The Biden regime has over-reached in sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines

The Biden regime has over-reached in sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines. By David Archibald.

Firstly, given what is following, a disclaimer is necessary: Russia needs to be expelled from Ukraine. They are barbaric. The more comprehensive their defeat, the greater the period of peace that will follow.

That said, the Biden regime has over-reached in sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines. They are applying their approach to US domestic politics to the international situation. The pipeline sabotage is the equivalent of sending the FBI to raid Trump’s principal residence. Everyone with a moral compass knew that it was a wrong thing to do, they did it anyway and there were unintended consequences for the perpetrators which they hadn’t thought through.

 

Gas bubbles mark the spot

 

Firstly, fixing the pipelines will be relatively easy. Two hundred feet of water is easy diving territory. Because of the hydrostatic pressure from the water depth and despite the size of the charges used, the lengths ruptured will be short. Cutting out the holed sections and welding in new lengths of pipe will be easy and should only take a week or so once the right ships are in place. And then push out the seawater with a pipeline ‘pig’ from the Russian end. The oil industry does this sort of thing all the time.

Easy to fix, physically, but the unintended consequences, the blowback will be immense. First of all Putin had based the legitimacy of his war on Ukraine on a notion that the West was at war with Russia. The sabotage of the pipelines proves him right, when before there had been nothing kinetic. Now that he has been proved right instead of just being paranoid, any Russian not supporting the war is letting the side down. Putin may stay in power for a couple of years longer than he might have otherwise done. And finding people to risk their lives in mounting a coup? Now there will be tens of thousands more dead on the battlefield instead.

Secondly, it will re-invigorate the German left just when they were about to be exposed as incompetents as their country goes dark in the coming winter. Lack of energy can be deflected to some extent on the US sabotage of those pipelines. The facts of the matter don’t matter. They now have an anti-American narrative delivered to them in a neat package tied with a bow. And this anti-American narrative will last for decades.

Thirdly, it will be easy and cheap for the Russians to retaliate. Traveling in Siberia in the mid-90s, I was surprised to see guards on bridges in the middle of nowhere.

 

On the River Amur, in Siberia

 

Well of course all important infrastructure needs guards on it, because ill-intentioned people might try to destroy it. That is the world that the Nord Stream sabotage has led us to. It might be an internet cable in the Pacific that can be snagged by a ship towing a chain and plow. The Russians are nasty and vindictive. The Nord Stream sabotage will prompt them to be inventive also. And each time something is broken and blame can be attributed to the Russians, is it going to be worth going to war over?

Fourthly the Nord Stream sabotage will just drive the Russian further into the arms of the Chicoms, who will be the real mass killers this century. Russia had warned the FBI of the Tsarnaev brothers who went on to bomb the Boston Marathon. They won’t bother doing that again. Though we now know that the FBI hasn’t been on our side for some time.

Respond:

How should Putin respond to the smart-arsed prank of blowing up those pipelines? He should go nuclear on the progressive left, which has ruined the modern world. He should apologize on behalf of Russia for foisting Obama on the United States as a long term influence agent. And apologize to Germany for foisting Merkel on them. Putin should release the KGB, now FSB, files on these two. And he might get another ten years as dictator of Russia.

We don’t know for sure it was the US that blew up the pipeline, but it’s hard to see why the Russians would do it when they can just turn off the gas.

Excess deaths, abuses in medical rights, coerced trials — the disaster of Covid continues in Western Australia

Excess deaths, abuses in medical rights, coerced trials — the disaster of Covid continues in Western Australia. By Steven Overmeire.

With each successive dose, we’ve seen vaccine effectiveness become weaker, shorter lasting, and eventually negative so that higher rates of infection now occur in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. In New South Wales, for example, we see a direct correlation between number of vaccinations and population rates of hospitalisation.

This makes immunological sense as the vaccines were designed to produce an antibody response to the original Wuhan spike protein, but with over 30 mutations we have seen immune escape leading to breakthrough infections. There is also legitimate concern about the phenomenon of immune imprinting, in which the immune response to the original antigen reduces the immune system’s ability to respond to variant antigens. This immune impairment may explain the prolonged infectivity seen in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated in a recent longitudinal cohort study.

The mass vaccination campaign and mandates may have prolonged the pandemic. It is interesting to note that countries with low vaccination rates show much lower Covid case numbers, according to Our World in Data. Compare for example Australia, UK, and America with South Africa, or compare high income with upper middle and lower middle-income countries.

