Category Archives: Government

U.S. Biowarfare Labs In Ukraine Confirmed: What Else Is Russia Right About?

America, Democracy, Europe, Foreign Policy, Government, Neoconservatism, UN, War, WMD

ON HARD TRUTH, prerecorded today, March 9, out tomorrow, my partner, David Vance, confronted me with the news about the now-confirmed claims, first made by the Russians, that  “Washington was operating biowarfare labs in Ukraine.

American sources, liars to the core, had called the claims “‘laughable,’ suggesting Moscow may be laying the groundwork to use a chemical or biological weapon.” Out came the story-lines about conspiracy, the CCP and QAnon.

It’s hard to overstate the degree to which the United States and its scurrilous, insidious and invidious enablers—in media and state; stateside and abroad—lie.

The Dishonrable Victoria Nuland, who, as I documented in February of 2014, was taped plotting to “midwife a new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government,” told the truth for once, today.

Glenn Greenwald reports:

Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), hoping to debunk growing claims that there are chemical weapons labs in Ukraine, smugly asked Nuland: “Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”

Rubio undoubtedly expected a flat denial by Nuland, thus providing further “proof” that such speculation is dastardly Fake News emanating from the Kremlin, the CCP and QAnon. Instead, Nuland did something completely uncharacteristic for her, for neocons, and for senior U.S. foreign policy officials: for some reason, she told a version of the truth. Her answer visibly stunned Rubio, who — as soon as he realized the damage she was doing to the U.S. messaging campaign by telling the truth — interrupted her and demanded that she instead affirm that if a biological attack were to occur, everyone should be “100% sure” that it was Russia who did it. Grateful for the life raft, Nuland told Rubio he was right.

But Rubio’s clean-up act came too late. When asked whether Ukraine possesses “chemical or biological weapons,” Nuland did not deny this: at all. She instead — with palpable pen-twirling discomfort and in halting speech, a glaring contrast to her normally cocky style of speaking in obfuscatory State Department officialese — acknowledged: “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities.” Any hope to depict such “facilities” as benign or banal was immediately destroyed by the warning she quickly added: “we are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain control of [those labs], so we are working with the Ukrainiahhhns [sic] on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach” — [interruption by Sen. Rubio]:

These biowarfare Ukrainian laboratories are located near Russian borders.

The point I made on Hard Truth (you can hear it tomorrow) was the only one, in my opinion, relevant in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Plainly put, this, first, is a reminded of the extent, the depth and the gravity of American lies. The Americans have been arming Ukraine for years. “American special forces have even been training potential partisans in eastern Ukraine.” Unless you are telling me the Russians should trust us (LOL); The Russians had reason to be worried existentially.

UPDATED (2/20/022): NEW COLUMN: Good Vs. Evil: Canada’s Truckers Battle Justine Trudeau For Us All

Canada, Constitution, COVID-19, Democracy, Europe, Free Speech, Government, Individual Rights, Private Property, Propaganda, Regulation, THE ELITES, The State

NEW COLUMN, “Good Vs. Evil: Canada’s Truckers Battle Justine Trudeau For Us All,” is a “first-rate philippic, says “Musil Protege” (follow him on Twitter). Read the essay on WND, The Unz Review and Townhall.com, where it is slightly abridged for length (“Truck you, Trudeau.”) The piece has also featured on The New American, CNSNews and American Greatness.

Excerpt:

… Picture our heroes. On the one hand, you have working men and women, who already do the most dangerous of jobs, plainly often poorly clothed, trying to keep warm, as the Ottawa Gestapo steal their fuel jerricans and their fire wood. Yet wave the Maple Leaf Flag patriotically the truckers do, as their loathsome overlords level the worst possible pejoratives at them.

On our behalf, the merry band of truckers face a malevolent “alliance of government, social media companies and the mainstream media.” The malicious lies about the country-wide, freedom convoys just keep coming. To wit, not one reporter stateside had discharged his duty to tell the story of the protest. In Quebec, for example, the unvaccinated have been threatened with a fine. Even as Covid was on the wane, morphing from pandemic into mild, endemic illness—Premier Legault’s government saw fit to bar the unvaccinated, masks and all, from big-box stores like Walmart, Costco and Canadian Tire.

