- "Humanitarian Intervention" And The New World Order, Part 3
Authored by Vladislav Sotirovic via Oriental Review,
NATO’s Aggression Against Serbia and Montenegro in 1999
The NATO launched a military intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) on March 24th, 1999 in the name of protection of human rights of Kosovo Albanians. In other words, the 78 days of barbaric air-strikes were formally justified by “humanitarian intervention” which was mainly based on the false flags and fake news (like the Rachak case) by Western corporate mass media or brutal lies from the ground (like by William Walker – a Head of the Kosovo Verification Mission).
In essence, regional organizations like the NATO, according to the UN Charter, do not have the right to interfere in internal affairs of any country, not even in internal affairs of their own member states. This superior international document and instrument of global security explicitly demand the approval of the UNSC for the undertaking of any armed action by any regional organization. The NATO never asked and never became authorized to carry out military intervention against Serbia and Montenegro in 1999 and, therefore, according to modern Public International Law, this “humanitarian” intervention under arms was a pure act of brutal aggression against a sovereign country and as such a crime against peace. Subsequently, human rights served in this case just as a justification for the realization of certain geopolitical aims in the Balkans. It became of crystal visibility in February 2008 when Kosovo Albanians proclaimed an independent Republic of Kosovo which became recognized by all US’ satellites around the world. In 1999 NATO did not bomb Serbia and Montenegro for the sake of Kosovo independence but only to protect “human rights” (of Albanians). However, the same NATO nothing did to continue the protection of human rights (of Kosovo Serbs and other non-Albanians) after the war when the province became put under complete protectorate and control by the NATO who nothing did to prevent comprehensive ethnic cleansing of the province committed by Albanian extremists (former members of the KLA).
Although, as it is presented above, every armed intervention is strictly prohibited by both Public International Law and the UN Charter, the NATO, established in 1949 on the foundation of Article 51 of the UN Charter which is dealing with the right to collective and individual self-defense, attacked the FYR on March 24th, 1999 with continual barbaric air-strikes for the next 77 days. The term “air-strikes”, the NATO was regularly used at its own press conferences during the aggression on Serbia and Montenegro like the term “collateral damage” for the mass destruction and civilian casualties resulted by the NATO bombing. In their official statements, NATO’s officials declaratively claimed that the focal reason for those (illegal) air-strikes was a set of humanitarian issues among them the most important have been three:
1) protection of individual human rights,
2) violation of Albanian rights in Kosovo as a national minority, and
3) prevention of the potential policy of genocide and ethnic cleansing against ethnic Albanians by Yugoslavia’s security forces.
Nevertheless, the aggression was accompanied by dirty and powerful media propaganda which was, of course, directly supported by a number of politically “correct” legal and human rights experts for the purpose to wash the brains of the Western audience. Most of them justified the aggression with the right of Kosovo Albanians to self-determination, although such right is not supported by any valid international instrument if the right to self-determination means the destruction of territorial integrity of the country. However, the same experts did not recognize the same right to self-determination to Croatia’s and Bosnia’s Serbs during the break up of ex-Yugoslavia.
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, center, with court security guards at left and right, appears before the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Tuesday July 3, 2001. Milosevic walked into the U.N. tribunal courtroom, Tuesday, without lawyers to represent him against charges of war crimes against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo in 1999. Milosevic died in his prison cell in the Hague on March 11, 2006 allegedely of a heat attack jist a few months begore the verdict to be annouced.
To keep in our mind, according to Public International Law and the UN Charter, the aggression also includes bombing by the armed forces of one country against the territory of another country or use of any arms and armed forces of one country against the territory of another as, for instance, NATO used Kosovo Albanian KLA as ground forces during the Kosovo War. But the crucial fact in relation to the 1998−1999 Kosovo War was that since there was no real humanitarian catastrophe before the NATO aggression starred on March 24th, 1999 against the FRY, it had to be created what exactly NATO did during the air-strike campaign of 78 days in order to justify its occupation of the province after the war followed by Kosovo’s secession from Serbia in 2008.
