16 companies in Japan, including Mitsubishi Corp., Kansai Electric Power Co. and one government affiliated fund, are readying a $73.6 million investment in a startup working to commercialize fusion power. 

Tokyo-based Kyoto Fusioneering was founded in 2019 by researchers from Kyoto University, according to Nikkei, who calls the company “the most successful startup in Japan working with fusion-related technology.”

The ultimate goal is to move toward implementing and developing fusion, which makes heat by combining hydrogen atoms to make helium. Fuels that can be used for fusion can be drawn from seawater and are “practically inexhaustible”, the report says. 

This means that if fusion can be perfected, it could be a large step to moving the planet to a carbon-free future. The startup uses “plasma-heating equipment called gyrotrons” which help create nuclear fusion reactions.

Kyoto Fusioneering is seen as the world leader in the development of gyrotrons. 

Nikkei notes that Mitsui & Co., J-Power, Inpex and 10 other companies, including MUFG Bank and JIC Venture Growth Investments, a government-affiliated fund have also all invested with the company. 

Funds from the investment are going to be put toward “enabling stable operation of a fusion reactor”, with goals of having a small scale reactor built in Japan by 2024. The company also plans on bolstering its engineers and furthering testing on its gyrotrons to see if they can perform over extended periods. 

The company hopes to be the first to commercialize such a process, the report says. Recall, the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in the U.S. said in 2022 that they had also succeeded in creating a fusion reaction that produced more energy than it consumed, the report says. 

Even U.S. companies like Microsoft are already starting to secure contracts with fusion energy companies for power. Microsoft’s contract is with a company called Helion Energy and starts in 2028. 

Authored by Patricia Devlin via The Epoch Times,

A trans row has erupted at one of Britain’s most prestigious universities over an attempt by students to block a gender-critical speaker.

More than 40 academics have signed an open letter to the Oxford University Students Union warning them that freedom of speech is at risk after moves to deplatform Professor Kathleen Stock.

The leading feminist, who was invited to speak by members of the Oxford Union, has been accused by some students of being transphobic over her view that it is fiction to claim “trans women are women.”

Scholars, including evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, have now joined forces to publicly oppose the student backlash.

In one of the most significant interventions by academics in recent free speech controversies, the 44 Oxford dons with “a range of different political beliefs, Left and Right” have signed the letter stating universities should be “places where contentious views can be openly discussed.”

The letter, published in The Telegraph on Wednesday, said the academics condemn the student union’s decision to sever ties with the Oxford Union after it refused to withdraw an invitation asking Stock to speak.

“Professor Stock believes that biological sex in humans is real and socially salient, a view which until recently would have been so commonplace as to hardly merit asserting,” the letter stated.

“Whether or not one agrees with Professor Stock’s views, there is no plausible and attractive ideal of academic freedom, or of free speech more generally, which would condemn their expression as outside the bounds of permissible discourse.”

Welfare Sessions

Stock, who quit her job as a lecturer at the University of Sussex in 2021 after being targeted by activists over her views on gender identity, said this week that she still planned to take part in the event.

Speaking to Times Radio on Tuesday, she said: “I’m due to speak at the Oxford Union and some people really don’t want me to … despite the fact they’ve had Martin McGuinness, OJ Simpson after his trial, David Irving, and various other people.”

Asked why she is seen as “dangerous,” the philosopher replied, “Well, because I’m afraid that my presence punctures a certain kind of fantasy version of events—a fantasy version of the world as it were—because I don’t believe some things that young people are encouraged to believe absolutely.”

The academic has since thanked fellow scholars for their support in signing the open letter.

“Grateful to the Oxford faculty who signed an open letter standing up for the Union’s right to invite me, and have others hear me speak,” she wrote on Twitter.

She also told The Telegraph that it was “heartening” to see the academics’ commitment to “standing up in public against authoritarian tendencies.”

Stock is due to give her talk at Oxford Union on May 30, with a protest planned by students opposing her invite.

The Oxford Union, which describes itself as the “last bastion of free speech,” said students will be able to “challenge” Stock at the event.

