Menu Icon

Debt Rattle October 8 2024

Oct 082024
 
 October 8, 2024  Posted by at 9:00 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  79 Responses »


Paul Henry Altan Lough, Donegal 1933-34

 

• Like a Prayer (Jim Kunstler)
• ‘If He Loses I’m F**ked’: Musk And Tucker Carlson’s Must-Watch Interview (ZH)
• We Are in Need of Renaissance People (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Where is America’s Co-President, Dr. Jill? (AmG)
• Jack Smith’s October Surprise Was Not That Surprising (Turley)
• Supreme Court Rejects Musk’s Case Against Jack Smith Over Trump Tweets (ET)
• Top EU Court Rules Against Meta In Use of Personal Data for Ads (ET)
• German Industrial Orders Collapse (RT)
• The Lack of a Two-State Solution Most Threatens Israel (Jeffrey Sachs)
• Perfidy in Tehran (Alastair Crooke)
• West Aims To ‘Bring Russians To Their Knees’ – Slovak Prime Minister Fico (RT)
• UK and US Helped Ukraine Plan ‘New Chernobyl’ – Russian Intel Chief (RT)
• Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates State’s Abortion Law (ET)
• Trial Date Set In Von der Leyen Covid-19 Vaccine Scandal – FT (RT)
• US Children’s Diets Are Now “Over 70%” Ultra-Processed Foods (ZH)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RFK

 

 

??

 

 

70 days

 

 

US Musk

 

 

Debanked

 

 

NC

 

 

FEMA

 

 

Tucker

 

 

Eugenics?!

 

 

Greenwald/Sachs

 

 

 

 

“So, yes, Hillary. You lose total control. Totally. For now and forever, amen.”

• Like a Prayer (Jim Kunstler)

Why exactly Hillary Clinton would be dumb enough to come out on every news channel and Internet site on Gawd’s green earth to declare the end of free speech throughout Western Civ might remain one of those abiding mysteries of history. Bad timing doesn’t begin to explain it. What does explain it is the psychotic desperation of her party now that the days to election dwindle down and the pathetic figure they “nominated” stumbles from one campaign blunder to the next, and the whole sick crew behind her entertains dark visions of courtrooms and prison cells — including, by the way, her cohort in nation-wrecking Barack Obama, who could be liable to charges such as conspiracy to commit sedition, or even a higher crime, if the election goes the wrong way for him. You might suppose they are fighting for their very lives without being accused of exaggeration.

In the event of Hurricane Helena and other churning contingencies of the season, Mr. Trump is not only looking more presidential, he is apparently being regarded as something close to an actual acting president in the eerie absence of “Joe Biden,” who looks more and more like one of those three-hundred-dollar Home Depot animatronic ghouls Americans are planting in the front yard this season of the walking dead, along with the giant inflated jack-o-lanterns, beckoning skeletons, and plastic tombstones. In other words, it looks like the people are going to vote Mr. Trump back into office, since he is the only thing the least bit presidential on offer in 2024. Even the Covid-addled, the many new demoralized Woke drop-outs, and the beaten-down male youth of America are leaning his way now and it scares the Democrats down to their livers and lights.

Accordingly, I received notice late Sunday from an informant in commercial aviation, with connections to military aviation, that a massive deployment of aircraft is preparing logistics for a major operation set to go down in about a week, probably in the Middle East. I can’t guarantee you that it is for real, but it was a real warning message, at least, from a serious person, and you know that something could be up. . . some humdinger of an October Surprise, like a big fat world war. What else have they got now? Jack Smith’s lame-ass attempt to beef-up an “insurrection” charge against Mr. Trump in Judge Chutkan’s abject facsimile of a federal court? Everything else has been fail, fail, fail all year long . . . the head-cases with rifles. . . all the other court cases contrived by Merrick Garland, Andrew Weissmann, Norm Eisen, and Mary McCord. . . the ineffectual bleatings of The New York Times’s editorial board? They’re plumb out of tricks and they know it. So, yes, Hillary. You lose total control. Totally. For now and forever, amen.

Read more …

Strong pairing. Full interview at the bottom.

• ‘If He Loses I’m F**ked’: Musk And Tucker Carlson’s Must-Watch Interview (ZH)

Tucker Carlson sat down with Elon Musk for an extensive interview this week, where they covered a broad spectrum of topics that ranged from political endorsements and disaster relief efforts to social issues and technological advancements. Musk offered his perspective on current events – including his enthusiastic support for Donald Trump, his concerns about democracy, and his criticisms of government decisions affecting his businesses like Starlink. Musk also shared his views on broader societal trends, such as the declining birthrate in Europe and the influence of religion in modern society. Musk also shared his thoughts on the impact of technology in everyday life, including artificial intelligence and the intersection of big tech and global politics. “If Trump loses, I really fear for what’s going to be left of democracy in America,” said Musk, suggesting that immigration policies have been manipulated to bolster Democratic voter bases, potentially undermining the fairness of elections.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1843387882666635539

Musk also suggested that if Trump loses, “I’m fucked.”

