Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 431

New York City to Track Personal Food Choices Using Credit Card Data

Igor Chudov

Yesterday, New York City announced its plan to track the “food choices” of New Yorkers using credit card data from individual store purchases. According to the mayor, tracking individual food choices is a step towards “reducing the CO2 output” of New Yorkers.

The Adams administration has announced a plan to begin tracking the carbon footprint created by household food consumption as well as a new target for New York City agencies to reduce their food-based emissions by 33% by the year 2023. [Did they mean 2032 – I.C.?]

New York City, in partnership with American Express, a credit card company, will track purchases to calculate New Yorkers’ carbon footprints:

The new plan puts the city on par with London and 13 other cities to incorporate food consumption into its greenhouse gas emission metrics. The effort to examine the environmental effects of eating foods like meat and dairy was first announced about a year ago as part of a collaboration among major cities across the globe.

You would think such a plan would only be made after a conversation with New Yorkers, right? After all, the mayor of New York is supposed to serve New Yorkers, not the other way around.

However, the reality is that there was no consultation and no “conversation” because New York’s mayor Eric Adams is sure that people do not even want to have a “conversation” about interrogating their food choices.

On Monday, Adams acknowledged that interrogating people’s food choices would be difficult. “I don’t know if people are really ready for this conversation,” he said.

The WEF’s “My Carbon” Allowance Plan

Eric Adams, of course, is not serving New Yorkers, whom he did not even consult. He is serving his sponsors, demanding that food and other personal expenditures be tracked to advance climate goals. The World Economic Forum proposed tracking personal CO2 consumption, and CO2 allowances, in its infamous “My Carbon” agenda article.

The WEF explains that tracking individual choices was always met with resistance. Fortunately for the WEF, the Covid pandemic, caused by a mysterious lab-made pathogen, changed this calculation and, according to the WEF, allowed us to extend “pandemic measures” into consumption tracking due to greater social acceptance of the governmental intrusion into our personal lives:

Few cities exhibited more sheep-like adherence to pandemic measures than New York City, so it should not be surprising that “food purchase tracking” is being tried in that particular locale in accordance with the WEF’s instructions.

Tracking of purchases will not be limited to food, of course.

On Meat, Health, and Freedom

This article is intentionally neutral on meat and health. Some of my subscribers are vegans, and some are avid meat eaters. I respect everyone. I was a vegetarian for a whole year, a long time ago. I try to eat less meat nowadays, which still amounts to eating too much, but I am trying. (I ate low-carb for years, but now I want to do something different.)

Rather than framing this issue as a health matter, I urge you to consider it a question of basic fairness: the unelected, supranational, self-appointed masters of the world are trying to track and influence our behavior without even asking for permission or inquiring about our opinion.

We are being assured that this is done for our good. However, these same people benefit financially from well-placed investments in companies growing fake meat comprised of cancer tumor cells. See https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/lab-grown-meat-is-made-of-cancer

We are generally taught that conflicts of interest should make us question the intentions of people promoting ideas related to such conflicts.

In the case of Covid-19 or climate change, we are asked to throw such precautions away and put blind faith into mega billionaires benefiting mightily from the pandemic or their climate change investments.

As skeptics and critical thinkers, we should refuse to believe promoters standing to benefit financially from their crazy ideas. Instead, we should demand a close and skeptical look into what is happening behind the curtain.

I am sure, however, that instead of skepticism, we will get more fake fact checks, denials, and gaslighting.

[…]

Via https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/new-york-city-to-track-personal-food

30 Years Later, Waco is Still Damning

by Jim Bovard | Apr 18, 2023

Thirty years ago, FBI tanks smashed into the ramshackle home of the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas. After the FBI collapsed much of the building atop the residents, a fire erupted and 76 corpses were dug out of the rubble. Unfortunately, the American political system and media have never honestly portrayed the federal abuses and political deceit that led to that carnage.

What lessons can today’s Americans draw from the FBI showdown on the Texas plains 30 years ago?

Purported Good Intentions Absolve Real Deadly Force

Janet Reno, the nation’s first female attorney general, approved the FBI’s assault on the Davidians. Previously, she had zealously prosecuted child abuse cases in Dade County, Florida, though many of her high-profile convictions were later overturned because of gross violations of due process. Reno approved the FBI assault after being told “babies were being beaten.” It is not known who told her about the false claims of child abuse; Reno claimed she couldn’t remember. Her sterling reputation helped the government avoid any apparent culpability for the deaths of 27 children on April 19, 1993. After Reno publicly promised to take responsibility for the outcome at Waco, the media conferred instant sainthood upon her. At a press conference the day after the fire, President Bill Clinton declared, “I was frankly—surprised would be a mild word—to say that anyone that would suggest that the Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics murdered themselves.” According to a Federal News Service transcript, the White House press corps applauded Clinton’s comment on Reno.

It Is Not an Atrocity If the U.S. Government Does It

Shortly before the Waco showdown, U.S. government officials signed an international Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty pledging never to use nerve agents, mustard gas, and other compounds (including tear gas) against enemy soldiers. But the treaty contained a loophole permitting governments to gas their own people. On April 19, 1993, the FBI pumped CS gas and methyl chloride, a potentially lethal, flammable combination, into the Davidians’ residence for six hours, disregarding explicit warnings that CS gas should not be used indoors. Benjamin Garrett, executive director the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute in Alexandria, Virginia, observed that the CS gas “would have panicked the children. Their eyes would have involuntarily shut. Their skin would have been burning. They would have been gasping for air and coughing wildly. Eventually, they would have been overcome with vomiting in a final hell.” A 1975 U.S. Army publication on the effects of CS gas noted, “Generally, persons reacting to CS are incapable of executing organized and concerted actions and excessive exposure to CS may make them incapable of vacating the area.”