In a statement posted on Facebook earlier this month, the Oxford Union said:

“This format is designed to uphold the Union’s founding principle of freedom of expression for both our members and our guest speakers.

“Attendees can use this opportunity to respectfully engage with and challenge Professor Stock’s views.”

The society added: “Given the sensitive nature of the themes discussed at this event, there will also be additional welfare resources available on the evening.

“Moreover, it will be possible for members to ask questions anonymously, through a link that will be circulated prior to the day of the event.”

Richard Dawkins, founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, in Sydney, Australia, on Dec. 4, 2014. (Don Arnold/Getty Images)

‘Shouldn’t Be Punished’

The academics’ intervention has been backed by education minister Claire Coutinho.

She told The Telegraph: “Student debaters shouldn’t be punished for encouraging the free exchange of ideas.

“Our newly passed Freedom of Speech Act will make sure that universities promote free speech and that those who have their free speech rights unlawfully restricted on campus can seek redress.”

In a statement to The Telegraph, the Oxford University Students Union said “the motion was unrelated to Stock’s intended talk” and said Stock was not discussed at the meeting.

It said it was “committed to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, and will defend the right of people to have controversial and unpopular ideas debated as an integral part of university life and the university experience.”

In a statement issued last month, the Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society called for Stock’s invitation to speak to be rescinded as it claimed she was “transphobic and trans-exclusionary.”

It also accused Oxford Union of “disregarding” the welfare of the society’s members under the guise of free speech.

Responding on Twitter at the time, Stock said the society’s statement contained “several falsehoods,” was “probably defamatory” and made it look “utterly ridiculous.”

A coalition of Oxford organisations and activists will hold a Trans+ Pride event in the city centre on May 30, which will include a rally and march which will culminate outside the Oxford Union where Stock is due to speak.

A group of African leaders are pushing a peace plan in an attempt to get Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table.  South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has of late been accused of having ‘friendly’ relations with Moscow, said Tuesday that both Russia’s President Putin and Ukraine’s President Zelensky have agreed to host a delegation of African leaders.

“My discussions with the two leaders demonstrated that they are both ready to receive the African leaders and to have discussion on how this conflict can be brought to an end,” Ramaphosa said, as quoted in Deutsche Welle. “Whether that will succeed or not is going to depend on the discussions that will be held.”

The South African leader listed other countries backing the peace initiative as follows: Senegal, Uganda, Egypt, the Republic of the Congo, and Zambia. Their leaders will reportedly send representatives for meetings in both Moscow and Kiev at an undisclosed date.

The Associated Press has noted that “Four of those six African countries — South Africa, Republic of Congo, Senegal and Uganda — abstained from a U.N. vote last year on condemning Russia’s invasion. Zambia and Egypt voted in favor of the motion.”

However, on Wednesday Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said his government had yet to receive anything official regarding a meeting with African leaders or a firm date, but he welcomed the move: 

“We responded to an appeal to us from Latin American and African friends that we are ready to consider any of their proposals [on the crisis in Ukraine], which are dictated by a sincere desire to help stabilize the world order, but so far, we have not seen anything on paper either from the Brazilians or from the Africans, unlike from our Chinese neighbors,” Russian top diplomat stated.

Lavrov also reiterated what he pointed to as the real problem which blocks authentic dialogue: 

“The reckless expansion of NATO not only eastward, but also northward and in other geographic directions undermines the very prospect of any further normal conversation about European security,” he told a press briefing.

South Africa in particular has come under pressure regarding US allegations that it allowed weapons transfers, which sent scandal through the Ramaphosa government, resulting in angry denunciations of the Washington allegations, first conveyed through the US ambassador. Ramaphosa held a phone call with Putin days ago, amid Western condemnations of South African neutrality.

China has also this week dispatched a senior envoy to visit both countries, with China’s special representative for Eurasian affairs, Li Hui, having arrived in Ukraine on Tuesday. US officials have meanwhile said they remain “wary of any calls for an immediate ceasefire or peace talks.“

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Jimmie Åkesson of the Sweden Democrats claims that only by making the necessary preparations for Swexit can the government maximize its bargaining power in Brussels…

Sweden must fully prepare to leave the European Union in order to maximize its negotiating position with the bloc, stated Jimmie Åkesson, leader of the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats party.