Violation Of Human Rights In Kosovo
No one claims that human rights of all citizens including and ethnic Albanians in Kosovo-Metochia have not been violated to a certain extent before NATO’s military campaign in 1999. This fact was approved in several resolutions by the UNSC before the NATO aggression but what is systematically hidden as a fact is that original flagrant violation of human rights in the province came from the side of Albanian KLA as this terrorist organization launched a widespread policy of attacking, kidnapping and killing of the Serbs in order to provoke Serbia’s security forces who reacted as they did it by violation of human rights of those Albanians who participated in the actions of and/or supported the KLA’s activities. Here we have to keep in mind that a majority of Kosovo’s Albanians did not support the methods of combat by the KLA including and Dr. Ibrahim Rugova – a political leader of Kosovo’s Albanians. In order to calm down a political situation in the province, the Yugoslav Government concluded with different international organizations, like the OSCE or the NATO, several agreements allowing the OSCE monitoring mission in Kosovo-Metochia. The Yugoslav Government as well as agreed to restrain the activities by its security forces if the opposite side (the KLA) would do the same. That the Albanian side before NATO’s aggression was committing war crimes is clear from the invitation to both the Yugoslav and Kosovo’s Albanian sides by the international community to cooperate with the UN special Tribunal (est. 1993) for the crimes committed on the territory of ex-Yugoslavia (including Kosovo-Metochia too). The fact was that regarding this invitation to cooperate with the Tribunal’s prosecutor in the Hague, the leaders of the “Albanian national community” were also invited but not only the Yugoslav side to participate in the investigation for all offenses within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Albanian side was, in other words, invited to participate in the investigation of personal involvement of the KLA members in the crimes committed against other ethnic groups in Kosovo-Metochia, with the final political aim to secede the province from the FRY.
Nevertheless, in no one resolution on Kosovo before March 24th, 1999, it was not mentioned any “threat to peace” in the province nor did they order the UNSC to form international armed forces with the right to re-establish the peace and order in Kosovo, that was to undertake certain armed actions against Serbia and Montenegro. In 1998, the FRY as a sovereign state was combating separatist Albanian movement in Kosovo-Metochia, in some cases with inordinate use of force, but, nevertheless, there was no real humanitarian catastrophe at that time. The recent historical experience of violation of human rights according to contemporary definition, in the province suggests that the critical situation was escalating with the creation of the KLA in 1995 which took comprehensive terrorist actions for the sake to bring about the secession of Kosovo from Serbia. The Yugoslav security forces came into serious conflict with different groups of the KLA, and the judiciary of the FRY accompanied by relevant experts and scholars justifiably qualified the armed actions of Kosovo’s separatists as classic terrorism and criminal acts against a sovereign state.[iv]
Former leader of KLA Ramush Haradinaj arrested on 5 January 2017 on a Serbian arrest warrant by French border police upon his arrival at EuroAirport Basel Mulhouse Freiburg on a flight from Pristina. Serbian authorities urged France to extradite Haradinaj, citing that he personally took part in the torture, murder, and rape of civilians. On 27 April 2017, a French court turned down a Serbian request to extradite Ramush Haradinaj and released him. Since September 9, 2017 Haradinaj is the Prime Minister of self-proclamed Kosovo.
In essence, there were prior to NATO’s aggression on the FRY the problems of protection of human rights in Kosovo-Metochia, but certainly no to such extent as it was exaggerated by the Western mass media and policymakers at least no bigger than in many other corners of the world like in Colombia or Turkey’s eastern part populated by ethnic Kurds. Surely, the situation in regard to human rights in Turkey since 1994 onward is much more serious than it was in Kosovo-Metochia in 1998 as the Kurdish human and minority rights are drastically violated like in 1994 when a large number of the Kurdish villages were destroyed by the Turkish police and regular army’s forces and when almost one million of ethnic Kurds fled Turkey to neighboring states but the US administration simply did nothing to protect the Kurdish human rights. Even no initiative was launched for the UN to undertake a legitimate international action in order to prevent Turkey’s authorities to stop with the production of a humanitarian catastrophe.
Producing Humanitarian Catastrophe But Characterized As No Aggression
The focal result of NATO’s bombing of Serbia and Montenegro was a huge number of refugees of all nationalities from Kosovo-Metochia that became, in fact, a real humanitarian catastrophe. However, during such exodus of people, NATO’s military aggression under the umbrella of the “armed humanitarian intervention” became even strengthened in spite of all prohibitions which have been existing in Public International Law. However, during and after the bombardment of the FRY, the UN resolutions, like the UNSC Resolution of June 10th, 1999, simply did not mention the bombardment at all for a very reason: if mentioned it would have to be officially qualified as “aggression” what means a violation of Public International Law and the UN Charter. In this case, however, due to the established voting system in the UNSC (threat of using Russian and Chinese veto rights), no resolution could be adopted. The Resolution of June 10th, 1999, in fact, is speaking only about deployment of international security forces including and those of the NATO in the province after the war for the sake to “…establish safe environment for all people in Kosovo, as well as to facilitate safe return of all displaced people and refugees to their homes”. In other words, nowhere in the whole text of the resolution is mentioned the bombardment of the FRY and, therefore, a pure act of aggression against a sovereign state. That was the same with another previous resolution adopted during the aggression (Resolution 1239 on May 14th, 1999) which does not say any single word about NATO’s bombardment but instead it only says that international community expresses serious concern in respect to the humanitarian catastrophe in and around Kosovo as a result of continuing crisis but who produced this crisis is absolutely unclear from the text of the resolution. The same text confirms the rights of all refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes in a safe and dignified manner but what was a real background of the crisis is not clear. According to the UN resolutions on Kosovo, the NATO barbaric bombardment and a classic act of aggression on a sovereign state, in fact, believe or not, never happened!