Musk discusses the use of Starlink to aid victims of Hurricane Helene, criticizing the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to cancel a contract that Starlink had won previously. According to Musk, “The FCC pulled the rug under us after a political decision,” suggesting that the decision was influenced by partisan politics rather than practical considerations.

Musk warns that if Trump doesn’t win in November, it will be the end for genuine democratic elections in the United States. He argues that certain policies favor a demographic shift intended to secure a permanent Democratic majority. “If Trump doesn’t win this election, it’s the last election we’re going to have.”

The pair then discussed the Epstein client list, with Musk slamming the lack of accountability for high-profile individuals implicated in Epstein’s scandals – and predicting that if Trump wins, the Epstein client list “is going to become public.” “It’s strange that there has been no significant action against those on the list,” Musk remarked.

Musk then touched on vaccines, slamming the push for repeated COVID-19 jabs and the morality of forcing people to take them. He questions the efficacy and safety of continually administering boosters, especially without substantial data to support long-term health impacts.

Musk criticizes policies that he perceives as effectively decriminalizing certain behaviors, linking them to rising crime rates in cities like San Francisco. He specifically slams laws that reduce penalties for theft under $1,000, arguing that they hurt small businesses and encourage lawlessness. He also slammed California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose policies he says are ineffective and detrimental to the state’s economic and social health. Musk predicts that these policies, if not revised, might lead to significant long-term problems for California.

The conversation turns to Europe’s declining birthrate, with Musk expressing concerns about demographic trends and their implications for Europe’s future. He emphasizes the need for policies that encourage family formation and higher birth rates to sustain economic and cultural vitality. Musk emphasized the importance of religion in society, arguing that it provides a necessary moral framework and sense of community. He warns against the loss of religious adherence, suggesting it could lead to a breakdown in societal cohesion.

Full interview

Read more …

Elon Musk the Renaissance man.

“Modern society’s focus on credentials has created a two-tiered system, where multi-talented individuals are criticized, and elites oversee a dependent underclass.”

• We Are in Need of Renaissance People (Victor Davis Hanson)

[..] Benjamin Franklin may best approximate the model of the Florentine Renaissance holistic brilliance—journalist, publisher, printer, author, politician, diplomat, inventor, scientist, and philosopher. Franklin’s life was one of perpetual motion and achievement. In one lifetime, he helped to draft the Constitution, invented everything from the lightning rod to bifocals, founded the American postal service, and successfully won over European countries to the nascent American cause. Theodore Roosevelt—president, historian, essayist, conservationist, naturalist combat veteran, battle leader, explorer, and cowboy—exemplified the idea of an American president as the master at almost everything else. The history of our own contemporary Renaissance people often suggests that they are not fully appreciated until after their deaths—especially in the post-World War II era. Why?

We have created a sophisticated modern society that is so compartmentalized by “professionals” and the credentialed that those who excel simultaneously in several disciplines are often castigated for “amateurism,” “spreading themselves too thinly,” “not staying in their lanes,” or not being degreed with the proper prerequisite letters—BA, BS, MA, PhD, MD, JD, or MBA—in the various fields that they master. But specialization is the enemy of genius, as is the tyranny of credentialism. Because the Renaissance figure is not perfect in every discipline he masters, we damn him for too much breadth and not enough depth—a dabbler rather than an expert—failing to realize that his successes in most genres he masters and redefines is precisely because he brings a vast corpus of unique insights and experience to his work that narrower specialists lack.

The Greek poet Archilochus first delineated the contrast between the fox who “knows many things” and the hedgehog who “knows one—one big thing.” We have become a nation of elite hedgehogs, whose narrow expertise is not enriched by awareness of or interest in the wider human experience. Renaissance people often live controversial lives and receive 360-degree incoming criticism, not surprising given the many fields in which they upstage specialists and question experts—and the sometimes overweening nature of their personalities that feel no reason to place boundaries and lanes on their geniuses and behavior or to temper their exuberances. The best American example of the current age is the controversial Elon Musk, a truly Renaissance figure who has revolutionized at least half a dozen entire fields. No one prior had broken the Big Three auto monopoly of GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

Musk did just that. He exploded all three companies’ dominance with his successful creation of the first viable electric vehicle, Tesla, whose comfort, drivability, reliability, safety, and power rivaled or exceeded the models of all his competitors. His spin-off battery storage and solar panel companies allowed thousands of families to go off the grid and stay self-sufficient in power usage. Musk’s revolutionary Starlink internet system—a mere five years old—provides global online service to over 100 countries. Through its some 7,000 satellites, Starlink brings internet service to remote residents far more effectively and cheaply than do their own governments. When natural disasters overwhelm utilities or war disrupts the normality of peace, all look to Musk to restore online reconnections to the outside world.

