newswars--2020-07-07--Iran Sees 6th Deadly ‘Mystery’ Explosion In Weeks At Industrial Zone Near Tehran

By our count it ’ s the sixth ‘ mystery ’ explosion in mere weeks .
In the early morning hours of Tuesday two Iranians were killed and three injured in a blast at a factory south of Tehran , IRNA reported .
Like with other recent explosions and fires , including one at Iran ’ s underground nuclear development Natanz facility , official statements downplayed this latest blast as an accident .
“ Human error was the cause of the blast in a factory… Two people were killed and three others were injured , ” said a local official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by some workers ’ negligent handling of oxygen tanks… .
was so powerful that the walls of a factory nearby were also totally destroyed , ” he added .
What is a mystery , however , is the latest spate of “ random ” explosions and fires at remote Iranian countryside areas and industrial zones known for being weapons and nuclear development sites , as we previously detailed .
Meanwhile , there ’ s been more and more scrutiny placed on Israel and its main foreign intelligence service Mossad : Israel was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage to an Iranian uranium enrichment facility , a Middle Eastern intelligence official has claimed .
The unnamed source told The New York Times that a powerful bomb caused the explosion at the Natanz nuclear facility last week .
Declared an accident by Iranian officials , the blast led to significant damage to the facility and could slow the production of centrifuges used to enrich uranium , according to the country ’ s atomic energy spokesperson .
Several mysterious fires and explosions have broken out at sites in Iran in recent weeks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical facility , along with a fire at a power station .
The incidents are now coming with such frequency that the question of foreign sabotage is impossible to ignore , also considering Israeli leaders have over the past year vowed they ’ ll do anything to ensure the Islamic Republic can ’ t possibly develop a nuke .
“ The incidents have sparked speculation that Iran is under attack , with some pointing to arch-foe Israel as the culprit behind the supposed attacks , ” the New Arab report continues .
Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s confirmed that Israel or the US are behind it , including via cyber-attacks .
“ Speaking on condition of anonymity , the Middle Eastern intelligence official told The New York Times that Israel was behind the Natanz blast but not any of the other incident.
” Asia Times has asked : are we witnessing the “ the son of Stuxnet ?
” Five recent explosions in Iran may have been caused by computer viruses similar to the Stuxnet virus that disabled Iranian centrifuges in 2010 .
Two of the blasts took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a missile research , development and production site , one at a new uranium enrichment centrifuge center , and the last ( if it can be considered part of the attacks ) in downtown Tehran at a medical facility that could have been a cover for nuclear operations such as a hidden command center .
All of this has prompted a response out of Israel , with Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz on Sunday issuing a partial and somewhat ambiguous denial .
“ Not every incident that transpires in Iran necessarily has something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are complex , they have very high safety constraints and I ’ m not sure they always know how to maintain them , ” he told Army Radio .
“ Everyone can be suspicious of us all the time , ” Gantz said .
“ But not every incident that happens in Iran necessarily has something to do with us.
” Recall that just a year ago it was a long hot summer of ‘ tanker wars ’ .
And now it seems a sabotage war on Iranian soil , targeting weapons and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear facilities are for peaceful domestic energy purposes .
Real Americans are the scourge and true threat to the life ’ s work of the Neo-Globalist elites .

By our count it’s the sixth ‘mystery’ explosion in mere weeks. In the early morning hours of Tuesday two Iranians were killed and three injured in a blast at a factory south of Tehran, IRNA reported.
Like with other recent explosions and fires, including one at Iran’s underground nuclear development Natanz facility, official statements downplayed this latest blast as an accident. “Human error was the cause of the blast in a factory… Two people were killed and three others were injured,” said a local official.
“The explosion that was caused by some workers’ negligent handling of oxygen tanks…. was so powerful that the walls of a factory nearby were also totally destroyed,” he added.
What is a mystery, however, is the latest spate of “random” explosions and fires at remote Iranian countryside areas and industrial zones known for being weapons and nuclear development sites, as we previously detailed.
Meanwhile, there’s been more and more scrutiny placed on Israel and its main foreign intelligence service Mossad:
Israel was the culprit behind a fire that caused significant damage to an Iranian uranium enrichment facility, a Middle Eastern intelligence official has claimed.
The unnamed source told The New York Times that a powerful bomb caused the explosion at the Natanz nuclear facility last week.
Declared an accident by Iranian officials, the blast led to significant damage to the facility and could slow the production of centrifuges used to enrich uranium, according to the country’s atomic energy spokesperson.
Several mysterious fires and explosions have broken out at sites in Iran in recent weeks, including explosions at a weapons depot and medical facility, along with a fire at a power station.
The incidents are now coming with such frequency that the question of foreign sabotage is impossible to ignore, also considering Israeli leaders have over the past year vowed they’ll do anything to ensure the Islamic Republic can’t possibly develop a nuke.
“The incidents have sparked speculation that Iran is under attack, with some pointing to arch-foe Israel as the culprit behind the supposed attacks,” the New Arab report continues. Iran has said it will respond if it’s confirmed that Israel or the US are behind it, including via cyber-attacks. “Speaking on condition of anonymity, the Middle Eastern intelligence official told The New York Times that Israel was behind the Natanz blast but not any of the other incident.”
Asia Times has asked: are we witnessing the “the son of Stuxnet?”
Five recent explosions in Iran may have been caused by computer viruses similar to the Stuxnet virus that disabled Iranian centrifuges in 2010.
Two of the blasts took place at power plants, one at a missile research, development and production site, one at a new uranium enrichment centrifuge center, and the last (if it can be considered part of the attacks) in downtown Tehran at a medical facility that could have been a cover for nuclear operations such as a hidden command center.
All of this has prompted a response out of Israel, with Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz on Sunday issuing a partial and somewhat ambiguous denial.
“Not every incident that transpires in Iran necessarily has something to do with us… All those systems are complex, they have very high safety constraints and I’m not sure they always know how to maintain them,” he told Army Radio.
Iran suspects the US and Israel of trying to disrupt its nuke program. https://t.co/G2ueIH4JnV — CNSNews (@cnsnews) July 6, 2020
“Everyone can be suspicious of us all the time,” Gantz said. “But not every incident that happens in Iran necessarily has something to do with us.”
Recall that just a year ago it was a long hot summer of ‘tanker wars’. And now it seems a sabotage war on Iranian soil, targeting weapons and nuclear development, despite Tehran claiming its nuclear facilities are for peaceful domestic energy purposes.
Real Americans are the scourge and true threat to the life’s work of the Neo-Globalist elites.


newswars--2020-07-07--Ilhan Omar Calls For ‘Dismantling’ Of U.S. ‘Economy & Political Systems’

Far-left Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) called for the “ dismantling ” of the United States “ economy and political systems ” to fight “ systemic racism.
” In a speech given with other radical Minnesota leaders on Tuesday , Omar argued that America ’ s economic and political institutions are inherently racist and must be overthrown .
“ As long as our economy and political systems prioritize profit without considering who is profiting , who is being shut out , we will perpetuate this inequality , ” Omar said .
Omar continued her Marxist speech , suggesting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ system of oppression ” “ So we can not at criminal justice system .
We must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.
” As we ’ ve reported , this “ Black Lives Matter ” racial movement isn ’ t about racial equality , but about implementing a cultural revolution to overthrow America and replace it with communism .
Co-founder of the BLM organization Patrisse Cullors admitted to the group ’ s Marxist agenda in 2015 .
“ We are trained Marxists , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ versed on ideological theories , and I think what we really try to do is build a movement that can be utilized by many , many black folk.
” Paul Joseph Watson guest hosts The Alex Jones Show to break down the rising racially charged violence in the name of the Politically Extremist Organization BLM .

