Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

After a recent summit between new partners China and Russia, General Secretary Xi Jinping and Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin issued an odd one-sentence communique: “There can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be fought.”

No one would disagree, even though several officials of both hypocritical governments have previously threatened their neighbors with nuclear attacks.

But still, why did the two feel the need to issue such a terse statement—and why now?

Rarely has the global rhetoric of mass annihilation reached such a crescendo as the present, as existential wars rage in Ukraine and Gaza.

In particular, Putin at least believes that he is finally winning the Ukraine conflict. Xi seems to assume that conventional ascendant Chinese military power in the South China Sea has finally made the absorption of Taiwan practicable.

They both believe that the only impediment to their victories would be an intervention from the U.S. and the NATO alliance, a conflict that could descend into mutual threats to resort to nuclear weapons.

Thus the recent warnings of Xi and Putin.

Almost monthly, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un continues his weary threats to use his nuclear arsenal to destroy South Korea or Japan.

A similarly monotonous, pro-Hamas Turkish president, Recep Erdogan, regularly threatens Armenians with crazy talk of repeating the “mission of our grandfathers.” And he occasionally warns Israelis and Greeks that they may one day wake up to Turkish missiles raining down upon their cities.

More concretely, for the first time in history, Iran attacked the homeland of Israel. It launched the largest wartime array of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones in modern history—over 320 projectiles.

Iran’s theocrats simultaneously claim they are about ready to produce nuclear weapons. And, of course, since 1979, Iran has periodically promised to wipe Israel off the map and half the world’s Jews with it.

Most ignore these crazy threats and write them off as the braggadocio of dictators. But as we saw on October 7, the barbarity of human nature has not changed much from the premodern world, whether defined by savage beheading, mutilations, murdering, mass rape, torture, and hostage taking of Israeli elderly, women, and children.

But what has radically transformed are the delivery systems of mass death—nuclear weapons, chemical gases, biological agents, and artificial-intelligence-driven delivery systems.

Oddly, the global reaction to the promise of Armageddon remains one of nonchalance. Most feel that such strongmen rant wildly but would never unleash weapons of civilizational destruction.

Consider that there are as many autocratic nuclear nations (e.g., Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, and perhaps Iran) as democratic ones (U.S., Britain, France, Israel, and India). Only Israel has an effective anti-ballistic missile dome. And the more the conventional power of the West declines, the more in extremis it will have to rely on a nuclear deterrent—at a time when it has no effective missile defense of its homelands.

In a just-released book, The End of Everything, I wrote about four examples of annihilation—the classical city-state of Thebes, ancient Carthage, Byzantine Constantinople and Aztec Tenochtitlán—in which the unimaginable became all too real.

In all these erasures, the targeted, naïve states believed that their illustrious pasts, rather than a realistic appraisal of their present inadequate defenses, would ensure their survival.

All hoped that their allies—the Spartans, the anti-Roman Macedonians, the Christian nations of Western Europe, and the subject cities of the Aztecs—would appear at the eleventh hour to stave off their defeat.

Additionally, these targeted states had little understanding of the agendas and capabilities of the brilliantly methodic killers outside their walls—the ruthless wannabe philosopher Alexander the Great, the literary patron Scipio Aemilianus, the self-described intellectual Mehmet II, and the widely read Hernán Cortés—who all sought to destroy utterly rather than merely defeat their enemies.

These doomed cities and nations were reduced to rubble or absorbed by the conquerors. Their populations were wiped out or enslaved, and their once-hallowed cultures, customs, and traditions lost to history. The last words of the conquered were usually variations of, “It can’t happen here.”

If the past is any guide to the present, we should take heed that what almost never happens in war can certainly still occur.

When killers issue wild, even lunatic, threats, we should nonetheless take them seriously.

We should not count on friends or neutrals to save our civilization. Instead, Americans should build defense systems over the skies of our homeland, secure our borders, ensure our military operates on meritocracy, cease wild deficit spending and borrowing, and rebuild both our conventional and nuclear forces.

Otherwise, we will naively—and fatally—believe that we are magically exempt when the inconceivable becomes all too real.

*  *  *

Victor Davis Hanson’s The End of Everything. How Wars Descend into Annihilation was just released by Basic Books.

Authored by Megan Redshaw, J.D. via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A new analysis suggests COVID-19 was reported more frequently than it should have been as an underlying cause of death, inflating COVID-19 mortality numbers and attributing deaths from other causes to the virus.

In a preprint paper published in Research Gate, researchers aimed to identify who truly died “from” COVID-19 versus who died “with” COVID-19 but were included in U.S. COVID-19 mortality numbers.

To determine if COVID-19 was overreported as an underlying cause of death, researchers calculated the overreporting adjustment factor and compared the ratio of reporting COVID-19 as a multiple—or contributing—cause of death versus an underlying cause of death on death certificates from 2020 to 2022. They also examined how “pneumonia and influenza” were reported on death certificates from 2010 to 2022.