In an important update to its public health guidance last month, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention no longer differentiates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, acknowledging the inability of the vaccine to prevent virus transmission. …

In working-age people for whom these mandates apply, Covid is fundamentally a mild disease and individual risk of death is very low. Australian data shows a case fatality rate of 0.06 per cent in the 20-70 year age group, compared to 3.1 per cent over 70 [almost all from omicron, as Australia largely avoided original and delta by closing its borders]. Both figures are likely overestimates given that Covid deaths include those dying with rather than from Covid.

The potential health benefits of these vaccines need to be balanced with the potential risks. We know that the virus spike protein is highly toxic as it damages endothelial cells, provoking inflammation and microcoagulation amongst other significant tissue effects. Yet it is this protein that the vaccine instructs our cells to manufacture. We also know that spike protein persists longer after vaccination than after natural infection …

Since the vaccines were introduced, pharmacovigilance data across the world have shown an unprecedented number of adverse event reports, mostly in those aged below 70.

A recent re-analysis of the phase III clinical trial data demonstrated 16 per cent higher risk of serious adverse events and 43 per cent higher risk of serious adverse events of special interest in the vaccination group. A recent risk-benefit assessment of boosters in young adults showed that, for every Covid hospitalisation prevented, [between] 18 [and] 98 serious adverse events occurred, suggesting net harm from mandates in this age group. …

We are currently witnessing an excess mortality rate across the western world, running at 16 per cent above the 5-year baseline average (excluding 2020) in Australia. The excess mortality curve started its uptick around the peak of the vaccination campaign, well before the Omicron wave. …

A US Food and Drug Authority report released last year to justify its approval of the Pfizer injections noted that the 6-month randomised controlled trial data showed higher all-cause mortality in the vaccinated group compared to placebo

While this does not automatically link these excess deaths directly to the vaccines, a causal relationship cannot be ruled out and clearly needs to be investigated. It is disturbing that no government or health authority promoting the vaccines has undertaken any serious attempt at analysing these adverse events, almost two years into the roll-out.

These findings have led colleagues from across the world to declare an international medical crisis and urge a worldwide stop to the vaccination campaigns. …

It is beyond time to allow our unvaccinated colleagues to return to work.

The first big clusterf**k of the 2020s.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

The Western ruling class and the rich will do ANYTHING to preserve the U.S. led “rules-based international order”

The Western ruling class and the rich will do ANYTHING to preserve the U.S. led “rules-based international order”. By Ni Mingda.

This “order” enables the U.S. (and by extension, its Western allies) to control the world’s financial system. It preserves the USD as the global reserve currency and allows America to print “money” with impunity to fund endless wars of resource extraction & asset privatization.

He who controls the money makes the rules:

Much of this “free money” ends up being managed by Wall Street, London & European big finance. Consequently, just 17 of these firms control more than USD 40 trillion in capital. For comparison, China only has about USD 3 trillion in foreign exchange reserve.

It took China 21 years of trading to save that USD 3 trillion in foreign reserve.

But it only took America two years to print USD 17 trillion out of thin air … which it can use to exchange for real goods with other nations.

This is a scam and a great injustice. …

Literally, make the rules:

Conveniently, directors from these trillion-dollar firms also serve as advisors for the G7, IMF, WTO, World Bank, & U.S. Federal Reserve.

They exercise great influence over Western politicians and policymakers. In turn, they are influenced by the rich whose wealth they manage. …

Who benefits?

In 2016, Oxfam reported that a mere 62 people own half the world’s wealth. In 2017, that number became just 8 men. The richest 1% of humanity controls most of the planet’s wealth.

And the “rules-based international order” ensures that the rich become richer. …

The narrative:

The rich are constantly worried about popular revolt.

Hence why Western media is owned by only a handful of billionaires. By controlling the narratives, they control the masses. …

Above all, don’t use gold, bitcoin, or any currency but the ones they can print:

Under the U.S. led Western “rules-based international order”, endless wars and regime-change ops have been waged to thwart the use of alternative currencies or to “liberate” a previously restricted market.

Weak countries suffer direct invasions. Strong ones suffer proxy wars. …

Rule # 1:

The “rules-based international order”:

  • is centered around preserving the USD as global reserve currency
  • gives Western elites almost unlimited, free “money” & unfettered access to the world’s wealth
  • is zealously promoted as “freedom & democracy.”

Rule # 2:

Any country that

  • attempts to bypass the USD
  • restricts Western capital access (eg. through state owned/controlled assets & resources)
  • attempts to create alternatives to Western systems (eg. SWIFT, IMF, etc.)

becomes a target for regime-change.

