russia-insider--2020-07-17--'Secure Tolerance' - The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 1

“ The promotion of secure tolerance will be permanent and irreversible.
” Moshe Kantor , Manifesto on Secure Tolerance , 2011 .
In 2010 , Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla , which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things .
In one of their experiments , Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves .
Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball , and many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were accurate in their counting .
This satisfaction was tainted , however , when they were asked if they had spotted “ the gorilla.
” Amidst considerable confusion , the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers , who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls , take up a position in the center of the screen , and wave at the camera .
They ’ d missed him entirely in their initial viewing .
The study highlighted the capacity for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , events , or other distractions , and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences .
When it comes to Jewish activism , and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration , I fear that the same dynamics are at work .
Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned , we miss the ‘ Invisible Gorilla ’ — a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship .
There are essentially two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are very familiar with .
It consists in the banning or removal of websites , videos , books , podcasts , and social media accounts .
It extends to defunding and deplatforming , and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries , in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds , and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech .
These methods are dangerous and rampant , and I myself have fallen victim to several of them .
I think , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic .
We could consider , for example , the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions , it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment , the destruction of education opportunities , and the dissolving of one ’ s relationships .
This is a form of cultural self-censorship , involving the modification of in-group standards , that has demonstrable Jewish origins .
“ Soft ” censorship can also take the form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic ( pro-Jewish ) attitudes .
I really don ’ t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes , and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be .
I sincerely doubt its prospects for success .
But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure , obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish ?
Finally , isn ’ t it in the nature of contemporary culture , with its emphasis on entertainment , consumption , and sex , to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “ Invisible Gorillas ” ?
Isn ’ t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions , replete with untold numbers of “ woke ” viewers happy to report that they ’ ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number ?
Isn ’ t it rather the axiom of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the idiotic Right , Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered , laughing and waving as they go , hidden in plain sight ?
If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today , it wouldn ’ t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel , or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville .
No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones , of Stefan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richard Spencer , the eviction of NPI from Hungary , or recent revelations about PayPal ’ s selective banning process .
These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves .
I do believe , however , that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011 , in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance .
The document was written by Moshe Kantor , a Russian billionaire , pernicious oligarch , and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( ECTR , which we will return to ) , the World Holocaust Forum Foundation , the European Jewish Fund , and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress .
In short , this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist , fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group .
As leader of so many groups , and mover in so many high circles , Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans , Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the same qualities , acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles , seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe .
When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘ tolerance , ’ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow ’ s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall , Chaim Soutine , and Mark Rothko ( Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a world-renowned “ peace activist , ” Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism .
A citizen of Russia , the United Kingdom , and Israel , this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy , policy development , and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere .
Let ’ s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance .
Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan : “ Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phrase as Orwellian , but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as “ Judaic.
” Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness , arrogance , and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom ?
Kantor argues that “ tolerance , ” which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism ( promoted by Kantor as a universal good ) and mass migration , is an essential aspect of a successful society .
He argues that in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should therefore impose “ security requirements ” ( oppressive laws ) that focus on “ racism , xenophobia , anti-Semitism.
” Thus , Kantor ’ s creation of the idea of “ Secure Tolerance , ” which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists , first in the European Union , and then throughout the rest of the West .
In Kantor ’ s own words : There is a lot to unpack here , but we should start with Kantor ’ s over-arching expressed goal , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his Manifesto : the imposition of supranational legislation imposing “ tolerance ” and outlawing dissent .
Kantor ’ s appeal here to law-making being “ the most democratic way , ” is pure theater .
As we will see , there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor ’ s proposals into becoming law .
The Western public has never heard of Kantor ’ s manifesto or its later incarnations ( honestly , have you ? )
, and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it .
Kantor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irreversible , ” the “ making of which , once started , is never to stop , ” in order to deal with , in his words , the “ neo-Fascist politicians and organizations , radical nationalists and militarised racists who , in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments ” and therefore represent “ destructive manifestations of anti-globalism.
” Further theater is observed in Kantor ’ s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it “ is a product of tolerance.
” Of course , I ’ m sure it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop .
Jews , of course , have much love for European unity in its current , bureaucratic incarnation .
The EU is useful to Jews , who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later .
Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end .
Why go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Germany , Britain , France , Spain etc.
, and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments , when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all ?
It ’ s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states ’ rights .
Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration .
When Brexit happened , Ari Paul , writing in The Forward , argued in terror that a reversion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a “ return to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust.
” His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the E.U .
should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws , and the final solution “ is to make the E.U.
’ s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration .
… Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes.
” Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews .
His insidious education proposals , designed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry .
And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of “ Holocaust denial.
” He is making speedy progress on all fronts .
ECTR and the Jewish “ Think Tank ” Strategy for Increasing Non-White Migration in Britain Kantor ’ s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals .
In 2008 , Kantor had founded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ECTR ) , as a : In other words , it ’ s something between a think tank and a lobbying group .
This “ think tank ” strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions , and has been devastating in its effectiveness .
As I remarked in my study of the use of this tactic in destroying free speech in Britain , Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament by relying solely on Jewish M.P.s until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 1965 , through Parliament.
” [ 1 ] The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and “ aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.
” Crucially , the 1965 Act created the ‘ Race Relations Board ’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and , if necessary , extending legislation on the basis of the ‘ findings ’ of such research : It was a clever tactic .
The Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ bodies staffed by , and often explicitly created by , Jews .
[ 2 ] One of the best examples of such bodies , and certainly the most influential , was ‘ Political and Economic Planning ’ ( PEP ) a supposedly “ independent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.
” [ 3 ] Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas , “ its most influential work has been in the field of race .
It is no exaggeration to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is far and away the biggest source of information , ideas , and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.
” [ 4 ] One of its 1977 publications has been called “ the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain.
” [ 5 ] But PEP was never ‘ independent.
’ From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants ( NCCI ) , a body which worked to advance the cause ( and demographics ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but which was run by a group of decidedly pale , not to mention Hebraic , British-born lawyers .
In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern ‘ democracy , ’ in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to “ advise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.
” [ 6 ] From its early days of operation , the NCCI , which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968 , was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester ( 1936– @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was “ directly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britain.
” In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust , described on its website as “ the UKs leading independent race equality think tank.
” Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust , and its deeper origins and goals , Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew , Jim Rose .
Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the “ Director of the Survey of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Race Relations Act owed much to him.
” [ 7 ] So basically , if you see a ‘ think tank ’ described as ‘ independent , ’ you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list .
One of the ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as ‘ special adviser ’ to Roy Jenkins , the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Frank Soskice who , as mentioned above , is Jewish .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister , to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office .
In Race Relations in Britain : A Developing Agenda ( 1998 ) , Lester himself writes about his involvement ( though he is often ‘ economical ’ with the truth ) in the drafting and implementation of race laws in Britain .
Of course , Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice , writing that “ the arrival , in December 1965 , of a liberal and receptive Minister , Roy Jenkins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act .
… When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.
” [ 8 ] He further writes that “ every democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal : equal opportunity , accompanied by cultural diversity , in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.
” [ 9 ] But Lester wasn ’ t giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism .
For a start , we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins .
[ 10 ] Further , scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was “ the leading campaigner on race relations ” for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Society ’ s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966 .
[ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the relationship between Lester and Jenkins , Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law as a “ shoddy job ” and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a “ shopping-list of discontents : the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places , as well as employment , housing , credit and insurance services , and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.
” [ 12 ] Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester , channeled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began to reconsider its race relations policy.
” [ 13 ] In truth , Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy .
It was Lester who by his own admission , in 1975 , set out “ coherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination.
” [ 14 ] The principles were that : “ The overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay , that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a determined effort by Government , by industry and unions , and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people , regardless of their race , color , or national origin.
” [ 15 ] The point of reiterating this particular process ( and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada , Australia and elsewhere ) is that this is what is meant by Kantor ’ s “ most democratic ” way of “ law-making.
” This process has the appearance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved through a Parliament or Congress , but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism , obscured methodologies , background lobbying , false representation , and ultimately , the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will .
We were never asked , and , in Kantor ’ s political philosophy , we never will be asked .
These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner , and , as Kantor prescribes , they will “ never stop.
” The European @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s first “ think tank ” vehicle for achieving “ Secure Tolerance ” legislation .
Keen for the ECTR to have a “ goy ” face , he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski .
Kwaśniewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people , and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles , and restoring citizenship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communist government in 1968 .
Since 2015 , the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair , a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions .
Beneath the Gentile faces , however , Kantor has always pulled the strings .
This is his project , based on his manifesto , and his history of activism .
The group ’ s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians , but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof. Yoram Dinstein , a retired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University .
Dinstein ’ s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation , and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere .
Go to Part 2 of 3 .
[ 1 ] M. Donnelly , Sixties Britain : Culture , Society and Politics ( 115 ) , & R. Honeyford , The Commission for Racial Equality : British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society , 95 .
[ 10 ] C @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ethnicity in a Welfare Society , 38 .