On the side of Gangland Government, you have a pompous, vainglorious, plodder press, and mean-minded media bad mouthing good people. And a cowardly, morally craven prime minister who initially ran from his official residence, rather than meet with a large swath of the Canadian people, whom he assiduously blackens as marginal, insufferable and unsavory.
Juxtapose truckers and families, the epitome of storybook goodness, with the charmed circle of that privileged ponce, Justine Trudeau. Words fail. In fact, my good friends at Junge Freiheit, a German weekly of excellence, had requested I write a 5,000-word piece about Justine. My reply:

“Trudeau is not worth 5,000 words—for how do you write so much about a nullity?” I’ve come up with just the right number of words for him. Here they are:

Trudeau is a dim dilettante, who inherited wealth, but no sense of noblesse oblige and none of his fabled father’s smarts and charisma. Just look at sonny boy’s mincing stride, sausaged as he is in designer suits. Observe the vain coif, the pasty, rapidly aging (from moral rot à la Dorian Gray) doughy face and hollow gaze, so like that of his mom, Margaret.

Justine was practically conceived and raised at the debauch Studio 54. In all his forced, affectatious attempts at gravitas, this dirigiste is now telling Canada’s salt of the earth, the truckers, to turn tail and return to life as his much-maligned second-class subjects.

A look at Trudeau’s demonic deeds and his vacant demeanor and one is reminded of the words of famed French novelist Jules Renard: “I don’t know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn’t.”

Trudeau has inflicted horrifying material destruction and lasting moral damage. He has battered the truckers but not bettered them. It’s time for this dreck, this spawn of Studio 54, to go on home, for good. Good people want no truck with Trudeau. …

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN IS “Good Vs. Evil: Canada’s Truckers Battle Justine Trudeau For Us All“, now on WND, The Unz Review and Townhall.com. (“Truck you, Trudeau.”) Or on The New American and CNSNews.

UPDATE (2/18/022): I love my appreciative, supportive readers. Via Gab:

LadyBeldon@LadyBeldon ··
·
You are a brilliant writer. Your ‘not worth 5,000 words’ piece for your German friends is spot on. Full of masterful double-entendres and hints left between the lines that perhaps only Canadians of a certain age would get. But lots of meat there for anyone who wants to follow the breadcrumbs. Worth a follow for sure.

AND:

“esquimaux” • 6 hours ago:

“Ilana, you have outdone yourself. Hell knoweth no fury as a lady who has had her fill of male mendacity and cowardice.” [Boy, is that true.]

FRED REED: Plumbing The Chinese Dijjywan

Asia, Business, China, Economy, FRED REED, Government, Trade

“… When America cuts a country off from SWIFT … the blow is economically devastating. The mere threat of disconnection intimidates. Consequently many countries would like to have an alternative to [spiteful American economic strong-arming via] SWIFT.”

By Fred Reed

Normally I write about things I know. In the case of digital currencies, and in particular the digital yuan (hereinafter dijjywan) I write about something that piques my curiosity. So little seems to be known that it is difficult to find anything definitive. Yet the question is so important, digital currencies so new, the implications so sweeping, that discussion seems a good idea. The following therefore is a sort of declarative question, a listing of ideas from many sources, perhaps sometimes wrong, about which I hope readers can enlighten me. To avoid endless qualifications and caveats, I write affirmatively things that I don’t really know. Correction and thoughts welcome.

Some things to know: The dijjywan, being rolled out in the Winter Olympics, is not a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, intended to maintain anonymity of users: all transactions are or can be known to Beijing. A dijjywan account is not a bank account, though it is administered by PBOC, the People’s Bank of China.  You don’t need to have a bank account to use it. It does not earn interest. You cannot speculate in dijjywan any more than you can with normal yuan, because the digital yuan is the normal yuan, but in digital form. A dijjywan account does not provide access to credit. It is as close to being physical currency as you can get without being physical currency. Transactions are instantaneous and final.

So how does it work? As an individual, you will download an app that China calls a digital wallet to your cellphone, as you would any app. This is currently being done in China. You do a face scan and the system gives you a unique QR code. You now have a dijjywan account. No bureaucracy, filling out of forms, demands for identification, or examination of financial history. There is nothing new or Star Wars about this. Everyone in China has already done it to use WeChat Pay or Alipay.  Some eighty percent of retail transactions in China are made by cellphone app, making acceptance there likely.

Suppose that you are in Kathmandu and I am in Cancun and you want to send me five hundred dijjywan. You call up the app, go to contacts, tap Fred, type in 500, and hit send. Five seconds later in Mexico, I have the money. (I made that up, but it is close to payments I have seen made in Chengdu.) For practical purposes instantaneous, no bureaucracy.