Musk, almost singlehandedly, transformed the U.S. space program from a NASA 60-year-old government monopoly to an arena of fervent private-public competition. His Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) created a rocket and spacecraft program that has kept the U.S. preeminent in space exploration and reliable satellite launches. When NASA and old aerospace companies falter, the government looks to Musk to bail them out. Musk, at great personal cost, radically transformed the old Twitter—poorly managed, censorious of ideas and expressions not deemed progressive, and mired in scandal for partnering with the FBI to silence news deemed possibly injurious to Democratic candidates and left-wing campaigns. His new X replacement is an unfettered platform for free expression. And the more the left abhors their loss of the monopolistic old Twitter’s ideological clearing house, and vows to flee X and start their own new left-wing, censorious Twitters, the more they stay on X.

Musk’s newest companies have now entered the convoluted, little-understood, radically competitive, and dangerous field of artificial intelligence (OpenAI) and the emerging discipline of bonding the natural brain to the electronic online world (Neuralink). To the degree Musk is successful, America will lead these areas of intense international rivalry that involve the gravest issues of national security and survival.

Read more …

“Supposedly she thought the public would be delighted to know that an unelected community college teacher would be discussing international affairs with elected world leaders.”

• Where is America’s Co-President, Dr. Jill? (AmG)

Public officials, both elected and unelected, curiously are rarely held accountable for their actions, as are the rest of us. Harvey Weinstein goes to prison, while Bill Clinton goes on his merry way. That’s just one example of many, yet the lack of accountability has gotten to the point of absurdity. And now we have deceit that has massive consequences for everyone. Since January 2021, when he took office until his forced departure from the 2024 race on July 21 after his disastrous debate performance on June 27, the aggressively stage-managed presidency of Joe Biden has been exposed as a fraud. This elderly man with failing physical and mental facilities has been foisted upon America as the purported “leader of the free world” who is “fit to serve,” is “sharp as a tack,” and “runs circles around those half his age.” As we now know, Biden was nowhere near the “unrivaled statesman” who was in “command of the facts” and “performed masterfully” at important cabinet meetings and international summits.

This is what was being hidden from the public for nearly three years by the U.S. government, its enablers in the legacy media, Biden’s inner circle of advisors, and most vigorously of all by the nation’s First Lady Jill Biden. Long claiming to be her husband’s fiercest advocate, Jill Biden had the opportunity and influence to assume the role of a caring wife and confidant to Joe, making sure his health would not worsen given the extreme demands of the American presidency. Jill could have also shown the world what a dedicated spouse looks like, how a devoted wife and mother shows strength and resilience in troubling times as her husband’s age-related condition becomes visible to the world, and how we should treat our elderly loved ones with respect and dignity. This awful and truly evil person, however, has put on a disgraceful display of naked conceit and unchecked personal entitlement throughout Joe Biden’s entire presidential term.

As Joe’s condition worsened, Jill’s shameless quest to be in charge of the Biden White House exposed her as an opportunistic parasite who routinely lied to the country about the real state of Joe’s infirmity while she lived the high life on the taxpayer’s dime. Insisting that she be referred to as “Dr. Biden,” an honorific issued from her 2007 Ed.D doctorate in education she received from the University of Delaware, a school conveniently located in the state where Joe Biden was currently a five-time-elected Senator, Jill has displayed a notable eagerness to supplant Joe as the public face of his administration. One of the most notorious examples is the picture she posted on social media in 2021, showing her pouring over paperwork on Air Force One with the caption “Prepping for the G7.” Supposedly she thought the public would be delighted to know that an unelected community college teacher would be discussing international affairs with elected world leaders.

Jill Biden repeatedly made speeches and appearances at numerous functions in place of her husband, the president of the United States, inserting herself as a proxy president and speaking on behalf of America’s commander-in-chief. This was not only inappropriate and deceptive, but it was also an important element of the massive cover-up of Joe’s rapidly deteriorating mental and physical health, a conspiracy that included his vice president, the anointed replacement for Joe once it was apparent he couldn’t win in November. This is in addition to other members of his cabinet who should have invoked the 25th Amendment to move him out the door years ago. This is in addition to other Democrat power brokers like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and so many others who perpetuated this hoax on all Americans, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike.

Read more …

Trump should have had the chance to file his appeal first. But Jack couldn’t wait. He wants the whole shebang before the election. So does the judge.

• Jack Smith’s October Surprise Was Not That Surprising (Turley)

“The most stupendous and atrocious fraud.” Those words from federal prosecutors could have been ripped from the filing this week of Special Counsel Jack Smith defending his prosecution of former President Donald Trump. Yet they were actually from a Justice Department filing 184 years ago, just days from the 1840 presidential election. Democratic President Martin Van Buren was struggling for reelection against Whig William Henry Harrison, and his Justice Department waited until just before voters went to the polls to allege that Whig Party officials had paid Pennsylvanians to travel to New York to vote for Whig candidates two years earlier. It was considered by many to be the first “October Surprise,” the last-minute pre-election scandal or major event intended to sway voters.

To avoid such allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states “Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.” Jack Smith, however, has long dismissed such considerations. For years, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial. Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.