“The promotion of secure tolerance will be permanent and irreversible.”
Moshe Kantor, Manifesto on Secure Tolerance, 2011.
In 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting. This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted “the gorilla.” Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. They’d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.
When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the ‘Invisible Gorilla’ — a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.
There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.
I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of one’s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. “Soft” censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis. Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic (pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really don’t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, let’s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish? Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”? Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight?
Moshe Kantor: Oligarch Activist
If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldn’t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPal’s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves. I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. The document was written by Moshe Kantor, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.
As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe. When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘tolerance,’ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow’s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).
Although masquerading as a world-renowned “peace activist,” Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.
Let’s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” The instinct is to describe such as phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as “Judaic.” Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?
Moshe Kantor: Dedicated Zionist
Kantor argues that “tolerance,” which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect “tolerance,” we should therefore impose “security requirements” (oppressive laws) that focus on “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism.” Thus, Kantor’s creation of the idea of “Secure Tolerance,” which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantor’s own words:
Secure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance: Education, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age). Secure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust. And, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.
There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantor’s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing “tolerance” and outlawing dissent. Kantor’s appeal here to law-making being “the most democratic way,” is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor’s proposals into becoming law. The Western public has never heard of Kantor’s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, “permanent and irreversible,” the “making of which, once started, is never to stop,” in order to deal with, in his words, the “neo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments” and therefore represent “destructive manifestations of anti-globalism.”
Further theater is observed in Kantor’s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it “is a product of tolerance.” Of course, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop. Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end. Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all? It’s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states’ rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul, writing in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a “return to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust.” His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the E.U. should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution “is to make the E.U.’s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. … Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes.”
Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of “Holocaust denial.” He is making speedy progress on all fronts.
ECTR and the Jewish “Think Tank” Strategy for Increasing Non-White Migration in Britain
Kantor’s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals. In 2008, Kantor had founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), as a:
non-partisan and non-governmental institution. It is envisaged to be an opinion-making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education. It fosters understanding and tolerance among peoples of various ethnic origin; educates on techniques of reconciliation; facilitates post-conflict social apprehensions; monitors chauvinistic behaviors, proposes pro-tolerance initiatives and legal solutions.
In other words, it’s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This “think tank” strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions, and has been devastating in its effectiveness. As I remarked in my study of the use of this tactic in destroying free speech in Britain, Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament by relying solely on Jewish M.P.s until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[1] The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.” Crucially, the 1965 Act created the ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research:
It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from ‘independent’ bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews.[2] One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was ‘Political and Economic Planning’ (PEP) a supposedly “independent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.”[3] Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, “its most influential work has been in the field of race. It is no exaggeration to say that its work in this field is far and away the biggest source of information, ideas, and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.”[4] One of its 1977 publications has been called “the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain.”[5] But PEP was never ‘independent.’ From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), a body which worked to advance the cause (and demographics) of Blacks and South-East Asians in Britain, but which was run by a group of decidedly pale, not to mention Hebraic, British-born lawyers. In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern ‘democracy,’ in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to “advise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.”[6] From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936–). Although never elected to any public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was “directly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britain.” In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as “the UKs leading independent race equality think tank.” Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust, and its deeper origins and goals, Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew, Jim Rose. Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the “Director of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. … The Race Relations Act owed much to him.”[7] So basically, if you see a ‘think tank’ described as ‘independent,’ you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.
One of the ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as ‘special adviser’ to Roy Jenkins, the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Frank Soskice who, as mentioned above, is Jewish. With Lester behind Jenkins, Britain had essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister, to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (1998), Lester himself writes about his involvement (though he is often ‘economical’ with the truth) in the drafting and implementation of race laws in Britain. Of course, Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice, writing that “the arrival, in December 1965, of a liberal and receptive Minister, Roy Jenkins, at the Home Office was of decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act. … When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.”[8] He further writes that “every democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal: equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.”[9]
But Lester wasn’t giving anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism. For a start, we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins.[10] Further, scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was “the leading campaigner on race relations” for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Society’s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966.[11] Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law as a “shoddy job” and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a “shopping-list of discontents: the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places, as well as employment, housing, credit and insurance services, and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.”[12] Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that “the Government began to reconsider its race relations policy.”[13]
In truth, Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy. It was Lester who by his own admission, in 1975, set out “coherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination.”[14] The principles were that: “The overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay, that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country, and that the time has come for a determined effort by Government, by industry and unions, and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people, regardless of their race, color, or national origin.”[15]
The point of reiterating this particular process (and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada, Australia and elsewhere) is that this is what is meant by Kantor’s “most democratic” way of “law-making.” This process has the appearance of democracy in that legislation is eventually moved through a Parliament or Congress, but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism, obscured methodologies, background lobbying, false representation, and ultimately, the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will. We were never asked, and, in Kantor’s political philosophy, we never will be asked. These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner, and, as Kantor prescribes, they will “never stop.”
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantor’s first “think tank” vehicle for achieving “Secure Tolerance” legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a “goy” face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski. Kwaśniewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people, and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles, and restoring citizenship to Jews stripped of it by the communist government in 1968. Since 2015, the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions. Beneath the Gentile faces, however, Kantor has always pulled the strings. This is his project, based on his manifesto, and his history of activism. The group’s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians, but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a retired Italian supreme court justice and former President and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University. Dinstein’s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation, and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere.
Go to Part 2 of 3.
[1] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society, 95.
[2] Donnelly, 115.
[3] Honeyford, 93.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid, 94.
[6] I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, 85.
[7] W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History, 566, 810.
[8] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24.
[9] Ibid, 22.
[10] C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society, 38.
[11] P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.
[12] Ibid, 323.
[13] Ibid.
[14] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22.
[15] Ibid.