An overreporting adjustment factor for mortality is a statistical correction applied to mortality data to account for the propensity of certain death counts reported more frequently or inaccurately than others. It typically involves comparing reported death counts to a more accurate independent benchmark, which helps ensure data reflect the true incidence of deaths in a population. Here, the researchers chose pneumonia and influenza because the conditions are similar in nature to COVID-19, and they could compare patterns using mortality data before and after the pandemic began in 2020.

According to the preprint, data show COVID-19 was systematically overreported as an underlying cause of death during the pandemic by an average of about three times for all ages compared to influenza and pneumonia during the same period—and was highest in those aged 15 to 54. Additionally, only about one-third of influenza and pneumonia-related deaths were reported as underlying causes, whereas almost all COVID-19-related deaths were reported as “deaths from COVID-19.”

When comparing underlying cause death rates for different age groups for COVID-19 with death rates from influenza and pneumonia, researchers observed that underlying cause COVID-19 death rates were higher than those for influenza and pneumonia in the 15 to 24 and older age groups. After adjusting to obtain the overreporting factor, they found COVID-19 death rates were still higher than they were for influenza and pneumonia for ages 25 to 34 and older and equal for those aged 15 to 24.

About 30 percent of influenza and pneumonia-related deaths were registered as an underlying cause of death on death certificates, whereas 90 percent of COVID-19 deaths were recorded as the underlying cause of death in 2020 and 2021. In 2022, 76 percent of COVID-19 deaths were registered as the underlying cause.

“There was a systematic overreporting of deaths from COVID when we analyze versus the flu and pneumonia, as almost all COVID deaths were reported as the underlying cause,” Edward Dowd, founder of Phinance Technologies, told The Epoch Times. “Basically, when one wants to understand the pandemic, only about 30 percent of the reported COVID-19 deaths were ‘from COVID-19’ as the underlying cause,” Mr. Dowd said.

How the US Counts COVID-19 Deaths

Each country has its own criteria for determining what constitutes a COVID-19-related death. The United States uses the World Health Organization’s (WHO) classification system to categorize and code mortality data from death certificates.

The WHO defines the underlying cause of death as “the disease or injury which initiated the chain of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury.” The underlying cause of death is chosen from the conditions listed by the physician on the death certificate. When the physician records multiple causes or conditions, the underlying cause is determined by the sequence of conditions that led to the death on the certificate, ICD provisions, and selection rules.

“The WHO methodology for identifying COVID-19-related deaths cast a wide net for potential classification of COVID-19 as either the underlying cause of death or a contributory cause of death, which could lead to over-reporting relative to other diseases. This led to criticisms of suspected over-counting of COVID-19-related deaths during the pandemic. As an example, a CDC mortality report indicated that COVID-19 was the sole cause of only about 5% of listed COVID-19 deaths,” the authors of the analysis wrote.

Each death certificate contains a single underlying cause of death and up to 20 additional multiple or contributing causes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), properly classifying the death on a death certificate is important for mortality trends that inform public health risks and policy decisions.

Causes of Overreporting COVID-19 Deaths

According to the analysis, incentives for recording positive COVID-19 tests may have contributed to an overreporting bias in deaths attributed to COVID-19 compared to other diseases. Since the beginning of the pandemic, COVID-19 deaths have included those who died with COVID-19 and from COVID-19, and more recently, those who died of conditions attributed to long COVID, even if they had not tested positive for the virus in recent months or years.

The White House acknowledged early on that health officials were taking a very liberal approach to mortality regarding COVID-19.

“There are other countries that if you had a preexisting condition, and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem, some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death,” former White House coronavirus response coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx told reporters during an April 2020 press briefing.

“Right now, we’re still recording it, and the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to mark it as ‘COVID-19 infection’ the intent is right now that if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death,” Dr. Birx said.

State health departments use the CDC’s standardized surveillance case definition and uniform criteria to define a disease for public health surveillance. They also report COVID-19 cases through the agency’s National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. At the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC’s definition of COVID-19 was “very simplistic,” and health departments recorded anyone with a positive COVID-19 diagnosis at the time of death a COVID-19 death, even if a clear alternative cause of death existed.

Likewise, medical examiners and coroners follow CDC guidelines when completing death certificates, and the agency’s National Center for Health Statistics provides standardized forms and procedures for certifying deaths, including how to determine underlying causes of death and report related causes.

CDC guidance states that in cases where a “definite diagnosis of COVID-19 cannot be made, but is suspected or likely,” it is “acceptable” to report COVID-19 on the death certificate as “probable” or “presumed” and certifiers can use their best clinical judgment in determining whether an individual likely had COVID-19. It’s this same discretion that allows long COVID to be counted as a COVID-19 death long after an individual tested positive for infection.