After the Supreme Court rendered parts of his indictment against Trump presumptively unconstitutional, Smith made clear that he was prepared to prosecute Trump up to the very day of his inauguration. True to his reputation and record, Smith refused to drop the main allegations against Trump to avoid official decisions or acts that the court found to be protected in Trump v. United States. Instead, he stripped out some prior evidence linked to Trump’s presidency, including witnesses serving in the White House. Yet the same underlying allegations remain. Smith just repeatedly uses references to Trump as acting as “a private citizen.” It is like a customer complaining that he did not order a Coke and the waiter pouring it into a Mountain Dew bottle and saying, “Done!”

Smith even refused to drop the obstruction of official proceedings, despite another recent Supreme Court decision (Fischer v. United States) rendering that charge presumptively invalid. Smith is making his case not to Judge Tanya Chutkan, but to America’s voters. Chutkan has consistently ruled with Smith to help him expedite the case. She permitted his hastened “rocket docket” despite declaring that she would not consider the election schedule as a factor in the pace of filings or even of the trial itself.

For critics, Judge Chutkan has proven far too motivated in the case. Indeed, many thought that she should have recused herself given her statement from a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022. Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her courtroom for trial by Smith. In their latest move, Chutkan and Smith used the Supreme Court decision to file a type of preemptive defense — an excuse to lay out the allegations against Trump in a 165-page filing filled with damaging accounts and testimonials against Trump, just weeks ahead of the election.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1843351487025463654

Read more …

“..a court “found probable cause to search the account for evidence of criminal offenses..”

• Supreme Court Rejects Musk’s Case Against Jack Smith Over Trump Tweets (ET)

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge filed by Elon Musk’s X platform to rulings that forced it to turn over data on former President Donald Trump’s X account to special counsel Jack Smith. In 2023, Smith obtained a warrant for Trump’s Twitter account as part of federal prosecutors’ 2020 election case against the former president. Trump had frequently used the account during the 2016 presidential campaign and during his first administration. The high court on Monday rendered its decision without any comment. There were no noted dissents. The Musk-owned platform had initially refused to comply with a nondisclosure order and was fined $350,000 by a judge in August 2023, records show. At the time, the court had rejected X’s claim that it should not have been held in contempt or sanctioned. Smith’s team repeatedly mentioned Trump’s posts on Twitter in the first indictment, which was unsealed last year.

A revised indictment was brought against Trump by Smith in September after the Supreme Court separately ruled in July that presidents should be declared broadly immune from prosecution for their official acts and duties. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all the charges in the case. Prosecutors obtained the search warrant on Jan. 17, 2023, directing Twitter to produce information on Trump’s account after a court “found probable cause to search the account for evidence of criminal offenses,” according to last year’s court ruling. The government also obtained a nondisclosure agreement that had prohibited Twitter from disclosing the search warrant, the filing says.In its appeal to the Supreme Court in May, X argued that Smith’s team carried out an “unprecedented end-run around executive privilege” by obtaining a “nondisclosure order preventing Twitter from notifying former President Trump of a warrant for private communications that he sent and received during his presidency.”

“Although Twitter had provided these communications to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the government informed Twitter and the district court that it ‘did not want to obtain data from NARA, as it would require notification [to the former President] pursuant to the Presidential Records Act,’” the petition said. In trying to bolster its case before the Supreme Court, X had said its petition was designed to allow the court to uphold the First Amendment. “The potential consequences are far-reaching,” the company said. “Twitter alone annually receives thousands of nondisclosure orders attached to demands for user information. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit agreed that this issue is likely to recur for Twitter. Other platforms, too, receive thousands of requests for user information—many with nondisclosure orders.” Lawyers for Smith’s team dismissed X’s arguments, telling the Supreme Court that the social media platform cannot assert any privilege over the records in question.

“The First Amendment did not justify petitioner’s refusal to comply” with the special counsel’s warrant “before litigating its separate challenge to the nondisclosure order,” the government wrote, adding that X is trying to assert a “right to immediate resolution of its First Amendment claim to interests.”

Read more …

“..the GDPR, specifically the data minimization rule, which requires companies to limit the amount of personal data collected and stored to what is strictly necessary.”

• Top EU Court Rules Against Meta In Use of Personal Data for Ads (ET)

In a landmark decision, the top court in the European Union has ruled that Facebook parent company Meta cannot use personal data gathered from its own platforms or from external sources for targeted advertising without adhering to strict limits and restrictions under the bloc’s privacy laws. The ruling, hailed as a victory by privacy advocates, was issued on Oct. 4 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The decision was a response to a lawsuit brought by Austrian activist Max Schrems, who has long campaigned for stricter enforcement of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. Schrems had accused Facebook of processing his sensitive personal data to serve him with targeted ads in violation of the GDPR, specifically the data minimization rule, which requires companies to limit the amount of personal data collected and stored to what is strictly necessary.