We have to mention that there were several attempts by Russia and China in the UNSC to adopt an appropriate resolution in which would be recognized that NATO’s air-strikes in 1999 really happened on the ground and subsequently they had to be characterized as “aggression”. However, such resolution’s proposals failed as not being adopted for the only reason – used veto rights by the USA, the UK, and France (the Western obstruction).
Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention
There are several focal objections by the scholars, policy-makers, and lawyers to humanitarian intervention advocated at various times. Here, we will address the most important arguments against humanitarian intervention taking primarily the case of NATO’s bombing of the FRY in 1999:
-
No real basis for humanitarian intervention in Public International Law. The common good is best preserved by maintaining a ban on any use of force not authorized by the UNSC. Interveners have typically either claimed to be acting in self-defense according to the “implied authorization” of the UNSC resolutions and the UN Charter or have refrained from making any reasonable legal argument based on Public International Law at all.
-
States do not intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons. States always have mixed real reasons for humanitarian and other interventions and are very rarely prepared to sacrifice their own soldiers overseas. It means that humanitarian intervention is guided by calculations of national interest but not by what is best for the victims in whose name the intervention is formally carried out.
-
States are not allowed to risk the lives of their own soldiers in order to save strangers. Political leaders do not possess any moral right to shed the blood of their own citizens on behalf of suffering foreigners. Citizens are having the exclusive responsibility of their own state, and their state is entirely their own business and, therefore, if a civil authority has broken down this is the responsibility only of the citizens and political leaders of that state but not of the foreign powers.
-
The issue of abuse. In the absence of a not politically colored mechanism for deciding when a real humanitarian intervention is permissible, states have a possibility to espouse humanitarian motives just as a formal pretext to morally cover the pursuit of national self-interest as, for instance, A. Hitler did with the Sudetenland.
-
Selectivity of response. States all the time apply principles of humanitarian intervention selectively following their own national interest but not real protection of human rights. In other words, a state’s behavior is always governed by what the Government decides to be in their interest and, therefore, states are selective about when they choose to intervene. As an example, the selectivity of response is the argument that NATO’s “humanitarian” intervention in Kosovo in 1999 could not be driven by real humanitarian concerns as it has done nothing to address, for instance, the very much larger humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur, a province in West Sudan (Darfur genocide).
-
A problem of moral principles. There is no generally reached consensus on a set of moral principles about humanitarian intervention which should not be permitted in the face of disagreement about what constitutes extreme cases of the violation of human rights.
-
Practically, humanitarian intervention does not work. Humanitarian intervention is not workable as the outsiders cannot impose human rights especially by those who have the same problem in their homes. Democracy can be established only by a domestic struggle for liberty but not from the outside. It means that human rights cannot take root if they are imposed by outsiders. The argument is that the oppressed people should by themselves overthrow non-democratic authority.
Conclusion
The norms of Public International Law and doctrine of collective security after 1945 presented above, unfortunately, did not stop different forms of armed interventions around the globe but especially by the US – a country which became a global champion of aggression. Armed “humanitarian” interventions are still going to be a reality of the present and future international relations under the umbrella of the R2P.
After the Cold War, the most brutal, illegal and shameful “humanitarian intervention” was in the southern Serbian province of Kosovo-Metochia in 1999 that was, in fact, NATO’s aggression against the FRY in a form of an air campaign. However, beside this example of “humanitarian intervention” as a violation of Public International Law, there were many similar interventions before like when in 1983 the USA invaded a sovereign state of Granada with some 8.000 soldiers under justification to protect the lives of about 1.000 American citizens living there under the belief that they were threatened due to the unrest in this country. However, the real reason of such “humanitarian intervention” has been of purely political and geostrategic nature rather than humanitarian one as US’ troops occupied the whole island (state) of Granada including and those parts in which US’ citizens did not live. The focal proof of abuse of Public International Law was a fact that the American troops de facto occupied Granada as they stayed on the island even after all the American citizens had left and changed the Government of it.