Interesting question: What would easy, convenient, fast transfer of funds by cellphone do to Western Union? What would it do to debit cards from Mastercard and visa? American credit-card companies get a percentage of every sale. If China, as a tactic of economic warfare, did not take a rake-off or took a smaller one, what would this do to Visa and Mastercard? Merchants would certainly favor a system that cost them less.

When China goes cashless with the dijjywan, which is its stated intention, it will improve efficiency within China but have no great effect in the outside world.  Who outside of China would want to use a Chinese digital currency?

Perhaps lots of people. There being many Chinese tourists in Cancun, hotels and restaurants would like to grab business from Chinese who didn’t want to bother with currency conversion. Mexico likely would be happy to have the money come into the country.  People in Zimbabwe, whose currency is worthless anywhere else, and who might worry that Harare would print even more money and destroy their savings, would be happy with dijjywan that could be taken out of the country or spent internationally online. Such a nation, if it wanted a stable currency, might make the dijjywan the national currency, or a national currency, as Panama and Ecuador do with the dollar. People without bank accounts, estimated at two billion, would find it useful. The result would be a distributed all-yuan Sinocentric financial ecosystem.

The Chinese currency would appeal to the many countries that do not want American influence over their finances. Dijjywan would be a reliable store of value for, say, people in Brazilian favelas as robbery would be nearly impossible: An armed robber could force his victim to transfer money to his phone, but this would create a record in the Chinese cloud of time, place, amount, and identity of both parties. The authorities could simply extract the stolen lucre and replace it with the rightful owner, and freeze the thief’s account. Digital policing of this sort has been mentioned by Chinese authorities.

Intriguing, though not related to China: America is dabbling with the idea of a digital dollar. If America went cashless (granted, not likely before the heat death of the sun), the illegal drug trade would disappear overnight. In retail transactions, on which the trade depends, with the friendly corner crack merchant, the identities of both buyer and seller would be recorded. This would not be good for business.  Dealers could easily be detected. No arrests would be needed, as freezing their dijjywan account would suffice. Since accounts depend on face recognition, the dealer could not set up another account. Totalitarianism has its appeals.

Digital-currency accounts would be programmable. If a country went on an anti-booze crusade, people could be prevented from buying more than a certain amount of liquor per month. China has pointed out the virtues of the dijjywan in stopping money laundering. These ideas justifiably upset civil libertarians, but they represent an upside to the downside. What would be the social effects of ending the drug business in black ghettoes?

The possibilities for surveillance and social control are obvious but, since China is going all-digital anyway, alarm is unlikely to have much effect. Perhaps worth noting is that America is going fast in the same direction, with much of  the surveillance and censorship ‘being done by semigovernmental enterprises such as Google and Twitter. With many countries considering digital currencies, it appears that we will fairly soon have them anyway. And, if history is a guide, the likelihood is that most people would accept surveillance as the price of convenience.

But let’s get to the serious stuff: America’s financial sanctions on countries it doesn’t like. As perhaps most people know, international payments, as for example for oil, go through the SWIFT financial payment system, headquartered in Brussels, supposedly independent but in fact under American control. It is the only practical way for countries to do business with each other. When America cuts a country off from SWIFT, as it has with Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba, the blow is economically devastating. The mere threat of disconnection intimidates. Consequently many countries would like to have an alternative to SWIFT. So where does the dijjywan come in?

Note that the digital yuan is scalable. In principle it is as easy to send a million as a hundred dijjywan, making it practical as a means of paying for, say, petroleum from sanctioned countries. Further—read this carefully: dijjywan transactions are completely independent of Washington, completely independent—eeek!—of SWIFT, and, thanks to heavy encryption, opaque to the US. This threatens America’s ability to strongarm other countries and, if widely adopted, would result in a major diminution of US power in the world.  It may be that China has thought of this. The US certainly has.

Why could a tobacconist in Paris not buy five thousand dollars of cohiba cigars from Cuba, or China a tanker of oil from Venezuela, or any business in Europe goods to or from Iran, or from each other, in dijjywan? The US might make it difficult for sanctioned countries to convert dijjywan to other currencies, but this would simply force those countries to trade more with China.