The court sided with Schrems, stating that Meta’s data practices violated GDPR principles. Meta, according to the court, aggregated and processed vast amounts of user data for advertising purposes without appropriate restrictions on time or the type of data involved. The judges wrote in their ruling that the relevant provisions of the GDPR “must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of data minimisation provided for therein precludes any personal data obtained by a controller, such as the operator of an online social network platform, from the data subject or third parties and collected either on or outside that platform, from being aggregated, analysed and processed for the purposes of targeted advertising without restriction as to time and without distinction as to type of data.” The court’s decision highlighted that Meta cannot process user data indefinitely, as it had been doing—even data from users who consent to personalized ads.

Katharina Raabe-Stuppnig, Schrems’s lawyer, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, while emphasizing the wider implications of the decision for the online advertising industry. She noted that other companies operating without stringent data deletion practices will also be affected. “Meta has basically been building a huge data pool on users for 20 years now, and it is growing every day,” she said in a statement. “However, EU law requires ‘data minimisation.’ Following this ruling, only a small part of Meta’s data pool will be allowed to be used for advertising—even when users consent to ads. This ruling also applies to any other online advertisement company, that does not have stringent data deletion practices.” In response to the court’s decision, Meta issued a statement saying it was reviewing the judgment while reaffirming its stated commitment to privacy.

“Everyone using Facebook has access to a wide range of settings and tools that allow people to manage how we use their information,” the company said in the statement, adding that it “takes privacy very seriously.” The ruling is the latest setback for Meta in Europe. The tech giant has faced numerous legal and regulatory challenges there in recent years, and has been at the center of multiple investigations, particularly regarding compliance with the GDPR. The EU’s focus extends beyond data privacy to concerns about how digital platforms’ algorithms and system designs affect behavior. Meta’s recommender systems, which power its advertising-driven business model, are under scrutiny for potentially fostering addictive behaviors, particularly in minors.

Read more …

The initial phases.

• German Industrial Orders Collapse (RT)

New orders for German-made industrial goods suffered their sharpest drop so far this year in August, the latest provisional data from the statistics bureau Destatis showed on Monday. Factory orders in manufacturing were down 5.8% in August from the previous month, and down 3.9% year-on-year. The figures defied analyst forecasts of a 1.9% decline. Destatis attributed the severity of the month-on-month slump mainly to the high-base effect of the previous month, when large orders were placed in what is classified as ‘other vehicle construction’ (manufacture of aircraft, ships, trains, military vehicles). Excluding this segment, incoming orders were only down 3.4%.

Orders for capital goods and intermediate goods fell by 8.6% and 2.2%, respectively, in August compared to July, while incoming orders for consumer goods dropped 0.9%, according to Destatis. The capital goods sector includes a wide range of industries, from aerospace and defense to construction and engineering. Intermediate goods are classified as those used as inputs in the production of other goods.The breakdown of the origin of new orders shows an increase from outside the Eurozone of 3.4%, whereas orders from Eurozone countries fell 10.5%. Domestic orders were down 10.9%. Germany’s industrial output shrank in July, driven mainly by weak activity in the automotive sector, Destatis said in a separate release on Sunday.

Production declined in most manufacturing segments in July, with the automotive industry posting an 8.1% month-on-month drop. Economists polled by Reuters suggested that there will be no speedy recovery for Europe’s largest economy, and that it could contract again in the third quarter, thus putting the country back into recession. German GDP declined -0.1% in the second quarter.After a recession in Germany in 2023, the European Commission expects the country’s economy to stagnate this year. Persistent inflation, high energy prices, and weak foreign demand have been cited as the reasons for the slowdown.

Read more …

“The whole point of Netanyahu’s politics for decades has been to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state using any argument at hand.”

• The Lack of a Two-State Solution Most Threatens Israel (Jeffrey Sachs)

Israel rejects the two-state solution because it claims that a sovereign state of Palestine would profoundly endanger Israel’s national security. In fact, it is the lack of a two-state solution that endangers Israel. Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, its continuing apartheid rule over millions of Palestinians, and its extreme violence to defend that rule, all put Israel’s survival in jeopardy, as Israel faces dire threats from global diplomatic isolation and the ongoing war, including the war’s massive economic, social, and financial costs. There are three basic reasons for Israel’s opposition to the two-state solution, reflecting a variety of ideologies and interests in Israeli society. The first, and most mainstream, is Israel’s claim that Palestinians and the Arab world cannot live alongside it and only wish to destroy it. The second is the belief among Israel’s rapidly growing religious-nationalist population that God promised the Jews all of the land from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, including all of Palestine.

We recently wrote about that ideology, pointing out that it is roughly 2,600 years out of step with today’s realities. The third is straightforward material gain. With its ongoing occupation, Israel aims to profit from control over the region’s freshwater resources, coastal zones, offshore natural gas deposits, tourist destinations, and land for settlements. These various motives are jumbled together in Israel’s continued intransigence. Yet taken individually or as a package, they fail to justify Israel’s opposition to the two-state solution, certainly not from the perspective of international law and justice, but not even with regard to Israel’s own security or narrow economic interests. Consider Israel’s claim about national security, as was recently repeated by PM Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations on September 27th. Netanyahu accused the Palestinian Authority, and specifically President Mahmoud Abbas, of waging “unremitting diplomatic warfare against Israel’s right to exist and against Israel’s right to defend itself.”

