starting with holiday greetings, of sorts. Happy 4/20! And Happy (belated) Bicycle Day, 4/19. For a history of that commemoration, check out this video.
Biomedical. In the Planet Waves weekly broadcast, Eric Francis Coppolino dissects and totally takes apart the speech to RFK Jr presidential campaign volunteers by Charles Eisenstein, “campaign philosopher” and frequent surrogate for the candidate. This speech was posted, with little comment, this past Wednesday, i included it in the 4/18/24 edition of LT. He also looks at the 4 minutes exchange he had with Eisenstein at the end of the speech, as the surrogate was walking off.
On the eve of the Jupiter-Uranus conjunction — the astrology, plus I respond to Charles Eisenstein and Robert F. Kennedy, plus Donald Trump trial astrology, and the mystery of missing sex in marriage. Eric Francis Coppolino, 4/19/24.
Go to New Program [Link to the program’s page at Planet Waves dot FM. Full program is 3 hours and 27 minutes]
On the eve of the Jupiter-Uranus conjunction, Planet Waves goes on tour of the issues of our moment: the astrology of the conjunction and why it matters; I respond to Charles Eisenstein and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., focusing on the issues of the 4th Industrial Revolution, sham politics and the missing virus; I read the chart of the Trump hush money trial; and I investigate the New York Times and its view on whether people can be happy in sexless, monogamous marriages. Trump chart video and chart are on the program’s page.
My comments at the page,
Jeffrey Strahl
Lockdown Times, 11PM, 4/19/24, US Pacific Time.
Pausing after the second segment of the show. Wow, you totally took apart Eisenstein and the man he was standing in for, Bobby Junior. Good going, constantly reminding the audience that the WHO draws its power from the virus claim. Thus, this claim is not some mundane debating point and meaningless detail which so many "freedom" people would have us believe. It is the core of the 4IR operation to impose total control upon the world's population.
[Coppolino played 3 segments from the speech, and carefully analyzed them. He did the same for his exchange with Eisenstein]
Charles Eisenstein (CE) segment 1. "Lets hold hands and unite." As if Reps and Demos are two opposing sides, rather than 2 faces of the same corporate party. Meanwhile Junior is basically, with his book and his speeches, pushing the same thing Fauci was 4 years ago, except with a conspiracy angle. That's *their* unity.
CE segment 2. "Things are out of control, as if some force outside us is in control." Yep, the force which locked down 4.4 billion people. Not a word from CE about the pain this caused. Not out of control at all, but a force carefully sculpted into shape, and we were drawn into it. This is happning now, with Avian Flu scares and millions of animals slaughtered, hype about transmission to humans, all done via PCR testing. Nothing about the resistance back in 2019 to the repeal of religious exemption. Junior is NOT an anti-waccer, no mention of total moratorium on ALL shots. Repeated refusal to grapple with the serious issues.
CE segment 3. He waxes on about what nice guys these people, the president of a jabs manufacture, the CEO of an oil company, a hedge fund manager, are, so reasonable, so charming. As if they are not paid to act that part! "The Banality of Evil" (Hannah Arendt) They do what they do, get things done, by being charming. And CE reduces it to a matter of mRNA shots bad, "live virus" good. Live what?
This force which CE cannot name has names, such as DIGITAL, Web3.0, 4IR.. "COVID" is entirely a product of AI. And who does Junior select for a running mate? Nicole Shanahan, wealthy via close association with Google co-founder Sergey Brin, developer of the robot spying par excellence, She's practically the Queen of 4IR. Connections to the Stanford Computational Policy lab, 4IR and social impact investing central. Her own Bia-Echo foundation funded by Google.
And then, Eric with CE directly.
Eisenstein, at 00:56 to 1:33 :"lab leak is not a conspiracy theory, i tend to believe that theory” [So this makes it not a conspiracy theory?]
Eric then brings up AI generation of MN908947
CE, 1:57. "That conspiracy would have to be so wide, there are a lot of dissident scientists who oppose parts of the official narrative yet accept the reality of a virus, who discuss the genome and the parts of it which have been modified" [How do they know THAT is the genome? They were TOLD it is]
At 2:50, Eric brings up Christine Massey and her collection of responses to FOIA requests. CE brings up Jessica Rose as an expert 3:18, How is her name relevant to the Massey point? He’s DODGING the matter.