russia-insider--2020-07-17--IMF Made Loans to Belarus Conditional on a Lockdown - President Tells Them to Pound Sand

Additional conditions which do nto apply to the financial part are unacceptable for Belarus , Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko said when speaking about external lending during a meeting to discuss support measures for the real economic sector on the part of the banking system , BelTA has learned .
Aleksandr Lukashenko asked the participants of the meeting how things were with the provision of foreign credit assistance to Belarus .
“ What are our partners ’ requirements ?
It was announced that they can provide Belarus with $ 940 million in so-called rapid financing .
How are things here ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the same time , he stressed that additional conditions which do not apply to the financial part are unacceptable for the country .
“ We hear the demands , for example , to model our coronavirus response on that of Italy .
I do not want to see the Italian situation to repeat in Belarus .
We have our own country and our own situation , ” the president said .
According to the president , the World Bank has showed interest in Belarus ’ coronavirus response practices .
“ It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than it offered initially as a token of commendation for our efficient fight against this virus .
The World Bank has even asked the Healthcare Ministry to share the experience .
Meanwhile , the IMF continues to demand from us quarantine measures , isolation , a curfew .
This is nonsense .
We will not dance to anyone ’ s tune , ” said the president .

Additional conditions which do nto apply to the financial part are unacceptable for Belarus, Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko said when speaking about external lending during a meeting to discuss support measures for the real economic sector on the part of the banking system, BelTA has learned.
Aleksandr Lukashenko asked the participants of the meeting how things were with the provision of foreign credit assistance to Belarus. “What are our partners’ requirements? It was announced that they can provide Belarus with $940 million in so-called rapid financing. How are things here?” the head of state inquired.
At the same time, he stressed that additional conditions which do not apply to the financial part are unacceptable for the country. “We hear the demands, for example, to model our coronavirus response on that of Italy. I do not want to see the Italian situation to repeat in Belarus. We have our own country and our own situation,” the president said.
According to the president, the World Bank has showed interest in Belarus’ coronavirus response practices. “It is ready to fund us ten times more than it offered initially as a token of commendation for our efficient fight against this virus. The World Bank has even asked the Healthcare Ministry to share the experience. Meanwhile, the IMF continues to demand from us quarantine measures, isolation, a curfew. This is nonsense. We will not dance to anyone’s tune,” said the president.


russia-insider--2020-07-17--Realizing They Over-Reacted to COVID, Russia Reopens Borders, Restarts International Flights

As Russia has begun reporting fewer coronavirus infections in the past month , its authorities have made several announcements that appeared to suggest it was reopening its borders to foreigners .
This week , authorities said they will lift self-quarantine requirements for arriving citizens and foreigners alike .
Starting Wednesday , Russia has also started negotiations with other countries to resume international flights .
But does it mean that Russia has opened its doors to foreigners seeking entry into the country ?
Here ’ s a look at which foreigners are currently allowed to enter Russia now that most quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Russia ’ s consumer protection watchdog Rospotrebnadzor told The Moscow Times that the following categories of foreign citizens can travel to Russia : — Relatives of a deceased person , provided that they have documents confirming their relations , — Foreigners who have job offers in professions that fall under the “ highly qualified specialists ” category .
What documents do I need ?
— Starting July 15 , those arriving in Russia will need to present English or Russian-language proof that they have tested negative for the coronavirus in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Like Russian citizens returning home , foreigners without test results will be required to submit a PCR test for Covid-19 within 72 hours of arrival .
If the test comes back positive , visitors will be required to self-isolate for 14 days .
Which countries has Russia opened its borders to ?
— Russia has not yet reopened its borders to all foreigners despite reports indicating that Belarus , Croatia and Turkey were in talks to restart travel .
— Rospotrebnadzor has compiled a list of 13 countries which it recommends restarting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s first phase of reopening : Britain , Germany , China , the Netherlands , Denmark , Finland , Hungary , Italy , Norway , Poland , Mongolia , Sri Lanka and Vietnam .
— Reopening flight routes would be based on the principle of reciprocity — meaning Russia will need to strike an agreement with each government to resume air travel , authorities say .
Can Russians travel to other countries ?
— Authorities began allowing Russians to go abroad for work , study , medical treatment or to take care of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flights on March 27 , with only a handful of special repatriation flights and other government-approved flights bringing passengers to and from Russia over the past three months .
— Russians being evacuated from other countries back home will still be subject to 14-day quarantine , according to Rospotrebnadzor .
— The European Union , which reopened its borders on July 1 to visitors from 15 countries , remains closed to Russians .