From the presentation above, it is quite clear that NATO’s military action against Serbia and Montenegro in 1999 cannot be characterized as a just war of “humanitarian intervention” even according to the criteria by the 17th-century Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius not to speak about the modern set of criteria incorporated into the UN Charter and Public International Law. Therefore, the action was rather a classic example of brutal military aggression against a sovereign state covered by politicized Western mass media. It is true that “media are not only spectator in modern conflicts, but must be considered active participants forming public opinion and also creating and directing threat perception” that was exactly the case of the 1998−1999 Kosovo War when the Western corporate mass media succeeded to convince public opinion that NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” was a just war.
-
- These Are The Richest Towns In America
With its proximity to Stanford University, and the corporate campuses of Google and Facebook, the leafy Bay Area suburb of Atherton, Calif. has placed first in Bloomberg‘s Richest Places annual index for the third year in a row, with an average household income above $450,000.
Atherton Mayor Bill Widmer said the tree-lined streets and lot sizes of at least an acre offer residents enough privacy while still being close to the bustle of Silicon Valley. “We value a semi-rural environment,” said Widmer, who moved to Atherton in 1996. “There are few sidewalks and many places don’t have streetlights.”
Scarsdale, a tony Westchester County suburb north of Manhattan, moved up to the No. 2 spot on this year’s list as its residents enjoyed a $30,000 increase in annual household income.
“We moved here, as many did, because of the outstanding school system,” said Scarsdale Mayor Dan Hochvert, a 40-year resident. “That’s one of the primary drivers.”
According to the survey, more than half of the top 100 richest places in America were either in the New York City area or California. A handful in the Midwest and Southwest also made the list.
In the US, wealth is largely concentrated in six counties: Westchester in New York, Bergen in New Jersey and Fairfield in Connecticut, Cook County (better known as Chicago), Los Angeles County, and Montgomery County, Maryland, which borders Washington, D.C.
See the full list below:
- Saul Alinsky's 13 Rules For 'Have-Nots' To Gain Power
Submitted by Bilal Hafeez of Nomura
Obama used his ideas on his path to the US Presidency, Hilary Clinton wrote her thesis on his work, and grass-roots movements, from both the left and now the right, treat his work as the template for action. Yet many people have never heard of the American Saul Alinsky. He is thought be the founder of modern community organising and wrote one of the most influential books on setting up grass-roots movements: the 1971 book “Rules For Radicals”. The basic philosophy was to give power to the have-nots. In his introduction he wrote:
“WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away”
The book goes on to give lessons on how to take power away from the “haves”. Naturally, it was heavily used by the counter-cultural movement in the 1970s, but has increasingly be used in mainstream political campaigns. Perhaps, the most enduring part of the book is Alinsky’s 13 rules for radicals. Here they are with some of his additional notes:
- “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
- “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
- “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
- “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
- “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
- “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
- “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings. New issues and crises are always developing, and one’s reaction becomes, “Well, my heart bleeds for those people and I’m all for the boycott, but after all there are other important things in life”—and there it goes.
- “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” [use] different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
- “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
- “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. It should be remembered not only that the action is in the reaction but that action is itself the consequence of reaction and of reaction to the reaction, ad infinitum. The pressure produces the reaction, and constant pressure sustains action.
- “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside [positive]” this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative. We have already seen the conversion of the negative into the positive, in Mahatma Gandhi’s development of the tactic of passive resistance.
- “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying “You’re right—we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.”
- “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” the opposition must be singled out as the target and “frozen.”…in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant…passing of the buck. …Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks… If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible.
So the next time you see a political movement or campaign in action, compare their tactics to the list above and you’ll know how you are being manipulated!
- Dianne Feinstein Snaps At Group Of Environmental Activist Children
A highly-edited video making the rounds shows Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) lecturing a group of climate activist children on Friday, after she was asked to support the Green New Deal championed by the DNC’s “new hotness,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC).
Armed with an impassioned letter and memorized talking points, the children belonging to three Bay Area environmentalist groups (Sunrise Bay Area, Youth Versus the Apocalypse, and Earth Guardians San Francisco) implored Feinstein to support the Green New Deal.
The Senator responded: “Ok, I’ll tell you what. We have our own Green New Deal.”
The video skips forward to the children warning Feinstein that “some scientists have said that we have 12 years to turn this around” – referring to a conclusion by a recent UN-backed report that man-made climate change will become irreversible if carbon emissions are not significantly reduced over the next 12 years (which Ocasio-Cortez turned into “the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change“).
“It’s not gonna get turned around in 10 years,” responded Feinstein – drawing a harsh rebuke from an angry chaperone.
“Senator if this doesn’t get turned around in 10 years you’re looking at the faces of the people who are going to be living with these consequences,” said the adult – as one of the children chimed in “the government is supposed to be for the people and by the people and for all the people!”
Feinstein was not amused.