In an article published by Svenska Dagbladet on Monday, Åkesson and his co-author, Swedish MEP Charlie Weimers, expressed their desire for Sweden to “maximize its influence” in the European Union, outlining three measures the Swedish government must take.

First, the government should seek to make constitutional changes in order to introduce a “referendum lock,” which would enshrine into law the requirement of a public vote before any further powers can be transferred from Stockholm to Brussels.

It is a mechanism previously adopted by both Britain and Denmark, and the Sweden Democrats leader believes it will provide a necessary safeguard against any attempted power-grab by Brussels.

“Only the knowledge that every decision on the transfer of power must be submitted to the citizens would slow down the worst abuses from Brussels,” the pair wrote.

Second, the Swedish government should make the necessary preparations to leave the European Union to ensure it is ready should the decision ever be taken to do so and to legitimize any threat to withdraw in future negotiations with the bloc.

“In order for preparedness to be credible, it is necessary that we remove the writings in the constitution that state that Sweden is a member of the EU.

“In addition, we should train a cadre of civil servants with the expertise to negotiate trade agreements and other things that we have delegated to the EU and study how Brexit could have been implemented better. The better we are prepared to leave, the more we will gain in future negotiations,” Åkesson and Weimers added.

The Sweden Democrats leader also wants an investigation to be launched into how the negative aspects of Sweden’s EU membership can be mitigated.

The right-wing party is currently an informal partner of the Swedish government. While it wasn’t offered the opportunity to help form Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson’s administration, it is a signatory to the four-party coalition Tidö Agreement in which the coalition parties agreed to adopt a more restrictive immigration policy in return for Sweden Democrats’ support.

Åkesson’s party has long been in favor of Sweden’s withdrawal from the European Union, but accepts this is not a majority view among the Swedish electorate at present. The party officially dropped its support for Swexit in 2018 in a bid to garner more electoral support and subsequently achieved 20.5 percent of the vote in last year’s general election.

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men.”

– Ludwig von Mises

Once again, the police state is up to its old tricks, stoking tensions over whether or not the government is forced to shut down, even partially, due to a default on the national debt.

Yet while these political games dominate news headlines, send the stock market into a nosedive, and put federal employees at risk of having to work without pay, nothing about these high-handed theatrics will diminish the immediate and very real dangers of the American Police State with its roadside strip searches, government surveillance, biometric databases, citizens being treated like terrorists, imprisonments for criticizing the government, national ID cards, SWAT team raids, censorship, forcible blood draws and DNA extractions, private prisons, weaponized drones, red light cameras, tasers, active shooter drills, police misconduct and government corruption.

Default or not, war will continue. Drone killings will continue. Surveillance will continue. Censorship and persecution of anyone who criticizes the government will continue. The government’s efforts to label dissidents as extremists and terrorists will continue.

Police shootings will continue. Highway robbery meted out by government officials will continue. Corrupt government will continue. Profit-driven prisons will continue. And the militarization of the police will continue.

Indeed, take a look at the programs and policies that will not be affected by a government default on its debt leading to a possible shutdown, and you’ll get a clearer sense of the government’s priorities, which have little to do with serving taxpayers and everything to do with amassing money, power and control.

Surveillance will continue unabated. On any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. Police have been outfitted with a litany of surveillance gear, from license plate readers and cell phone tracking devices to biometric data recorders. Technology now makes it possible for the police to scan passersby in order to detect the contents of their pockets, purses, briefcases, etc. Full-body scanners, which perform virtual strip-searches of Americans traveling by plane, have gone mobile, with roving police vans that peer into vehicles and buildings alike—including homes. Coupled with the nation’s growing network of real-time surveillance cameras and facial recognition software, soon there really will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

Global spying will continue unabated. The NSA’s massive surveillance network, what the Washington Post refers to as a $500 billion “espionage empire,” will continue to span the globe and target every single person on the planet who uses a phone or a computer. The NSA’s Echelon program intercepts and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax and email message sent anywhere in the world. In addition to carrying out domestic surveillance on peaceful political groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and several religious groups, Echelon has also been a keystone to the government’s attempts at political and corporate espionage.