Russia announced this week that it would begin negotiations with other countries on resuming international flights. Vladimir Gerdo / TASS
As Russia has begun reporting fewer coronavirus infections in the past month, its authorities have made several announcements that appeared to suggest it was reopening its borders to foreigners.
This week, authorities said they will lift self-quarantine requirements for arriving citizens and foreigners alike. Starting Wednesday, Russia has also started negotiations with other countries to resume international flights. But does it mean that Russia has opened its doors to foreigners seeking entry into the country?
Here’s a look at which foreigners are currently allowed to enter Russia now that most quarantine rules have been relaxed:
Who can visit Russia?
A representative for Russia’s consumer protection watchdog Rospotrebnadzor told The Moscow Times that the following categories of foreign citizens can travel to Russia:
— Diplomats and their family members,
— Members of intergovernmental commissions, committees or special delegations,
— Relatives of a deceased person, provided that they have documents confirming their relations,
— Foreigners seeking medical treatment,
— Foreigners studying in Russia,
— Foreigners who have job offers in professions that fall under the “highly qualified specialists” category.
What documents do I need?
— Starting July 15, those arriving in Russia will need to present English or Russian-language proof that they have tested negative for the coronavirus in the past 72 hours to be allowed entry.
— Like Russian citizens returning home, foreigners without test results will be required to submit a PCR test for Covid-19 within 72 hours of arrival. If the test comes back positive, visitors will be required to self-isolate for 14 days.
Which countries has Russia opened its borders to?
— Russia has not yet reopened its borders to all foreigners despite reports indicating that Belarus, Croatia and Turkey were in talks to restart travel.
— Rospotrebnadzor has compiled a list of 13 countries which it recommends restarting flights to as part of Russia’s first phase of reopening: Britain, Germany, China, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Mongolia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.
— Reopening flight routes would be based on the principle of reciprocity — meaning Russia will need to strike an agreement with each government to resume air travel, authorities say.
Can Russians travel to other countries?
— Authorities began allowing Russians to go abroad for work, study, medical treatment or to take care of relatives.
— Russia grounded most international flights on March 27, with only a handful of special repatriation flights and other government-approved flights bringing passengers to and from Russia over the past three months.
— Russians being evacuated from other countries back home will still be subject to 14-day quarantine, according to Rospotrebnadzor.
— The European Union, which reopened its borders on July 1 to visitors from 15 countries, remains closed to Russians.


russia-insider--2020-07-20--Telegram and Russia Seek Rapprochement Amid Russian Gov't Attack Against Google/Apple

It is only one month since Russia unexpectedly lifted its ban on messaging service Telegram .
But the company ’ s vice president this week appeared alongside Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin — and proposed a crusade against US tech giants Apple and Google .
Mishustin took part in a panel discussion with IT industry executives near the city of Kazan , 800 kilometers east of Moscow .
It was his first public engagement outside the capital since he fell ill with COVID-19 in May .
Telegram Vice President Ilya Perekopsky ’ s appearance at the panel was a surprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fell apart in 2014 when Telegram founder Pavel Durov left Russia because he believed “ the country is incompatible with internet business ” .
The only official contact has been correspondence with the Federal Security Service ( FSB ) in which Durov refused to give the authorities Telegram ’ s encryption keys .
The authorities then formally banned Telegram — but failed to enforce the ban efficiently .
Perekopsky didn ’ t mention any of this , instead complaining about Google and Apple .
He said that the 30 % commission developers pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apps stifles development .
Apparently , this is much more of an issue than IT sector taxes , which Russia is planning to cut .
Perekopsky reminded his audience about European Union antitrust cases against Apple and Google .
“ There will be no progress in the industry as long as Apple and Google can cheaply swallow companies from eastern Europe with their piles of cash , ” he said .
The same day as Perekopsky ’ s speech , Durov posted an article on Telegram with the headlines “ How Apple is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to stop it ” .
His solution to the problem is to force Apple to install alternative app stores in Russia , which would not take a 30 percent commission .
One can only speculate why Durov suddenly decided to go after Apple ’ s commission .
Perhaps he needs to monetize Telegram after his TON project fell apart .
More importantly , there are now many questions about whether Telegram and the Russian authorities are working together .

It is only one month since Russia unexpectedly lifted its ban on messaging service Telegram. But the company’s vice president this week appeared alongside Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin — and proposed a crusade against US tech giants Apple and Google.
Mishustin took part in a panel discussion with IT industry executives near the city of Kazan, 800 kilometers east of Moscow. It was his first public engagement outside the capital since he fell ill with COVID-19 in May.
Telegram Vice President Ilya Perekopsky’s appearance at the panel was a surprise.
Relations between Russian officials and Telegram fell apart in 2014 when Telegram founder Pavel Durov left Russia because he believed “the country is incompatible with internet business”. The only official contact has been correspondence with the Federal Security Service (FSB) in which Durov refused to give the authorities Telegram’s encryption keys.
The authorities then formally banned Telegram — but failed to enforce the ban efficiently.
Perekopsky didn’t mention any of this, instead complaining about Google and Apple. He said that the 30% commission developers pay Apple and Google on all transactions within apps stifles development. Apparently, this is much more of an issue than IT sector taxes, which Russia is planning to cut.
Perekopsky reminded his audience about European Union antitrust cases against Apple and Google. “There will be no progress in the industry as long as Apple and Google can cheaply swallow companies from eastern Europe with their piles of cash,” he said.
The same day as Perekopsky’s speech, Durov posted an article on Telegram with the headlines “How Apple is killing start-ups around the globe — and how to stop it”. His solution to the problem is to force Apple to install alternative app stores in Russia, which would not take a 30 percent commission.
One can only speculate why Durov suddenly decided to go after Apple’s commission. Perhaps he needs to monetize Telegram after his TON project fell apart. More importantly, there are now many questions about whether Telegram and the Russian authorities are working together.


russia-insider--2020-07-20--Turmoil at Home, Turmoil Abroad: Israel and the U.S. Escalate Their War Against Iran