Rule # 3:

Western regime-change playbook:

  • Find “moral” pretext
  • Label target country as autocracy / dictatorship / genocidal
  • Get Western media, NGOs & think tanks to promote allegations
  • Support coup & install puppet gov
  • Setup bases
  • Loot country.

Rule # 4:

The “rules-based international order” not only defrauds the global south, it also defrauds ordinary Westerners by allowing the rich to

  • influence policymaking through political lobbying… usually to the detriment of the masses
  • avoid paying taxes.

The power to create money out of nothing and use it to purchase real goods and services is a great one, and at the root of much of today’s big-picture political behavior. Not that our media will talk about it, or even discuss where money actually comes from.

Have you noticed that there’s a great deal more money around today than there was 20 or 40 years ago? We talk in trillions now, whereas a million dollars used to be a huge deal to an individual in the 1970s. Yet almost no one knows where money comes from. (Answer: money is created when a bank makes a loan — in most instances they are not lending someone else’s money.)

All that new money bought a lot of stuff and earned a lot of interest — for someone.

How Russia Sees the World

How Russia Sees the World. By Vladimir Putin, in his speech yesterday where Russia annexed 20% of Ukraine. We picked out some of his good points (from among the propaganda).

The West continued and continues looking for another chance to strike a blow at us, to weaken and break up Russia, which they have always dreamed about, to divide our state and set our peoples against each other, and to condemn them to poverty and extinction. They cannot rest easy knowing that there is such a great country with this huge territory in the world, with its natural wealth, resources and people who cannot and will not do someone else’s bidding.

 

 

The West is ready to cross every line to preserve the neo-colonial system which allows it to live off the world, to plunder it thanks to the domination of the dollar and technology, to collect an actual tribute from humanity, to extract its primary source of unearned prosperity, the rent paid to the hegemon. The preservation of this annuity is their main, real and absolutely self-serving motivation. This is why total de-sovereignisation is in their interest. This explains their aggression towards independent states, traditional values and authentic cultures, their attempts to undermine international and integration processes, new global currencies and technological development centres they cannot control. It is critically important for them to force all countries to surrender their sovereignty to the United States.

In certain countries, the ruling elites voluntarily agree to do this, voluntarily agree to become vassals; others are bribed or intimidated. And if this does not work, they destroy entire states, leaving behind humanitarian disasters, devastation, ruins, millions of wrecked and mangled human lives, terrorist enclaves, social disaster zones, protectorates, colonies and semi-colonies. They don’t care. All they care about is their own benefit.

I want to underscore again that their insatiability and determination to preserve their unfettered dominance are the real causes of the hybrid war that the collective West is waging against Russia. They do not want us to be free; they want us to be a colony. They do not want equal cooperation; they want to loot. They do not want to see us a free society, but a mass of soulless slaves.

They see our thought and our philosophy as a direct threat. That is why they target our philosophers for assassination. Our culture and art present a danger to them, so they are trying to ban them. Our development and prosperity are also a threat to them because competition is growing. They do not want or need Russia, but we do. (Applause.)

I would like to remind you that in the past, ambitions of world domination have repeatedly shattered against the courage and resilience of our people. Russia will always be Russia. We will continue to defend our values and our Motherland.

The West is counting on impunity, on being able to get away with anything. As a matter of fact, this was actually the case until recently. Strategic security agreements have been trashed; agreements reached at the highest political level have been declared tall tales; firm promises not to expand NATO to the east gave way to dirty deception as soon as our former leaders bought into them; missile defence, intermediate-range and shorter-range missile treaties have been unilaterally dismantled under far-fetched pretexts.

Whoa, speaking of broken agreements: In the 1990s Ukraine gave Russia the nuclear weapons it had inherited from the USSR, in return for Russian guarantees for Ukrainian territorial integrity. Not a peep from Mr Putin about that.

Rules? Whose rules?

And all we hear is, the West is insisting on a rules-based order. Where did that come from anyway? Who has ever seen these rules? Who agreed or approved them? Listen, this is just a lot of nonsense, utter deceit, double standards, or even triple standards! They must think we’re stupid.

Russia is a great thousand-year-old power, a whole civilisation, and it is not going to live by such makeshift, false rules. (Applause.)

It was the so-called West that trampled on the principle of the inviolability of borders, and now it is deciding, at its own discretion, who has the right to self-determination and who does not, who is unworthy of it. It is unclear what their decisions are based on or who gave them the right to decide in the first place. They just assumed it.