Far-left Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for the “dismantling” of the United States “economy and political systems” to fight “systemic racism.”
In a speech given with other radical Minnesota leaders on Tuesday, Omar argued that America’s economic and political institutions are inherently racist and must be overthrown.
“As long as our economy and political systems prioritize profit without considering who is profiting, who is being shut out, we will perpetuate this inequality,” Omar said.
Omar continued her Marxist speech, suggesting that American capitalism and the Constitution foster a “system of oppression”
“So we cannot at criminal justice system. We must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.”
As we’ve reported, this “Black Lives Matter” racial movement isn’t about racial equality, but about implementing a cultural revolution to overthrow America and replace it with communism.
Co-founder of the BLM organization Patrisse Cullors admitted to the group’s Marxist agenda in 2015.
“We are trained Marxists,” Cullors said. “We are super versed on ideological theories, and I think what we really try to do is build a movement that can be utilized by many, many black folk.”
Twitter: Follow @WhiteIsTheFury
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/WhiteIsTheFury/posts
Gab: https://gab.com/WhiteIsTheFury
Minds: https://www.minds.com/whiteisthefury
Paul Joseph Watson guest hosts The Alex Jones Show to break down the rising racially charged violence in the name of the Politically Extremist Organization BLM.


newswars--2020-07-07--Stand Up For Police At The ‘Back The Blue Rally’ In Austin, Texas

Savannah Hernandez drops in on the War Room with Owen Shroyer to announce the “ Back The Blue Rally ” @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday in front of the Austin Police Department .
Savanah was confronted by an Antifa @ @ @ @ @ support for police at a BLM rally .

Savannah Hernandez drops in on the War Room with Owen Shroyer to announce the “Back The Blue Rally” in Austin, Texas this Wednesday in front of the Austin Police Department.
Savanah was confronted by an Antifa punk last month for showing support for police at a BLM rally.


newswars--2020-07-07--UN Investigator Rules US Killing of Soleimani ‘Unlawful,’ Compares It To An ‘Act of War’

Last week , Iranian authorities issued an arrest warrant against US President Donald Trump and 35 other persons over the drone strike assassination of Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad on January 3 .
Interpol indicated that it would not honour any Iranian extradition request over the Soleimani case .
The January killing of Qasem Soleimani was illegal , and the US has failed to provide the international community with sufficient evidence regarding any imminent threat to its security supposedly posed by the Iranian commander , Agnes Callamard , UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial , summary and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report , Callamard found that Soleimani ’ s killing was “ the first known incident in which a State invoked self-defence as a justification for an attack against the State-actor , in the territory of another state , thus implicating the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2 ( 4 ) of the UN Charter.
” The rapporteur determined that Soleimani ’ s assassination was “ directed not only at Iran but also Iraq , ” and by killing him on the country ’ s soil without first receiving Baghdad ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ violated ” the nation ’ s territorial integrity .
Furthermore , suggesting that the justifications presented by the US for the general ’ s killing , and those presented by Iran in its retaliatory missile strikes on US bases in Iraq , were unlawful , Callamard warned that these actions weakened the legal justifications for military action .
“ Were the blurring of these lines to be allowed , States could support the legality of their acts by cherry-picking justifications from different legal spheres…The application of a ‘ first shot ’ theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actor translates into the real legal possibility that ALL soldiers , anywhere in the world , could constitute a legal target , ” she warned .
According to Callamard , the technological capabilities of modern drones , combined with the logic used by the United States with its ‘ war on terror ’ approach to conflict over the past two decades , highlight “ the real risks that the expansion of the ‘ war on terror ’ doctrine poses to international peace.
” “ In other words , the targeted killing of General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 years of distortions of international law , and repeated massive violations of humanitarian law , is not just a slippery slope .
It is a cliff , ” she wrote .
The rapporteur stressed that Soleimani and the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces commander killed with him had a military status , were not killed in a setting of an armed conflict , and were thus “ unlawful ” targets .
“ It is hard to imagine that a similar strike against a Western military leader would not be considered as an act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action , political , military and otherwise , against the State launching the strike , ” she noted .
Ultimately , Callamard argues that Soleimani ’ s assassination raises at least three issues “ which are difficult if not impossible to reconcile with the aforementioned standards guiding the use of force , ” including “ i ) the planning inherent to a drone strike indicating premeditation and the absence of considering alternative options ( except calling off the strike ) ; ii ) the absence of evidence that the target presented an imminent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the killing of 9 other persons in addition to that of General Soleimani , who individually have not been identified and assessed as presenting imminent threats .
Five of these were civilians of Iraq , a US partner.
” In the rapporteur ’ s determination , Soleimani ’ s assassination is thus considered an “ arbitrary killing ” by the US .
Callamard is expected to present her findings to the Human Rights Council on Thursday , with the body then expected to debate what action to pursue in light of the information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body in 2018 , citing the agency ’ s “ chronic bias against Israel.
” Last month , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lashed out at the HRC as a “ haven for dictators and the democracies that indulge them ” after the body moved to investigate allegations of systemic racism and discrimination against black people around the world , including the United States , in the wake of the George Floyd protests .
Iranian authorities approved a measure to ask Interpol to put US President Donald Trump on its international red notice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing .
However , an Interpol spokesperson said the agency would not agree to any Iranian request if one was made , citing a prohibition for undertaking “ any intervention or activities of a political , military , religious or racial character.
” Soleimani was killed at Baghdad ’ s international airport on January 3 by a missile launched by a US drone , with senior Iraqi Shia militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis killed alongside him .
The assassination led to a serious escalation of tensions between Washington and Tehran , and on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two US bases in Iraq , causing traumatic brain injuries to more than 100 US troops .
Real Americans are the scourge and true threat to the life ’ s work of the Neo-Globalist elites .

Last week, Iranian authorities issued an arrest warrant against US President Donald Trump and 35 other persons over the drone strike assassination of Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad on January 3. Interpol indicated that it would not honour any Iranian extradition request over the Soleimani case.
The January killing of Qasem Soleimani was illegal, and the US has failed to provide the international community with sufficient evidence regarding any imminent threat to its security supposedly posed by the Iranian commander, Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions has concluded.
In a report, Callamard found that Soleimani’s killing was “the first known incident in which a State invoked self-defence as a justification for an attack against the State-actor, in the territory of another state, thus implicating the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.”
The rapporteur determined that Soleimani’s assassination was “directed not only at Iran but also Iraq,” and by killing him on the country’s soil without first receiving Baghdad’s consent meant that the US had “violated” the nation’s territorial integrity.
New report on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions by UN Special Rapporteur @AgnesCallamard. Important points include mythbusting #drones as “surgical” and how many issues with targeted killings are not unique to the weapon system platform. https://t.co/EHVmwQ9pxm — Larry Lewis (@LarryLewis_) July 6, 2020
Furthermore, suggesting that the justifications presented by the US for the general’s killing, and those presented by Iran in its retaliatory missile strikes on US bases in Iraq, were unlawful, Callamard warned that these actions weakened the legal justifications for military action.
“Were the blurring of these lines to be allowed, States could support the legality of their acts by cherry-picking justifications from different legal spheres…The application of a ‘first shot’ theory to the targeted killing of a State actor translates into the real legal possibility that ALL soldiers, anywhere in the world, could constitute a legal target,” she warned.
According to Callamard, the technological capabilities of modern drones, combined with the logic used by the United States with its ‘war on terror’ approach to conflict over the past two decades, highlight “the real risks that the expansion of the ‘war on terror’ doctrine poses to international peace.”
“In other words, the targeted killing of General Soleimani, coming in the wake of 20 years of distortions of international law, and repeated massive violations of humanitarian law, is not just a slippery slope. It is a cliff,” she wrote.
The rapporteur stressed that Soleimani and the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces commander killed with him had a military status, were not killed in a setting of an armed conflict, and were thus “unlawful” targets. “It is hard to imagine that a similar strike against a Western military leader would not be considered as an act of war, potentially leading to intense action, political, military and otherwise, against the State launching the strike,” she noted.
Ultimately, Callamard argues that Soleimani’s assassination raises at least three issues “which are difficult if not impossible to reconcile with the aforementioned standards guiding the use of force,” including “i) the planning inherent to a drone strike indicating premeditation and the absence of considering alternative options (except calling off the strike); ii) the absence of evidence that the target presented an imminent or even actual threat to life…iii) the killing of 9 other persons in addition to that of General Soleimani, who individually have not been identified and assessed as presenting imminent threats. Five of these were civilians of Iraq, a US partner.”
In the rapporteur’s determination, Soleimani’s assassination is thus considered an “arbitrary killing” by the US.
Callamard is expected to present her findings to the Human Rights Council on Thursday, with the body then expected to debate what action to pursue in light of the information. The United States quit the UN body in 2018, citing the agency’s “chronic bias against Israel.” Last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lashed out at the HRC as a “haven for dictators and the democracies that indulge them” after the body moved to investigate allegations of systemic racism and discrimination against black people around the world, including the United States, in the wake of the George Floyd protests.
Iranian authorities approved a measure to ask Interpol to put US President Donald Trump on its international red notice of wanted persons over Soleimani’s killing. However, an Interpol spokesperson said the agency would not agree to any Iranian request if one was made, citing a prohibition for undertaking “any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.”
Soleimani was killed at Baghdad’s international airport on January 3 by a missile launched by a US drone, with senior Iraqi Shia militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis killed alongside him. The assassination led to a serious escalation of tensions between Washington and Tehran, and on January 8 Iran rained missiles down on two US bases in Iraq, causing traumatic brain injuries to more than 100 US troops.
Real Americans are the scourge and true threat to the life’s work of the Neo-Globalist elites.