As the combined impact of the corona virus and the wholesale destruction of America ’ s history and culture , or at least the part of it that is white , continues , it is nice to see that other nations are getting into the game that will lead to the de facto elimination of western civilization .
No one is yet quite up the U.S. level of senseless destruction and looting by the heroes of Black Lives Matter ( BLM ) and Antifa , but in Britain mobs are beating policemen , statues including that of Winston Churchill are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s war dead has been vandalized .
In a bizarre incident demonstrating the fundamental ignorance of the wreckers , a memorial to those who died at the 1651 Battle of Worcester in the English Civil War has suffered “ significant damage ” , with the letters BLM painted on the marker .
Perhaps the most ridiculous SJW demand arising out of the ethno-racism nonsense that has induced the politicians and journalists to go down on their knees and beg for forgiveness is the argument that the Arch of Titus in Rome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousand years , should be destroyed because one of its panels depicts the triumphal parade that displayed the loot obtained from the Roman capture of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Yeshiva University senior Michael Weiner writing in the Jewish magazine “ The Forward ” argues that “ …like Columbus , Robert E. Lee , and King Leopold II , it too must come down .
There is no excuse for Italy to maintain , fund , and proudly display a structure that celebrates the destruction of Jerusalem , the forced displacement of the Jews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Temple… As an ancient propaganda tool to glorify Rome ’ s bloody conquests and a modern emblem of Christian persecution and Jewish subjugation , the Arch of Titus is a cruel symbol.
” Weiner seems unaware , or more likely does not care , that there is considerable irony in his denunciation of the Roman subjugation of Judea while ignoring the very real contemporary genocide of the Palestinian people by his co-religionists in Israel .
It just goes to show you that once the destruction game starts , anyone who has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will increase exponentially as every foolish demand becomes self-justifying .
If the current political turmoil ever reverts to anything like normalcy , what is likely to emerge out the other end is a coalition of grievance groups that have figured out that destroying things indiscriminately to make some people feel consumed with guilt so you can steal their money and property is a whole lot easier than actually having to come up with something reasonable .
Whatever it winds up calling itself the “ NewPolitics ” will look a lot like Nancy Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain ’ s Labour Party under its new dystopian leader Keir Starmer , whose overriding mission appears to be ridding the world of anti-Semitism .
Be that as it may , and assuming that the world will not end in the next year or so , the distraction arising from the virus and demonstrations has provided plenty of opportunity for the Trump Administration ’ s consigliere Mike Pompeo and his foreign allies to make mischief all around the world .
Indeed , there have been opportunities for several “ twofers ” with condemnation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s relations with Iran permitting attacks on multiple “ enemies ” simultaneously .
China is completing a “ New Silk Road ” trade agreement with Iran that will reduce the impact of U.S. sanctions while Iran has been supplying refined petroleum products to Venezuela .
Washington has been working hard to disrupt both developments , even threatening to use counter-terrorism legislation to intercept the Greek-owned but carrying-Iranian-fuel tankers in international waters .
The real question all along has been whether the United States and Israel will attack Iran now or later , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide the New York Times with fodder for its fabricated foreign policy pieces are now suggesting that we are looking at something that might be called “ incremental conflict management ” , which would consist of a series of “ short-of-war clandestine strikes , aimed at taking out the most prominent generals of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and setting back Iran ’ s nuclear facilities.
” Brian H. Hook , the State Department ’ s special envoy for Iran described the U.S. government ’ s vapid Iran policy by observing “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invites more Iranian aggression.
” Also , in an election year , “ incremental ” sounds better than real war and it also obscures the reality that Israel is already attacking Iran and its allies , almost daily , aided by the Trump Administration and also encouraged by a belligerent U.S. Congress .
The U.S. approach to Iran is only marginally more subtle than that of the Jewish state , consisting of seeking to destroy the country ’ s economy by blocking its oil exports and its banking sector .
Last week a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation ” to rule against Iran , awarding $ 879 million in damages to the survivors and families of the U.S. airmen killed in the Khobar Towers bombing attack in 1996 .
Iran has denied involvement in the bombing and there is certainly no hard evidence that it was behind it , but the victims will in any event have a hard time collecting their money as the Iranian government has had many of its bank accounts frozen by the U.S. Treasury .
The “ incremental war ” crowd sees a situation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de facto been pursuing a plan to bring down the Iranian government while also devastating its nuclear program .
The United States is applying the economic pressure through an increasing use of sanctions , while Israel regularly bombs Iranians and Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon .
The two governments believe that the combination of military force and economic sanctions will eventually force the Iranian regime to basically surrender and effectively disarm without having to escalate into an open , shooting war .
The only problem with the staged approach is that Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks , directly attacked major research and development facilities inside Iran , and has apparently done so in part with missiles fired either from Israeli fighter-bombers or from ships offshore in the Persian Gulf .
The two attacks took place on July 2 , 2020 , one directed against the Iranian nuclear research facility at Natanz and the second was targeting a claimed missile development center at Parchin .
Neither attack was much reported in the western media even though they together appeared to be a major escalation of the Iran-Israel conflict , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times , again relying on an anonymous “ Middle Eastern intelligence official with knowledge of the episode , ” eventually reported that Natanz was not hit by a cyber-attack , as had been previously suggested , but by a “ powerful bomb ” which might well have been placed in the site ’ s main building by an Israeli agent .
One assumes that the “ Middle Eastern official ” was Israeli and Israeli media sources also confirmed that Parchin was hit by missiles fired from an F-35 Israeli Air Force plane , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not exactly being shy about what his government did .
The point is that the U.S. and the Israelis are intent on going to war against enemy number one Iran and are packaging their actions in such away as to suggest that they are really behaving in a moderate fashion .
They are assuming that Iran will retaliate , but in such a way as to avoid intensifying the conflict .
In reality , taking action to destroy a nation ’ s economy is an act of war just as much as is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or using missiles fired from planes .
There is already a war going on , but the smokescreen provided by the coronavirus spread and BLM means that no one seems to want more on their plate and there is great reluctance to call it for what it is .
Philip Giraldi , Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest .

People march as they take part in an anti-war protest amid increased tensions between the United States and Iran at Times Square in New York, U.S., January 4, 2020. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz - RC279E98P2J3
As the combined impact of the corona virus and the wholesale destruction of America’s history and culture, or at least the part of it that is white, continues, it is nice to see that other nations are getting into the game that will lead to the de facto elimination of western civilization. No one is yet quite up the U.S. level of senseless destruction and looting by the heroes of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa, but in Britain mobs are beating policemen, statues including that of Winston Churchill are being attacked and the Cenotaph commemorating the country’s war dead has been vandalized. In a bizarre incident demonstrating the fundamental ignorance of the wreckers, a memorial to those who died at the 1651 Battle of Worcester in the English Civil War has suffered “significant damage”, with the letters BLM painted on the marker.
Perhaps the most ridiculous SJW demand arising out of the ethno-racism nonsense that has induced the politicians and journalists to go down on their knees and beg for forgiveness is the argument that the Arch of Titus in Rome, which has been standing for two thousand years, should be destroyed because one of its panels depicts the triumphal parade that displayed the loot obtained from the Roman capture of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Yeshiva University senior Michael Weiner writing in the Jewish magazine “The Forward” argues that “…like Columbus, Robert E. Lee, and King Leopold II, it too must come down. There is no excuse for Italy to maintain, fund, and proudly display a structure that celebrates the destruction of Jerusalem, the forced displacement of the Jews of Judea, and the burning of the Temple… As an ancient propaganda tool to glorify Rome’s bloody conquests and a modern emblem of Christian persecution and Jewish subjugation, the Arch of Titus is a cruel symbol.”
Weiner seems unaware, or more likely does not care, that there is considerable irony in his denunciation of the Roman subjugation of Judea while ignoring the very real contemporary genocide of the Palestinian people by his co-religionists in Israel. It just goes to show you that once the destruction game starts, anyone who has a grievance can join in and the damage will increase exponentially as every foolish demand becomes self-justifying.
If the current political turmoil ever reverts to anything like normalcy, what is likely to emerge out the other end is a coalition of grievance groups that have figured out that destroying things indiscriminately to make some people feel consumed with guilt so you can steal their money and property is a whole lot easier than actually having to come up with something reasonable. Whatever it winds up calling itself the “NewPolitics” will look a lot like Nancy Pelosi’s groveling Democratic Party or possibly Britain’s Labour Party under its new dystopian leader Keir Starmer, whose overriding mission appears to be ridding the world of anti-Semitism.
Be that as it may, and assuming that the world will not end in the next year or so, the distraction arising from the virus and demonstrations has provided plenty of opportunity for the Trump Administration’s consigliere Mike Pompeo and his foreign allies to make mischief all around the world. Indeed, there have been opportunities for several “twofers” with condemnation of China’s and Venezuela’s relations with Iran permitting attacks on multiple “enemies” simultaneously.
China is completing a “New Silk Road” trade agreement with Iran that will reduce the impact of U.S. sanctions while Iran has been supplying refined petroleum products to Venezuela. Washington has been working hard to disrupt both developments, even threatening to use counter-terrorism legislation to intercept the Greek-owned but carrying-Iranian-fuel tankers in international waters.
The real question all along has been whether the United States and Israel will attack Iran now or later, but the usual anonymous sources in Washington that provide the New York Times with fodder for its fabricated foreign policy pieces are now suggesting that we are looking at something that might be called “incremental conflict management”, which would consist of a series of “short-of-war clandestine strikes, aimed at taking out the most prominent generals of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and setting back Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
Brian H. Hook, the State Department’s special envoy for Iran described the U.S. government’s vapid Iran policy by observing “We have seen historically that timidity and weakness invites more Iranian aggression.” Also, in an election year, “incremental” sounds better than real war and it also obscures the reality that Israel is already attacking Iran and its allies, almost daily, aided by the Trump Administration and also encouraged by a belligerent U.S. Congress.
The U.S. approach to Iran is only marginally more subtle than that of the Jewish state, consisting of seeking to destroy the country’s economy by blocking its oil exports and its banking sector. Last week a U.S. court in Washington cited “anti-terror legislation” to rule against Iran, awarding $879 million in damages to the survivors and families of the U.S. airmen killed in the Khobar Towers bombing attack in 1996. Iran has denied involvement in the bombing and there is certainly no hard evidence that it was behind it, but the victims will in any event have a hard time collecting their money as the Iranian government has had many of its bank accounts frozen by the U.S. Treasury.
The “incremental war” crowd sees a situation in which the United States and Israel have de facto been pursuing a plan to bring down the Iranian government while also devastating its nuclear program. The United States is applying the economic pressure through an increasing use of sanctions, while Israel regularly bombs Iranians and Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon. The two governments believe that the combination of military force and economic sanctions will eventually force the Iranian regime to basically surrender and effectively disarm without having to escalate into an open, shooting war.
The only problem with the staged approach is that Israel has already, in the past two weeks, directly attacked major research and development facilities inside Iran, and has apparently done so in part with missiles fired either from Israeli fighter-bombers or from ships offshore in the Persian Gulf. The two attacks took place on July 2, 2020, one directed against the Iranian nuclear research facility at Natanz and the second was targeting a claimed missile development center at Parchin. Neither attack was much reported in the western media even though they together appeared to be a major escalation of the Iran-Israel conflict, with potentially significant consequences.
Even the Times, again relying on an anonymous “Middle Eastern intelligence official with knowledge of the episode,” eventually reported that Natanz was not hit by a cyber-attack, as had been previously suggested, but by a “powerful bomb” which might well have been placed in the site’s main building by an Israeli agent. One assumes that the “Middle Eastern official” was Israeli and Israeli media sources also confirmed that Parchin was hit by missiles fired from an F-35 Israeli Air Force plane, which suggests that the Benjamin Netanyahu is not exactly being shy about what his government did.
The point is that the U.S. and the Israelis are intent on going to war against enemy number one Iran and are packaging their actions in such away as to suggest that they are really behaving in a moderate fashion. They are assuming that Iran will retaliate, but in such a way as to avoid intensifying the conflict. In reality, taking action to destroy a nation’s economy is an act of war just as much as is staging attacks using bombs carried by spies or using missiles fired from planes. There is already a war going on, but the smokescreen provided by the coronavirus spread and BLM means that no one seems to want more on their plate and there is great reluctance to call it for what it is.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest.


russia-insider--2020-07-20--Germany’s Presidency of the EU Will Determine If the Bloc Joins the New Multipolar World Order

Relations between the U.S. and European powers like Germany and France are reaching a historic low .
This is especially true after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew a large portion of the American military stationed in Germany to other European countries and after German Chancellor Angela Merkel refused to travel to the G7 summit in the U.S. because of the out of control coronavirus situation in the North American country .
Another major reason for the breakdown of relations is Washington 's announcement that companies participating in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project will be sanctioned .
Merkel said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germans grew up knowing that the U.S. wanted to be a world power .
However , now that the U.S. is abusing its power against some of its strongest allies , Germany , which is currently holding the EU Presidency , could make efforts for the European bloc to be more independent of the U.S .
Although a multipolar world order has been emerging for over a decade , the pandemic has accelerated the redistribution of the current international balance of power .
Europe has found itself needing to make an urgent decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or establish greater independent thinking to serve its own interests .
The idea of European independent decision making has been gaining clout .
A strong advocate is French President Emmanuel Macron who speaks of the “ brain death of NATO ” and attempted to impose extremely high taxes on American network giants like Google .
In fact , many of the major EU countries have pushing for the bloc to be more independent of Washington .
This is contrast to most of the former Warsaw Pact members of the EU , like Poland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Along with Macron , Ursula von der Leyen often said that the EU Commission , that she is the president of , would make its own decision on its geopolitical direction .
In addition , Merkel , who has taken on the leadership role in the EU for the second time , has chosen the motto for her second chairmanship : “ Together .
Making Europe Strong Again.
” Some major European politicians now understand the geopolitical direction that Europe should develop - and if it wants to remain relevant it needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are beginning to see this , especially with Germany strongly resisting pressure from the U.S. to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline construction with Russia .
It is unlikely that Europe will fully break off from Washington ’ s orbit due to historical and ethnic ties , but European independent decision making is becoming more apparent .
The order by Trump for 10,000 U.S. soldiers to be withdrawn from Germany could convince Berlin and the other EU countries that it is time to reconsider the foundations of NATO that lost its legitimacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1991 .
This is why Europeans could take a big step towards establishing a pan-European defense system or an organization that could replace NATO – a proposition that Macron fully supports .
While the U.S. remains the greatest military and economic power in the world today , it is clear that it is losing its global influence to China and Russia .
Therefore , the U.S. will actively defend its status , whether Trump remains in power or his Democrat rival Joe Biden wins the upcoming election .
The most important geostrategic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no matter who is in power .
Trump wants to block China ’ s Belt and Road Initiative from expanding , keep Chinese companies like Huawei away from Europe 's technological infrastructure , curb Chinese expansion in the Pacific region , and challenge Beijing ’ s influence in Africa , Latin America and Central Asia .
For her part , Merkel wants to use her upcoming meeting with the Chinese president to determine future relations with China .
In fact , the EU is facing a dilemma : maintain its current relationship with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Relations between the major powers have become much more changeable than before .
The EU has every opportunity to develop new models of cooperation between different civilizations , especially between Europe and Asia .
An advantage Europe has is that it can emphasize thousands of years of trade between Europeans ( beginning with Ancient Greeks and Romans ) and East Asian kingdoms .
However , for this to occur , Germany needs to make the first brave step of pursuing policies that are to the benefit of Europe and not the agendas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason that Merkel is defying Trump ’ s orders to stop the construction of Nord Stream 2 .
It is also why Macron is planting the idea of NATO being a redundant organization and that Europe must work towards normalcy with Moscow after European Union-Russian relations strained when Crimea reunited with Russia in 2014 .
None-the-less , Germany ’ s presidency over the EU may be the most important junction of the bloc ’ s history since the collapse of the Soviet Union .
The world is on the cusp of a multipolar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ structure – Germany representing the EU must decide to join this new world order or remain stuck in the old one .