Egregious searches will continue unabated. Under the pretext of protecting the nation’s infrastructure (roads, mass transit systems, water and power supplies, telecommunications systems and so on) against criminal or terrorist attacks, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) task forces (comprised of federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, transportation security officers, behavior detection officers and explosive detection canine teams) will continue to do random security sweeps of nexuses of transportation, including ports, railway and bus stations, airports, ferries and subways. Sweep tactics include the use of x-ray technology, pat-downs and drug-sniffing dogs, among other things.

The undermining of the Constitution will continue unabated. America’s so-called war on terror, which it has relentlessly pursued since 9/11, has chipped away at our freedoms, unraveled our Constitution and transformed our nation into a battlefield, thanks in large part to such subversive legislation as the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. These laws—which completely circumvent the rule of law and the constitutional rights of American citizens, re-orienting our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the rule of law, our U.S. Constitution, becomes the map by which we navigate life in the United States—will continue to be enforced.

Militarized policing will continue unabated. Thanks to federal grant programs allowing the Pentagon to transfer surplus military supplies and weapons to local law enforcement agencies without charge, police forces will continue to be transformed from peace officers into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, will continue to keep the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

SWAT team raids will continue unabated. With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties will continue to rise. Nationwide, SWAT teams will continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession.

Overcriminalization will continue unabated. The government bureaucracy will continue to churn out laws, statutes, codes and regulations that reinforce its powers and value systems and those of the police state and its corporate allies, rendering the rest of us petty criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to this overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal. Consequently, small farmers who dare to make unpasteurized goat cheese and share it with members of their community will continue to have their farms raided.

The shadow government— a.k.a. the Deep State, a.k.a. the police state, a.k.a. the military industrial complex, a.k.a. the surveillance state complex—will continue unabated. This corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials will continue to call the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House or controls Congress. By “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.

These issues are not going away.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, they are the backbone of an increasingly aggressive authoritarian government, formed by an unholy alliance between the mega-corporations with little concern for the Constitution and elected officials and bureaucrats incapable or unwilling to represent the best interests of their constituents.

Whether or not the government runs out of borrowed money, it will remain business as usual in terms of the police state’s unceasing pursuit of greater powers and control.

Every few years the debt ceiling standoff puts the credit of the U.S. at risk.

In January, the $31.4 trillion debt limit – the amount of debt the U.S. government can hold – was reached. That means U.S. cash reserves could be exhausted by June 1 according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Should Republicans and Democrats fail to act, the U.S. could default on its debt, causing harmful effects across the financial system.

The graphic below, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld and Nick Routley, shows the sharp rise in the debt ceiling in recent years, pulling data from various sources including the World Bank, U.S. Department of Treasury, and Congressional Research Service.

Familiar Territory

Raising the debt ceiling is nothing new. Since 1960, it’s been raised 78 times.

In the 2023 version of the debate, Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is asking for cuts in government spending. However, President Joe Biden argues that the debt ceiling should be increased without any strings attached. Adding to this, the sharp uptick in interest rates have been a clear reminder that rising debt levels can be precarious.

Consider that historically, interest payments on the U.S. debt have been equal to about half the cost of defense. More recently, however, the cost of servicing the debt has risen, and is now almost on par with the defense budget as a whole.

Key Moments In Recent History

Over history, raising the debt ceiling has often been a typical process for Congress.

Unlike today, agreements to raise the debt ceiling were often negotiated faster. Increased political polarization over recent years has contributed to standoffs with damaging consequences.

For instance, in 2011, an agreement was made just days before the deadline. As a result, S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+ for the first time ever. This delay cost an estimated $1.3 billion in extra costs to the government that year.

Before then, the government shut down twice between 1995 and 1996 as President Bill Clinton and Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich went head-to-head. Over a million government workers were furloughed for a week in late November 1995 before the debt limit was raised.

What Happens Now?