newswars--2020-07-07--Cuomo Investigates Himself, Finds He’s Not at Fault for Deadly COVID-19 Nursing Home Policy

Downstate New York isn ’ t just the hot spot of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States , but the entire world .
Without a doubt , Governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s nursing home policy contributed significantly to this .
On March 25 , Cuomo ordered nursing homes to accept patients regardless of their coronavirus status .
Even then it was well-known that the elderly were more vulnerable to the virus , yet Cuomo defended the policy .
Nursing homes “ don ’ t have a right to object .
That is the rule and that is the regulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Cuomo said in April .
He finally rescinded the order on May 11 , but the damage had been done .
Cuomo enabled a massive outbreak in New York nursing homes and then tried to cover it up with bogus coronavirus stats .
But the cover-up is still happening .
Cuomo ’ s administration “ investigated ” the policy and its impact , and predictably concluded that the decision to send patients who tested positive for the coronavirus into nursing homes was not a “ significant factor ” in the thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facilities statewide .
Instead , the 33-page Cuomo administration report blamed nursing home staff and visitors for unknowingly infecting nursing home patients .
The report , which Cuomo praised , was issued by Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker , a Cuomo-appointee .
Cuomo then claimed criticism of the nursing home policy was based on “ pure politics.
” “ You had this political conspiracy that the deaths in nursing homes were preventable , ” Cuomo said .
“ And now the report has the facts and the facts tell the exact opposite story.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ state lawmakers are discussing holding private hearings on Cuomo ’ s nursing home policy .
New York Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt called the Cuomo administration report “ an insult ” to every New Yorker who lost a loved one in a nursing home .
Nursing home patients represent a mere 0.46 percent of the United States population but account for at least 43 percent of all coronavirus deaths .
“ The Cuomo administration ’ s failure to accept responsibility for their disastrous response has been outrageous , but to blame family members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were not even able to say goodbye at funerals – is the ultimate low , ” Ortt added .
Dr. Betsy McCaughey , Ph.D. , a constitutional scholar , bestselling author , and healthcare expert , said back in May that Governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s deadly nursing home policy during the coronavirus pandemic likely cost 10,000 lives , double the state ’ s official numbers .
“ It ’ s hard to know what ’ s worse , the dying or the lying.
” Cuomo has tried to deflect responsibility for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s policy , referring to an administration statement from March 13 .
“ Sorry , Governor , but you ’ re twisting what the statement said , ” McCaughey said .
“ The administration recommended nursing homes should admit patients even if they were coming from a hospital battling COVID-19 , not that patients with COVID-19 themselves should be admitted.
” Real Americans are the scourge and true threat to the life ’ s work of the Neo-Globalist elites .

Downstate New York isn’t just the hot spot of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States, but the entire world.
Without a doubt, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s nursing home policy contributed significantly to this. On March 25, Cuomo ordered nursing homes to accept patients regardless of their coronavirus status. Even then it was well-known that the elderly were more vulnerable to the virus, yet Cuomo defended the policy. Nursing homes “don’t have a right to object.
That is the rule and that is the regulation and they have to comply with that,” Cuomo said in April. He finally rescinded the order on May 11, but the damage had been done. Cuomo enabled a massive outbreak in New York nursing homes and then tried to cover it up with bogus coronavirus stats.
But the cover-up is still happening. Cuomo’s administration “investigated” the policy and its impact, and predictably concluded that the decision to send patients who tested positive for the coronavirus into nursing homes was not a “significant factor” in the thousands of deaths that occurred in nursing home facilities statewide.
Instead, the 33-page Cuomo administration report blamed nursing home staff and visitors for unknowingly infecting nursing home patients. The report, which Cuomo praised, was issued by Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker, a Cuomo-appointee. Cuomo then claimed criticism of the nursing home policy was based on “pure politics.”
“You had this political conspiracy that the deaths in nursing homes were preventable,” Cuomo said. “And now the report has the facts and the facts tell the exact opposite story.”
This report conveniently was presented as state lawmakers are discussing holding private hearings on Cuomo’s nursing home policy.
New York Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt called the Cuomo administration report “an insult” to every New Yorker who lost a loved one in a nursing home. Nursing home patients represent a mere 0.46 percent of the United States population but account for at least 43 percent of all coronavirus deaths. “The Cuomo administration’s failure to accept responsibility for their disastrous response has been outrageous, but to blame family members who have suffered devastating losses – who were not even able to say goodbye at funerals – is the ultimate low,” Ortt added.
Dr. Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D., a constitutional scholar, bestselling author, and healthcare expert, said back in May that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s deadly nursing home policy during the coronavirus pandemic likely cost 10,000 lives, double the state’s official numbers. “It’s hard to know what’s worse, the dying or the lying.”
Cuomo has tried to deflect responsibility for the policy, claiming he was merely following Trump’s policy, referring to an administration statement from March 13. “Sorry, Governor, but you’re twisting what the statement said,” McCaughey said. “The administration recommended nursing homes should admit patients even if they were coming from a hospital battling COVID-19, not that patients with COVID-19 themselves should be admitted.”
Real Americans are the scourge and true threat to the life’s work of the Neo-Globalist elites.


newswars--2020-07-07--Tucker Carlson: Democrats ‘Actually Hate America’ Yet ‘Desperately Want To Control’ It

The Democrats can not be allowed to run America because they deeply hate it , Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Monday .
In his opening monologue of “ Tucker Carlson Tonight , ” Carlson highlighted the left ’ s anger over President Trump ’ s Independence Day speech at Mt .
Rushmore over the weekend .
“ America deserves to be in flames .
That is their view .
And this weekend , they said it essentially out loud , ” Carlson said .
“ Mount Rushmore , they told us , must go .
It is illegitimate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ So what to make of all of this ?
Well , it ’ s long been considered out of bounds to question a person ’ s patriotism .
It ’ s a very strong charge , and we try not ever to make it.
” “ But in the face of all of this , the conclusion can ’ t be avoided .
These people actually hate America .
There ’ s no longer a question about that , ” Carlson continued .
“ And yet paradoxically , at the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than anything , and that leads to the most basic of all questions .
Can you really lead a country that you hate ?
” Carlson , whose show reached all-time high cable news television ratings , then pointed out that leaders should have a vested interest in the country they lead , but that Democrats don ’ t fit that “ most basic prerequisite.
” “ Loving the people you lead , caring deeply about them is the most basic prerequisite of leadership , ” Carlson said .
“ The leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , they despise this country .
They have said so , they continue to.
” “ That is shocking , but it is also disqualifying .
We can not let them run this nation because they hate it .
Imagine what they would do to it.
” President Trump tweeted out Carlson ’ s monologue Tuesday morning , which has garnered over 850,000 views as of this writing .
President Trump gave America the best fireworks show the White House could muster under a tsunamai of propaganda , as Trump Derangement Goons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the streets and on television screens .