After Netanyahu’s speech, Ayman Safadi, Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, standing beside Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa replied to Netanyahu in a press conference: “All of us in the Arab world here, want a peace in which Israel lives in peace and security, accepted, normalized with all Arab countries in the context of ending the occupation, withdrawing from Arab territory, allowing for the emergence of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital.”Minister Safadi was speaking on behalf of the 57 members of the Muslim-Arab committee, who are all willing “to guarantee Israel’s security” in the context of a two-state solution. Minister Safadi, alongside the Palestinian Prime Minister, articulated the region’s peace proposal, an alternative to Netanyahu’s endless wars. Earlier this year, the Bahrain Declaration in May 2024 of the 33rd Regular Session of the Council of the League of Arab States, on behalf of the 22 member states, re-iterated:

“We call on the international community to assume its responsibilities to follow-up efforts to advance the peace process to achieve a just and comprehensive peace based on the two-state solution, which embodies an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital on the lines of the fourth of June 1967, able to live in security and peace alongside Israel in accordance with the resolutions of international legitimacy and established references, including the Arab Peace Initiative.” The many Arab and Islamic statements for peace, including those of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), in which Iran is a repeated signatory, trace back to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative of Beirut—where Arab countries first proposed the region’s readiness to establish relations with Israel in the context of the two-state solution. The initiative declared that peace is based on Israel’s withdrawal from the Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese occupied territories.

Israel claims that even if the Arab states and Iran want peace, Hamas does not, and therefore threatens Israel. There are two crucial points here. First, Hamas accepted the two-state solution, already 7 years ago, in their 2017 Charter. “Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.” This year again, Hamas proposed to disarm in exchange for Palestinian statehood on the 1967 borders. Israel, in turn, assassinated the Hamas political chief and cease-fire negotiator, Ismail Haniyeh.

Second, Hamas is very far from being a stand-alone actor. Hamas depends on funds and arms from the outside, notably from Iran. Implementation of the two-state solution under UN Security Council auspices would include the disarmament of non-state actors and mutual security arrangements for Israel and Palestine, in line with international law and the recent ICJ ruling, which Iran voted in favor of at UN General Assembly. The giveaway that Hamas is an excuse, not a deep cause, of Israel’s intransigence is that Netanyahu has tactically if quietly supported Hamas over the years in a divide and conquer strategy. Netanyahu’s ruse has been to prevent the unity of different Palestinian political factions in order to forestall the Palestinian Authority from developing a national plan to forge a Palestinian state. The whole point of Netanyahu’s politics for decades has been to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state using any argument at hand.

Read more …

“Having no real culture of its own, the western professional class views religion as outdated and sees history as dangerous..”

• Perfidy in Tehran (Alastair Crooke)

John Kerry, just last week at the World Economic Forum, so clearly blurting out the truth: “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to our ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence”. Translated: Governing is all about narrative control. Kerry articulates the ‘International Order’s’ solution to the unwelcome phenomenon of an uncontrolled populism and of a potential leader who speaks for the people: Simply, ‘freedom to speak’ is unacceptable to the prescriptions agreed by the ‘inter-agency’ – the institutionalised distillation of the ‘International Order’. Eric Weinstein calls this The Unburdening: The first Amendment; gender; merit; sovereignty; privacy; ethics; investigative journalism; borders; freedom … the Constitution? Gone? Today’s reality unhinged narration is that Iran’s launch on Tuesday of 200 ballistic missiles – of which 181 reached Israel – were overwhelmingly intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow missile defence systems, and with no deaths to show for the assault.

It was “defeated and ineffective”, Biden pronounced. Will Schryver however, a technical engineer and security commentator, writes: “I don’t understand how anyone who has seen the many video clips of the Iranian missile strikes on Israel cannot recognize and acknowledge that it was a stunning demonstration of Iranian capabilities. Iran’s ballistic missiles smashed through U.S./Israeli air defences and delivered several large-warhead strikes to Israeli military targets”. The effect and the substance then lies in ‘proven capacity’ – the capacity to select other targets, the capacity to do more. It was in fact a restrained demonstrative exercise, not a full attack. But the message has been erased from sight.

How is it that the U.S. Administration refuses to look truth in the eye and acknowledge what occurred, and prefers instead to ask the entire world, who saw the videos of missiles impacting in Israel, to ‘move along’ – as the authorities advise, pretending that there was ‘nothing substantive to see here’. Was ‘the affair’ just a nuisance to system governance and ‘consensus’, as Kerry so branded free speech? It seems so. The structural problem, essayist Aurelien writes is not simply that the western professional class holds to an ideology – one that is the opposite to how ordinary people experience the world. That certainly is one aspect. But the bigger problem lies rather, with a technocratic conception of politics that is not ‘about’ anything. It is not really politics at all (as Tony Blair once said), but is nihilistic and absent of moral considerations.