Rep. Steven Schiff (R-NM) declared that “the deaths of dozens of men, women and children can be directly and indirectly attributable to the use of this gas in the way it was injected by the FBI.” Chemistry professor George Uhlig testified to Congress in 1995 that the FBI gas attack probably “suffocated the children early on” and may have converted their poorly ventilated bunker into an area “similar to one of the gas chambers used by the Nazis at Auschwitz.” But during those 1995 hearings, congressional Democrats portrayed the CS gas as innocuous as a Flintstone vitamin.

Orwellian Language Will Vaporize Federal Aggression

As Abrams tanks driven by FBI agents continually battered the Davidian’s home, FBI loudspeakers broadcasted endlessly: “This is not an assault.” According to FBI apologists in the media, that proved the feds did not assault the Davidians. Prior to the fire, the tanks had collapsed 20 percent of the building atop its residents and the FBI planned to totally demolish the home. Grenade launchers on the tanks and other armored vehicles fired almost 400 ferret rounds of CS gas through the thin wooden walls and the windows of the building. Yet Attorney General Reno later insisted: “We didn’t attack. We tried to exercise every restraint possible to avoid violence.” Demolishing someone’s home was supposedly no more bothersome than leaving a Federal Express package on their doorstep. A 1993 Justice Department investigation was so shoddy that even The New York Times denounced the “Waco whitewash.” But that blunt condemnation was soon memory-holed in the rush to absolve the feds.

Don’t Trust Congress to Expose Federal Misconduct

A few days after the conflagration, Reno was heartily praised at a Senate committee hearing and the media made her a national hero. There was little or no sympathy on Capitol Hill for those who died during the final FBI assault. Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, commented that the Davidians were “horrible people. Despicable people. Burning to death was too good for them.” If Republicans had not captured control of Congress in 1994, there would have been no substantive hearings on Waco. And even those hearings faltered badly at times because so many Republican congressmen wasted their time boasting of their love of law enforcement rather than seeking the truth.

Media Favorites Can Perform Rhetorical Magic Tricks

When Attorney General Reno testified to the House Waco hearing on August 1, 1995, she was challenged on the FBI’s use of 54-ton tanks to assail the Davidians. Reno replied that the tanks were “not military weapons… I mean, it was like a good rent-a-car.” When Rep. Bill Zeliff (R-NH) challenged her, Reno hectored: “I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, as you deal with this issue, not to make statements like that can cause the confusion.” This is the high-toned DC version of the old saying: “Who are you going to believe—me or your lying eyes?” Media coverage of Reno’s showdown with congressional Republicans ignored her rent-a-tank absurdity, and instead praised her toughness and demeanor. (My article in The Wall Street Journal on the day after the hearings was practically the only place Reno got thumped for her “rent-a-car” line.)

Bad Attitudes, Not Federal Atrocities, Are the Real Problem

Waco illustrates how “truth will out” is Washington’s biggest fairy tale. The FBI speedily asserted that the Davidians ignited the fire that consumed their dwelling but never provided convincing evidence on that score. Six years later, independent investigator Michael McNulty found pyrotechnic ferret rounds the FBI fired at the scene prior to the flames erupting in a Texas government evidence warehouse. Attorney General Reno lashed out at the FBI for destroying her credibility but neither she nor FBI officials suffered any consequences from the collapse of the official narrative.

[…]

Via https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/30-years-later-waco-is-still-damning/

Just how many US troops and spies do we have in Ukraine?

U.S. Army Special Forces operators prepare to conduct rapid infiltration and exfiltration of a U.S. Air Force CV-22 Osprey during exercise Fiction Urchin near Vinnytsia, Ukraine, Sept. 21, 2020. (U.S. Air Force photo)

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

Responsible Statecraft

In the wake of the leaks and a drip-drip of info over the last year, one lawmaker is demanding clarity from the White House.

Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who has flooded the docket in recent months with resolutions designed to get U.S. troops out of overseas missions he believes have not been approved by Congress, is now demanding that President Joe Biden tell the American people just how many American military personnel are operating in Ukraine today.

His new Privileged Resolution of Inquiry, which forces Biden to notify the House of  the exact number of U.S. military inside Ukraine and to hand over “copies of any and all documents outlining plans for military assistance to Ukraine,” comes a week after leaked Pentagon documents showing previously unreported U.S. Special Forces inside the war zone.

According to the document there were 97 special forces from NATO countries operating in Ukraine as of March, including 14 U.S. special forces. When asked by the Guardian newspaper for confirmation/clarification, the Department of Defense said,  “We are not going to discuss or confirm classified information due to the potential impact on national security as well as the safety and security of our personnel and those of our allies and our partners.” The Pentagon has not denied the authenticity of the documents, however.

While “14 special forces” sounds like a drop in the bucket, these revelations are a drip-drip of other pieces of information over the last year that, when added up, leave more questions than answers, and the bottom line is that the American people have a right to know, says (Ret.) Lt. Col. Daniel Davis.

“It is entirely appropriate that the American people know, authoritatively, whether any U.S. troops are engaged in military operations within Ukraine — and to demand a change if we don’t like the answer,” Davis told me yesterday when I asked him about the Gaetz resolution.