Eric asks if it isn’t amazing that no government entity can provide a paper proving the existence of the virus [via physical isolation and purification] He responds (3:43) “I do not have the knowledge to produce such a paper.” As if Eric asked him to produce such a paper, rather than comment on the responses Massey has amassed. DODGY.
And again, the claim that there are viruses among us is precisely what gives the WHO its power. Those like Meryl Nass who fire numerous emails about opposing the WHO while continuing to uphold the virus narrative are utterly deceptive, they are doing the key work for the WHO and the other manifestations of the operation to impose Digital/4IR on humanity.
UTTERLY SUPERB WORK, Eric!!!
Jeffrey Strahl
Lockdown Times, 2PM, 4/20/24, US Pacific Time.
Finished. Regarding the third segment: Waiting for the Juno shoe to drop.
The last segment was fascinating. The sexless committed monogamous marriage is such a perfect example of digital disembodiment. You indeed mentioned that as a key explanatory factor. You also brought up the pervasive use pf antidepressants, and the ubiquitous presence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Absolutely! And, the utterly deranged nature of many present day narratives which have totally taken over what used to be a very valid feminist movement, when its aim was to remove unequal treatment from social practices.
But you surprisingly left out a big one, which you have discussed many times. There is a current 30 years low in sexuality? What happened some 30 years ago? Remember the continued aftereffects of AIDS, primarily caused by reports of numerous people determined to have AIDS on the basis of.....testing? The big chill which this brought to general sexual practice never really went away. It has only been compounded by new health concerns being raised over the years, culminating with the "Pandemic," causing Will and Rose [The subjects of the NY Times article] to avoid sex for over a year. The doors of perception have been replaced by walls of belief, whose refrain is...."Don't touch me."
Throw in a general sense of social fragmentation, with everything being broken due to the rapid wearing of the social glue. It's everyone against everyone else. How can this in any way encourage any desire to have intimacy with anyone new, even the hot sushi server? (Maybe i should frequent sushi bars. :-) ) Many adults say they've had no sex for a year? Try it for 30 years and tell me how it feels. This is six parts (at least) monster which is going a long way toward undermining what is left of our humanity.
I liked the suggestions you offered couples who wish to re-ignite intimacy. And, excellent advice, stay human in the face of digital encroachment by bringing love and other emotions into all our interactions.
And, Mike Stone reports on another futile attempt to debate a virologist about the scientific method, or rather the lack of it in virology.
Senseless: unconscious; foolish, stupid; meaningless...take your pick. They may all be apt descriptors of this Strand. Mike Stone, 4/19/24.
Back in March of 2023, I had one of the most fascinating and amusing conversations that I have had since I joined what was formally known as Twitter back in December of 2022. It was with a plant virologist by the name of Thomas Baldwin who goes by the Twitter/X handle Sense Strand. I really didn't know much about Thomas at the time, and I definitely was unaware of his extreme love of plants as well as his crusade to protect his cereal.
“Meet Thomas Baldwin, PhD, assistant professor of barley pathology at North Dakota State University (NDSU). His research focuses on identifying the underlying mechanisms of host resistance to Fusarium head blight and other diseases in barley. He also manages the North American Barley Evaluation Nursery supported by the U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative (USWBSI)…….. [Link]
Even though I was relatively new to Twitter, due to the experiences of others, I was already aware of the cesspool of commenters lurking there who resorted exclusively to logical fallacies and insults. I really had no desire to engage with those who were defending virology at that time. I was more interested in using the social media platform to raise awareness to the pseudoscientific fraud that has been enslaving us for over a century. I felt that engaging with the (controlled) opposition was an unnecessary distraction.
However, despite my best efforts to avoid such distractions, the people that I wanted to steer clear of quickly found my profile. Thomas was one of the first, and he continually requested that I join his Space by spamming a link inviting me to have a chat with him and his buddies. From my understanding of what Spaces are, it involves a video feed on Twitter allowing for live discussions. I understood that challenging people to a Spaces session is a tactic regularly utilized by Baldwin and others in an attempt to gang up on those who participate. Through the use of logically fallacious arguments and intimidation tactics, they want to appear strong when they are weak. I was not interested in joining such an affair, and I ignored his repeated calls. If we were to have a discussion, it would be in a thread where people could read the evidence presented for themselves. My refusal to join his Space paid off, and I eventually found myself in just such a discussion with Thomas in the Twitter threads over the lack of scientific evidence for “viruses” not long afterwards.