That is why the choice of the people in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson makes them so furiously angry. The West does not have any moral right to weigh in, or even utter a word about freedom of democracy. It does not and it never did.

Western elites not only deny national sovereignty and international law. Their hegemony has pronounced features of totalitarianism, despotism and apartheid. They brazenly divide the world into their vassals — the so-called civilised countries — and all the rest, who, according to the designs of today’s Western racists, should be added to the list of barbarians and savages. False labels like “rogue country” or “authoritarian regime” are already available, and are used to stigmatise entire nations and states, which is nothing new. There is nothing new in this: deep down, the Western elites have remained the same colonisers. They discriminate and divide peoples into the top tier and the rest.

We have never agreed to and will never agree to such political nationalism and racism. What else, if not racism, is the Russophobia being spread around the world? What, if not racism, is the West’s dogmatic conviction that its civilisation and neoliberal culture is an indisputable model for the entire world to follow? “You’re either with us or against us.” It even sounds strange. …

A bit of history:

To emphasise, one of the reasons for the centuries-old Russophobia, the Western elites’ unconcealed animosity toward Russia is precisely the fact that we did not allow them to rob us during the period of colonial conquests and forced the Europeans to trade with us on mutually beneficial terms. This was achieved by creating a strong centralised state in Russia, which grew and got stronger based on the great moral values ​​of Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism, as well as Russian culture and the Russian word that were open to all.

There were numerous plans to invade Russia. Such attempts were made during the Time of Troubles in the 17th century and in the period of ordeals after the 1917 revolution. All of them failed. The West managed to grab hold of Russia’s wealth only in the late 20th century, when the state had been destroyed. They called us friends and partners, but they treated us like a colony, using various schemes to pump trillions of dollars out of the country. We remember. We have not forgotten anything.

St Basil's Cathedral, Moscow

Their democracy:

Western countries have been saying for centuries that they bring freedom and democracy to other nations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of bringing democracy they suppressed and exploited, and instead of giving freedom they enslaved and oppressed. The unipolar world is inherently anti-democratic and unfree; it is false and hypocritical through and through. …

The United States … continues to occupy Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and other countries, which they cynically refer to as equals and allies. Look now, what kind of alliance is that? The whole world knows that the top officials in these countries are being spied on and that their offices and homes are bugged. It is a disgrace, a disgrace for those who do this and for those who, like slaves, silently and meekly swallow this arrogant behaviour. …

Washington demands more and more sanctions against Russia and the majority of European politicians obediently go along with it. They clearly understand that by pressuring the EU to completely give up Russian energy and other resources, the United States is practically pushing Europe toward deindustrialisation in a bid to get its hands on the entire European market. These European elites understand everything — they do, but they prefer to serve the interests of others. This is no longer servility but direct betrayal of their own peoples. God bless, it is up to them.

But the Anglo-Saxons believe sanctions are no longer enough and now they have turned to subversion. It seems incredible but it is a fact — by causing explosions on Nord Stream’s international gas pipelines passing along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, they have actually embarked on the destruction of Europe’s entire energy infrastructure. It is clear to everyone who stands to gain. Those who benefit are responsible, of course.

Like a lot of globalist behavior, the problem is not so much that rules were broken but the selective enforcement of said rules. In the last 30 years, the West has sent troops into Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Serbia, and they upended Libya with force. Admittedly they didn’t try to annex them, and their motives were purer, but they were still forceful invasions aimed at installing regimes more friendly to the West. No sanctions followed.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Is China about to turn on Russia?

Is China about to turn on Russia? By Nathan Levine.

After managing a strained smile and handshake for the cameras, President Xi Jinping walked away from Vladimir Putin with a face like stone. By most accounts, the recent meeting in Uzbekistan between the two leaders, who once spoke of each other as “best friends” and “bosom buddies,” was frosty. …

Not what Putin promised:

China’s frustration with Russia is clearly growing. The conflict has left Beijing in an exceptionally awkward position. A short, sharp war that toppled the pro-Western Ukrainian government — i.e. what Putin appears to have originally expected — would undoubtedly have been a big win for China, severely undermining the unity and influence of the Western liberal order that it also seeks to overturn. It’s possible this was the bright future Xi was told to expect when, just before the war, Putin met him in February and the two leaders signed a joint statement declaring there were now “no limits” to the China-Russia partnership. Fast forward to today, however, and the protracted conflict, and the exposure of the Russian army’s simultaneous weakness and brutality, has turned into a serious headache for China.