I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’m doing. You come in here and you say “it has to be my way or the highway.”
“I don’t respond to that,” shot back Feinstein.
“I’ve gotten elected. I just ran. I was elected by almost a million vote plurality. And, I know what I’m doing. So, you know, maybe people should listen a little bit. -Dianne Feinstein
One kid shot back “I hear what you’re saying but we’re the people who voted you. You’re supposed to listen to us, that’s your job.”
“How old are you?” challenged Feinstein.
“I’m 16. I can’t vote,” said the girl.
“Well you didn’t vote for me,” replied the Senator.
Watch:
This is how @SenFeinstein reacted to children asking her to support the #GreenNewDeal resolution — with smugness + disrespect.
This is a fight for our generation’s survival. Her reaction is why young people desperately want new leadership in Congress. pic.twitter.com/0zAkaxruMI
— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) February 22, 2019
One can hardly blame Feinstein for her annoyance at a pack of children forcing her to support the Green New Deal at camerapoint, as the senior Democrat appeared to win by a nose in the court of public opinion.
Me watching Feinstein vs the brainwashed child army pic.twitter.com/chTUaJY54d
— Matt’s Idea Shop (@MattsIdeaShop) February 23, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
If you had “Twitter rallying around Sen Feinstein” on your bingo card tonight, just take your $15 gift certificate to Shoney’s and go home victorious.
— John Noonan (@noonanjo) February 23, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
This is politically incompetent of her, but honestly if I had kids I would hire Feinstein to babysit them every once in a while just to keep them in their place. https://t.co/BHU9ZVVX0E
— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) February 22, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Hahah. Feinstein just laid the smack down on children. The kids are obviously pushing a stupid bill, but damn… she was just not here for their shit. 😂😂😂
I don’t know why I find this so hilarious. She’s like Miss Trunchbull. https://t.co/fMjzCN4Giv
— Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) February 23, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Okay, I’ve watched the Feinstein vs. Green New Deal kids video approximately 12 times in the last two hours and I am not at all ashamed to admit that every time it made me laugh til I cried. What an age we’re living in where someone can make me sympathize with Dianne Feinstein…
— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) February 23, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
She probably didn’t score too many points with younger Democrats, however.
Everyone knows its good politics to tell little kids to fuck off https://t.co/5DXVQRbDmQ
— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) February 22, 2019
very disappointed in these kids. senator feinstein is an esteemed member of the senate who has voted for more iraq wars than all your parents combined. do you even know what a joint military resolution is you little shits https://t.co/j0XExJP7K3
— KT Nelson (@KrangTNelson) February 22, 2019
The full version of the video reveals that it was actually a mostly cordial visit.
Perhaps the most on-point reaction comes from The Hill‘s Buck Sexton:
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Want to be very clear about this:
whether it’s on guns, or climate change, or any other policy issue-
NOBODY should give a crap what 12 year olds think. It’s not cute, it’s not compelling. It’s the babbling of children.
Stop. Using. Kids. For. Politics. https://t.co/Ld806AYJgu
— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) February 23, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
- Body Cam Video They Don’t Want You To See: Arizona Cop Takes Down Knife-Wielding Jihadist
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
The media is quick to pounce on narratives that serve their agenda, but when it comes to actual news stories about the dangers of real hate and terrorism in America they are often silent.
This is the case with the following report, which apparently was so damaging to the mainstream agenda that not only did they refuse to cover it, but Maricopa refused to release the video until they were sued.
In the video, an individual is confronted by a Maricopa County, Arizona officer. The individual, as seen below, first indicates to the officer that he wants to “talk about” political issues.
All seems well for about 20 seconds, when the man seems to completely lose his marbles when asked to produce identification. He first begins throwing rocks at the officer, then pulls a knife, at which point things take a turn for the worse for this peaceful protester:
WARNING GRAPHIC…. #ARIZONA, #MARICOPA CO, OFFICER SHOOTS ISIS TERRORIST AFTER CHARGES WITH A KNIFE
How many heard about this? County had to be sued to release the info.
Ismail Ahmed stated he wanted to do something in protest on behalf of the people in Palestine & Middle East pic.twitter.com/fHy2x3qapn
— Cindyseestruth (@cs00582scs) February 17, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Why it was so difficult for Maricopa County to release this video remains a mystery.
- Gene-Edited CRISPR Twins May Have Supercharged Brains, And Silicon Valley Wants In On It
A pair of Chinese twins who were gene-edited for resistance to HIV may also have ‘supercharged’ brains, along with possible resistance to age-related cognitive diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
In a controversial experiment led by Chinese scientist He Jiankui, the embroys of seven couples had their genes “edited” using a tool known as CRISPR. By removing a gene called CCR5, Jiankui sought to create a natural immunity to HIV – which requires CCR5 to enter blood cells.