While I will not recount the entire discussion here (please refer to the linked article), the important outcome of my interaction with Thomas at that time was that he, as a plant virologist who publishes papers in “scientific” journals, clearly had no understanding as to what the scientific method is and how to incorporate it. Even though Thomas agreed with me as to the steps of the scientific method, he failed to show how his own papers that he published adhered to it. He couldn't even identify the proper independent variable, dependent variable, and controls when attempting to outline how virology adheres to the scientific method, and he was also confused by the null and alternate hypotheses in our conversation.[Screen shots of the exchange]
That interaction with Thomas ultimately ended when I warned him that his repeated insults that he hurled at me would result in my blocking him. I'm more than happy to carry on if people want to have a respectful and intellectually honest discussion. However, I will not tolerate insults and continued attempts to engage in logically fallacious arguments. Unsurprisingly, Thomas remained steadfast in his commitment to hurling insults after my warning, and he refused to answer me directly, spamming his Space link over and over again as if it was a valid response. While I was amazed at the complete lack of understanding that I had witnessed from someone calling himself a scientist, and I was curious what more could be uncovered from continued questioning, based upon his behavior, I was happy not to interact with Thomas any longer.
Regardless, I admit that since that time, I often wondered what would happen if our interaction had carried on further. Would we see Thomas continue to demonstrate his logically fallacious reasoning and his complete inability to understand basic concepts? Would he continue to unravel with questions regarding the scientific method? Would he continue to hide behind his Spaces link rather than carry on an intellectually honest written debate? Interestingly, the opportunity presented itself when I was tagged in a conversation about a response Thomas had prepared for Dr. Tom Cowan, demanding that they debate on his Space. Clearly, Thomas had not given up his bread-and-butter tactic.[Screen shots]
While I should have listened to my own advice in order to save myself the headache, I ultimately did re-engage with Thomas in this thread. Just like the last time, there were some very amusing revelations that occurred from our interaction. As I feel that there are always important takeaways from these “debates,” especially regarding the mindsets of those who claim to be virologists practicing the scientific method, I am presenting excerpts from Round 2 with Thomas Baldwin, a.k.a. Sense Strand…and various other aliases on Twitter…..
From my previous conversation with Thomas, I already knew that he struggled not only with his understanding of the scientific method, but also in his attempts to show how virology adheres to it. This has not changed. He also continues to rely on logical fallacies, challenges to join his Space, and calling upon others, including AI, to argue for him. This conversation showed me that Thomas has made no progress in the year since our first encounter. While it became clear that nothing had changed, I did come away with a deeper understanding of just how far away Thomas is from truly grasping natural science and the scientific method. For a man who developed a profound passion for nature and the environment during his childhood, it is entirely shocking that he could not comprehend what a natural phenomenon is. Without being able to grasp this very basic concept, there is no ability for Thomas to truly understand what natural science is all about. There will be no capacity for him to fully comprehend the scientific method. He will always believe that creating heavily altered substances artificially in a lab and writing up fictional narratives to explain the computer-generated images is a way to understand what really occurs within the natural world. Sadly, the frightening reality is that Thomas is the embodiment of many within the scientific community who do not understand the purpose of science along with the method used to acquire scientific knowledge. Until he can gain some common sense, Thomas will always be lost, arguing in circles over a method that he agrees with in one breath, and then says is impossible in another. Unless he gets back to nature in order to understand it, plant virologist Thomas Baldwin, and those whom he represents, will always remain a senseless strand flailing in the wind.
[Baldwin is not a scientist, but a technologist passing for a scientist, a distinction noted by David Rasnick in “The Viral Delusion.”]
And, Off Guardian sermonizes about “the next pandemic,” but continues to evade the central question. See my comment at the end.
Bird Flu, Censorship & 100 Day Vaccines: 7 Predictions for “The Next Pandemic.” Kit Knightly, 4/19/24.
Earlier this month the Whitehouse published its new “Pandemic Preparedness” targets. They are far from alone in covering this. Back in March, Sky News was asking: “Next pandemic is around the corner,’ expert warns – but would lockdown ever happen again?” On April 3rd, the Financial Times asked something similar: “The next pandemic is coming. Will we be ready?”