Having no real culture of its own, the western professional class views religion as outdated and sees history as dangerous since it contains components that can be misused by ‘extremists’. It prefers therefore not to know history. This produces the mixture of the conviction of superiority, yet deep insecurity, which typifies western leadership. The ignorance and fear of events and ideas that fall outside the confines of their rigid zeitgeist, they perceive, almost invariably, as innately inimical to their interests. And rather than seek to discuss and understand, that which is outside their capabilities, they use disparagement and character assassination instead to remove the nuisance.

Read more …

“Everyone thinks that through Ukraine we will bring the Russians to their knees, but this Russophobia does not work. It turns out that this problem cannot be solved militarily..”

• West Aims To ‘Bring Russians To Their Knees’ – Slovak Prime Minister Fico (RT)

The West is deliberately fueling the Ukraine conflict because its ultimate goal is to weaken Russia, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said. In an interview with Slovak broadcaster STVR on Sunday, Fico expressed concern over the EU’s increasing involvement in the ongoing hostilities between Moscow and Kiev, arguing that the conflict cannot be resolved on the battlefield.“There is a military conflict in a neighboring country where Slavs are killing each other, and Europe is significantly supporting this killing, which I just don’t understand,” Fico said. He added that the fighting “continues only because it is being strongly supported by the West.” “The sooner it ends, the better it will be,” he added, arguing that Western efforts to use the conflict to inflict a defeat on Russia will fail.

“Everyone thinks that through Ukraine we will bring the Russians to their knees, but this Russophobia does not work. It turns out that this problem cannot be solved militarily,” Fico stated. Fico, a longtime critic of Western military aid to Kiev, promised to block Ukraine from joining NATO, as allowing the country to join the US-led military bloc could prepare the way for a world war, he warned. After winning the parliamentary election last year, Fico’s Smer-SD party halted deliveries of weapons to Ukraine and called for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict. He promised to restore trade and political ties with Moscow once the fighting ends, arguing that “the EU needs Russia, and Russia needs the EU.” Moscow has warned against Western aid to Kiev, saying no amount of foreign support will change the outcome of the conflict.

Read more …

”Had they been able to carry it out, Europe would have faced an environmental and humanitarian disaster comparable to Chernobyl..”

• UK and US Helped Ukraine Plan ‘New Chernobyl’ – Russian Intel Chief (RT)

British and American spies helped Ukraine develop plans for blowing up the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, which would have plunged Europe into another radiation nightmare, the head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergey Naryshkin, has said. Ukrainian troops crossed into Russia’s Kursk Region in August, but were stopped short of the nuclear plant in Kurchatov. Speaking at a meeting of intelligence and security principals of post-Soviet states in Astana last week, Naryshkin revealed the West’s disturbing plan for the facility. “According to intelligence obtained by the SVR, the planned terrorist attack included taking and mining the Kursk NPP,” he said, according to remarks made public on Monday. ”Had they been able to carry it out, Europe would have faced an environmental and humanitarian disaster comparable to Chernobyl,” Naryshkin added.

A 1986 accident at the Chernobyl NPP caused one of its reactors to explode and catch fire, forcing the evacuation of the town of Pripyat and the creation of a 30km exclusion zone on the border between present-day Ukraine and Belarus. Radioactive fallout from the blaze was carried by the wind all the way to Scotland. According to Naryshkin, British and American intelligence have provided Ukraine with information that allowed it to attack Russian civilian infrastructure, including high-resolution satellite imagery of border regions. Ukrainian artillery used this information to carry out strikes with rockets and drones. ”Available intelligence indicates that Western intelligence agencies, primarily the British MI6, have systematically prepared Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance groups to organize provocations at a number of nuclear power plants in Russia,” the SVR head claimed, alleging that the British spies and their Ukrainian counterparts were “developing an operation to blow up power lines connecting nuclear power plants with the Russian national energy grid.”

The Zaporozhye NPP in Energodar has been a target of Ukrainian attacks since mid-2022. Europe’s largest nuclear power plant eventually had to shut down due to the hazards, which included drones, rockets, loss of water for its cooling systems and even an amphibious assault by Ukrainian commandos in October 2022. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observers deployed on site have repeatedly acknowledged attacks on the ZNPP, but have refused to identify who is responsible. Russia has described the attacks as an attempt at “nuclear blackmail,” while Ukraine has alleged that Moscow is shelling the plant to defame Kiev.

Read more …

“..the ban on abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected will go back into effect as the case proceeds..”

• Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates State’s Abortion Law (ET)

A judge’s ruling striking down Georgia’s abortion ban was stayed on Oct. 7 by the Georgia Supreme Court. The stay means the ban on abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected will go back into effect as the case proceeds. Six justices granted a request by Georgia officials to reinstate the law after a county judge on Sept. 30 concluded that the law violates the right of women in the state to have an abortion.Georgia’s Constitution gives residents liberty, and that liberty includes the right of a woman to “control what happens to and within her body,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney said in his ruling.In a one-page order from the Georgia Supreme Court, a majority of justices said they were staying McBurney’s ruling as of 5 p.m. on Oct. 7. The majority did not explain their reasoning. The law states that abortion is not authorized if the heartbeat of an unborn child has been detected.