The Democrats cannot be allowed to run America because they deeply hate it, Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Monday.
In his opening monologue of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Carlson highlighted the left’s anger over President Trump’s Independence Day speech at Mt. Rushmore over the weekend.
“America deserves to be in flames. That is their view. And this weekend, they said it essentially out loud,” Carlson said. “Mount Rushmore, they told us, must go. It is illegitimate, just like the nation it celebrates.”
“So what to make of all of this? Well, it’s long been considered out of bounds to question a person’s patriotism. It’s a very strong charge, and we try not ever to make it.”
“But in the face of all of this, the conclusion can’t be avoided. These people actually hate America. There’s no longer a question about that,” Carlson continued.
“And yet paradoxically, at the same time, they desperately want to control America more than anything, and that leads to the most basic of all questions. Can you really lead a country that you hate?”
Carlson, whose show reached all-time high cable news television ratings, then pointed out that leaders should have a vested interest in the country they lead, but that Democrats don’t fit that “most basic prerequisite.”
“Loving the people you lead, caring deeply about them is the most basic prerequisite of leadership,” Carlson said. “The leaders of today’s Democratic Party do not, they despise this country. They have said so, they continue to.”
“That is shocking, but it is also disqualifying. We cannot let them run this nation because they hate it. Imagine what they would do to it.”
President Trump tweeted out Carlson’s monologue Tuesday morning, which has garnered over 850,000 views as of this writing.
President Trump gave America the best fireworks show the White House could muster under a tsunamai of propaganda, as Trump Derangement Goons expressed their deep hatred for our Country in the streets and on television screens.


newswars--2020-07-07--Wal-Mart Launching Its “Amazon Prime Killer”

With the Nasdaq trading at record highs on its sixth straight day in the green , largely thanks to Amazon surpassing $ 3,000 a share , Wal-Mart is gearing up to launch what it hopes will be its “ Amazon Prime Killer ” – a new e-commerce subscription service called “ Walmart+ ” .
According to Recode , Wal-Mart is planning to launch the new service later this month .
The service will cost $ 98 a year , and include perks like same-day delivery of groceries and general merchandise , discounts on fuel at Walmart gas stations , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the “ multiple ” insider sources who spoke with Recode ( to be sure , this report bears all the hallmarks of a officially sanctioned leak , so we expect these details are coming straight from the source ) .
With COVID-19 making Amazon more central than ever in the lives of Americans , more retailers are scrambling to find ways to compete in the new world , where shopping at brick-and-mortar stores now carries an additional risk , along with many new aggravations ( like mask-wearing and mandatory distancing ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ new service in March or April , but it delayed the rollout due to COVID-19 .
As Amazon struggles to roll out grocery delivery across the US ( so far , it has concentrated mostly on the big cities ) , Wal-Mart is leaning on this natural advantage as a central component of this new service .
Right now , it ’ s not clear yet whether the service will be rolled out regionally , or nationally .
But given Wal-Mart ’ s status as the country ’ s biggest brick and mortar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ derail ( or at least delay ) Jeff Bezos ’ inexorable march toward becoming the world ’ s first trillionaire by Amazon Prime day .
Wal-Mart shares are surging on the news .
Alex Jones breaks down the brainwashed victims of the left being pushed to the brink of insanity .

With the Nasdaq trading at record highs on its sixth straight day in the green, largely thanks to Amazon surpassing $3,000 a share, Wal-Mart is gearing up to launch what it hopes will be its “Amazon Prime Killer” – a new e-commerce subscription service called “Walmart+”.
According to Recode, Wal-Mart is planning to launch the new service later this month. The service will cost $98 a year, and include perks like same-day delivery of groceries and general merchandise, discounts on fuel at Walmart gas stations, and early access to product deals, according to the “multiple” insider sources who spoke with Recode (to be sure, this report bears all the hallmarks of a officially sanctioned leak, so we expect these details are coming straight from the source).
With COVID-19 making Amazon more central than ever in the lives of Americans, more retailers are scrambling to find ways to compete in the new world, where shopping at brick-and-mortar stores now carries an additional risk, along with many new aggravations (like mask-wearing and mandatory distancing).
Wal-Mart had initially planned to launch the new service in March or April, but it delayed the rollout due to COVID-19.
As Amazon struggles to roll out grocery delivery across the US (so far, it has concentrated mostly on the big cities), Wal-Mart is leaning on this natural advantage as a central component of this new service.
Right now, it’s not clear yet whether the service will be rolled out regionally, or nationally. But given Wal-Mart’s status as the country’s biggest brick and mortar retailer, we suspect this news could derail (or at least delay) Jeff Bezos’ inexorable march toward becoming the world’s first trillionaire by Amazon Prime day.
Wal-Mart shares are surging on the news.
Alex Jones breaks down the brainwashed victims of the left being pushed to the brink of insanity.


newswars--2020-07-07--Royal Society President Says Mask Refusniks Should be Publicly Shamed Like Drunk Drivers

The President of the Royal Society says that people who refuse to wear masks should be publicly shamed like drunk drivers , highlighting again how the entire issue has become another part of the ‘ cancel culture war ’ .
“ The message has not been clear enough , so perhaps people do not really understand the benefits or are not convinced of them , ” writes Venki Ramakrishnan .
“ Whatever the reasons , we need to overcome our reservations and wear face coverings whenever we are around others in public.
” “ It used to be quite normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drive home , and it also used to be normal to drive without seatbelts .
Today , both of those would be considered antisocial , and not wearing face coverings in public should be regarded in the same way.
” Ramakrishnan ’ s demand follows two Royal Society reports that claim wearing masks significantly reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission .
However , as Toby Young notes , the evidence cited by the reports is flimsy at best .
“ I ’ ve had a look at the Royal Society paper that supposedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unimpressive .
Note the threadbare evidence on which it bases its sweeping conclusion , ” writes Young before quoting the report itself .
“ We have found only two randomised control trials in the primary literature on the use of face masks to reduce onward transmission ; one was underpowered , and the other showed significant reduction when adjusted for actual mask usage in a posthoc analysis.
” This all emphasizes once again how the issue of mask wearing has been amplified way beyond the entire coronavirus debate and has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who refuse to be bullied into wearing the mask are now publicly shamed and dehumanized by the political class and elitist wannabes .
Whenever transgressions make it to social media in the form of videos of people inside supermarkets refusing to wear masks , they are also savaged and “ cancelled ” by ‘ woke ’ hate mobs .
The mask is also a symbol of the lockdown , which itself has been politicized by the left with the aid of mass hysteria and fearmongering to force right of center governments in both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near economic suicide in order to satiate the demands of the mask wearing mob .
Wearing the mask stopped being a medical issue many months ago and is now yet another political football in the culture war .
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever .
It is CRUCIAL that you support me .
Please sign up for the free newsletter here .
Donate to me on SubscribeStar here .
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without @ @ @