“American history is rife with too many examples of presidents secretly employing U.S. troops without the consent or knowledge of our people. It almost always goes sideways when presidents go covert with our troops.”

We know from reporting last year, beginning in June 2022, that the CIA had a strong presence in Ukraine, engaging a network of commandos and spies among European partners set up to provide critical weapons and military intelligence to Ukraine. According to the New York Times, “even as the Biden administration has declared it will not deploy American troops to Ukraine, some C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country secretly, mostly in the capital, Kyiv, directing much of the massive amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces.”

Ken Klippenstein and Jim Risen reported in October 2022 that “there is a much larger presence of both CIA and U.S. special operations personnel and resources in Ukraine” than publicly known. They reported for the Intercept that several former and current intelligence officers told them that the covert operations were being conducted “under a presidential covert action finding,” for which only a handful of Congressional lawmakers have been notified.

In November, the administration announced it was sending a team of military “weapons inspectors” into Ukraine to keep track of weapons shipments, but that they would be away from the fighting. Also that month, the DoD confirmed that it would be setting up a new joint forces command called the Security Assistance Group Ukraine, or SAGU, based out of U.S. Army Europe and Africa headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany and led by a 3-star general to “handle weapons shipments and personnel training.”

In February of this year, the Washington Post reported that the Pentagon wanted to revive pre-Ukraine war orders that would allow them to insert commandos in the form of “control teams” to direct Ukrainian operatives to counter Russian disinformation and monitor troops movements on the ground. This would require the U.S. personnel to be in Ukraine or in a neighboring country. Washington had been operating such teams in Ukraine under Section 1202 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act until the invasion last year.

Nick Turse, who has written extensively about U.S. covert operations in other parts of the globe, said the recent leak showing special ops forces in Ukraine “is hardly a surprise. ”

“U.S. Special Operations forces deploy throughout the world, often with next to no transparency or real oversight,” he said when asked about the Gaetz resolution. “Under little-known authorities, special operators conduct shadowy missions — sometimes indistinguishable from combat — unbeknownst to the American people and most members of Congress.”

What we don’t know much about is how many trainers and intelligence personnel might be working under contract for the U.S. government on the ground in Ukraine. There have been hints that they are there. Of course, some American experts, like Alexander Vindman, who are frustrated that the U.S. military is not more directly involved, have been calling on Biden to send contractors into the fight from the beginning.

Others have said “operational contractors” should be inserted into Ukraine, not to fight, but to help the Ukrainians train and operate the sophisticated weaponry Washington is sending over there. Are they there now? It is hard to tell. We know there are plenty of private military contractors in Ukraine today from all over the West working in extraction, training, and humanitarian aid, but they are, as far as we know, freelancing, not on the U.S. dole.

The use of contractors, whether they be Americans or third party, has been widespread since the U.S. launched a Global War on Terror after 9/11. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of the end of 2022, there were approximately 22,000 contractor personnel working for the DoD throughout the US Central Command’s area of responsibility.

“It is highly probable that contractors are a significant part of the U.S. personnel presence in Ukraine,” speculated Ted Carpenter, who wrote about the topic recently for RS.

“My expectation is that they would be used for the operation and maintenance of the more advanced (and twitchy?) weapons systems that NATO has given to Kyiv,” he shared on Monday.  “Another interesting question is how many DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and Pentagon personnel, as well as contractors, might be helping Ukraine with targeting information for attacks on Russian forces. Some of the operations have seemed far too sophisticated for the known capabilities that Ukraine possessed when the invasion began.”

RS has put in a request to the DoD press office to ask just how many contractors might be in Ukraine today. In the meantime, Gaetz said in a statement he will press on with his own quest for a clear number of U.S. troops there. “There must be total transparency from this administration to the American people when they are gambling war with a nuclear adversary by having special forces operating in Ukraine.”

Via https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/04/18/just-how-many-us-troops-and-spies-do-we-have-in-ukraine/

Apple Turns iPhone into Ultimate Tracking Tool by Offering Banking Services – AppleID to Become National Digital ID?

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

Will AppleID Become National Digital ID?

Who needs CBDCs or a National Digital ID program to track every financial transaction you make, when Apple has already beat everyone to the punch with their AppleID that now can be linked to your bank account as well?

Yesterday, Apple announced that they are now offering attractive rates on savings accounts through their Apple Wallet, as they team up with banking giant Goldman Sachs.

With Elon Musk and others racing to create the first “do everything” app that can track pretty much everything one does in life, Apple just beat everyone to the punch by effectively making the iPhone, which is already in the hands of over 120 million people in the U.S., and over 1 billion worldwide, a device that can now pretty much link everything you do to your AppleID.

Apple is now paying you to have an iPhone!

That’s right. Sign up for the savings account now available through Apple Wallet, administered by Goldman Sachs, and you will get an interest rate of 4.15%, Apple announced today.

That’s a very good rate—most other digital-only banks aren’t offering terms quite as generous (as for big banks, forget it—their savings rates are still in the 0.01% ballpark).

Even Goldman Sachs, which actually operates the account, offers only 3.9% on its own Marcus savings accounts right now. Apple is presumably subsidizing that generous rate given that the account is for users of Apple cards, which means it’s designed mainly for iPhones and iPads.

It’s a smart way to entrench the iPhone even more deeply into people’s lives—smart for Apple, that is.

Whether this is smart for consumers depends on whether you’re comfortable having your life ruined if someone steals your iPhone.

The Wall Street Journal recently published an excellent report about how iPhone thieves are draining people’s bank accounts. That’s a result of people storing credit cards on Apple Pay and very often keeping photos of sensitive personal documents—passports and drivers’ licenses, for example—on their phones.