The CDC broadly defines long COVID as “signs, symptoms, and conditions that continue to develop after acute COVID-19 infection” that can last for “weeks, months, or years.” The term is also used to refer to post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), long-haul COVID, and post-acute COVID-19.

The CDC guidance gives a physician or medical examiner discretion to classify long COVID as a COVID-19 fatality, and the CDC death certificate guidance allows for PASC to be listed as an underlying cause of death, which may affect COVID-19 mortality numbers.

A December 2022 Vital Statistics Rapid Release Report published by the CDC identified 3,544 deaths in the National Vital Statistics System that mentioned long COVID key terms and were coded as COVID-19 deaths in the United States from Jan. 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022.

Russia just gave its Baltic neighbors a big scare this week, after a new draft decree appeared on a government website published by the defense ministry which proposed redrawing 100+ year old borders around Russian islands in the Gulf of Finland as well as around the exclave of Kaliningrad.

The draft appeared briefly on Russia’s TASS news agency only to disappear by Wednesday, where a page at the link said “draft deleted”. Russian media has since denied that there are any such plans to move sea borders deeper into Baltic waters.

The now deleted draft suggested a maritime border change would “correspond to the modern geographical situation”; however, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov downplayed it saying “there is nothing political here”.

But Peskov also added the caveat that the political situation in the region had changed since the 1980s: “You can see the level of confrontation, especially in the Baltic region,” he stated in response to questions.

Finland, Lithuania, and Sweden raised the alarm over what they see as a subtle threat and Kremlin effort to sow confusion and instability:

A Russian Defense Ministry proposal to redraw Russia’s maritime borders in the Baltic Sea has sparked concern from Moscow’s neighbors in the region, with officials from Finland to Lithuania decrying what they describe as an attempt to sow confusion and destabilize regional security.

While the Kremlin insisted Wednesday that the government draft resolution was not politically motivated, experts told The Moscow Times that the proposed changes could be used to put pressure on Russia’s western neighbors — all of whom are EU and NATO members.

“This is an issue that shows Russia can and is going to create problems and disputes where the situation was already unproblematic,” said Arkady Moshes, who heads the Russia program at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA).

“So it’s a part of this hybrid pressure,” he told The Moscow Times.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said in the wake of the controversy, “This is an obvious escalation against NATO and the EU, and must be met with an appropriately firm response.” Finland’s Foreign Ministry decried it as “a form of hybrid influencing” – and Sweden warned it can be seen as an expansionist move.

Below is some of what the since deleted document outlined…

2/ The Russian MoD produced a since-deleted document proposing that the Russian government should reassess the 1985 maritime borders in the Gulf of Finland because these borders were based on outdated “small-scale nautical navigation maps” developed in the mid-20th century. pic.twitter.com/XrZkZS5JgQ

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) May 23, 2024

Authored by Citizen Soldier via RealClearDefense,

All Aboard! Here comes the latest Postwar Gravy Train, laden with massive government spending, lax oversight and other goodies for cunning contractors and economic opportunists seeking to benefit from the near-destruction of Ukraine.

Last week, the State Department announced it intends to seize Russian assets in the United States to help fund rebuilding efforts, though the estimated $300 billion here and in Europe won’t cover the projected price tag of $500 billion. “What Putin destroyed, Russia should – must – pay to rebuild,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said.

Like an earlier generation of interventionists, Blinken cites the “Pottery Barn rule” – You Break It, You Own It – to explain an aggressor’s moral obligation to rebuild. Colin Powell used the same reasoning in the summer of 2002, as a “caution” to President George W. Bush about the consequences of military action in Iraq. A major difference is the dollars at stake. American and European firms undoubtedly are eager to reconstruct a modern, high-tech country from the ground up.

Our government seeks every opportunity to impose itself, at home and abroad, but has a poor track record for managing projects.

No-bid contract awards, bribes and billions of missing dollars are the legacy of the Coalition Provisional Authority’s rebuilding work in Iraq, where officials concluded that not enough was accomplished for the amount of funds expended. We learned that when taxpayer money is plentiful, oversight and results will be negligible. Just imagine how generous and hands-off our government might be spending Russia’s money.

Not everyone endorses the act of confiscating Russia’s money, pointing to the principle of reciprocity as a reason to show restraint. “Stealing” the assets of a foreign country sets a dangerous precedent that could be applied against us. For example, what if China confiscates American assets to fund rebuilding projects in Libya, Iraq or other nations the United States has damaged through war?

The DC hype-meisters talk about the Great Power Competition of wannabe superpowers; they tell us that China is on the brink of becoming the dominant international force, that Russia is preparing to seize all of Europe. Here, though, the façade falls away—the elites believe the United States has no economic or military peers. When you’re as rich and mighty as America, there’s no fear of reciprocity.