The President of the Royal Society says that people who refuse to wear masks should be publicly shamed like drunk drivers, highlighting again how the entire issue has become another part of the ‘cancel culture war’.
“The message has not been clear enough, so perhaps people do not really understand the benefits or are not convinced of them,” writes Venki Ramakrishnan. “Whatever the reasons, we need to overcome our reservations and wear face coverings whenever we are around others in public.”
“It used to be quite normal to have quite a few drinks and drive home, and it also used to be normal to drive without seatbelts. Today, both of those would be considered antisocial, and not wearing face coverings in public should be regarded in the same way.”
Ramakrishnan’s demand follows two Royal Society reports that claim wearing masks significantly reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
However, as Toby Young notes, the evidence cited by the reports is flimsy at best.
“I’ve had a look at the Royal Society paper that supposedly confirms the effectiveness of masks. It’s unimpressive. Note the threadbare evidence on which it bases its sweeping conclusion,” writes Young before quoting the report itself.
“We have found only two randomised control trials in the primary literature on the use of face masks to reduce onward transmission; one was underpowered, and the other showed significant reduction when adjusted for actual mask usage in a posthoc analysis.”
This all emphasizes once again how the issue of mask wearing has been amplified way beyond the entire coronavirus debate and has become a symbol of mass obedience.
Those who refuse to be bullied into wearing the mask are now publicly shamed and dehumanized by the political class and elitist wannabes.
Whenever transgressions make it to social media in the form of videos of people inside supermarkets refusing to wear masks, they are also savaged and “cancelled” by ‘woke’ hate mobs.
The mask is also a symbol of the lockdown, which itself has been politicized by the left with the aid of mass hysteria and fearmongering to force right of center governments in both the U.S. and the UK to commit near economic suicide in order to satiate the demands of the mask wearing mob.
Wearing the mask stopped being a medical issue many months ago and is now yet another political football in the culture war.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-07-07--Archaeologists Suggest Stonehenge’s Huge Blocks Arrived by Land, Debunk Raft Theory

Last year , scientists from Newcastle University in the UK suggested that pig fat could have been used to move the stones to create Stonehenge .
Archaeologists may have debunked the theory that stones for the world famous Stonehenge were sent via rafts from Wales to Salisbury Plain , a study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science says .
The recent study using chemical analysis showed that the six-tonne sandstone from Stonehenge matches rocks in Abergavenny , just a few miles from the English border .
Thus the study shows that the stones could have been carried overland , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ south to Milford Haven and put on rafts or slung between boats , paddled up the Bristol Channel and along the Bristol Avon to Salisbury Plain .
“ This totally destroys the raft theory , it blows it out of the water .
This is our second re-examination of the bluestones , but it is our first major finding ” , Dr Rob Ixer , from University College London said .
The research comes after a neolithic structure larger than any comparable prehistoric monument in Britain dating back 4,500 years was uncovered 1.9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stonehenge , with a series of vast shafts found to have been aligned to form a circle .

Last year, scientists from Newcastle University in the UK suggested that pig fat could have been used to move the stones to create Stonehenge.
Archaeologists may have debunked the theory that stones for the world famous Stonehenge were sent via rafts from Wales to Salisbury Plain, a study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science says.
The recent study using chemical analysis showed that the six-tonne sandstone from Stonehenge matches rocks in Abergavenny, just a few miles from the English border.
Thus the study shows that the stones could have been carried overland, debunking the theory that they were taken south to Milford Haven and put on rafts or slung between boats, paddled up the Bristol Channel and along the Bristol Avon to Salisbury Plain.
“This totally destroys the raft theory, it blows it out of the water. This is our second re-examination of the bluestones, but it is our first major finding”, Dr Rob Ixer, from University College London said.
The research comes after a neolithic structure larger than any comparable prehistoric monument in Britain dating back 4,500 years was uncovered 1.9 miles (3 km) northeast of Stonehenge, with a series of vast shafts found to have been aligned to form a circle.


newswars--2020-07-07--‘Santa Anna’ Abbott Admits Low Death Rate of Covid-19, Wants to Shut Down Texas Economy Anyway

In another example of how establishment Republicans are working lockstep with Democrats to crush the economy , Texas Gov .
Abbott admitted the Covid-19 death rate in Texas is relatively low , yet wants to keep businesses restricted or outright shut down anyway .
In a tweet to ex-Attorney General Eric Holder , Abbott admitted that Texas has “ the lowest death rate of the 27 most affected states ” and that California is spiking in cases “ even though it shut down harder & longer than Texas ” – yet keep in mind that Abbott practically followed California ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bars and reduced capacities of restaurants , not to mention the aggravation of mask ordinances which also curtail retail shopping .
And while Abbott is cheerleading the low death rate of Covid-19 , he doesn ’ t seem to be concerned about the upcoming suicides resulting from Texans losing their homes and livelihoods because he decided by executive fiat ( i.e .
dictatorially ) to curtail the economy a second time .
He also doesn ’ t seem to be concerned that he ’ s acting a lot like Antonio López de @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive fiat helped spur the Texas Revolution .
For one thing , the Texas legislature hasn ’ t been called into special session to deal with Covid-19 , which has given Abbott the opportunity to act unilaterally while practically ignoring that the spike in cases coincides with a spike in coronavirus testing , not to mention recent mass protests .
“ On [ a ] phone call with legislators ( updating us on COVID-19 ) , Abbott FAILED TO MENTION that his office was literally working and releasing his newest mask mandate order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-Beford ) .
“ What a piece of crap !
The man thinks he is KING !
” The optics are not looking good for Abbott as more truth about Covid-19 emerges , especially as many bars and restaurants will close permanently due to his second shutdown order .
“ When the present crisis began , perhaps not enough was known about the virus to second-guess the worst-case projections motivating the lockdowns , ” Texas Supreme Court Justice James D. Blacklock wrote .
“ As more becomes known about the threat and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways to respond to it , continued burdens on constitutional liberties may not survive judicial scrutiny .
”

In another example of how establishment Republicans are working lockstep with Democrats to crush the economy, Texas Gov. Abbott admitted the Covid-19 death rate in Texas is relatively low, yet wants to keep businesses restricted or outright shut down anyway.
In a tweet to ex-Attorney General Eric Holder, Abbott admitted that Texas has “the lowest death rate of the 27 most affected states” and that California is spiking in cases “even though it shut down harder & longer than Texas” – yet keep in mind that Abbott practically followed California’s lead in pushing a SECOND lockdown of bars and reduced capacities of restaurants, not to mention the aggravation of mask ordinances which also curtail retail shopping.
Eric—why is Texas tied for the lowest death rate of the 27 most affected states? Why have more Texans recovered from COVID than any other state & twice the number of New Yorkers? Why is CA spiking more than TX even though it shut down harder & longer than TX? https://t.co/CsmUSpNPEr — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) July 7, 2020
And while Abbott is cheerleading the low death rate of Covid-19, he doesn’t seem to be concerned about the upcoming suicides resulting from Texans losing their homes and livelihoods because he decided by executive fiat (i.e. dictatorially) to curtail the economy a second time.
He also doesn’t seem to be concerned that he’s acting a lot like Antonio López de Santa Anna, whose centralist rule by executive fiat helped spur the Texas Revolution.
For one thing, the Texas legislature hasn’t been called into special session to deal with Covid-19, which has given Abbott the opportunity to act unilaterally while practically ignoring that the spike in cases coincides with a spike in coronavirus testing, not to mention recent mass protests.
“On [a] phone call with legislators (updating us on COVID-19), Abbott FAILED TO MENTION that his office was literally working and releasing his newest mask mandate order,” said state representative Jonathan Stickland (R-Beford). “What a piece of crap! The man thinks he is KING!”
The optics are not looking good for Abbott as more truth about Covid-19 emerges, especially as many bars and restaurants will close permanently due to his second shutdown order.
“When the present crisis began, perhaps not enough was known about the virus to second-guess the worst-case projections motivating the lockdowns,” Texas Supreme Court Justice James D. Blacklock wrote. “As more becomes known about the threat and about the less restrictive, more targeted ways to respond to it, continued burdens on constitutional liberties may not survive judicial scrutiny.”