Relations between the U.S. and European powers like Germany and France are reaching a historic low. This is especially true after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew a large portion of the American military stationed in Germany to other European countries and after German Chancellor Angela Merkel refused to travel to the G7 summit in the U.S. because of the out of control coronavirus situation in the North American country. Another major reason for the breakdown of relations is Washington's announcement that companies participating in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project will be sanctioned.
Merkel said in an interview for The Guardian that the Germans grew up knowing that the U.S. wanted to be a world power. However, now that the U.S. is abusing its power against some of its strongest allies, Germany, which is currently holding the EU Presidency, could make efforts for the European bloc to be more independent of the U.S.
Although a multipolar world order has been emerging for over a decade, the pandemic has accelerated the redistribution of the current international balance of power. Europe has found itself needing to make an urgent decision – remain in Washington’s orbit or establish greater independent thinking to serve its own interests. The idea of European independent decision making has been gaining clout. A strong advocate is French President Emmanuel Macron who speaks of the “brain death of NATO” and attempted to impose extremely high taxes on American network giants like Google. In fact, many of the major EU countries have pushing for the bloc to be more independent of Washington. This is contrast to most of the former Warsaw Pact members of the EU, like Poland and Lithuania, who are aggressively pro-U.S.
Along with Macron, Ursula von der Leyen often said that the EU Commission, that she is the president of, would make its own decision on its geopolitical direction. In addition, Merkel, who has taken on the leadership role in the EU for the second time, has chosen the motto for her second chairmanship: “Together. Making Europe Strong Again.” Some major European politicians now understand the geopolitical direction that Europe should develop - and if it wants to remain relevant it needs to find its own independent path. We are beginning to see this, especially with Germany strongly resisting pressure from the U.S. to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline construction with Russia.
It is unlikely that Europe will fully break off from Washington’s orbit due to historical and ethnic ties, but European independent decision making is becoming more apparent. The order by Trump for 10,000 U.S. soldiers to be withdrawn from Germany could convince Berlin and the other EU countries that it is time to reconsider the foundations of NATO that lost its legitimacy after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This is why Europeans could take a big step towards establishing a pan-European defense system or an organization that could replace NATO – a proposition that Macron fully supports.
While the U.S. remains the greatest military and economic power in the world today, it is clear that it is losing its global influence to China and Russia. Therefore, the U.S. will actively defend its status, whether Trump remains in power or his Democrat rival Joe Biden wins the upcoming election. The most important geostrategic interests for the U.S. will remain constant no matter who is in power.
Trump wants to block China’s Belt and Road Initiative from expanding, keep Chinese companies like Huawei away from Europe's technological infrastructure, curb Chinese expansion in the Pacific region, and challenge Beijing’s influence in Africa, Latin America and Central Asia. For her part, Merkel wants to use her upcoming meeting with the Chinese president to determine future relations with China. In fact, the EU is facing a dilemma: maintain its current relationship with the U.S. or gradually turn to China.
Relations between the major powers have become much more changeable than before. The EU has every opportunity to develop new models of cooperation between different civilizations, especially between Europe and Asia. An advantage Europe has is that it can emphasize thousands of years of trade between Europeans (beginning with Ancient Greeks and Romans) and East Asian kingdoms. However, for this to occur, Germany needs to make the first brave step of pursuing policies that are to the benefit of Europe and not the agendas of Washington. It is for this reason that Merkel is defying Trump’s orders to stop the construction of Nord Stream 2. It is also why Macron is planting the idea of NATO being a redundant organization and that Europe must work towards normalcy with Moscow after European Union-Russian relations strained when Crimea reunited with Russia in 2014.
None-the-less, Germany’s presidency over the EU may be the most important junction of the bloc’s history since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The world is on the cusp of a multipolar order with a more evenly distributed power structure – Germany representing the EU must decide to join this new world order or remain stuck in the old one.


russia-insider--2020-07-20--'Get Out Now': Pompeo Prepares New Sanctions Over Nearly Complete Russia-Germany Gas Pipeline

While it 's the Trump administration 's new punitive measures targeting China which have been driving headlines , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also signaled new measures related to the controversial Russia-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline .
`` Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said a sanctions exemption will be removed for a Russian natural-gas pipeline to Germany , paving the way for new penalties to be imposed on the contentious project , '' The Wall Street Journal described of his comments .
`` Mr. Pompeo said Wednesday that the State Department will lift a proviso that spared the pipeline , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 2017 sanctions measure , '' the report added .
Already the major companies laying the massive NS2 pipeline and their executives have been threatened with sanction as of last year , which temporarily halted construction .
From there Russia vowed to outfit pipe-laying ships and fill in the gap via its energy giant Gazprom .
The newly announced measures will allow a wider range of punishment options against companies working on the pipeline as it nears completion , which Washington has long been trying to thwart .
“ Our expectation is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be subject to review for potential consequences , ” Pompeo announced .
“ It ’ s a clear warning to companies aiding and abetting Russia ’ s malign-influence projects it will not be tolerated , ” Pompeo said .
The statement mentioned Turkstream pipelines as putting companies `` at risk '' of sanctions under the Countering America 's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act .