China has said repeatedly that, why, no, it has no thought of using the dijjywan for international settlement payments. As Deutsch Bank says, it is being set up for domestic use. However, China is working with—whatever exactly that means—Hongkong, Thailand, and the UAE for just this purpose. Why the UAE? Not because China wants to further retail sales to the Emirates by Alibaba, since they have the aggregate population of a large city bus. But they have oil. Interesting. Let us remember that China very, very much wants to internationalize the yuan.

A concern mentioned by the Treasury Department, and the Foreign Policy Research Institute,  is that there could result a distributed Sinocentric financial ecosystem independent of the West. Many countries that trade heavily with China, or have poor relations with America, might come aboard. The Central Asian stans, the BRICS, Latin American countries tired of being under the US boot. China might make use of the dijjywan a requirement for loans and participation in the BRI. It would not be either the dijjywan or the dollar as countries could use both.

American officials often say complacently that the yuan accounts for only a small percentage of international commerce and that the dijjywan is no threat to the dollar’s hegemony. Perhaps. But the world’s economic and technological center of gravity is moving to the east, a market as huge as China’s has persuasive powers all of its own, many countries want to avoid American domination, and the digital yuan is something entirely new. I don’t think anyone really knows what effects we will see.

Thoughtful comments welcome and, again, I throw these ideas out in search of enlightenment, not because I regard myself as an authority.

Read Fred’s Books! Or else. We know where you sleep.

******************************************

FRED REED describes himself as [previously] a “Washington police reporter, former Washington editor for Harper’s and staff writer for Soldier of Fortune magazine, Marine combat vet from Viet Nam, and former long-haul hitchhiker, part-time sociopath, who once lived in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the Yankee Capital.”
His essays “on the collapse of America” Mr. Reed calls “wildly funny, sometimes wacky, always provocative.”
“Fred is the Hunter Thompson of the right,” seconds Thomas E. Ricks in Foreign Policy magazine. His  commentary is “well-written, pungent political incorrectness mixed with smart military commentary and libertarian impulses, topped off with a splash of Third World sunshine and tequila.”

FRED’S BOOKS ARE ON AMAZON, HERE

FRED’S ARTICLES ARCHIVE

Killer Kink

Hardboiled is back! (The exclamation point is to arouse wild enthusiasm int the reader, a boiling literary lust.) Gritty crime fiction by longtime police reporter for the Washington Times, who knows the police from nine years of riding with them. Guaranteed free of white wine and cheese, sensitivity, or social justice.

NEW COLUMN: Self-Ownership & The Right To Reject The Pharma-State’s Hemlock

Conservatism, COVID-19, Critique, Democracy, Democrats, Government, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Private Property, Republicans

NEW COLUMN is “Self-Ownership & The Right To Reject The Pharma-State’s Hemlock.” It’s currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, The New American and American Greatness.

Excerpt:

It matters not that the few “Republican governors crusading against vaccine mandates are [allegedly] facing significantly lower approval ratings on their handling of the coronavirus pandemic than their counterparts,” as Politico purports. (Don’t believe Politico!)

What matters is that governors like Texas’ Greg Abbott, who “flat-out banned vaccine requirements, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, followed up by vowing to sue the Biden administration.”

These two governors are unique in upholding natural, inalienable, individual rights—the right of self ownership, bodily dominion; the stuff mocked by President Joe Biden, wearing a ghoulish grin.

The Biden reference is to a recent, highly contrived CNN townhall, during which “moderator Anderson Cooper noted that as many as one in three emergency responders in some major cities are refusing to comply with city vaccine mandates.”

“I’m wondering where you stand on that,” inquired Cooper. “Should police officers, first responders be mandated to get vaccines? And if not, should they be mandated to stay at home, let go?”

“Yes, and yes,” replied the president.

Disinterred for the day, Biden went on to mock the quaint notion of bodily autonomy with a demented quip, “I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID. I mean, come on, freedom.”

Bodily autonomy, self-determination and self-ownership: Were our representatives to frame the vexation of vaccine mandates in the correct language of natural rights—we’d get the right answers, more likely to be followed by rights-upholding legislation.

But are Republican representatives doing so? Are our representatives who art in D.C. doing anything but wait in Tucker Carlson’s green room?

When it comes to Covid-19, only the following arguments are permissible as an objection to the Covid vaccine mandate. “Exemptions from employer-mandated coronavirus vaccines [are] in [these] three general areas“:

* natural immunity
* religious objection
* medical objection …

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN is “Self-Ownership & The Right To Reject The Pharma-State’s Hemlock.” It’s currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, The New American and American Greatness.