The elites will do what’s in the immediate best interest of their friends, which include certain corporations and investors who will benefit from the most extensive international project since World War II. For this group, the only morality is a morality of power: Treating other nations the way you want to be treated is a rule for losers and weaker players.

Blinken and the politicians talk about our categorical imperative in Ukraine, how the world relies on America to “defend democracy” and “protect the rules-based order.” But their words ring hollow. The cynical truth is that what Russia breaks, America will take—using confiscated money to fund a massive rebuilding project that will be poorly managed, but lucrative for the chosen few involved.  

Citizen Soldier believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,

The cybersecurity wars between communist China and the West are raging, yet few people realize what’s really going on. That’s now changing.

The Chinese regime’s ability to launch successful cyberattacks against American and British defenses is higher than it has ever been. New attack tactics, techniques, and protocols (TTPs) developed by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) cyber division are threatening the integrity and functionality of Western nations’ military communications, operations, and other critical systems.

(L to R) MP Tim Loughton, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, and MP Stewart McDonald during a press conference at the Centre for Social Justice in central London on March 25, 2024. The Chinese regime is believed to have targeted a group of senior MPs and peers with a fresh series of cyberattacks aimed at undermining UK democracy. (Jordan Pettitt/PA Wire)

That may be why the United States and the UK are now publicly speaking about these critical threats, warning the Chinese and other national threat actors with which they coordinate to cease these provocative attacks. To that point, American, British, and European officials have warned that the Chinese regime’s cyberattacks are both coercive and destabilizing. As an indication of just how serious those threats are, the UK summoned the Chinese ambassador as a formal response to the regime’s increasing cyber threats to the UK.

UK: Defending Against China’s Cyberattacks Is ‘Top Priority’

To underscore their concern, Anne Keast-Butler, director of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the UK’s top-tier surveillance agency, said at a security conference in England’s city of Birmingham that responding to China’s cyber activities was “a top priority” for GCHQ. This isn’t the first time the UK government has had to confront Beijing about its illegal and threatening activities in cyberspace, but of late, it’s become a much bigger problem.

In fact, last month, British Prime Minister Rushi Sunak said Chinese hackers working for the CCP were running “malicious cyber campaigns” against UK lawmakers and UK media and were also responsible for a hack on the British Armed Forces’ payments system. The prime minister spoke further about the cyber threats, saying his country faced an “axis of authoritarian states like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China.”

What’s more, British authorities have charged three men with spying for Hong Kong’s foreign intelligence service in the UK. The men are accused of being Chinese state-sponsored hackers and stealing election data from the UK’s elections offices, as well as performing surveillance operations in the UK. Beijing stated that the case was “a fabrication.” When pressed about these and other cyber activities and the threats they pose to international norms and the security of the United States, the UK, and European countries, Beijing denied the existence of such threats, dismissing them as “absurd.”

These events put additional strains on UK relations with China.

The Volt Typhoon Threat and Beyond

These official accusations follow in the wake of the confrontation that Washington had with Beijing several weeks ago regarding its advanced “Volt Typhoon” attack. That attack involved the discovery of the long and undetected presence of Chinese infiltration into vital U.S. operational systems across a variety of verticals. It was determined that Chinese attackers had breached the networks of dozens of American critical infrastructure organizations that control electrical power, water, and both civilian and military communication systems via a widespread network of compromised servers and computers.

FBI Director Christopher Wray contends that Volt Typhoon would be used to disrupt, if not eliminate, control of the critical infrastructure systems mentioned above, as well as other strategic assets, prior to launching a military campaign against the United States or Taiwan. Again, Beijing has denied any official connection to the Volt Typhoon attack.

Hackers Penetrating US Defense Systems

However, at the Birmingham security conference, National Cyber Director Harry Coker asserted that Chinese hackers were violating U.S. defense sites in cyberspace and targeting U.S. interests at an “unprecedented scale.” Mr. Coker highlighted the severity of this threat, noting that “in a crisis or conflict scenario, China could use their pre-positioned cyber capabilities to wreak havoc in civilian infrastructure and deter U.S. military action.”

The British prime minister and the GCHQ chief emphasized their rising concerns about China’s cyberattacks and their impact on the global order. Mr. Sunak said the next few years would be “dangerous and transformational,” while Ms. Keast-Butler said that “Russia and Iran pose immediate threats, but China is the ‘epoch-defining’ challenge.”

As China’s Power Rises, So Do Attacks

However, the United States, the UK, and Europe aren’t the only targets of Chinese hackers. The Philippines has seen a fourfold rise in Chinese cyberattacks year over year as friction between the two has increased. The parallel between the Chinese regime’s growing military power and influence in the world and its rising level of cyberattacks against its adversaries can’t be overlooked. Nor can the fact that the United States and the UK feel the need to publicly point the finger at China.