Today, Republicans and Democrats have less than two weeks to reach an agreement.

If Congress doesn’t make a deal the result would be that the government can’t pay its bills by taking on new debt. Payment for federal workers would be suspended, certain pension payments would get stalled, and interest payments on Treasuries would be delayed. The U.S. would default under these conditions.

Three Potential Consequences

Here are some of the potential knock-on effects if the debt ceiling isn’t raised by June 1, 2023:

1. Higher Interest Rates

Typically investors require higher interest payments as the risk of their debt holdings increase.

If the U.S. fails to pay interest payments on its debt and gets a credit downgrade, these interest payments would likely rise higher. This would impact the U.S. government’s interest payments and the cost of borrowing for businesses and households.

High interest rates can slow economic growth since it disincentivizes spending and taking on new debt. We can see in the chart below that a gloomier economic picture has already been anticipated, showing its highest probability since 1983.

Historically, recessions have increased U.S. deficit spending as tax receipts fall and there is less income to help fund government activities. Additional fiscal stimulus spending can also exacerbate any budget imbalance.

Finally, higher interest rates could spell more trouble for the banking sector, which is already on edge after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.

A rise in interest rates would push down the value of outstanding bonds, which banks hold as capital reserves. This makes it even more challenging to cover deposits, which could further increase uncertainty in the banking industry.

2. Eroding International Credibility

As the world’s reserve currency, any default on U.S. Treasuries would rattle global markets.

If its role as an ultra safe asset is undermined, a chain reaction of negative consequences could spread throughout the global financial system. Often Treasuries are held as collateral. If these debt payments fail to get paid to investors, prices would plummet, demand could crater, and global investors may shift investment elsewhere.

Investors are factoring in the risk of the U.S. not paying its bondholders.

As we can see this in the chart below, U.S. one-year credit default swap (CDS) spreads are much higher than other nations. These CDS instruments, quoted in spreads, offer insurance in the event that the U.S. defaults. The wider the spread, the greater the expected risk that the bondholder won’t be paid.

The US now has higher credit risk than Mexico, Greece, and Brazil pic.twitter.com/je4klBvHZ6

— Genevieve Roch-Decter, CFA (@GRDecter) May 11, 2023

Additionally, a default could add fuel to the perception of global de-dollarization. Since 2001, the USD has slipped from 73% to 58% of global reserves.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to steep financial sanctions, China and India are increasingly using their currencies for trade settlement. President of Russia Vladimir Putin says that two-thirds of trade is settled in yuan or roubles. Recently, China has also entered non-dollar agreements with Brazil and Kazakhstan.

3. Financial Sector Turmoil

Back at home, a debt default would hurt investor confidence in the U.S. economy. Coupled with already higher interest rates impacting costs, financial markets could see added strain. Lower investor demand could depress stock prices.

Is the Debt Ceiling Concept Flawed?

Today, U.S. government debt stands at 129% of GDP.

The annualized cost of servicing this debt has jumped an estimated 90% compared to 2011, driven by increasing debt and higher interest rates.

Some economists argue that the debt ceiling helps keep the government more fiscally responsible. Others suggest that it’s structured poorly, and that if the government approves a level of spending in its budget, that debt ceiling increases should come more automatically.

In fact, it’s worth noting that the U.S. is one of the few countries worldwide with a debt ceiling.

Authored by Michael Rectenwald via The Mises Institute,

Corporate intrigue reached a fevered pitch on May 6, 2023, in Omaha, Nebraska, when a shareholder was arrested during the annual shareholder meeting of Berkshire Hathaway. The shareholder challenged the affiliation of Warren Buffett with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Bill Gates’s association with Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted in Florida for procuring a child for prostitution and soliciting a prostitute, and who reportedly committed suicide in a New York jail while facing charges for sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking.

Peter Flaherty, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), stood to offer proposal number eight, which called for the roles of Berkshire CEO and chair to be separated and held by two persons. Flaherty argued that the separation of roles was necessary so that Berkshire “would be less identified with Mr. Buffett’s personal political activities.” Speaking of Buffett, Flaherty stated:

He’s donated tens of billions to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As Bill Gates explained when the couple was still together, “although the foundation bears our names, basically half our resources have come from Warren Buffett.”