Chinese react coolly:

Diplomatically, Beijing has attempted to straddle the fence on the war by supporting Russia rhetorically and morally even as it refrains from providing it with any of the material support Moscow has begged for with growing desperation. Russia has had to settle for shoddy, second-hand armaments from North Korea and Iran instead of the high-tech kit from China that it probably expected to receive. Even Washington has, almost grudgingly, admitted that China has so far complied with its sanctions on Russia. …

No one is happy: the West has reacted with moral outrage that China hasn’t openly denounced Russia, while the Russians doubtless privately seethe with a sense of betrayal, having discovered that “our Chinese friends are tough bargainers”, as Putin let slip.

Overall, the war is increasingly turning into a diplomatic disaster for Beijing, helping to drive perceptions of China to record lows around the world. In particular, it has shattered previously close ties with Europe. …

China is facing an exceptionally challenging economic outlook, including a worsening real-estate crisis, a debt bubble totalling at least 300% of GDP, an unprecedented level of capital flight, and a youth unemployment rate already over 20% — not to mention the damage inflicted by rolling Covid lockdowns. China simply cannot afford to lose additional trade and investment right now, especially from an economic partner as large as Europe. ….

Rumors of a coup in China to depose Xi were false:

Last weekend, wild rumours that a coup had deposed Xi swept the internet. Elite military units under the command of a 105-year-old politician had taken over Beijing and placed him under house arrest. Military convoys were on the move across China. Flights cancelled around the country were the result of mutinies or military manoeuvres, not the weather. One of Xi’s rivals was about to take charge; the whole regime was about to collapse.

All of this speculation was baseless, and Xi soon reappeared to pointedly lead all his top colleagues around a museum exhibit on “Forging Ahead in the New Era”.

But the fact that the rumours seemed plausible to so many speaks to a growing view, inside as well as outside China, that events and his own policies may have left Xi vulnerable — or even cost him the “Mandate of Heaven” that legitimises an Emperor’s rule. …

Putin has embarrassed and endangered Xi:

Xi’s economic mismanagement and strategic misstep of personally linking himself too closely to Putin have exposed him and his political faction to internal criticism in a manner that was almost unthinkable even two years ago. …

Xi’s patience with Moscow is clearly wearing thin. When Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu blithely declared on television last week that “we are at war not only with Ukraine and the Ukrainian army, but with the collective West”, faces in Beijing must have grown pale. This is not something China can afford to be prematurely dragged into right now. …

Russia’s flailing means he will face an increasingly stark choice: either continue to draw away from Russia and its mess, or pivot dramatically and unleash enough Chinese military assistance to make sure Russia can win decisively, setting up an epochal clash with the West. Fortunately, all signs currently point in the direction of the former.

If only Putin hadn’t invaded Ukraine. The second major clusterf**k this decade, after the West’s covid response.

Australia: Federal anti-corruption commission ensures the bureaucratic ruling class will rule our elected politicians

Australia: Federal anti-corruption commission ensures the bureaucratic ruling class will rule our elected politicians. By Janet Albrechtsen.

When the Greens, other fringe politicians and various activist journalists demand public hearings by a federal anti-corruption commission, they are admitting one of two things. Either they are ignorant about the critical difference between a court and one of these commissions. Or they are signalling reckless support for public show trials that do not adhere to due process. Being ambushed and publicly hauled in front of an anti-corruption commission can destroy the reputations and lives of innocent people.

Start with the astounding level of ignorance perverting much of the discussion around a federal anti-corruption body. We adhere to a system of open justice, where proceedings before a court are public, because of longstanding and proven safeguards that ensure an accused person receives a fair trial.

But the proposed anti-corruption body is not a court. It does not provide those who appear before it the essential elements of a fair trial.

  • There is no due process.
  • A person hauled before an anti-corruption body is not told of the charges.
  • They are not given a brief of evidence to formulate their defence.
  • There is no right against self-incrimination, no presumption of innocence.
  • There are no evidentiary rules or legal precedents to rein in rogue judges because a commissioner is not sitting as a judge, and the commission is not a court.
  • The commission can instigate its own investigation.
  • It can use wide-­ranging surveillance techniques.
  • It can rely on a wholly anonymous allegation to pursue a person.