Cyberattacks have occurred for decades, but this is a clear change from how they were handled in the past, when they were managed at the government level. However, with China’s apparent ability to penetrate even the most highly guarded systems, the next few years may well be, as the British observed, “destabilizing,” “transformative,” and “epoch-defining.”

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Is this the continuation of what appers an ongoing purge by President Vladimir Putin of his top defense ranks? 

The Kremlin escalated its crackdown on Russia’s top military ranks, with a new corruption arrest this week.

Russian authorities detained Lieutenant-General Vadim Shamarin, deputy to General Valery Gerasimov, head of the army’s general staff, on suspicion of large-scale bribe-taking, Russian state media reported Thursday. 

It is the fourth arrest in the past month of a high-ranking military official, marking the biggest Russian army scandal in years. The detentions come as President Vladimir Putin carries out a sweeping reshuffle of top jobs, including a change at the head of the Ministry of Defense.

The arrest comes closely on the heels of the biggest reshuffling in military leadership since the Ukraine invasion’s start: the May 12th removal of Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu (or rather, he was shifted to head of the national security council) and installation of Andrei Belousov.

“On May 22, the court chose a preventive measure for Shamarin in the form of detention for a period of two months,” a court official was cited in AFP as confirming. Additionally a senior defense ministry procurement official identified as Vladimir Verteletsky was also reportedly detained.

The court has alleged Shamarin accepted bribes “at an especially large scale” while overseeing the doling out of state contracts:

Russia’s Investigative Committee, which probes major crimes, announced later on Thursday that the general is accused of accepting 36 million rubles ($397,000) from the executives of a phone manufacturing plant for “general patronage” and ensuring higher product supplies through Defense Ministry contracts.

He is currently in pretrial detention. As for recent removals which are specifically criminal cases, below is a review of the series of arrests:

• Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov was detained in late April
• Lieutenant-General Yuri Kuznetsov, head of personnel at the defense ministry
• Major-General Ivan Popov, a former top commander for Russia’s offensive in Ukraine

Despite all appearances, the Kremlin is still denying that a “purge” is in progress – but instead a mere serious campaign to root out corruption.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RIA in the wake of the detention of Gerasimov’s deputy, “The fight against corruption is a continuous effort. This is not a campaign. It is an integral part, in fact, of the activities of our law enforcement agencies.”

So this string of arrests is being presented as an open and shut simple enforcement of the law, but this is hardly convincing many Russia observers in the West. For example, the BBC’s Russia Editor Steve Rosenberg has observed: “When one top defense official in Russia is arrested, that’s interesting. When four senior defense figures are arrested in less than a month, that’s more than a pattern…begins to look like a purge.”

As for head of the army, Gen. Gerasimov… while this certainly puts him under a greater spotlight (as his #2 just went down), he is not accused of any wrongdoing, but still has come under increased criticism among Kremlin officials of late for how the ‘special military operation’ is being executed in Ukraine.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

Recently I was watching a short documentary about the history of political discourse and division in the US and it got me thinking about how the internal conflicts of the past might relate to the rampant social battles Americans are dealing with today. From early disagreements between various Founding Fathers on hot button issues like the Sedition Act, central banking and standing armies, to epic and disastrous conflagrations like the Civil War, America has never been “of one mind” on everything.

Overall, though, the longstanding assumption is that even when we slip and fall into disarray Americans will find common ground and move on towards the future together.  It’s a nice sentiment, but what if this ideal no longer applies?

There are some people that argue there was never a golden era for the US; that we’ve always been destructive, or exploitative or “imperialist.” Of course, it’s very easy to examine any given time period through the lens of modern sensibilities and pass judgment. How we would do things today is not necessarily how we would do things yesterday. We can’t easily condemn the men and women of the past without at least recognizing that we will probably never see the issues of their day from their perspective.

The political left is the most egregious violator of this principle. They have a bad habit of trying to rewrite history according to their current ideological cultism and applying their taboos to time periods when civilization had very different views on how to function. The progressive philosophy is partially rooted in “futurism”; the idea that all old ideas and ways of doing things must be abandoned to make way for new methods. In other words, they think everything “new” is better and must be embraced.

Frankly, this theory has never proven correct. Not every old idea should be left behind and not every new method is better. In fact, most ideas that leftists think are new are actually very old. There’s nothing ground breaking about DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion), it’s just another form of Marxism based on personal identity rather than the traditional class politics.

Do you want to know what DEI really is? It’s a vehicle for forced association.

Forced association is used to leverage populations into a homogeneous soup, a hive mind with no individual thought or right to discriminate against destructive groups and ideologies.  But if America is experiencing an agenda of forced association today then we have to ask – What is there to be gained?  Why pressure people who fundamentally disagree with each other on every level to coexist within a society? Why do the people in power want this so badly?