Some people even write down their passwords in the Notes app on the phone. When you stop to think about it, storing all this stuff on a phone does seem kind of crazy. (Full article – Subscription needed.)

This is a brilliant move by Goldman Sachs, which like all U.S. banks right now, is seeing a mass exodus of deposits since the banking crisis started last month.

In their first quarter report today, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon admitted that this partnership with Apple will increase bank deposits for their troubled bank.

Asked about Goldman’s new savings account with 4.15% interest for Apple Inc.’s Apple Card customers, Solomon said the business will open up Goldman’s deposit base without much overlap with its existing savings-account customer base. (Source.)

iPhone Users are Now Muppets

Pam Martens of Wall Street on Parade also covered this new venture today, reminding everyone how Goldman Sachs is part of the criminal banking cartel with their history of “dubious dealings” going all the way back to the Wall Street financial crash of 1929.

Apple Is Loaning Its Brand to the Great Vampire Squid to Offer FDIC-Insured Savings Accounts

Apple, maker of the iPhone and one of the top brands in the world, has decided to get deeper in bed with Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street trading house with more than 100 years of ignominious history.

Goldman Sachs was infamously branded as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money” by Matt Taibbi in the pages of Rolling Stone.

Of all things to offer through Goldman Sachs, Apple thinks it’s a swell idea to offer a high-yielding, FDIC-insured savings account – that is ultimately backstopped by the U.S. taxpayer if Goldman Sachs blows up – which it came close to doing in 2008.

Apple’s credit card is already offered through Goldman Sachs.

In an SEC filing on February 24, Goldman Sachs acknowledged that its credit card division is under federal investigation.  A check at the complaint database of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency, shows that hundreds of consumer complaints have been filed against the Goldman Sachs/Apple credit card.

Among the hundreds of complaints filed at the CFPB is the following from a resident of Nevada. The complaint was filed on February 8 of this year: (Redacted material was done by the CFPB.)

“Late last year, Apple credit card pulled a hard inquiry on my credit and issued me an Apple credit card.

I did not request this credit card, so I contacted XXXX about this matter. Apple credit card closed my account and stated to me that they noted my account was closed because they could not verify that I requested, authorized, or applied for this credit card.

[…]

Via https://healthimpactnews.com/2023/apple-turns-iphone-into-ultimate-tracking-tool-by-offering-banking-services-appleid-to-become-national-digital-id/

Celts and PIcts in Ancient Scotland

Episode 8 Celts and Picts in Scotland

The Celtic World

Dr Jennifer Paxton (2018)

Film Review

At the time of the Roman withdrawal from Britain, the area north of Antonine’s wall was divided into seven nations, each ruled by a descendant of the seven sons of the legendary king Cruithne. They spoke a Brythonic P-Celtic language similar to Welsh.

The term Pict, commonly used after the 3rd century AD to refer to Barbarians living north of Antonine’s wall, was a Roman term meaning “painted ones.” It referred to the tradition of Scottish Celts tattooing themselves.

Under late Roman occupation (367-368 AD), the so-called Picts allied themselves with Irish Celts and briefly seized control of all Britain.

In the mid 5th century AD, settlers from northern Ireland migrated to islands off the west coast of Scotland. Known as Scots, the spoke Scotti (Irish). Around the same time, a Germanic tribe known as the Angles pushed north into the Scottish lowlands, which is the main reason English is currently the primary language of Scotland.

Only a few Pictish inscriptions survive from the 4th-6th century AD but all suggest Pictish was a P-Celtic language similar to Gallic and Welsh. A few Pictish inscriptions were printed in Latin, but most were written in Ogham, a script used to record ancient Irish:

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://pukeariki.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/5701024/5701040

FBI Ordered to Release Files That Called Parents Terrorists

Posted BY: | NwoReport

A federal judge ruled last week that the Federal Bureau of Investigation must provide documents related to a 2021 letter that called parents domestic terrorists.

The agency initially described those parents, who were protesting issues like critical race theory, as serious threats in response to the National School Boards Association’s plea for assistance.

After the memorandum went public on Oct. 3, 2021, backlash arose at Attorney General Merrick Garland’s decision to create a task force to investigate the parents — which consisted of the FBI, U.S. attorneys’ offices, and local law enforcement.

The government watchdog group Protect the Public’s Trust filed a Freedom of Information Act request days later for all documents or correspondence by the Department of Justice on the task force.

However, Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in a new order that the DOJ was dragging its feet in response to the FOIA request, the Washington Examiner reported.

McFadden said that the FBI failed to prove the request was unreasonable and offered “scant evidence for summary judgment,” rejecting two motions that sought to dismiss the case or have it decided in the agency’s favor.

[…]

Via https://nworeport.me/fbi-ordered-to-release-files-that-called-parents-terrorists/

 

Is There a Worldwide Run on the Bank of the United States of America

Photo credit New York TimesDouglas MacKinnonThe Hill

In talking this week with a friend about the United States seemingly imploding from within across multiple sectors, my friend stressed: “It’s not just from within. There is a run on the United States from certain nations and business interests around the world. Just like there was a run on banks after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, many nations are either thinking about — or actually proceeding with — transferring at least a portion of their allegiance, assets and commitments from the ‘Bank of the U.S.’ to the ‘Bank of China’ or elsewhere.”