newswars--2020-07-07--Brazil’s Bolsonaro Tests Positive for COVID-19

On Monday , reports emerged that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro had been experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and was awaiting his corona-test results , which were due the next day .
The President of Brazil , Jair Bolsonaro , confirmed that he has tested positive for coronavirus during an interview broadcast to TV Brasil .
Bolsonaro said during the interview that he had started feeling sick on Sunday and has now been taking the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine to cure the disease .
The effectiveness of this drug against COVID-19 has however been disputed by scientists .
The news follows reports that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including a temperature of 38 degrees Celsius and a blood oxygen level of 96 percent .
According to the Globo ’ s earlier report , the 65-year-old politician has informed his supporters that he decided to take the test after he experienced body aches and a fever .
Bolsonaro also reportedly claimed that his lungs were “ clean ” following an x-ray test .
Eduardo Bolsonaro , son of populist Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro ran into Alex Jones at CPAC where he warned of socialism , Bernie Sanders and how the global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus and was awaiting the results on Tuesday , which are now said to have come back positive .
According to the president ’ s comments as cited by Reuters on 26 June , he has previously tested negative for the disease at least twice , but he suspected a few days ago that he had contracted the virus .
Bolsonaro has been an outspoken critic of lockdown measures , urging state businesses to re-open .
At the end of March he reportedly dubbed COVID-19 , the disease caused by the coronavirus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has also repeatedly refused to wear a face mask when in public and has defied social distancing rules .
On 4 July , Bolsonaro had a meeting with US Ambassador Todd Chapman , during which the two were photographed without wearing masks .
According to Johns Hopkins University data provided on 7 July , Brazil has had over 1,623,000 registered cases of coronavirus which have resulted in more than 65,400 deaths , the second-highest death toll in the world , after the United States .
Real Americans are the scourge and true threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Neo-Globalist elites .

On Monday, reports emerged that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro had been experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and was awaiting his corona-test results, which were due the next day.
The President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, confirmed that he has tested positive for coronavirus during an interview broadcast to TV Brasil.
Bolsonaro said during the interview that he had started feeling sick on Sunday and has now been taking the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine to cure the disease. The effectiveness of this drug against COVID-19 has however been disputed by scientists.
The news follows reports that the Brazilian president had been experiencing coronavirus symptoms, including a temperature of 38 degrees Celsius and a blood oxygen level of 96 percent. According to the Globo’s earlier report, the 65-year-old politician has informed his supporters that he decided to take the test after he experienced body aches and a fever. Bolsonaro also reportedly claimed that his lungs were “clean” following an x-ray test.
Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of populist Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro ran into Alex Jones at CPAC where he warned of socialism, Bernie Sanders and how the global awakening is happening.
Bolsonaro tested for coronavirus and was awaiting the results on Tuesday, which are now said to have come back positive.
According to the president’s comments as cited by Reuters on 26 June, he has previously tested negative for the disease at least twice, but he suspected a few days ago that he had contracted the virus.
Bolsonaro has been an outspoken critic of lockdown measures, urging state businesses to re-open. At the end of March he reportedly dubbed COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, a “little flu”. He has also repeatedly refused to wear a face mask when in public and has defied social distancing rules. On 4 July, Bolsonaro had a meeting with US Ambassador Todd Chapman, during which the two were photographed without wearing masks.
Muito honrado em receber o senhor presidente @jairbolsonaro este #4deJulho para celebrar os 198 anos das relações entre 🇧🇷 e 🇺🇸 e os 244 anos da independência dos Estados Unidos. Continuamos #TrabalhandoJuntos! pic.twitter.com/CpzlarGgyS — Embaixador Todd Chapman (@USAmbBR) July 4, 2020
According to Johns Hopkins University data provided on 7 July, Brazil has had over 1,623,000 registered cases of coronavirus which have resulted in more than 65,400 deaths, the second-highest death toll in the world, after the United States.
Real Americans are the scourge and true threat to the life’s work of the Neo-Globalist elites.


newswars--2020-07-07--150 Top Intellectuals Sign Open Letter Decrying Cancel Culture

150 of the world ’ s top intellectuals , authors and activists have signed an open letter decrying leftist cancel culture , censorship and the totalitarian march of “ ideological conformity.
” The letter , which was published by Harpers Magazine , is also signed by J.K. Rowling , Fareed Zakaria , Garry Kasparov , and , perhaps surprisingly , feminist activist Gloria Steinem .
“ The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides , ” states the letter , highlighting how “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lifeblood of a liberal society , is daily becoming more constricted ” as a result of “ an intolerance of opposing views , a vogue for public shaming and ostracism , and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.
” “ Editors are fired for running controversial pieces ; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity ; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics ; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class ; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes , ” states the letter .
This is creating a climate of risk aversion that is preventing anyone from dissenting from the monolithic consensus of social justice rhetoric , creating a “ stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time , ” according to the letter .
The letter highlights the fact that there are still some genuine “ liberals ” left in society who are willing to stand behind the increasingly endangered species of free speech .
However , some would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the past three years since mass censorship , particularly by monopolistic social media giants , has been significantly ramped up .
The idea that an open letter will do much to stop the rampaging virus of cancel culture is also up for debate .
Why don ’ t these intellectuals organize a major conference or a massive protest march to showcase their principles ?
The irony of course is that if this letter gains any traction at all , its signatories will immediately become targets for cancellation from the unhinged , woke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below .
Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial .
Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform , along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society , not least in higher education , journalism , philanthropy , and the arts .
But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity .
As we applaud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our voices against the second .
The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump , who represents a real threat to democracy .
But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting .
The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides .
The free exchange of information and ideas , the lifeblood of a liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While we have come to expect this on the radical right , censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture : an intolerance of opposing views , a vogue for public shaming and ostracism , and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty .
We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters .
But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought .
More troubling still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of panicked damage control , are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms .
Editors are fired for running controversial pieces ; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity ; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics ; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class ; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study ; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes .
Whatever the arguments around each particular incident , the result has been to steadily narrow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the threat of reprisal .
We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers , artists , and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus , or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement .
This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time .
The restriction of debate , whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society , invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation .
The way to defeat bad ideas is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not by trying to silence or wish them away .
We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom , which can not exist without each other .
As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation , risk taking , and even mistakes .
We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences .
If we won ’ t defend the very thing on which our work depends , we shouldn ’ t expect the public or the state to defend it for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever .
It is CRUCIAL that you support me .
Please sign up for the free newsletter here .
Donate to me on SubscribeStar here .
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown .

150 of the world’s top intellectuals, authors and activists have signed an open letter decrying leftist cancel culture, censorship and the totalitarian march of “ideological conformity.”
The letter, which was published by Harpers Magazine, is also signed by J.K. Rowling, Fareed Zakaria, Garry Kasparov, and, perhaps surprisingly, feminist activist Gloria Steinem.
“The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides,” states the letter, highlighting how “the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted” as a result of “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”
“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes,” states the letter.
The cancel culture has finally provoked an articulated and organized push-back from actual liberals https://t.co/2H3khPT5rO pic.twitter.com/MkfoiNJsrK — Bojan Pancevski (@bopanc) July 7, 2020
This is creating a climate of risk aversion that is preventing anyone from dissenting from the monolithic consensus of social justice rhetoric, creating a “stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time,” according to the letter.
The letter highlights the fact that there are still some genuine “liberals” left in society who are willing to stand behind the increasingly endangered species of free speech.
However, some would ask where they’ve been hiding for the past three years since mass censorship, particularly by monopolistic social media giants, has been significantly ramped up.
The idea that an open letter will do much to stop the rampaging virus of cancel culture is also up for debate. Why don’t these intellectuals organize a major conference or a massive protest march to showcase their principles?
The irony of course is that if this letter gains any traction at all, its signatories will immediately become targets for cancellation from the unhinged, woke far-left.
The full letter is reprinted below.
——————————————–
Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-07-07--Coronavirus Putting “War on Cash” Into Hyperdrive