Well, for the central planners (usually socialists/globalists), tribalism is a big no-no. People going their own way is unacceptable. If the populace thinks they can divide and separate and live differently from each other, then how can the establishment continue to exist? For a one-world government to be achieved ALL divisions must be erased and everyone has to either love or fear the purveyors of “unity.”

Separation must, therefore, be demonized.  The problem is, there’s no way to blackmail a population into association, not in the long term anyway.  A group is an abstraction without form; it means nothing until the individuals involved share a unifying principle.  When I look back at political disagreements in history I find that there is a vital factor that existed during past conflicts that does NOT exist today.

Even during the worst of times including the Civil War both sides of the division held the same basic principles and morals. They had a lot of the same values, a shared religion and a shared understanding of reality. They were people connected by the same American soul, they merely disagreed on singular issues. The goal for each side was for America and its fundamental heritage to survive, even if they didn’t always obey every aspect of the Constitution or the existing leadership at the time. This is not how things work in 2024.

In terms of surface level politics its obvious that there will never be peaceful reconciliation between woke progressives and conservatives/independents. One side or the other has to go, and I think the majority of people in the US want leftists to go.

To be clear I’m not saying that all people on the political left are exactly the same. There’s definitely a political spectrum from traditional liberals to extreme activists. But there is no denying that, for now, woke zealots control the levers of power and influence within the Democratic Party and the leftist media. They also have the explicit backing of every major institution from corporations to NGOs to government.

You don’t see a whole lot of average Democrats with the guts to stand up and criticize their own side even when they know there’s something very wrong happening. They go along with the program either out of laziness or fear. With conservatives the reverse is true. Conservatives can’t seem to organize a damn thing because we constantly disagree with each other when it comes to solutions.

And let’s not forget the fence riders out there. It’s sure nice to always be out of the fray and in the rear with the gear while pretending as if you’re “above it all.” That’s a very comfortable place to be because it allows a person to avoid risk while appearing as if they’re taking the high road. Much like a slippery academic who never defines his position in a debate so that he can change his arguments on a whim.

The issue is that, even though fence riders don’t want to admit it, there are times when one side is right and one side is utterly wrong. Sometimes there is no middle ground.

A lot of moderates are finally waking up to the horrors of the collectivist movements in our midst. Maybe it was the pandemic lockdowns or the attempted trans indoctrination of children or the unhinged nature of far-left activists in the streets but somewhere along the way moderates finally realized conservatives were RIGHT all along about a lot of things. We were fighting to save their freedoms years ago while they were acting cool and wondering what all the fuss was about.

There are a lot of factors that set conservatives (and a many moderates) apart from the political left, but the core disconnect is so deep and disturbing it’s hard to quantify. I can only summarize it down to this:

1) The unifying principle of the left is deconstruction. They find their meaning or purpose in the act of tearing down and destroying what other people have built.

2) The unifying principle for conservatives is to build and protect what has been found to work.

Humanity’s best bet for success is liberty with responsibility, free markets and meritocracy. All things we are trying to preserve, and all things that leftists want to blow up.

For progressives the most important question is: What happens when they’ve destroyed the last edifice? What comes next? If dismantling systems is their unifying principle what will they do when they have nothing else to dismantle? What happens when every plate in the china shop is broken? They are incapable of creating a new and functional society so they would need an outside foundation.

In this regard I set globalists apart from typical leftists. Globalists are indeed leftists at their core but they are also builders, and not in a good way. Globalists don’t build societies, they build prisons. Once the useful idiots on the left have finished the job of deconstructing America the globalists plan to come in with a new ideal, a new religion, a new foundation based on worshiping THEM.

Here is where we find the greatest split of all – The spiritual nature of our impasse.

I’ve definitely never been one to promote the concept of theocracy and I have many scruples when it comes to “Earthly” religious organizations. Anything governed by men can be corrupted. But I also accept that America was built by a majority Christian society following integral Christian values. I don’t think every American needs to be Christian. The Founding Fathers understood that religious freedom is essential. But we must acknowledge and embrace the fact that the country works best when Christianity is at the forefront.  At least there is a unifying moral code to hold the framework together.

Furthermore, it would be far easier to reconcile Christian social systems with science and critical thinking than it will be to reconcile freedom loving Americans with far-left collectivists. The woke cult is much more hostile to science today than Christians are; they even refuse to acknowledge human biology.  I also think Christianity is growing along with newer generations of conservatives with a greater respect for skepticism.  We could see a renaissance following the paths set by great Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas or C.S. Lewis.