If “woke” culture is a disease, then philanthropy is the virus.

The Gates Foundation bankrolls the teaching of Critical Race Theory around the country, including that math is inherently racist.

The Gates Foundation offers a Gender Identity Toolbox which asserts that gender is the result of “socially and culturally constructed ideas.”

This is a lie. Gender is not a cultural construct. It is a genetic and biological fact. (emphasis mine)

Flaherty was interrupted by a Berkshire representative and pleaded to the chair (Buffett) to be allowed to continue. Buffett agreed that Flaherty could continue but warned him of the three-minute time limit for shareholder proposals. Flaherty then proceeded to throw down the gauntlet, until his microphone was shut off:

We know how much Bill Gates cares about children. He met and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein many times after Epstein was convicted of sex crimes.

The Gates Foundation had a huge influence over the COVID response fiasco.

Bill Gates defended China’s COVID policies and still discounts the possibility that the virus originated from a lab, even though U.S. intelligence agencies disagree. The Gates Foundation may be the largest single donor to the “dark money” machine known as Arabella Associates. . . .

It funds causes like defunding the police that are making American cities unlivable.

Money goes, too, to groups conducting—

At this point, Buffett declared from the stage: “You crossed the boundary.”

Two security guards grabbed Flaherty by either arm and escorted him from the room. Flaherty was arrested and charged with trespassing.

The arrest of the Berkshire shareholder, apparently for merely mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in connection with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, coincided with a series of Wall Street Journal articles exploring Epstein’s calendar and a trove of Epstein emails and other documents. The Wall Street Journal revealed numerous Epstein meetings with high-profile contacts, long after Epstein served time for soliciting a child prostitute and was registered as a sex offender. Represented in Epstein’s calendar and emails are such notables as William Burns, director of the Central Intelligence Agency since 2021; Bill Gates, Microsoft founder and philanthropist; Jess Staley, former Barclay’s CEO; Reid Hoffman, cofounder of LinkedIn; Larry Summers, professor and former Harvard University president; Woody Allen, filmmaker; and Noam Chomsky, leftist MIT linguistics professor, among others. These and other meetings may reveal that many businesspersons and woke philanthropists were ensnared by a child sex trafficker.

The scene at the Berkshire annual meeting also followed on the heels of the lawsuit filed against JPMorgan Chase by the US Virgin Islands. Attorneys for the US Virgin Islands claim that the bank materially aided Epstein in his child sex trafficking scheme and is seeking damages for their clients. Four billionaires have been subpoenaed in the case so far, including Google cofounder Sergey Brin; Hyatt Hotels CEO Thomas Pritzker; real estate tycoon and owner of U.S. News and World Report Mortimer Zuckerman; and venture capitalist and Hollywood agent Michael Ovitz. Curiously, the US Virgin Islands has also attempted, without success, to serve a subpoena to Google’s other cofounder, Larry Page, whose whereabouts remain unknown and who obviously does not want to be found.

It should be remembered here that Google has represented the leading edge of woke capitalism, with its leftist ranking algorithms and its employment of “machine learning fairness” that corrects for so-called algorithmic unfairness by misrepresenting reality with affirmative action results. Clearly, Google’s founders did not rely on algorithms to identify and eliminate pedophiles from their list of business contacts.

While the US Virgin Islands asserts that JP Morgan Chase facilitated and possibly bankrolled Epstein’s pedophilia ring, US Republican lawmakers have claimed that the US’s largest bank has a penchant for cancelling the accounts of conservative and religious groups. The bank maintained its financial relationship with Epstein until 2013, long after he was convicted of sex crimes, yet recently cancelled the accounts of such groups as the National Committee for Religious Freedom. The bank’s touted “diversity and inclusion” policy has apparently included pedophiles but excluded avowedly Christian groups.

Much more has and could be said about why high-profile businesspersons, philanthropists, academics, and even intelligence officers had relationships with Jeffrey Epstein. For example, some have claimed that Epstein and his partner Ghislaine Maxwell were Israeli spies who ran a honey-trap operation to steer US policies in Israel’s favor and against US interests.