Last month we reported that the Chinese government has launched a pilot program for a digital version of the yuan .
The virtual currency ups the ante in the war on cash and creates the potential for the government to track and even control consumer spending .
China isn ’ t alone in using COVID-19 as an excuse to push people away from physical cash .
Other countries are pushing narratives to drive the movement toward a completely digital economy – one where governments can track and even control what we buy .
The war on cash has been going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has put efforts on hyperdrive .
In an article published on the Mises Wire , economist Claudio Grass explains how coronavirus is being used to supercharge the war on cash .
The views expressed below are those of Claudio Glass and do not necessarily represent those of SchiffGold or Peter Schiff .
The corona crisis has already taken a very high toll and caused deep damage in our societies and our economies , the extent of which is yet to become apparent .
We have seen its impact on productivity , on unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ division .
However , there is another very worrying trend that has been accelerated under the veil of fear and confusion that the pandemic has spread .
The war on cash , already underway for almost a decade , has been drastically intensified over the last few months .
Over the last years , and as the war on cash has escalated , we ’ ve gotten used to hearing certain arguments or “ reasons ” why we should all abandon paper money and move en masse to an exclusively digital economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and over , in most Western economies and by countless institutional figures .
“ Cash is used by terrorists , money launderers , and criminals ” is arguably the most oft-repeated one , as it ’ s been widely employed in most debates about the digital transition .
Just a couple of years ago it was also used by Mario Draghi to support the decision to scrap the 500-euro note .
We didn ’ t get any specific information or data about how many terrorists were actually using this high-denomination note , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law-abiding citizens were using it to save , as were small business owners for their operational liquidity needs .
Now , however , the corona crisis has introduced a whole new direction for anti-cash rhetoric and fresh arguments in favor of a digital economy .
Even in the early stages of the pandemic , when essentially nothing was concretely known about the virus or its transmission , the seeds of new fears were already being planted by sensational media reports and fear-mongering political and institutional figures .
The insidious idea that “ you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been prematurely spread , but it did stick in most people ’ s minds .
This is , of course , understandable given the extremely high levels of uncertainty and anxiety in the general public .
Wanting to eliminate potential threats was a natural instinct and so was the urge to take back at least some control over our lives after they ’ d been thrown into utter chaos by the global economic freeze .
Another factor that concretely helped the shift away from physical cash was an entirely practical one .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ social distancing ” directives that were enforced all over the world , it became difficult to use cash even if you really wanted to , or if you had no other means of transaction , as is the case for billions of people .
With physical stores being forced to shut down and with more and more online shops offering contactless delivery ( either as a choice or as a service requirement ) , the need for cash very quickly gave way to digital payments .
For most of us who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other digital payment services , this introduced no real inconvenience , and we probably didn ’ t even give it a second thought .
However , for many of our fellow citizens , it was a serious impediment that in some cases blocked their access to basic goods and essential supplies .
Contrary to the glowing promises of the digital economy , of financial inclusion and convenience , the fact remains that there are still millions of people who simply do not have access to this brave new world .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are 2.5 billion people with no bank account , with a high concentration in the developing world .
In the West too , however , there is a very large part of the population that is unbanked and/or has no access to digital solutions , while the elderly are also to a very large extent “ locked out ” of the digital economy .
For all these billions of people , cash is the only way to save , to transact , and to cover basic needs .
With cash being presented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to national security , but also as a direct health hazard due to the coronavirus , the push toward digital alternatives has been massively reinforced over the last few months .
Both international organizations and individual governments have actively participated in and encouraged this push , some through public guidance statements and others through the blunt enforcement of direct rules and measures that leave no real room for citizens to make their own choices .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in its official guidance to retail workers recommended that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ options , ” while a report by the World Bank highlighted the need to adopt cashless payments for the sake of “ social protection.
” The UAE Central Bank encouraged the use of online banking and digital payments “ as a measure to protect the health and safety of UAE residents , ” and the Bank of England has acknowledged that banknotes can hold “ bacteria and viruses ” and recommended that people wash their hands after handling money .
In March , a report from Reuters revealed that the US Federal Reserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asia and so was South Korea ’ s central bank , while the government forced banks in China to disinfect bills and keep them in a safe for up to fourteen days before putting them in circulation .
A highlight , however , came in May when the World Economic Forum published an article in its Global Agenda strongly supporting the mass adoption of digital payments for the sake of public health .
In it the authors argue that “ contactless digital payments at the point of sale , such as facial recognition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or near-field communications ( NFC ) , can make it less likely for the virus to spread to others through cash exchanges.
” They also applauded the efforts of China in digitalizing payments and appeared to hold the country and its measures as a model to be emulated : “ China ’ s path to enabling digital payments should provide some lessons to other countries eager to follow suit.
” Since a number of Western governments may indeed be “ eager to follow suit , ” let us take a closer look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really entails .
The digitalization drive in all aspects of the Chinese state , society , and economy is nothing new and it certainly predated the emergence of COVID-19 .
The country ’ s infamous “ social rating system ” made headlines years ago , and the government ’ s eagerness to use technology , the internet , and all sorts of digital systems to track its citizens ’ behavior and affiliations has long attracted international criticism and widespread condemnation by human rights organizations , privacy advocates , and free speech supporters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been given a reason to accelerate its efforts in the mass adoption of digital payments and the abandonment of cash .
To a large extent , this digitalization of payments task was much easier in China , as digital payments there were already very widespread .
More than 80 percent of consumers already used mobile payments in 2019 according to management consultancy Bain , a sharp contrast with the US , which had adoption rates of less than 10 percent .
So , as the population had already accepted a new form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominate the means of payment too .
Thus , a new “ digital yuan ” was introduced .
This new fiat currency , which has been in development for over five years , was rolled out in April in four Chinese cities , with a plan for national adoption soon so that it eventually replaces the physical legal tender .
This so-called Digital Currency Electronic Payment ( DCEP ) will be put into circulation through China ’ s big four state banks , and citizens will be able to receive and use it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the People ’ s Bank of China ( PBOC ) , which will be linked to their bank account .
On the surface , it appears to work just like the old currency .
It is issued and backed by the PBOC ; it ’ s valued the same as the physical banknotes ; and , thanks to partnerships with Alipay and WeChat Pay , which control 80 percent of the country ’ s payment market , it will be used to pay for anything and be paid by anyone .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state subsidies are already being paid out in this new digital yuan , arriving in their intended recipients ’ digital wallets .
According to China ’ s state media , People ’ s Daily , the new currency is meant to simplify domestic transactions and trade , but it will also facilitate and ease cross-border transactions .
The implication here is clear : it is yet another attempt to challenge the global dominance of the US dollar after the Belt and Road Initiative failed to really move the needle as the Chinese state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge amounts of Chinese money abroad did provide some leverage over developing countries , but it didn ’ t come anywhere near “ dethroning ” the dollar and internationalizing the renminbi .
Perhaps this initiative will fare better , especially as China now has the “ first-mover ” advantage .
Entering this “ digital fiat ” arena first is hugely important , and the timing of the digital currency ’ s launch was no coincidence .
The development and the rollout plan were significantly accelerated following Facebook ’ s announcement of the libra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have the private tech giant beat them to the punch .
In fact , the digital yuan resembles the libra in many ways .
Most importantly , neither of them is a cryptocurrency , which is decentralized by design and allows for peer-to-peer transactions without the need of an intermediary or third party .
In this case , the issuer is the third party , and all transactions go through a very centralized system that controls and has access to all the data .
In another noncoincidence , just a few years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initial coin offerings ( ICOs ) and placed great burdens on cryptocurrencies and crypto investors , making it very hard to operate in the country , thereby dismantling the threat of potential competition from the private sector and clearing the way for its own digital coin .
Real Americans are the scourge and true threat to the life ’ s work of the Neo-Globalist elites .