Less than an hour ago, the Daily Mail invited us inside “the world’s deadliest cave that could cause the next pandemic”. Just two days ago a professional panic spreader wrote for CNN: "The next pandemic threat demands action now!!!” OK, I added the exclamation points, but they are very much implied in the original text. So, while Iran and Israel rattle their sabres on the front pages, I thought we should take a look at the quieter back pages to see what we can learn, and help us predict how “the next pandemic” will unfold.
What is “the next pandemic”?
I mean…I feel like that’s fairly self-explanatory. Seriously though, it’s the one they’ve been predicting from pretty much the moment Covid started. First it was going to be monkey pox – sorry MPox – but that fizzled. Of course by “pandemic”, we really mean “psy-op”, because nothing about the next pandemic will be any more real than the last pandemic. Hell, given the leaps forward in AI technology, it could be considerably less real next time. [How could it be less real, when the last one was fake?!!!]We don’t know any of the details yet, but there’s enough vague coverage to tease out some guesstimates.
What disease will they use?
Probably the most important question. We already mentioned monkey pox, but that doesn’t look likely anymore. Right now they are mostly talking about “disease X” – a term which caused a little panic in certain sections when it first appeared on the scene – but that isn’t some top secret gain of function super disease, it’s literally a place holder name. And it’s a placeholder name which does its job, for the time being. After all, they don’t really need an actual name yet, any more than they need an actual disease, they just need the idea of a disease to hold over people’s heads while they construct the legislative rules of their health-based tyranny.
Indeed, the vagueness “Disease X” provides is helpful, as it keeps the legislation vague too. That said, they will likely want and/or need to produce an actual disease at some point.
When that time comes around, it will almost certainly be another respiratory disease, because they are easy to “fake” using pre-existing endemic diseases and their uniform symptoms. The prime candidate is bird flu, which has been slow-boiling in the news for two years now and has recently got a big uptick in coverage due to it allegedly passing to people from cows. The UN reports “pandemic experts” are “concerned over avian influenza spread to humans”. Just yesterday, Jeremy Farrar of the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that “[the] threat Of Bird Flu spreading to Humans is a great concern”….
When will it happen? Probably not until the winter, I would guess January 2025 at the earliest, for two reasons:
• They need it to be flu season so they can co-opt normal seasonal deaths into their “pandemic” narrative.
• I think they’ll want to wait until after the “big election year” is over so there are fresh governments in place.
That second point is not just a hunch, but based on the article from Sky I mentioned above. It asks “would lockdown ever happen again?”, and an “expert” answers[Quote]…..
How will it be different from “Covid”?
Any future pandemic psy-op will be unlikely to follow the covid pattern beat-for-beat, for one thing the Covid narrative spent itself before achieving everything it was meant to achieve. You can bet the farm that, in the four years since, there have been working groups and researchers poring over the pandemic data to figure out what went wrong and how they can fix it next time.
There seem to be three recurring themes.
1. Vaccines not lockdowns There will be a focus on securing vaccines rather than lockdowns. Indeed, part of the whole “aw shucks lockdowns were damaging who’d have thunk it” rigmarole is about setting up the dynamic that “next time” we need to do anything we can to avoid lockdowns. Lockdowns will become a threat rather than a fact……
2. Speed speed speed The main failing of the Covid narrative was that it ran out of steam. By the time the vaccines rolled out in early 2021 the pandemic fatigue was already setting in. And by the time the third boosters and fourth waves were in the headlines nobody really cared. The propaganda blitzkrieg of early 2020 was arguably the greatest and most wide-reaching misinformation campaign of all time – and it was almost overwhelmingly effective. But it slowed, stalled, stopped and staled. Next time, they know now, they need to be faster. Bill Gates said as much at the 2022 Munich Security Conference. They need to get the disease out the deaths up and vaccines in before people even realise what happened…….
3. Free Speech is Dangerous. The slow development of the narrative post-2020 may have hindered the health tyranny agenda, but it was the independent media that really hurt it. The impromptu network of dissident experts, independent researchers and social media movements spread “misinformation” faster than the powers-that-be could fact-check it. We have seen perpetual messaging about the dangers of “misinformaion and disinformation” since then, including prominently at the most recent DAVOS summit earlier this year, where it was labelled one of the “three greatest dangers” facing the planet…..