This was not just some person sitting on a porch casually talking about current events while whittling a stick waiting for his Social Security or pension check to hit the mailbox. This was a former high-level U.S. government official, now a CEO, someone who sits on the boards of directors for multiple companies. He has massive real-world and business experience and believes the United State may be on the verge of collapse.

He is far from the only one to think that.

Some fear the Biden administration is losing control of our southern border; losing control of our decaying, crime-infested big cities; creating a recession; vilifying and needlessly destroying the fossil fuel industry while pushing suspect and subsidized “green” energy alternatives; leaving tens of billions of dollars in military equipment in Afghanistan while withdrawing our troops and abandoning an ally; stepping closer to a trip-wire in the Ukraine war, which could trigger a nuclear strike; turning on Israel over ideological issues as Turkey and others call on Arab and Muslim nations to unite and crush the Jewish State; weakening our military with one “woke” edict after another; focusing on “trans” issues at the expense of failing transportation infrastructure; cheerleading the social justice warrior takeover of our colleges and universities; and weakening the dollar (the currency much of the world depends upon).

Is it any wonder, then, that nations such as France, India, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Mexico, Brazil and others are suddenly hedging their bets by looking beyond the United States of America for partnerships and stability?

On top of those problems, our allies and certain foreign corporations now have the legitimate concern of wondering what between them and the United States will be kept private and secure, in light of the massive and reportedly deliberate leak of classified Pentagon documents.

Who is an ally or foreign business partner to trust? More importantly, in the eyes of some of these nations and foreign business interests, who will prove to be the more stable and dependable partner in the coming years and decades?

In an example of a world leader hedging his bets, French President Emmanuel Macron recently traveled to Beijing to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping. Macron did not travel alone. He brought along Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission. Some saw this as Macron advertising that much of the European Union was with him in spirit as he met with Xi.

On his way back to France after the meeting, Macron emphasized that Europeans should not be “just America’s followers” and “get caught up in crises that are not ours.” Even though the French leader seemed to be spelling it out in 100-font, one could read between the lines and assume he meant not getting dragged too deeply into the Ukraine war or defending Taiwan, should China invade. The last part was music to the ears of China’s strongman, Xi.

Next, we have Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador openly criticizing — and challenging — the leadership of the United States for months, by calling the U.S. an “oligarchy, not a real democracy.” He threatened to sabotage calls for U.S. military action against Mexican cartels, and has made it clear that he is not afraid to pick a fight with what he may see as a United States in decline.

Or, last month’s news that Saudi Arabia was inching closer to joining a China-led Asian security and economic bloc, after having been granted the status of a dialogue partner in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Aside from China and Russia, the bloc also includes India, Pakistan and some ex-Soviet states. It’s an organization  one might view as not always having the best interests of the United States in mind.

As Ali Shihabi, a Saudi analyst and writer, made clear during an interview: “The traditional monogamous relationship with the US is now over. And we have gone into a more open relationship, strong with the U.S. but equally strong with China, India, [the] UK, France and others.”

Finally, we have Brazil — China’s most important trading partner in South America — announcing a new agreement to conduct bilateral commerce in their respective currencies, rather than the U.S. dollar. The move not only shocked many in the U.S. government but opened the eyes of others around the world to the possibility of decoupling from the dollar.

Some believe these things are happening because a growing number of political and business leaders around the world now lack confidence in the United States, believing our country truly is in disarray, decline and increasingly polarized and politicized. Will such concerns accelerate a “run on the Bank of the United States” with assets being transferred to China or even Russia?

[…]

Via https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3950467-is-there-a-worldwide-run-on-the-bank-of-the-united-states-of-america/

The coming war on China: the real target are the American people

Alex Krainer

Empire’s proxy war on Russia is rapidly coming to a head in Ukraine and the imperial guard might urgently need a new war. Their next target is China and once more we witness a relentless escalation of provocations and hostility. In his Wall Street Journal column this week, former National Security Advisor John Bolton laid out his “grand strategy” to confront Russia and China. His genius idea is to give Taiwan “much more military aid” from western nations and “embed Taipei into collective-defense structures.”

Preparations for war

Bolton’s warmongering is only the last in the long sequence of proclamations by US officials indicating the direction of their foreign policy. Last month, U.S. Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that the United States has “to prepare, to be prepared to fight and win that war” against China. This is not just idle talk: they really are preparing.

On Sunday, 10 January, Lieutenant General James Bierman, the commanding general of the Third Marine Expeditionary Force gave an interview to the Financial Times in which he said that his command is working hard to replicate the empire’s military success (!) in Ukraine. Bierman explained that the US and its allies in Asia were recreating the groundwork that had enabled western countries to support Ukraine’s resistance to Russia in preparing for scenarios such as Chinese invasion of Taiwan:

“Why have we achieved the level of success we’ve achieved in Ukraine? … because after Russian aggression in 2014 and 2015, we earnestly got after preparing for future conflict: training for the Ukrainians, pre-positioning of supplies, identification of sites from which we could operate support, sustain operations. We call that setting the theatre. And we are setting the theatre in Japan, in the Philippines, in other locations.”

In other words, the US is creating the same conditions to draw China into a war over Taiwan in order to replicate the success they’ve had in Ukraine. Truly, whom gods would destroy, they first make them mad.