Based on new research, however, Jiankui may have also left the twins, Lulu and Nana, with improved memory and enhanced cognition, according to MIT Technology Review. They may also enjoy some degree of protection from Alzheimer’s Disease and other maladies which are rapidly being linked to chronic inflammation, as some groups of mice without CCR5 – or who have been given CCR5 inhibitors, experience less severe dementia or Alzheimer’s symptoms.
He Jiankui “The answer is likely yes, it did affect their brains,” says UCLA neurobiologist Alcino J. Silva, whose lap discovered a link between CCR5 and the brain’s ability to form new connections.
“The simplest interpretation is that those mutations will probably have an impact on cognitive function in the twins,” says Silva, adding that the exact effect on the girls’ cognition cannot be predicted, which is “why it should not be done.”
Jiankui’s human experiments drew harsh rebuke after news of Lulu and Nana’s birth in late October or early November, and has reportedly been fired from his position at the Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in Shenzhen, China. Jiankui says there are more gene-edited babies on the way.
The experiment has been widely condemned as irresponsible, and He is under investigation in China. News of the first gene-edited babies also inflamed speculation about whether CRISPR technology could one day be used to create super-intelligent humans, perhaps as part of a biotechnology race between the US and China.
There is no evidence that He actually set out to modify the twins’ intelligence. MIT Technology Review contacted scientists studying the effects of CCR5 on cognition, and they say the Chinese scientist never reached out to them, as he did to others from whom he hoped to get scientific advice or support. –MIT Technology Review
In 2016, Silva and professor Miou Zhou of the Western University of Health Sciences in California showed that removing the CCR5 gene from mice significantly improved their memory. Moreover, ” Silva and a large team from the US and Israel say they have new proof that CCR5 acts as a suppressor of memories and synaptic connections,” according to the report.
According to their new report, appearing in the journal Cell, people who naturally lack CCR5 recover more quickly from strokes. What’s more, people missing at least one copy of the gene seem to go further in school, suggesting a possible role in everyday intelligence. –MIT Technology Review
“We are the first to report a function of CCR5 in the human brain, and the first to report a higher level of education,” said UCLA biologist S. Thomas Carmichael – who led the study.
Silicon Valley wants in on it
Silva tells the MIT Technology Review that “because of his research, he sometimes interacts with figures in Silicon Valley and elsewhere who have, in his opinion, an unhealthy interest in designer babies with better brains.”
When word of Jiankui’s experiment went public, Silva says he immediately questioned whether enhanced cognition was the real goal of the experiment.
“I suddenly realized—Oh, holy shit, they are really serious about this bullshit,” said Silva. “My reaction was visceral repulsion and sadness.”
He Jiankui acknowledged that he knew about the potential cognitive benefits of removing the CCR5 gene discovered by the UCLA team during a Q&A session, though he said “I am against using genome editing for enhancement.”
The benefits of CCR5 removal are currently being tested on both stroke patients and people with HIV-induced memory issues.
In those studies, one of which is under way at UCLA, people are being given an anti-HIV drug, Maraviroc, which chemically blocks CCR5, to see if it improves their cognition.
Silva says there is a big difference between trying to correct deficits in such patients and trying to create enhancement. “Cognitive problems are one of the biggest unmet needs in medicine. We need drugs, but it’s another thing to take normal people and muck with the DNA or chemistry to improve them,” he says. “We simply don’t know enough to do it. Nature has struck a very fine balance.” –MIT Technology Review
“Could it be conceivable that at one point in the future we could increase the average IQ of the population? I would not be a scientist if I said no. The work in mice demonstrates the answer may be yes,” said Silva. “But mice are not people. We simply don’t know what the consequences will be in mucking around. We are not ready for it yet.”
- As Yellowstone Awakens, Dr. Michio Kaku Warns That It Could "Literally Tear The Guts Out Of The USA"
Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
One day it will happen.
Scientists assure us that one day the absolutely massive Yellowstone supervolcano will once again experience a Category 8 eruption, and if it happened today it would “literally tear the guts out of the United States of America”. That is why what has been happening at Yellowstone in recent months is so alarming. We know that the ground has been rising and that “a 465-mile-long piece of molten rock” is moving upwards directly under Yellowstone. And we also know that the major geysers at Yellowstone were more active last year than in any other year in any of our lifetimes. Are these signs that an eruption is coming? We better hope not, because as Dr. Michio Kaku recently told Fox News, there is “a sleeping Godzilla underneath Yellowstone”…
Dr Kaku told Fox News: “Forget the image of Yogi Bear representing Yellowstone.