Exceptions include cases in which doctors determine a medical emergency exists and, in some instances, incest or rape.The Georgia Supreme Court order does not impact the block of a provision that would provide abortion-related health records to district attorneys.According to the high court, Justice Nels S.D. Peterson was disqualified from considering the state’s emergency request to intervene, and Justice Andrew A. Pinson did not participate.In an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice John J. Ellington said the state had not provided sufficient arguments to prompt a stay, particularly in light of how groups suing over the law met the burden of establishing that the law violates Georgia’s Constitution.

“Fundamentally, the state should not be in the business of enforcing laws that have been determined to violate fundamental rights guaranteed to millions of individuals under the Georgia Constitution,” he wrote. “The ’status quo’ that should be maintained is the state of the law before the challenged laws took effect. Accordingly, I dissent.”

Read more …

This is about her talks with Bourla on WhatsApp, because those don’t need to be preserved. Billions of dollars involved.

• Trial Date Set In Von der Leyen Covid-19 Vaccine Scandal – FT (RT)

The European Court of Justice will hear a case on November 15 concerning European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen’s handling of Covid-19 vaccine procurement, the Financial Times has said, citing anonymous sources. A panel of 15 judges will reportedly consider whether she illegally withheld private text messages she supposedly exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. At the height of the pandemic, the commission advocated collectively purchasing billions of shots and distributing them among EU member states struggling to contain Covid-19. In 2020 and 2021, Brussels struck deals with vaccine manufacturers to the tune of approximately €2.7 billion ($2.95 billion). It is believed that Von der Leyen played a key role in organizing the procurement, with critics claiming the negotiations were not transparent enough.

In its article on Monday, the Financial Times noted that the EU court’s Grand Chamber, which is reportedly going to weigh the evidence, usually deals with complex or particularly important cases. Back in January 2023, the New York Times sued the European Commission after the latter claimed not to have Von der Leyen’s alleged text messages, which the US newspaper had asked for as part of a freedom of information request. According to the outlet, Bourla confirmed that he and Von der Leyen had indeed exchanged private messages, and that the European Commission president had told him she was personally involved in negotiating the vaccine purchase contracts. While the NYT has insisted on the publication of the purported communications, Von der Leyen claims that she deleted most of the exchange with Bourla.

Next month, the EU court is expected to ask the commission’s representatives whether the messages at the heart of the case ever existed, and if so, whether and why they were later destroyed, FT reported on Monday. In a separate case in mid-July, the EU’s general court ruled that the Commission had concealed details of multibillion-euro Covid vaccine deals with Pfizer and AstraZeneca without a legitimate reason. In 2021, a group of MEPs requested access to the relevant documents to make sure that the public interest had been protected and the members of the EU negotiating team had no conflict of interest. The Commission only agreed to release a redacted version and refused to reveal the identities of the negotiating team’s members. The lawmakers subsequently took the issue to court.

Read more …

Just how insane is this?

• US Children’s Diets Are Now “Over 70%” Ultra-Processed Foods (ZH)

It looks like the “Make America Healthy Again” movement could be showing up right on time… At least according to one registered dietitian nutritionist in Los Angeles, who recently took to Fox News to lay out the risks from ultra-processed foods in the American diet. Ilana Muhlstein said on Fox news that America’s diet is 60% ultra-processed, but that kids consume even more than that. “With children, it’s actually over 70%. That is really wild when you think about it,” she said. “What we eat defines how our cells work, how our organs work, and we’re seeing a strong decline in mental health and well-being.” And a recent BMJ study found that 60% of Americans’ daily calories come from ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which are linked to 32 poor health outcomes, including mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, and metabolic issues like cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, according to Fox.

Muhlstein added: “We’re actually seeing that this next generation might be the first generation to … have a shorter lifespan than their parents due to nutrition and lifestyle factors.” A nutritious diet boosts children’s mental well-being, behavior, and academic performance, says Muhlstein, a nutritionist and instructor of “Raising Balanced Eaters.” While cutting ultra-processed foods entirely is unrealistic, Muhlstein advocates for reversing the typical 70/30 ratio of processed to whole foods, recommending an “80/20 rule”—80% whole foods like eggs, fish, and vegetables, and 20% indulgent foods like chips and ice cream.

For healthier options, Muhlstein suggests swapping ketchup for marinara sauce on chicken nuggets and fries, opting for chicken strips over mechanically processed nuggets, and choosing hamburgers over nitrite-laden hot dogs. Each small change reduces the overall level of food processing. The nutritionist warns that poor eating habits won’t resolve on their own and encourages exposing kids to diverse flavors and textures early on. The Fox News report says that sitting down for family meals—without screens—can reduce the risk of eating disorders and promote a healthy relationship with food. Just three to five family meals a week can make a positive difference, fostering better eating habits and family connection.

Read more …

 

 


 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1842968057888534683

 

 

Blind dog
https://twitter.com/i/status/1843528351614677117

 

 

Lynx

 

 

Thermochromic

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.