As the Wall Street Journal asked:

Epstein was a former schoolteacher. How did he become a billionaire? What was the source of his wealth? Was he paid for providing women or girls to his friends? Was he a blackmailer? Were women or girls an enticement to invest in his projects?

Finally, there’s the ridiculous, implausible matter of Epstein’s death in federal custody on Aug. 10, 2019, which 3½ years later remains under investigation by the Justice Department inspector general, only feeding conspiracy theories.

But the main question for our purposes is: How is that nearly all major corporate heads and influential members of society have simultaneously gone woke? Could it be that whoever controlled Jeffrey Epstein sets the agenda through the use of blackmail, directing these corporate heads and other leaders to convert to wokeness, while steering their philanthropy to designated ends, including the funding of critical race theory and the LGBTQIA+ agenda?

In other words, is our capitalist class controlled by whoever oversaw Epstein’s thirty-year entrapment operation?

In addition to revealing the moral rot that has permeated the US establishment, the Epstein connections also show that those who claim the woke moral high ground, and impose woke policies on the rest of us, are perhaps the most corrupted people on the face of the earth.

For the first time, a full-sized digital scan of the Titanic has been made public, which could reveal new secrets about the ship that lies 12,500 feet down in the Atlantic. 

BBC News said the scan was conducted about a year ago by Magellan Ltd, a deep-sea mapping company, and Atlantic Productions, who are making a documentary about the Titanic. 

The vessel is split into two sections, the bow and the stern, separated by 2,600 feet and surrounded by a large debris field. 

Magellan and Atlantic Productions spent over 200 hours surveying the wreckage with submersibles, capturing over 700,000 images — this allowed them to create a never before seen, high-definition, 3D reconstruction of the vessel. 

Magellan’s Gerhard Seiffert, who heads the expedition, said the underwater scanning project was the largest and most complex he had ever undertaken.

“The depth of it, almost 4,000m, represents a challenge, and you have currents at the site, too – and we’re not allowed to touch anything so as not to damage the wreck,” he explained.

“And the other challenge is that you have to map every square centimetre – even uninteresting parts, like on the debris field you have to map mud, but you need this to fill in between all these interesting objects.”

Parks Stephenson, a Titanic analyst, was “blown away” by the new scans. 

“It allows you to see the wreck as you can never see it from a submersible, and you can see the wreck in its entirety, you can see it in context and perspective. And what it’s showing you now is the true state of the wreck,” he said. 

Stephenson said the new scans might reveal new secrets behind the maritime disaster 111 years ago. 

Deutsche Bank has agreed to pay up to $75 million to settle a lawsuit brought by an Jeffrey Epstein victim who claimed that the bank had benefited from human trafficking by retaining Epstein as a client, the Financial Times reports.

The lawsuit is one of three ongoing cases involving lenders to Epstein – the two others being a combined case against JPMorgan Chase, which is being sued by a different alleged victim and the US Virgin Islands, where Epstein owned property.

The Deutsche Bank lawsuit was filed as a proposed class action in November, based on a New York law which temporarily allowed abuse claims to be brought beyond the statute of limitations.

Jane Doe, the accuser, claimed the German bank “chose profit over following the law,” and knowingly engaged in business that would “earn millions of dollars from facilitating Epstein’s sex trafficking.”

Judge Jed Rakoff stated in his order denying in part Deutsche’s attempt to dismiss the case, said Epstein “solicited Deutsche Bank’s advice about how to structure his withdrawals so as to evade notice . . . and he was shielded by Deutsche Bank’s failure to file suspicious activity reports.”

Rakoff added that it was “plausible” that the bank had directly benefited from human trafficking in his order to allow the case to proceed to trial.

According to the Times, dozens of victims may ultimately share the damages award, which will be distributed by an administrator that will assess individual claims. Each accuser could receive as much as $5 million according to the plaintiff’s lawyer.

“We are proud to have achieved such a great result for victims who deserved justice from all who played a real role in their abuse,” said Brad Edwards, a lawyer for Doe.