“We’re talking about a sleeping Godzilla underneath Yellowstone, that if it erupts in a maximum eruption called Category 8, it can literally tear the guts out of the United States of America.
“Instead of having 50 states of the Union, we would have 30 states of the Union.“
We live at a time when seismic activity has been increasing all over the world, and Yellowstone has also been exhibiting very unusual behavior.
However, Dr. Kaku says that we shouldn’t worry too much, because he believes that we will get warnings about a Yellowstone eruption in advance…
“Unlike a meteor from outer space, where you get no warning whatsoever, we get warnings.
“If you see movies like Pompeii, you know that there are days, in fact, weeks of eruptions building up, rumbling inside, underneath the pocket of lava.
“So there would be enough time, several weeks, to begin evacuation if and when such an unlikely event were to take place.”
But what if we have been ignoring the warnings that we have already been getting?
For example, Steamboat geyser erupted more times in 2018 than in any other year in history. The following comes from National Geographic…
The Yellowstone Volcano Observatory reports that Steamboat has now set a record by erupting a whopping 32 times in 2018, a personal best for the geyser for a single calendar year. Previously, this geyser made it as high as 29 paroxysms back in 1964.
Other nearby geysers have also been behaving fairly interestingly of late. Ear Spring Geyser, for example, has been pretty quiet since 1957, but it erupted spectacularly a few months back—and sprayed human garbage from the 1930s everywhere.
Prior to last year, there had not been an eruption of the Steamboat geyser for three and a half years.
In addition, the ground under Yellowstone has been steadily rising for the last few years, and the area was hit by 121 earthquakes in the month of December alone…
“In the area of Norris Geyser Basin, GPS data indicate a minor amount of uplift over the past few months, with a total uplift of about 2cm during 2018, also continuing the trend that has been ongoing since 2015.”
In the same Yellowstone update, the USGS revealed a total of 121 earthquakes were recorded in the Yellowstone area in December 2018 alone.
It is indeed possible that when Yellowstone finally erupts that we will get more of a warning than this.
But it is also possible that we will not.
When Yellowstone blows, life as you have known it will instantly be over. If you are not in the immediate kill zone, you will have an opportunity to try to survive, but it won’t be easy. One survivalist expert suggests that everyone should “head east as fast as you can”…
He added: “Zone one, which is a radius of 100 miles, could see 70,000 people die instantly.
“Zone two, which starts after 100 miles, would be covered in 10ft of volcanic ash at 450C.
“After the second zone, your chances of surviving increase, but still head east as fast as you can.
“Beyond zone six is where you would be the safest in the US for the short term, but the wind will greatly determine where ash falls.”
Personally, I don’t know if that is the best approach. The roads will be absolutely clogged, and there is no way that you are going to outrun the volcanic ash. If you get completely buried in volcanic ash in your vehicle, it will all be over.
Of course the truth is that if Yellowstone experiences a Category 8 eruption most Americans will eventually die no matter what they do. The following is an extended excerpt from one of my previous articles…
Hundreds of cubic miles of ash, rock and lava would be blasted into the atmosphere, and this would likely plunge much of the northern hemisphere into several days of complete darkness. Virtually everything within 100 miles of Yellowstone would be immediately killed, but a much more cruel fate would befall those that live in major cities outside of the immediate blast zone such as Salt Lake City and Denver.
Hot volcanic ash, rock and dust would rain down on those cities literally for weeks. In the end, it would be extremely difficult for anyone living in those communities to survive. In fact, it has been estimated that 90 percent of all people living within 600 miles of Yellowstone would be killed.
Experts project that such an eruption would dump a layer of volcanic ash that is at least 10 feet deep up to 1,000 miles away, and approximately two-thirds of the United States would suddenly become uninhabitable. The volcanic ash would severely contaminate most of our water supplies, and growing food in the middle of the country would become next to impossible.
In other words, it would be the end of our country as we know it today.
The rest of the planet, and this would especially be true for the northern hemisphere, would experience what is known as a “nuclear winter”. An extreme period of “global cooling” would take place, and temperatures around the world would fall by up to 20 degrees. Crops would fail all over the planet, and severe famine would sweep the globe.
In the end, billions could die.
Let us hope and pray that nothing like this happens any time soon. Those of you that regularly follow my work already know that I am far more concerned about an eruption of Mt. Rainier, and we should also keep a very, very close eye on Mt. Fuji in Japan.
As our planet becomes increasingly unstable, there will be unprecedented natural disasters in the years ahead, and multitudes of people will die in those disasters.
Unfortunately, most of the “experts” continue to assure the public that everything is going to be “just fine”, but meanwhile the shaking of our planet just continues to get even worse with each passing year.