While it's the Trump administration's new punitive measures targeting China which have been driving headlines, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also signaled new measures related to the controversial Russia-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said a sanctions exemption will be removed for a Russian natural-gas pipeline to Germany, paving the way for new penalties to be imposed on the contentious project," The Wall Street Journal described of his comments.
Nord Stream 2 pipe-laying ship, file image.
"Mr. Pompeo said Wednesday that the State Department will lift a proviso that spared the pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2, from a 2017 sanctions measure," the report added.
Already the major companies laying the massive NS2 pipeline and their executives have been threatened with sanction as of last year, which temporarily halted construction. From there Russia vowed to outfit pipe-laying ships and fill in the gap via its energy giant Gazprom.
The newly announced measures will allow a wider range of punishment options against companies working on the pipeline as it nears completion, which Washington has long been trying to thwart.
“Our expectation is that those who participate in the continued project will be subject to review for potential consequences,” Pompeo announced.
“It’s a clear warning to companies aiding and abetting Russia’s malign-influence projects it will not be tolerated,” Pompeo said.
“Get out now, or risk the consequences,” he warned.
Pompeo's Wednesday statement further targeted a separate Russian natural gas project, specifically through Turkey.
The statement mentioned Turkstream pipelines as putting companies "at risk" of sanctions under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.


russia-insider--2020-07-21--Russian Ministry of Health Recommends Banning Wi-Fi, Cell Phones in Schools Due to Radiation Health

Russian Ministry of Health Recommends Banning Wi-Fi, Cell Phones in Schools Due to Radiation Health Risks

On July 17th , 2020 , the Russian Ministry of Health published recommendations to schools to ban the use of Wi-Fi and cell phones in elementary schools .
The Medical Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection , prepared the recommendations together with the Russian Ministry of Health .
The information was provided to Children ’ s Health Defense by Professor Oleg Grigoriev , Dr.Sc , PhD , the Chairman for the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection .
Professor Grigoriev has been outspoken about the harms of wireless technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Russian government to protect children from harm .
He also tweeted about the news .
Numerous studies show profound adverse effects from Wi-Fi .
Professor Martin Pall ’ s 2018 meta-analysis paper “ Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health ” references studies showing Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress , sperm/testicular damage , neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes , apoptosis ( cell death ) , cellular DNA damage , endocrine changes , and calcium overload .
Considering the evidence of harm , scientists and medical associations have called to ban the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wired networks instead .
Russia is following other countries around the world that have taken action to reduce the use of Wi-Fi in schools and protect the health of children .
In 2013 , Israel became the first country in the world to adopt limitations on the use of Wi-Fi in schools .
It banned Wi-Fi in kindergartens and limited the use of Wi-Fi in elementary schools .
Wi-Fi is allowed for three hours per week in the first and second grade and six hours per week for the third grade .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times .
In 2017 , Cypress banned Wi-Fi in kindergartens and halted the deployment of Wi-Fi in elementary schools .
In addition , The Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Child Health initiated a nationwide campaign to raise awareness about cell phone and wireless radiation exposures to children .
In the US , in 2016 the governor-appointed Maryland State Children ’ s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council ( CEHPAC ) , issued a report advising the Department of Education to recommend that local school districts reduce exposure of schoolchildren to wireless devices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than wireless internet connections .
No action was taken .
This action by the Russian Health Department follows another recent action by the ministry to encourage the reduction of children ’ s exposure to wireless devices .
In March 2020 , following the outbreak of Covid , Russia ’ s Department of Health together with the Scientific Research Institute of Hygiene and the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection published Safety Recommendations for Children Who Use Digital Technologies to Study at Home .
The recommendation encourages using the internet via a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Children ’ s Health Defense also published a “ step by step ” guide on how to hardwire wireless devices for safe remote learning . )
In the US , the Federal Communication Commission , which regulates the safety of wireless technology , denies that wireless technology causes harm .
The FCC health guidelines rely on the obsolete scientific assumption that the non-ionizing radiation emitted by microwave frequencies used for wireless technology can be harmful , only if they cause thermal change in tissue .
That assumption has been proven false in thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were commercialized in the 1980s .
Contrary to the FCC ’ s position , in the 1970s , the Russians had already acknowledged that the radiation emitted from radio and microwave frequencies based technologies can be harmful at levels that are at least 1,000 times lower than the levels that create thermal effects .
Despite massive evidence of harm , in December 2019 , the FCC published a decision that there is no evidence of harm from wireless technology and decided that a review of its health guidelines would not be required .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Children ’ s Health Defense sued the FCC .
The main brief in the case is due on July 29 , 2020 .
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy , Jr. and the Children ’ s Health Defense .
CHD is planning many strategies , including legal , in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured .
Your support is essential to CHD ’ s successful mission .

On July 17th, 2020, the Russian Ministry of Health published recommendations to schools to ban the use of Wi-Fi and cell phones in elementary schools. The Medical Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, prepared the recommendations together with the Russian Ministry of Health.
The information was provided to Children’s Health Defense by Professor Oleg Grigoriev, Dr.Sc, PhD, the Chairman for the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Professor Grigoriev has been outspoken about the harms of wireless technology and has been leading the recent initiatives by the Russian government to protect children from harm. He also tweeted about the news.
Numerous studies show profound adverse effects from Wi-Fi. Professor Martin Pall’s 2018 meta-analysis paper “Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health” references studies showing Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis (cell death), cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Considering the evidence of harm, scientists and medical associations have called to ban the use of Wi-Fi in schools and use wired networks instead.
Russia is following other countries around the world that have taken action to reduce the use of Wi-Fi in schools and protect the health of children. In 2013, Israel became the first country in the world to adopt limitations on the use of Wi-Fi in schools. It banned Wi-Fi in kindergartens and limited the use of Wi-Fi in elementary schools. Wi-Fi is allowed for three hours per week in the first and second grade and six hours per week for the third grade. It must be turned off at all other times. In 2017, Cypress banned Wi-Fi in kindergartens and halted the deployment of Wi-Fi in elementary schools. In addition, The Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Child Health initiated a nationwide campaign to raise awareness about cell phone and wireless radiation exposures to children.
In the US, in 2016 the governor-appointed Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council (CEHPAC), issued a report advising the Department of Education to recommend that local school districts reduce exposure of schoolchildren to wireless devices and radiation, and to provide wired rather than wireless internet connections. No action was taken.
This action by the Russian Health Department follows another recent action by the ministry to encourage the reduction of children’s exposure to wireless devices. In March 2020, following the outbreak of Covid, Russia’s Department of Health together with the Scientific Research Institute of Hygiene and the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection published Safety Recommendations for Children Who Use Digital Technologies to Study at Home. The recommendation encourages using the internet via a wired connection rather than Wi-Fi. (Children’s Health Defense also published a “step by step” guide on how to hardwire wireless devices for safe remote learning.)
In the US, the Federal Communication Commission, which regulates the safety of wireless technology, denies that wireless technology causes harm. The FCC health guidelines rely on the obsolete scientific assumption that the non-ionizing radiation emitted by microwave frequencies used for wireless technology can be harmful, only if they cause thermal change in tissue. That assumption has been proven false in thousands of studies, even before cell phones were commercialized in the 1980s. Contrary to the FCC’s position, in the 1970s, the Russians had already acknowledged that the radiation emitted from radio and microwave frequencies based technologies can be harmful at levels that are at least 1,000 times lower than the levels that create thermal effects.
Despite massive evidence of harm, in December 2019, the FCC published a decision that there is no evidence of harm from wireless technology and decided that a review of its health guidelines would not be required. As a result, in February 2020, Children’s Health Defense sued the FCC. The main brief in the case is due on July 29, 2020.
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.