The war addiction

Jest aside, why is the US establishment ever so keen on waging wars? Consider the finding that, “Since the end of World War II, there have been 248 armed conflicts in 153 locations around the world. The United States launched 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and 2001, and since then, others, including Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Stated otherwise, one nation has launched more than 80% of all overseas military operations since WWII. Is this because the American people are so consistently belligerent? That’s clearly not the case: for as long as I’d observed American politics, the people always vote for anti-war candidates. Somehow however, they always get more war. How can that be? In fact, causes of war are systemic and they emanate from the fraudulent money system that’s been foisted on us all. This can’t be explained in just a few paragraphs, but for all who are inclined to explore this relationship further, I summarized it in this article: “Deflationary gap and the west’s war addiction.”

China, China, China!

Alongside military preparations, the imperial guard is also working hard to create consent for war with relentless anti-China propaganda. The unsubtle messaging is that the CCP is coming for our freedoms and has evil designs to dominate the world. Much of the commentariat blames the Chinese for all the dark globalist agendas to enslave humanity.

The relentless fearmongering often resorts to propagating outright fabrications which are then replicated ad nauseum as hard facts. Repetition turns these fabrications into culturally accepted truths. The most dismaying example of this is the western invention of the “Chinese Social Credit System.”

Here’s how Arnaud Bertrand, a Frenchman living in China, commented on this in a Tweet: “The Chinese social credit system is easily one of the most egregious disinformation narratives peddled on China by western media. Even myself I couldn’t believe the extent to which they totally invented a system that had no basis in reality.”

Geopolitical blogger Brian Berletic (whose commentary is invariably excellent and well researched) provided a more in-depth contrast between the Chinese realities and western fearmongering in this 26-minute video report: China’s “Social Credit Score System” – Fact or Fiction? (Spoiler alert: it’s fiction).

Unfortunately however, the demonization has had its effect and many in the west have by now embraced this fear of China to the point that they are inclined to believe almost any story that demonizes China and disbelieve anything to the contrary. The glaring fact that the government, the think tanks and the media have lied to us about pretty much everything doesn’t seem to detract them. This time they’re telling the truth.

In the resulting atmosphere of fear and loathing, the population might acquiesce to yet another reckless military adventure on any pretext. Another Gulf of Tonkin incident – real or fake – could quickly escalate out of control. Suddenly, the independence of Taiwan might become the red line that no decent person could allow to be crossed.

It’s not really about China…

The biggest problem with all this is that the ruling establishment already knows for certain that they stand no chance of winning a war against China. Pentagon’s own war simulations concluded that their Pacific fleet would be destroyed in short order in such a conflict. So why do they want this war so badly? What could possibly justify such a reckless gambit?

… it’s about the American people

The important thing to realize here is that the primary target of the war against China would not really be China. It would be the American people. The shiny new world war in the Pacific would deflect people’s attention from the metastasizing crises at home, direct their anger at a foreign enemy, and for the same high price also provide the government with an ideal smokescreen for radical crackdown on dissent against all the racists, nazis, enemy sympathizers, deplorables, domestic extremists, insurrectionists and all other kinds of thought criminals.

[…]

Via https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/the-coming-war-on-china-the-real

 

 

Big Ag Panicking Over Bill to Require Labeling of Gene-Altering Products

 

By  Dr. Joseph Mercola

Missouri House Bill 1169 would require labeling of products that can alter your genes. Big Ag lobbyists strongly oppose it, because it would mean labeling livestock injected with mRNA vaccines.

Story at a glance:

Pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds since 2018, without telling the public.All customized mRNA “vaccines” are untested. Only the mRNA platform itself has been approved.According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, “There are no current mRNA vaccines licensed for use in beef cattle in the United States.” However, a lobbyist for the association claims to have “double-vaccinated” his own herd with an mRNA “vaccine” against bovine respiratory disease.Iowa State University began trialing an mRNA “vaccine” against bovine respiratory syncytial virus on Oct. 1, 2021.Missouri House Bill 1169 would require labeling of products that can alter your genes. Big Ag lobbyists strongly oppose it.

Last week, I reported that pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds since 2018  — without telling the public.

This issue really only rose to the surface after attorney Tom Renz started promoting new legislation in Missouri (House Bill 1169, which he helped write) that would require labeling of mRNA products.

[…]

The transhumanist agenda and its focus on food

Within days, alternative media was abuzz with this story and Renz started making the rounds sharing evidence that shows the U.S. government has been working on the integration of vaccines into foods for at least two decades.

[…]

Industry doesn’t want you to know what they’re doing

The pushback by Big Ag lobbyists against this bill to require industry transparency on this important issue has been enormous, and one potential reason for that is because they’d have to admit that all sorts of foods may have been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines, have genetic modifications, or be modified to serve as vaccinations for humans.

Not only might this destroy Big Ag, but it would also seriously impact any surreptitious attempts by Big Pharma to use the food supply as a tool to distribute vaccines unbeknownst to consumers.

[…]

mRNA ‘vaccines’ in livestock are untested

If the mRNA COVID-19 shots don’t prevent infection, why would we assume mRNA shots for viral and bacterial infections in swine work any better?

One of the most disturbing aspects of using mRNA “vaccines” in swine is the fact that all of them are by definition untested. As explained by Merck on its website, its “custom swine vaccine,” Sequivity, is not a vaccine but, rather, a platform that allows for the endless customization of “mRNA vaccines.”

[…]

At the end of the day, the fact that mRNA shots can be endlessly customized without safety testing shows just how broken the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are.

There’s simply no way they can guarantee that customized mRNA shots are safe. The fact that the platform itself works and allows for this customization does NOT prove the safety and effectiveness of the shots being cooked up.

Approval of the platform also does not prove the food is safe for consumption after it’s been treated with mRNA.