If one does understand the critical difference between a court and an anti-corruption body, then it is entirely reckless to demand public hearings. Indeed, it is the antithesis of progress to applaud this medieval feature of some of the state ICACs and demand it be replicated at federal level. Public hearings will cause a surge in public ambushes and show trials as anti-corruption commissioners seek to satisfy this appetite for scalps. Imagine the glee in sections of the media, especially among some ABC journalists, from providing saturation coverage of corruption show trials every bit as warped as their media witch-hunts. This is a rotten habit to feed. …

Bureaucrats, unelected and unaccountable, can destroy anyone:

If we are not careful, we will repeat at the federal level the fundamental flaws of state ICAC models. Under the NSW legislation, the definition of “corruption” is so open-ended and subjective that commissions are given free rein to behave like ambush units to publicly shame the innocent. The federal draft legislation is equally vague.

  • The NSW ICAC made damning public allegations against Murray Kear and Michael Gallacher, leaving the careers of both men in tatters, even though both were spectacularly vindicated. There was no apology, no recompense. It’s the same under the draft federal legislation.
  • Victoria’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission has faced allegations that it drove one witness to take her own life.
  • Queensland’s Crime and Corruption commissioner Alan MacSporran resigned after a parliamentary committee found he failed to ensure the watchdog “acted independently and impartially”.
  • [The South Australian] ICAC led to a suicide and the destruction of the lives and careers of several public servants and police officers. Only after irreversible damage was done did the SA state parliament amend the powers of their corruption body.

In pursuit of power, the ends justifies the means for some:

Whether driven by recklessness or ignorance, it is a sign of how shallow this debate has become that so many people imagine that the end justifies even the most flawed, unprincipled, or unfair means. Securing some notable successes at the cost of spectacular failures is not a reform we should countenance. Yet posturing Green MPs and some of the teals brandish the words “corruption commission” as if it is a talisman, some irrefutable proof of virtue, with the insinuation that anyone concerned about their powers and reach wants to go easy on corruption.

An anti-corruption commission would be a major blow to democracy and justice. It would be a return towards medieval state power.

The Greens are the purest expression of the globalist ruling class in Australia, closely followed by the Labor Party. You know that by who the ABC barracks for.

Ray Epps Matters Because He Bears The Weight of a Powerful Narrative

Ray Epps Matters Because He Bears The Weight of a Powerful Narrative. By Jack Cashill.

Who is Ray Epps?

“Multiple videos show Ray Epps repeatedly urging crowds of people in Washington, D.C. on January 5 and January 6, 2021, to go to the United States Capitol and breach the building,“ [U.S. Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)] explained.

“Epps is the one person seen on video directing people towards the Capitol seconds before violence broke out, yet he has never been arrested or charged with any crime while more than 800 others have and countless more remained jailed.”

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday of last week, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) went into more detail, showing numerous video clips and citing Epps’ own admission, captured on video, “I’ll probably go to jail for this. I’ll probably be arrested.”

Obviously egging on the riot

Epps had good reason to worry. In his red Trump hat and camo gear, a head taller than those around him, Epps was the most conspicuous of all the January 6 protestors. In fact, he was the only one caught on camera urging others to “go in to the Capitol,” which he did repeatedly on January 5. So suspicious was his behavior that his fellow protestors chanted “no, no, no” and “Fed, Fed, Fed,” over one of his many exhortations.

One video from January 6 shows Epps telling a protester, “When we go in, leave this here. We don’t need to get shot.” The unseen “this” was likely a weapon, perhaps a gun. More damning still, another video captures Epps whispering into the ear of a protester seconds before the young man helped make the first breach of the Capitol Police’s inept defenses. …

Why is he protected by the deep state and the media?

The failure of the FBI to arrest the most conspicuous ringleader of the Capitol breach has naturally heightened suspicions that Epps — and likely others — were either federal agents or assets.

The “journalists” at the New York Times did not share those suspicions. In July 2022, … Times reporter Alan Feuer lamented the fate of this seeming MAGA extremist. “Epps has suffered enormously in the past 10 months,” wrote Feuer, “as right-wing media figures and Republican politicians have baselessly described him as a covert government agent who helped to instigate the attack on the Capitol last year.”

“Baselessly?” The fact that the Times would shred its remaining credibility to defend this man suggests just how much Epps matters. …

Why it matters so much:

The media and the Democrats feel compelled to defend Ray Epps. To acknowledge that Epps was a government asset is to acknowledge that he and others like him infiltrated the January 6 protest and spurred it to violence. …

The vehemence of the Democrats’ opposition to Gosar’s resolution showed just how desperate they are to preserve their version of events at least through November.

No one on the committee matched Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) for the sheer venom of his attacks. …

To his credit, Massie kept his cool. He understood what was at stake. For more than a year Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have been pressing the FBI and Justice Department officials for information relevant to Epps, and they have been stonewalled at every turn.