Last month we reported that the Chinese government has launched a pilot program for a digital version of the yuan. The virtual currency ups the ante in the war on cash and creates the potential for the government to track and even control consumer spending.
China isn’t alone in using COVID-19 as an excuse to push people away from physical cash. Other countries are pushing narratives to drive the movement toward a completely digital economy – one where governments can track and even control what we buy. The war on cash has been going on for years, but the pandemic has put efforts on hyperdrive.
In an article published on the Mises Wire, economist Claudio Grass explains how coronavirus is being used to supercharge the war on cash.
The views expressed below are those of Claudio Glass and do not necessarily represent those of SchiffGold or Peter Schiff.
The corona crisis has already taken a very high toll and caused deep damage in our societies and our economies, the extent of which is yet to become apparent. We have seen its impact on productivity, on unemployment, on social cohesion and on political division. However, there is another very worrying trend that has been accelerated under the veil of fear and confusion that the pandemic has spread. The war on cash, already underway for almost a decade, has been drastically intensified over the last few months.
The “Problem”
Over the last years, and as the war on cash has escalated, we’ve gotten used to hearing certain arguments or “reasons” why we should all abandon paper money and move en masse to an exclusively digital economy. These talking points have been repeated over and over, in most Western economies and by countless institutional figures. “Cash is used by terrorists, money launderers, and criminals” is arguably the most oft-repeated one, as it’s been widely employed in most debates about the digital transition. Just a couple of years ago it was also used by Mario Draghi to support the decision to scrap the 500-euro note. We didn’t get any specific information or data about how many terrorists were actually using this high-denomination note, but we do know that a lot of law-abiding citizens were using it to save, as were small business owners for their operational liquidity needs.
Now, however, the corona crisis has introduced a whole new direction for anti-cash rhetoric and fresh arguments in favor of a digital economy. Even in the early stages of the pandemic, when essentially nothing was concretely known about the virus or its transmission, the seeds of new fears were already being planted by sensational media reports and fear-mongering political and institutional figures. The insidious idea that “you can catch COVID through cash” may have been prematurely spread, but it did stick in most people’s minds. This is, of course, understandable given the extremely high levels of uncertainty and anxiety in the general public. Wanting to eliminate potential threats was a natural instinct and so was the urge to take back at least some control over our lives after they’d been thrown into utter chaos by the global economic freeze.
Another factor that concretely helped the shift away from physical cash was an entirely practical one. Given the lockdown measures and the new “social distancing” directives that were enforced all over the world, it became difficult to use cash even if you really wanted to, or if you had no other means of transaction, as is the case for billions of people. With physical stores being forced to shut down and with more and more online shops offering contactless delivery (either as a choice or as a service requirement), the need for cash very quickly gave way to digital payments.
For most of us who have access to online banking, cards, or other digital payment services, this introduced no real inconvenience, and we probably didn’t even give it a second thought. However, for many of our fellow citizens, it was a serious impediment that in some cases blocked their access to basic goods and essential supplies. Contrary to the glowing promises of the digital economy, of financial inclusion and convenience, the fact remains that there are still millions of people who simply do not have access to this brave new world. According to figures by the World Bank, globally there are 2.5 billion people with no bank account, with a high concentration in the developing world. In the West too, however, there is a very large part of the population that is unbanked and/or has no access to digital solutions, while the elderly are also to a very large extent “locked out” of the digital economy. For all these billions of people, cash is the only way to save, to transact, and to cover basic needs.
The “Solution”
With cash being presented not just as a danger to society and to national security, but also as a direct health hazard due to the coronavirus, the push toward digital alternatives has been massively reinforced over the last few months. Both international organizations and individual governments have actively participated in and encouraged this push, some through public guidance statements and others through the blunt enforcement of direct rules and measures that leave no real room for citizens to make their own choices.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in its official guidance to retail workers recommended that they “encourage customers to use touchless payment options,” while a report by the World Bank highlighted the need to adopt cashless payments for the sake of “social protection.” The UAE Central Bank encouraged the use of online banking and digital payments “as a measure to protect the health and safety of UAE residents,” and the Bank of England has acknowledged that banknotes can hold “bacteria and viruses” and recommended that people wash their hands after handling money. In March, a report from Reuters revealed that the US Federal Reserve was quarantining dollars that it repatriated from Asia and so was South Korea’s central bank, while the government forced banks in China to disinfect bills and keep them in a safe for up to fourteen days before putting them in circulation.
A highlight, however, came in May when the World Economic Forum published an article in its Global Agenda strongly supporting the mass adoption of digital payments for the sake of public health. In it the authors argue that “contactless digital payments at the point of sale, such as facial recognition, Quick Response (QR) codes or near-field communications (NFC), can make it less likely for the virus to spread to others through cash exchanges.” They also applauded the efforts of China in digitalizing payments and appeared to hold the country and its measures as a model to be emulated: “China’s path to enabling digital payments should provide some lessons to other countries eager to follow suit.” Since a number of Western governments may indeed be “eager to follow suit,” let us take a closer look at this bright example and examine what it really entails.
Fiat Money 2.0
The digitalization drive in all aspects of the Chinese state, society, and economy is nothing new and it certainly predated the emergence of COVID-19. The country’s infamous “social rating system” made headlines years ago, and the government’s eagerness to use technology, the internet, and all sorts of digital systems to track its citizens’ behavior and affiliations has long attracted international criticism and widespread condemnation by human rights organizations, privacy advocates, and free speech supporters. Now, however, the state has been given a reason to accelerate its efforts in the mass adoption of digital payments and the abandonment of cash.
To a large extent, this digitalization of payments task was much easier in China, as digital payments there were already very widespread. More than 80 percent of consumers already used mobile payments in 2019 according to management consultancy Bain, a sharp contrast with the US, which had adoption rates of less than 10 percent. So, as the population had already accepted a new form of payment, the new initiative sought to dominate the means of payment too. Thus, a new “digital yuan” was introduced. This new fiat currency, which has been in development for over five years, was rolled out in April in four Chinese cities, with a plan for national adoption soon so that it eventually replaces the physical legal tender.
This so-called Digital Currency Electronic Payment (DCEP) will be put into circulation through China’s big four state banks, and citizens will be able to receive and use it by downloading an electronic wallet application authorized by the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), which will be linked to their bank account. On the surface, it appears to work just like the old currency. It is issued and backed by the PBOC; it’s valued the same as the physical banknotes; and, thanks to partnerships with Alipay and WeChat Pay, which control 80 percent of the country’s payment market, it will be used to pay for anything and be paid by anyone. In fact, some public servant salaries and state subsidies are already being paid out in this new digital yuan, arriving in their intended recipients’ digital wallets.
According to China’s state media, People’s Daily, the new currency is meant to simplify domestic transactions and trade, but it will also facilitate and ease cross-border transactions. The implication here is clear: it is yet another attempt to challenge the global dominance of the US dollar after the Belt and Road Initiative failed to really move the needle as the Chinese state had hoped. The strategy of spending huge amounts of Chinese money abroad did provide some leverage over developing countries, but it didn’t come anywhere near “dethroning” the dollar and internationalizing the renminbi. Perhaps this initiative will fare better, especially as China now has the “first-mover” advantage.
Entering this “digital fiat” arena first is hugely important, and the timing of the digital currency’s launch was no coincidence. The development and the rollout plan were significantly accelerated following Facebook’s announcement of the libra, as the Chinese state wouldn’t have the private tech giant beat them to the punch. In fact, the digital yuan resembles the libra in many ways. Most importantly, neither of them is a cryptocurrency, which is decentralized by design and allows for peer-to-peer transactions without the need of an intermediary or third party. In this case, the issuer is the third party, and all transactions go through a very centralized system that controls and has access to all the data. In another noncoincidence, just a few years back, China’s government banned initial coin offerings (ICOs) and placed great burdens on cryptocurrencies and crypto investors, making it very hard to operate in the country, thereby dismantling the threat of potential competition from the private sector and clearing the way for its own digital coin.
Real Americans are the scourge and true threat to the life’s work of the Neo-Globalist elites.