Cows milk used to immunize mice

As reported by Dr. Peter McCullough, Chinese researchers have demonstrated that food can indeed be turned into a vaccine.

“The nation’s food supply can be manipulated by public health agencies to influence population outcomes … Now an oral route of administration is being considered specifically for COVID-19 vaccination using mRNA in cow’s milk.

“Zhang and colleagues have demonstrated that a shortened mRNA code of 675 base pairs could be loaded into phospholipid packets called exosomes derived from milk and then using that same milk, be fed to mice.

“The mice gastrointestinal tract absorbed the exosomes and the mRNA must have made it into the bloodstream and lymphatic tissue because antibodies were produced in fed mice against SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (receptor binding domain) …

[…]

Will beef be treated with mRNA too?

At present, there’s no evidence to suggest beef cattle are being treated with customizable mRNA “vaccines,” either in Europe or the U.S. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has also denied it, saying “there are no current mRNA vaccines licensed for use in beef cattle in the United States.”

That said, the Cattlemen’s Association previously confirmed they do, eventually, intend to use mRNA shots in cattle, which might affect both dairy and beef.

Time will tell whether public outrage will halt such plans. Clearly, the Cattlemen’s Association is concerned about internet rumors that it’s already in use.

On April 3, Texas Department of Agriculture commissioner Sid Miller issued a statement promising to conduct a risk assessment of the technology before its adoption:

[…]

Confusion caused by cattlemen’s association lobbyist

[…]

What’s causing significant confusion on this issue is a statement made by National Cattlemen’s Beef Association lobbyist Shannon Cooper before the Missouri House.

Cooper told the House members he had recently “double-vaccinated” his herd with “vaccinations that have this mRNA.” According to Cooper, the mRNA “vaccine” given was for bovine respiratory disease.

Is he confused? Did he mistakenly believe the vaccine he gave had mRNA in it? Or is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association incorrect in stating there are no approved mRNA vaccines for cattle in the U.S.? Or, are experimental mRNA shots being used without approval? Who knows at this point?

[…]

Is mRNA-jabbed livestock safe to eat?

Considering health authorities insist the COVID-19 shots are safe, it’s no wonder they also insist there are no problems associated with eating mRNA-treated meat. But can we trust them?

What about the cells now highjacked by the foreign mRNA instruction to create novel proteins? Are these proteins safe to consume? How long are the nano-lipid particles preserved in the tissue?

Livestock such as swine are routinely vaccinated against several diseases, and many of these vaccines must be administered at specific times to ensure there’s no residue left in the meat.

So, just when are swine receiving these customized mRNA shots? And could there be mRNA vaccine remnants in the pork you buy?

Vaccines are nearly always given in the hindquarter of the animal, and according to mRNA jab developers, the mRNA remains at the injection site.

This theory has long since been proven false, as the mRNA in the COVID-19 jab gets has been shown to be distributed throughout the human body.

But it makes sense that the mRNA might be more concentrated at the injection site. In livestock, this could be bad news, seeing how the hindquarters are usually where the prime cuts of meat come from.

[…]

Notorious industry mouthpiece defends livestock mRNA jabs

Aside from the many open questions, the fact that notorious Big Pharma mouthpieces are the ones cited by media, ensuring us that mRNA jabbed animals are safe to eat is yet another red flag. In this case, we have Dr. Kevin Folta insisting the mRNA is harmless.

[…]

Final thoughts

Moving forward, it’s going to be extremely important to stay on top of what’s happening to our food supply. Many of us were surprised to realize mRNA shots have been used in swine for several years already.

Soon, cattle may get these customizable mRNA shots as well, which could affect both beef and dairy products.

For now, I strongly recommend avoiding pork products. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding these untested mRNA “vaccines,” pork is also very high in linoleic acid, a harmful omega-6 fat that drives chronic disease.

Hopefully, cattle ranchers will realize the danger this mRNA platform poses to their bottom line and reject it. If they don’t find beef and dairy that has not been “gene therapied” could become quite the challenge.

There is talk about domesticated food animals soon being vaccinated with #mRNA. We want our customers to know that we will not vaccinate our animals with #mRNAvaccines. We believe there is a time and place for vaccinations, but they must be used sparingly. If livestock are raised… pic.twitter.com/pcN5fbxeOY

— White Oak Pastures (@whiteoakpasture) April 10, 2023

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/big-ag-gene-mrna-vaccines-livestock-cola/

Did Feds Just Launch a Central Bank Digital Currency?

By  Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

The Federal Reserve wants everyone to know that its new FedNow instant digital payments system, which it plans to roll out in July, is not a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

“The FedNow Service is neither a form of currency nor a step toward eliminating any form of payment, including cash,” the U.S. central banking system said in recently updated statement on its website.

Last week, the Cato Institute, Associated Press and Yahoo all followed with articles echoing the Fed’s position — FedNow is “not a central banking digital currency,” with the articles dedicated to “fact-checking” the assertion.

After reports about FedNow started circulating in November 2022, and after the Fed’s March announcement that the system would launch this summer, bankers, crypto experts and people concerned with personal financial autonomylashed out, arguing that the system is a step toward a CBDC, or at least toward government control over the financial system.

A CBDC is a government-backed digital currency issued by a central bank — a purely digital form of money, promoted as a tool that could make transactions easy between individuals, companies and the state.

But such centrally controlled digital money is also programmable. It could be set to expire at a given time, or restricted to particular kinds of spending — and all transactions would be trackable by the federal government.

The FedNow digital payments system is not a currency, like a CBDC, but it does make instant and trackable digital payments possible.