“You are not going to memory hole this,” Massie protested. “There were cameras everywhere. You can create your own thesis for what happened, but if your thesis is in contradiction with things that hundreds of millions can observe and no one disputes, you have to resolve that.” …

If the Epps “conspiracy theory” blows up, every other accusation that the Left has dismissed as a conspiracy theory, including the “Big Lie” itself, will come under scrutiny.

What a shame that the history of defying Soviet authoritarianism is relevant to 21st century America:

Election Deniers are a threat to democracy?

Election Deniers are a threat to democracy? By Matt Taibbi.

The following video — which is rather persuasive — was banned by YouTube.

The material in this video does not promote the idea that any election was stolen or illegitimate. On the contrary, it shows a great mass of comments from Democratic partisans and pundits who themselves make that claim, about the 2016 election. Those comments were not censored or suppressed when made the first time around …

Nor did any platform step in to issue warnings …

However, the decision to assemble these materials in one place, inviting audiences to consider their meaning, apparently crosses a line.

Let’s face it, there is only one criterion for banning: Does it help the left?

Jacinda Ardern and the woke war on free speech, where banning “misinformation” really means banning dissent

Jacinda Ardern and the woke war on free speech, where banning “misinformation” really means banning dissent. By Brendan O’Neill.

Tyranny has had a makeover. It’s no longer a boot stamping on a human face forever. It isn’t a gruff, gurning cop dragging you into a cell for thinking or expressing a ‘dangerous’ idea. It isn’t a priest strapping you to a breaking wheel. No, authoritarianism is well-dressed now. It’s polite. It has a broad smile and speaks in a soft voice. It is delivered not via a soldier’s boot to the cranium but with a caring liberal head-tilt. And its name is Jacinda Ardern.

Tyranny at the UN

New Zealand’s PM, every online liberal’s favourite world leader, has gone viral over the past 24 hours following the circulation of the shocking speech she gave at the UN last Friday. Before the assembled leaders of both the free world and the unfree world, Ms Ardern raised the alarm about a new ‘weapon of war’. It’s a ‘dangerous’ one, she said. It poses a grave ‘threat’ to humankind. It threatens to drag us headlong into ‘chaos’. We must act now, she pleaded with the powerful, so that we might disarm this weapon and ‘bring [the world] back to order’.

What is this terrible weapon, this menacing munition, that Ms Ardern so passionately wants to decommission? It’s freedom of speech.

She was talking about words. Seriously. About ideas, disagreement, dissent. Her speech focused on the alleged scourge of ‘mis- and disinformation online’. …

She wants to police not so much speech as ideas:

She really is talking about ideas. Modern politicians who wring their hands over ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ are usually just talking about beliefs they don’t like.

So at the UN, Ms Ardern gave climate-change scepticism as an example of one of those ‘weapons of war’ that can cause ‘chaos’. ‘How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists?’, she asked. Critiquing climate-change alarmism, calling into question the eco-lobby’s hysterical claims that billions will die and Earth will burn if we don’t drastically cut our carbon emissions, is an entirely legitimate political endeavour. In treating it as a species of Flat Earthism, as ‘disinformation’, the new elites seek to demonise dissenters, to treat people whose views differ to their own as the intellectual equivalent of warmongers. Barack Obama also claims that ‘misinformation’ about climate change — which, in his view, includes painting the environmentalist movement in a ‘wildly negative light’ — is a threat to the safety of humanity. Be mean about greens and people will die.

21st century authoritarianism:

Call me a ‘weapon of war’, but I believe freedom of speech must include the freedom to be negative — even wildly so — about eco-activists. Activists, by the way, whose hype about the end of the world could genuinely be labelled misinformation. But they are never branded with that shaming m-word. That’s because misinformation doesn’t really mean misinformation anymore. It means dissent. …

The most common cry of the 21st-century authoritarian — that speech can have a destabilising and even life-threatening impact, especially if it concerns big crises like climate change or Covid-19. So ‘climate deniers’ are a threat to the future of the human race and thus may be legitimately silenced. ‘Lockdown deniers’ threaten to encourage the spread of viral infection and thus may be legitimately gagged. …

Ms Ardern’s UN speech exposed the iron fist of authoritarianism that lurks within the velvet glove of wokeness. From her brutal lockdown, which forbade even New Zealand’s own citizens from returning to their home country, to her longstanding war on ‘extremist’ speech, this is a woman who poses as liberal but can’t even spell the word.