In 2020, Deutsche Bank paid New York State Department of Financial Services $150 million over its ties to Epstein and related internal compliance failures. Last year the bank also agreed to pay $26 million to shareholders who accused the bank of misleading them over their vetting process for clients.

Deutsche attempted to have the Doe case dismissed, arguing that $7.4 million she received from the late Epstein’s estate in April 2022 covered their liability as well – and that Doe’s “deficient” complaint did “not come close” to adequately allege that the bank was part of Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring.

Epstein became a client of Deutsche Bank in 2013, years after he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution – and soon after JPMorgan dropped him as a client amid concerns over his lifestyle – including that he was paying victims in cash. Former JPMorgan banker Paul Morris who moved to Deutsche, Paul Morris, advised the bank that Epstein could bring lucrative clients with him.

Deutsche eventually severed ties with Epstein in 2018.

Authored by Hans Mahncke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Researchers at the Department of Defense wrote a devastating takedown of the Proximal Origin study, which was used by Dr. Anthony Fauci as proof that the COVID-19 virus had come from nature. 

The takedown, dated May 26, 2020, was written in the form of a working paper called “Critical analysis of Andersen et al. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.” It was authored by Commander Jean-Paul Chretien, a Navy doctor working at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and Dr. Robert Cutlip, a research scientist at the Defense Intelligence Agency. The paper came to light on May 15, when it was leaked to the public via virus origins search group DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19). 

The working paper forensically dismantles the natural origin case made in Proximal Origin and concludes, “The arguments that Andersen et al. use to support a natural-origin scenario for SARS-CoV-2 are based not on scientific analysis, but on unwarranted assumptions.”

The existence of this internal Pentagon paper is crucial, as it proves that government officials were well aware in the early months of the pandemic that there was no evidence in support of a natural origin of the COVID-19 virus. Additionally, given the crushing discrediting of Proximal Origin, Pentagon officials would also have been aware of Fauci’s efforts to seed a false narrative about the origin of COVID-19. 

Proximal Origin was initially conceived by Fauci during a secret teleconference held on Feb. 1, 2020. The ostensible purpose of the teleconference was to deflect attention from a possible lab origin of COVID-19 and to shift the focus to a natural origin theory. Fauci directed a number of scientists, led by Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research and Robert Garry of Tulane Medical School, to pen a study that could be used to discredit the lab leak theory. Despite being directly involved in the inception of the paper, as well as in shaping its arguments, Fauci’s role was concealed from the public. Fauci later bestowed Andersen and Garry with lavish taxpayer-funded grants.

The defects in Proximal Origin were immediately noticed by reviewers at science journal Nature. This fact only became known late last year from emails obtained via the Freedom of Information Act by independent journalist Jimmy Tobias. However, with the help of Jeremy Farrar, who now is the chief scientist of the World Health Organization and who had helped Fauci shape the natural origin narrative, Proximal Origin was accepted for publication in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020. It boldly concluded that no “laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

On April 17, 2020, President Donald Trump confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic likely started in a Wuhan laboratory in China. On the same day, while attending a White House press conference, Fauci categorically dismissed the possibility of a lab origin of COVID-19, citing Proximal Origin as corroboration. Fauci feigned independence, telling reporters that he could not recall the names of the authors. What was not known at the time was that Fauci not only knew the authors well, but had personally led the effort to have Proximal Origin written.

Proximal Origin became the media’s go-to natural origin authority, repeating Fauci’s claim that the paper provided dispositive proof that COVID-19 had come out of nature. It also became the most-read article on COVID-19 and one of the most cited academic papers of all time.  

Yet, while the public was being told by Fauci and the media that Proximal Origin had settled the origin debate, Pentagon researchers came to a very different conclusion. 

Chretien and Cutlip found that COVID-19’s features, which Proximal Origin ascribed to natural evolution, were actually “consistent with another scenario: that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a laboratory, by methods that leading coronavirus researchers commonly use to investigate how the viruses infect cells and cause disease, assess the potential for animal coronaviruses to jump to humans, and develop drugs and vaccines.”

Read more here…