The Biden administration last March issued an executive order giving the “highest priority” to investigating a CBDC for the U.S.

Earlier this year, Fed Chair Jerome Powell told the House Financial Services Committee a decision on CBDCs hadn’t been made. But, he said, “We’ll have real-time payments in this country very, very soon.”

Some have speculated that FedNow’s ability to make real-time transactions is a way for the Fed to provide key benefits of a CBDC without actually creating one.

Fed Board of Governors member Michelle Bowman said so specifically last August: “FedNow addresses the issues that some have raised about the need for a CBDC.”

Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard last week tweeted:

Biden Admin aims to implement a central bank digital currency (CBDC) to bring about a cashless society, allowing them to track everything we purchase & control our money. Gov's “FedNow” system is needed first step to achieve their dream of cashless society. This needs to be… pic.twitter.com/iZp5AGz3vT

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) April 11, 2023

The tweet included a video of Gabbard detailing her concerns about FedNow and CBDCs, in an interview with Tucker Carlson.

Gabbard said:

“It’s about them being able to keep track of everything we purchase, whether it is a stick of gum or an automobile or anything in-between. And so if they have all of this information and data, which they will in this system, then where does that lead?

“It gives them the power to decide, ‘Okay, well hey, we don’t want to allow you to purchase certain things, or we may deem it necessary to freeze your overall account’ …

“[They say] ‘This is for your own good, this is for your convenience, to make it easier for you to conduct transactions,’ when in fact they are giving themselves all of the power, taking it away from us.”

Gabbard’s comments exemplify common concerns about CBDCs. In an interview with Del Bigtree on “The Highwire,” Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and president of the Solari Report, said:

“There is a huge push to continue to make sure to preserve cash, not just in the U.S. but in Europe because an all-digital system gives, ultimately, the people who control the central banks and the banking system an ability to literally turn on and off your money if you don’t do exactly what they say, and exactly what they say includes taxation without representation, healthcare mandates and literally taking away your kids.”

In response to the latest outcry, the Fed — and the media — rushed to quell fears. The Fed’s update says that it “has not made a decision whether to issue a central bank digital currency” and would do so only if a law were passed.

But Balaji Srinivasan, former chief technology officer of the cryptocurrency exchange platform Coinbase, tweeted:

“Fednow is central bank digital control, even if it’s not technically central bank digital currency. …

“People are immunized against the term ‘central bank digital currency,’ but not all forms of increased ‘central bank digital control,’ and FedNow is certainly the latter.”

How FedNow empowers the Central Bank

FedNow is an electronic instant payment system that would allow banks and their users to send and receive instant electronic payments 24/7. It could supplant apps like Venmo or Cashapp, bank-based payment systems like RTP and Zelle, or cryptocurrencies.

It will “enable every participating financial institution, the smallest to the largest and from all corners of the country, to offer a modern instant payment solution,” according to Ken Mongomery, FedNow program executive. It will be available “any time of day, any day of the year.”

Rather than being programmable money, like a CBDC, FedNow is a “payment rail” — a platform or infrastructure through which instant payments can be made between payers and payees in dollars.

But the FedNow guide specifies that every payment that goes through the system will pass through a Fed-controlled server and must “comply with applicable controls,” set by the Fed, Srinivasan said.

The roadmap for FedNow specifies it will offer payments between people, but also between people and the government, “which means automatic debiting from your account and automatic stimulus,” Srinivasan said. “In other words, even more direct government control over your bank account.”

That’s concerning, he said, because “in July, that Fed will soon have the visibility and power to monkey with your bank account directly to freeze or drain your funds at will with ‘applicable controls’ and ‘consumer to government’ payments, rather than being impeded by the current antiquated banking tech stack.”

There is a technical difference between a CBDC and FedNow, Srinivasan said.

“However,” he wrote, “[FedNow] is what people *fear* when they talk about a CBDC. It’s central bank digital control, even if it’s not central bank digital currency. And it’s a major step towards rolling out a full CBDC.”

“So I agree that the distinction between FedNow and a CBDC is important from a technical standpoint, but not from a civil liberties standpoint,” he wrote.

Fitts, who strongly advocates people use cash and a financial system that combines “healthy” analog and “healthy” digital technologies, told Bigtree the danger of a fully digital system “is that it can be centrally controlled.”

She agreed the problem societies are facing is not a narrow, technical question of CBDCs. “The challenge for all of this is how are we going to absolutely prevent the central bankers from instituting complete financial controls,” she said, adding:

[…]

Centralized control is a move toward ‘complete and utter tyranny’

The Fed announced the launch of FedNow on March 11, in the midst of the banking crisis that took down Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and Silvergate, which had some of the biggest stakes among banks in the nation in the cryptocurrency industry.

[…]

Many in the world of crypto argue these banks were taken down because of their cryptocurrency holdings — because cryptocurrency offers an alternative to a centrally controlled system.

Some experts observed that the banks that failed played a key role in providing cryptocurrency transactions that could compete with the Fed’s proposed payments system.

Signature bank’s Signet network and Silvergate’s SEN (Silvergate Exhange Network) allowed cryptocurrency firmsto settle payments 24/7/365.

“That’s kind of a CBDC, but being run privately, and so if you are going to actually try to roll out a CBDC run by the Fed, you can’t have a functioning competitor that’s not in their control,” financial analyst and creator of Liberty Blitzkrieg, Michael Krieger, told investigative journalist Whitney Webb in an interview on her Unlimited Hangout podcast.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fednow-instant-digital-payments-system-government-control/