Her ignorance and silliness betray her lack of knowledge and serious thought. Jacinda Ardern is 42. She has spent nearly all of her adult life climbing the greasy pole of politics, so she never had time to learn or reflect on many of life’s issues, on which there is a great deal of historical knowledge and experience.

No one who knows much history of our civilization would have said what she said at the UN. Post high-school, her experience is limited to a Bachelor of Communication Studies at a provincial university and a string of political positions.

She’s an attractive-looking mouthpiece for the views of others. Putty in the hands of puppeteers. There are quite a few of these around at the moment — Justin Trudeau, also a WEF student, is another.

Too many leaders today are empty vessels. The quality of leadership is slipping.

Conservative Speech Ain’t Free in NSW, but Held to Ransom

Conservative Speech Ain’t Free in NSW, but Held to Ransom. By Michael Smith.

Two days before Nigel Farage was to speak in Sydney, a public servant (not a police officer) called up warning they had assessed there would be trouble from protestors.

As a result he was “required” to hire NSW Police to protect his private event. They called it “user paid policing”.

If he didn’t pay, they’d shut him down .. “prevented from proceeding by NSW law” said the bureaucrat.

Flat White:

Essentially, the police threatened to close down the private speaking event in Pyrmont unless thousands of dollars were handed over based on ‘science’ that I’m sure we’ll never see. The compulsory bill is for security that the event did not want or ask for ‘just in case’ protesters showed up.

Why not fine the protesters if they cause trouble, you ask? …

‘As it was we didn’t get any protesters at all,’ said Farage.

‘There weren’t any difficulties. The fundamental point is that for a meeting where conservative views were expressed, a ransom had to be paid. I would argue that if I had been a representative of Black Lives Matter or the Climate Change movement, that wouldn’t have happened.’

He’s probably right. It’s hard to imagine NSW Police threatening one of the Left’s favourite political children considering they were allowed to engage in free range activism during the Covid lockdowns. …

‘The NSW police asked for $3,000 Aussie dollars to be paid up otherwise they’d stop the event from taking place. The money was paid yesterday. …

‘I think free speech should be free…’

‘If this happened in my country this would be a front-page story on every national newspaper…’ said Farage …

And while Nigel Farage and his organizers can afford to cough up the blood money, smaller conservative speakers certainly can’t.

The existence of these fines effectively ropes off political speech for those who can afford it — or anyone on the Left, who don’t have to worry. It’s the sort of behaviour you’d expect in a third-world nation with a jealous political hierarchy. …

Later on Sky News Australia, Farage called the whole thing a ‘free speech protection racket’.

Perhaps Premier Dominic Perrottet – a conservative (on paper) – can explain why speakers on his side of politics are routinely harassed, fined, and deplatformed?

When is free speech not free? When it is held to ransom by the ruling class, because they don’t like what is being said. Yet another form of shut-uppery of political opponents.

US military aircraft circled Nord Stream incident site in September

US military aircraft circled Nord Stream incident site in September. By Al Mayadeen.

US military helicopters habitually and on numerous occasions circled for hours over the site of the Nord Stream pipelines incident near Bornholm Island earlier in September, Flightradar24 data showed.

Earlier this month, a US Navy Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopter spent hours loitering over the location of the damaged natural gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea near Bornholm for several days in a row, September 1, 2, and 3, in particular. …

These revelations come after German newspaper Der Spiegel reported Tuesday that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned the German government there would be attacks on Nord Stream gas pipelines weeks ahead of any incident being reported around the pipelines.

Here’s a video making the case the Russians did it, but I didn’t find it convincing. It’s hard to see cutting off their options by blowing up the pipeline is an improvement over simply turning off the gas.

David Archibald:

Fixing those pipelines will be relatively easy. It is in 70 meters of water, which is diving territory.

Because of the hydrostatic pressure from the water depth and despite the size of the charges used, the lengths ruptured will be short.

Cut them out and weld in new pipe. Once the right vessels are in place it would only take a week or so. The oil industry does this sort of stuff all the time.

Risk/reward-wise, damaging the pipelines was not worth it.

Apart from the Russians, it will provide a rallying point for the anti-American left in German politics. Which they will use for decades. If I was a German I would be pissed off that someone blew up something supplying my country. …

I think it could yet break up NATO.

And it drives Russia further into the embrace of China.

The problem is that the Democrats are running the world like they run US domestic politics.

A historic parallel is that the CIA assassinated the most popular South Vietnamese politician at the time, Ngo Dinh Diem, in 1963. It was widely considered to be a big mistake and own goal.