I’m seeing a lot of the old blind devotion to the Republican Party fall by the wayside and a greater focus on what politicians achieve rather than what they promise. I’m seeing people on the right embrace the value of comedy and pop culture more, which has always been a problem for conservatives. And, I’m seeing science open doors to religious thought instead of trying to close them. As humanity delves deeper into quantum physics, cosmology and even the mind sciences, our relationship to the great beyond requires consideration of the physical AND the metaphysical.

It’s the kind of thing that would make progressives rage and foam at the mouth.  For them, science must always be in service to their causes or it ceases to have value, and one of their primary causes is the erasure of Christianity.  They’ll never allow a world where science and religion work together to build a future in which discovery is balanced with ethical responsibility.

Then there is the issue of moral imperative.  Many of us see the targeting of children for indoctrination and exploitation.  We see the promotion of subjective reality and degeneracy.  We see the inclination towards lies as a tool for political power.  We see leftists caring more about winning and less about the truth.

For the globalists and the woke mob, morality is nothing more than a social construct, but we know that these ideas are inborn and inherent for the majority of people. If they weren’t, humanity would have gone extinct ages ago from self destruction. Leftists don’t agree with the concept of a basic moral code. Leftists don’t even agree that morals are a necessity. They think they can manifest their own reality from thin air. How can we possibly live side-by-side with people who despise every pillar that holds western civilization together?

The answer is – We can’t.  For now I see no path to peace.  Peace would require a unifying principle, a mutual respect, and that does not exist.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

The B-21 Raider, the US Air Force’s latest stealth bomber, was unveiled in December 2022 and is currently undergoing testing at Edwards Air Force Base in California. This cutting-edge aircraft is poised to gradually replace the B-1 and B-2 bombers in the second half of the decade, solidifying its position as the backbone of America’s stealth bomber fleet. 

On Wednesday, the USAF released new stunning images of the B-21.

Since the stealth bomber debuted, there has only been a handful of images released and or taken by the public: 

• Air Force Unveils B-21 Raider Stealth Bomber

• USAF Shares New Images Of B-21 Raider

• New Image Reveals B-21 Raider Taxiing Ahead Of Maiden Flight

• First Flight Of B-21 Raider Captured On Video

The B-21 is USAF’s first strategic bomber in over three decades and is expected to enter service in the mid-2020s with a production goal of 100 aircraft. 

America is gearing up for conflict as the world fractures into a multipolar state. 

Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Over the past decade China’s security footprint in Argentina has grown considerably, but analysts say recent indicators demonstrate President Javier Milei may be shifting defense cooperation back towards the United States.

A 2012 agreement between officials in Argentina’s Neuquen Province and Beijing allowed the construction of a deep space tracking station near the Chilean border, that made Washington sit up and take notice.

The 50-year contract grants the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) the ability to operate freely on Argentinian soil. The facility, known as Espacio Lejano, became the precedent for a Chinese ground tracking facility in Rio Gallegos, on the south eastern coastal tip of Argentina, which was formally announced in 2021.

Since the Espacio Lejano contract was signed, analysts and U.S. officials have repeatedly expressed concern over China’s expanding collaboration with Argentina in matters of security and surveillance.

“The PRC [People’s Republic of China] has expanded its ability to extract resources, establish port, manipulate governments through predatory investment practices, and build potential dual-use space facilities,” U.S. Southern Command Gen. Laura Richardson said during a 2023 House Armed Services Committee hearing.

President Milei took office on Dec. 10, 2023, replacing the progressive President Alberto Fernandez, who forged closer ties with China and signed a 2022 deal to join the Communist Party’s Belt and Road Initiative. While campaigning, Mr. Milei made no secret of his disdain for communist regimes and signaled his intent to move away from socialist policies in favor of a more libertarian direction.

In the nearly seven months he has been in office, President Milei has enacted major economic reforms and a downsizing of government.

Other recent “positive indicators” indicate the Milei administration are prioritizing defense relations with the United States over China, said Leland Lazarus, the associate director for national security at Florida International University’s Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy.

“The fact is that in just six months, he’s already visited the U.S. multiple times. He’s met with Secretary Blinken, he’s been to the White House … all that is like absolute music to General Richardson’s ears. To Biden’s ears,” Mr. Lazarus told The Epoch Times.

Ms. Richardson traveled to Argentina in April, on a visit that included the donation of a Hercules C-130H transport aircraft to the Argentinian Air Force and a tour of a naval facility in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, the extreme tip of the country.

“We are committed to working closely with Argentina so that our collaborative security efforts benefit our citizens, our countries and our hemisphere in lasting and positive ways,” Ms. Richardson said in a statement at the time.

In Ushuaia, Ms. Richardson met with local military personnel to discuss their role in “safeguarding shipping routes vital to global trade.”

In an Argentinian Ministry of Defense release, President Milei confirmed that Ms. Richardson also checked on the progress of an “integrated naval base” at the Ushuaia naval facility.