- S&P Warns Global Sovereign Debt Will Top $50 Trillion This Year
It has been one week since the US Treasury revealed that the national debt had topped $22 trillion (only 11 months after it had topped the $21 trillion threshold). And as the US budget deficit shows no signs of shrinking thanks to the Trump tax cuts and the death of the Obama-era budget sequester that has allowed for an expansion of federal spending (with more presumably on the way once the Trump infrastructure plan comes into focus), S&P warned on Thursday that worldwide sovereign debt could reach $50 trillion this year.
According to Reuters, S&P predicted that governments will borrow some $7.78 trillion this year, up 3.2% since 2018 (the US will constitute more than $1 trillion of that all by itself). That’s a 6% increase in the total debt pile from the year before.
Most of this borrowing will be rolling over long-term debt.
“Some 70 percent, or $5.5 trillion, of sovereigns’ gross borrowing will be to refinance maturing long-term debt, resulting in an estimated net borrowing requirement of about $2.3 trillion, or 2.6 percent of the GDP of rated sovereigns,” said S&P Global Ratings credit analyst Karen Vartapetov.
Governments, like corporations and individuals, took advantage of low interest rates around the world to step up borrowing in the wake of the financial crisis. Now, with borrowing costs expected to rise, these long-term burdens will become more burdensome to service. And with central banks slowly beginning to allow their inflated balance sheets to run off…
…investors will be watching to see if more central banks follow the Fed’s lead in pausing its balance sheet runoff, or possibly even take it one step further and return to the expansionist glory days of global QE. Who knows? As the global debt pile appears increasingly intractable, more economic officials might seriously consider Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Modern Monetary Theory.
- Burning Man CEO Bans "Billionaire Camp", Tells Instagram "Influencers" To Stay Home
Authored by John Vibes via The Mind Unleashed,
Nevada’s Burning Man festival, founded on a philosophy of peace, love and generosity, was intended to act as a temporary example of how people could live and get along without the financial and cultural restraints of mainstream society. Over the years the festival has grown into one of the largest events of its kind in the world, becoming more and more like the outside world that it was seeking to escape from, according to many longtime “burners.”
In recent years, elite guests have made headlines with luxurious camps that acted as exclusive retreats for the rich and famous, safely out of reach of the sweaty, dusty and sometimes naked hippies. Humano the Tribe is the most notorious of these elite camps, with a membership cost of over $100,000 and a reputation for causing trouble.
One festival attendee who had camped near Humano complained that the tribe grossly disrespected their neighbors as well as the land. The burner explained:
“They were our neighbors. Fuck them. Someone from their camp literally took a shit on our camp one night. They had their entrance hidden so we constantly had sparkle ponies walking through our camp asking us how to get in. They leaked grey water all over the playa. They didn’t have enough space for all their vehicles so they parked a giant RV in the fire lane. Everything about them was terrible.”
In response to over three years of serious complaints about the camp, Burning Man CEO Marian Goodell announced this week that the camp will not be welcomed back in 2019.
“After negative reports from participants and nearly every Black Rock City operations team, we told Camp Humano that they are not invited back in 2019 as a placed camp. Humano was a strain on resources, had a poor ‘leave no trace’ record for three years, had a very poor 2018 environmental compliance record including multiple BLM citations, and was the subject of many complaints from neighboring camps.”
Goodell also expressed her disdain for the Instagram “influencers” who were using the event as a photo shoot or opportunity to sell products. She went on to explain:
“Whether it’s commercial photo shoots, product placements, or Instagram posts thanking ‘friends’ for a useful item, attendees including fashion models and social media ‘influencers’ are wearing and tagging brands in their playa photos. This means they are using Black Rock City to increase their popularity; to appeal to customers and sell more ‘stuff.’ Is this okay? How could it be? Posts of gratitude cross referenced with hashtags started off slow and innocently enough, but are now wildly out of control. Failing to make clear what behavior is unacceptable has compounded the problem. I recently heard rumors of more than one product or business launch happening on playa in 2018. Seriously, people. This really isn’t Burning Man.”
Burning Man itself is a multimillion-dollar event, so Goodell is selling a product in the form of tickets, which makes her statement a bit odd. However, in the wake of the viral Fyre Festival scandal, there is now a spotlight on social media marketing companies and their relationship with large festivals.
Goodell also mentioned that they would be making it easier for people who are on a budget to make it to the festival by offering 18% and 30% discounts.
“In our ongoing effort to enable participants with limited budgets, we’re growing the application-based Low Income Ticket Program by 18 percent. There will be one high-priced ticket level, and we’re reducing the overall number available by 30 percent,” Goodell said.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...