schwab at the height of the pandemic, Kerry’s statements might be the most open declaration of globalist authoritarian intent I have ever heard. He’s pulling the mask off and this has me concerned.

His arguments fall in line with a number of articles published in the past couple months from establishment media platforms. The New Yorker just posted an article asking ‘Is It Time To Torch The Constitution?’ The New York Times published a treatise titled ‘The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?’ They also wrote an article highlighting the potential positives of despotic governments in countries like Brazil threatening to shut down public access to Elon Musk’s X (Twitter) in order to force the site to censor citizen accounts. These people are on a war path to convince the public that free speech is a threat.

When political elitists and their lackey’s start attacking free speech it’s usually in preparation for a major crisis that they hope to use as a vehicle to eliminate public freedoms. Free speech is the most important liberty because it enables the populace to discern through debate what the truth is and what to do about it.

The globalists thought they had a lock on information during covid and they were wrong. They won’t make the same mistake again. Whatever the next crisis ends up being, they will definitely seek to silence the the alternative media and any rebellious social media platforms before they move forward.

*  *  *

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.

A severe geomagnetic storm disrupted golf cart operations relying on GPS technology at courses across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. On Thursday, Club Car sent an email to courses, warning that a powerful solar storm “will impact all GPS devices” on these high-tech carts.

Courses that use ‘Club Car Connect,’ a heads-up display in the golf cart that utilizes GPS and acts as rangefinders for golfers while simultaneously allowing course management to geofence locations on each hole, experienced widespread disruptions during today’s solar storm, which brought many carts at various courses to a standstill.

“Geomagnetic storms will impact all GPS devices, and the Visage Units may be affected by this solar event. You may experience cars falsely triggering action zones during this event, our recommendation is to reduce the restriction of action zones or turn off the zones. We will continue to monitor conditions today,” Club Car Connected Account Manager David Nichols, PGA, wrote in an email to US courses.

In other words, the solar storm interfered with the GPS satellite signals used by the carts, causing inaccurate location data and triggering course restrictions. This sent many golf carts into snail mode, which only infuriated golfers. According to the email, the solution was to turn off the geo-fencing limits.

Into the evening, a severe solar storm is underway.

Colorful auroras could be visible in areas across the nation.

Intense solar storms can wreak havoc on the modern economy.

The chaos on courses today was a first-world problem.

Amid ongoing heavy fighting between Israeli forces and Hezbollah in south Lebanon, the only external troops which have long been present on the ground are a group of UN peacekeeping troops. They are a mainly Irish contingency, called the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), and have remained near the Israel-Lebanon border since the 2006 war.

The UN peacekeepers have been increasingly alarmed over the Israeli army setting up forward bases in areas near their operations, and this week the Israeli government alerted the UN troops they must move positions or risk coming under fire. 

That appears to have happened this week. On Thursday the UNIFIL force said its headquarters came under fire by the Israeli army and that two of its troops were wounded. The UN team had refused Israeli army (IDF) demands to evacuate its position further north, setting up for a bloody standoff as tanks moved in.

“The injuries are fortunately, this time, not serious, but they remain in hospital,” said UNIFIL in its statement. UNIFIL is further calling the fresh incident “very serious” given the IDF “deliberately fired” on its positions.

The UN HQ is located in the village of Labbouneh, and its team said IDF fire hit “the entrance to the bunker where peacekeepers were sheltering, and damaging vehicles and a communications system.”

The statement warned that “targeting peacekeepers is a very serious violation, not only of Resolution 1701 but also of international humanitarian law.” Monitoring cameras have also been destroyed. The Israeli action reportedly involved several tanks.

“If the situation becomes impossible for the mission to operate in the south of Lebanon … it will be up to the Security Council to decide how to move forward,” the UN said. Israel’s military did not issue immediate comment.

Days prior, UNIFIL said it is “deeply concerned by recent activities by the IDF immediately adjacent to the Mission’s position 6-52, southeast of Maroun al-Ras… inside Lebanese territory.”

Italy is among countries contributing to the UN mission who are outraged, and its government summoned the Israeli ambassador in Rome. “The shooting at the UNIFIL headquarters” which involved “small arms fire” is “intolerable, they must be carefully and decisively avoided,” Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto Crosetto said in a statement.

 Ireland too has issued formal protest and is livid:

Two United Nations (UN) peacekeepers in southern Lebanon have been wounded after an Israeli tank directly hit a UN observation tower, prompting outrage from troop-contributing nations.

Italy, which leads the 10,000-strong peacekeeping force along the Lebanon-Israel border, said firing on UN bases broke international law, and summoned the Israeli ambassador. 

Ireland, which contributes several hundred soldiers to the force, said targeting peacekeepers was “reprehensible and unacceptable”.

Typically in any UN Security Council vote which seeks to censure Israel for military actions, the United States is among the lone vetoes. Washington has rarely spoken up in defense or support of the UN peacekeeping mission in south Lebanon. The UNIFIL force was establish all the way back in 1978, in connection with Israeli incursions into Lebanon, and related to the events of the Lebanese civil war of the latter part of the 20th century.