Argentine officials stated that they also discussed “legislative modernization in defense matters.”

Under the previous administration, China had been given preferential treatment.

In June 2023, Tierra del Fuego Gov. Gustavo Melella gave China the go-ahead to build a “multi-purpose” port facility near the Strait of Magellan.

The project was promptly met with legislative backlash as three national deputies and members of the Civic Coalition filed an official complaint against the governor’s provincial decree to build a port with Beijing. The same group further accused Mr. Melella of violating Argentina’s national security.

No public records show the project has since moved forward.

Shift in Relations

Mr. Lazarus said Argentina’s desire for deeper security cooperation with Western partners was also evident in April when Argentina’s Minister of Defense, Luis Petri, signed a historic purchase agreement for 24 F-16 fighter jets from Denmark.

“Today we are completing the most important military aeronautical acquisition since 1983,” Mr. Petri said in an official press release.

“Thanks to this investment in defense, I can proudly say that we are beginning to recover our aerial sovereignty and that our entire society is better protected against all those threats that put us to the test.”

The purchase occurred after multiple media reports in 2022 said the previous administration under President Alberto Fernandez was considering the purchase of China–Pakistan-made JF-17 fighter jets. A minister of former President Mauricio Macri’s administration, who asked not to be identified, confirmed to The Epoch Times that a deal to purchase the JF-17 jets was under consideration during the Fernandez era.

The China snub on such a notable arms deal is telling for some, as the CCP has invested a lot in Argentina’s defense sector.

“From 2009–2019 China transferred a total of $634 million worth of major military hardware to five South American countries—Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela,” a House Foreign Affairs Committee brief states.

“The governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina have purchased PRC [People’s Republic of China] defense equipment, cooperated in military exercises, and engaged in educational exchanges and training for military personnel.”

Read more here…

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge has temporarily blocked part of a Florida law that criminalizes transporting illegal immigrants into the state.

The challenged law was signed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis a year ago, when southern border states were bracing for a flood of illegal immigrants following the scheduled expiration of Title 42, a public health order that allowed border enforcement agents to quickly expel those deemed at risk of bringing in COVID-19.

Touted by Mr. DeSantis and his supporters as the “strongest anti-illegal immigration legislation in the country,” the law contains a provision that makes it a third-degree felony for anyone to “knowingly and willfully” transport into Florida someone whom “the person knows or reasonably knew … has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry.”

In a preliminary injunction issued on May 22, [Venezuelan born] Judge Roy Altman of the Southern District of Florida said the provision in question “extends beyond the state’s authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law, and in doing so, intrudes into territory that’s preempted.”

“In this case, any harm the state may suffer from an injunction is overweighed by the harm [the provision] poses both to the Plaintiffs and to the United States, which has the ultimate interest in protecting federal supremacy in the realm of immigration,” the Trump-appointed judge wrote.

The lawsuit was filed in July by The Farmworker Association of Florida, which describes itself as a “grassroots and community-based farmworker membership organization” serving seasonal workers as well as migrant workers who travel with the seasons to harvest crops.

According to its complaint, the association members have to travel back and forth between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, crossing back into Florida multiple times per year. With the transportation law in place, some of its members became “too afraid to travel in and out of Florida with their undocumented friends or family members,” over the fear of being arrested or prosecuted, according to the association.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, a defendant in the suit, has argued that the association has no legal standing to sue in the first place. She also clarified that visa holders, DACA recipients—those who were illegally brought to the United States as young children—asylum seekers, and people with pending removal proceedings are not subject to punishment under the transportation law, since they are considered “inspected” by the federal government.

Judge Altman disagreed with her argument. In the May 22 opinion, he said the way the law is worded gives the association’s members a good reason to fear a potential arrest and that they have “suffered an injury in fact,” even though they haven’t put themselves at risk of an actual arrest.

The judge also found that the Association has standing to sue.

“An organizational plaintiff suffers cognizable injury when it is forced to divert resources from its regular activities to educate and assist affected individuals in complying with the challenged statute,” he wrote.

The association was backed by a score of high-profile progressive advocacy groups: the national and Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans for Immigrant Justice, the American Immigration Council, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. They celebrated the court order as a “much-needed win for Floridians.”

“The court was right to block this callous and patently unconstitutional law, which had threatened Floridians with jail time for doing the most ordinary things, like going to work, visiting family, and driving kids to soccer games. This ruling is an important victory for Florida communities,” Spencer Amdur, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

The Florida attorney general’s office did not respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

The ruling is the latest in the legal blowback against states that seek to handle illegal immigration on their own in the wake of the growing crisis at the nation’s southern border. The Biden administration has sued three states—Texas, Iowa, and most recently Oklahoma—for making illegal immigration a state crime enforceable by state and local law enforcement.