WILDCARD PREDICTION: The multipolar angle. Whatever form the “next pandemic” takes, they will likely avoid the monolithic messaging of 2020, where total global conformity to “the message” was one of the real telltale signs of deception. Next time prepare for countries like India, China and Russia to forge their own pandemic strategy – focusing on some new treatment or technology that the West refuses to endorse……
So what am I officially predicting for the “next pandemic”?[Bolding by Off G author]
• It will won’t be launched until after the major elections this year, because they want new politic faces untarnished by Covid
• It will likely be bird flu or some other respiratory disease, launched in the winter to hijack the real flu season again
• The chosen disease will fit into one or more pre-existing agenda – either impacting food or originating from some forced “climate change” connection or both
• They will move faster, producing “vaccines” in 100 days to stop people getting wise to the deception as they did with Covid
• They will try and avoid lockdowns, but use them as a threat to enforce vaccine mandates more rigorously
• They will clamp down harder on “mis- and dis-information” before launching the new narrative.
• The next pandemic will have a multipolarity angle to establish a fake binary
That’s how I see it. Feel free to bookmark this post for future reference. Even if I’ve guessed the details wrong here, there’s no question they are planning to roll out another pandemic at some point in near future. A covid sequel that learns from past mistakes. While, in some ways, it will likely be worse than Covid was – the good news is that this time we can be ready for it.
My comment at the page.[Directed at Off-G]
Jeffrey Strahl, Apr 20, 2024 5:16 PM [UT}
Keep the “virus existence has been proven” hoax alive, refuse to engage the matter head on, asserting that it’s a distraction, and you will guarantee that there will be a “next pandemic.”
4IR. Off G has a brand new item drawing parallels between today’s wars and the endless war which served as the background for the story in “Nineteen Eighty Four.” See my comments at the end.
War in the New Normal – slaughtering your Proles for convenience, fun & profit. Catte Black, 4/20/24
There was a discussion on OffG recently under the latest column by CJ Hopkins, about whether the current spate of wars were “real”. Opinion was sharply divided. Binary you might say. On reading it the thing that occurred to me was that before you can have a meaningful discussion about whether or not a thing is “real” you need to agree upon a definition for that word. What is “real” in terms of war?
Our standard definition can be summed up as a situation in which the oligarchies/monarchies of two or more nation states decide to compete over some land or resources by sending in proxy armies of obedient proles to fight and die for their masters. After an acceptable interval the side whose proles have died in the smallest numbers or who have held on to the most strategic territory will be deemed to have “won” and peace can be allowed to return, while the victorious oligarchs/monarchs enjoy their spoils.
That’s the classic definition of “real” war as we are encouraged to understand it, and most wars of the past are parsed within this understanding. There will usually be additional, often spurious, moral binaries applied to the combatants, but this doesn’t change the basic concept of what “real” war entails.
But what if things get a little more fuzzy? What if oligarchies and monarchies see other advantages in war beyond a basic means of increasing land or riches? What if Oligarchy A has some social unrest going on at home and wants to get those troublemakers out of their hair, so they decide to invade the territory of Oligarchy B and just muss things up for a while until the social unrest is forgotten? Or what if it’s more complicated and Oligarchy A has the social unrest going on but also really wants to get their hands on some of Oligarchy B’s lovely natural resources.
Is the ensuing conflict a “real” war? Probably most of us would say yes. Wars are messy things fueled by many interlocking motives and pressures. But then what if Oligarchy B also sees the advantage of starting this war – because they too have social unrest at home etc etc? So both sides invent an essentially bogus casus belli against the other and launch their armies into the killing zone. Is this war of mutual oligarchical benefit still “real”?
And how about if the oligarchies become a little more sophisticated in their appreciation of class interests and have a chat about their mutual benefit and agree that, while a war is rather useful to them right now, they don’t want to get silly about it and risk things getting out of hand, so they will have some ground rules that ensure only the expendable die and all the most important infrastructure and all oligarchical fortunes are left intact.
Are we still justified in defining any ensuing bloodbath as a “real” war? The deaths are certainly real. But death isn’t the definition of war. Conflict is the definition of war. Two oligarchies mutually agreeing to send their proles to kill each other for mutually beneficial reasons is arguably the very opposite of conflict. So – would this be “real” war – or mass murder for convenience?
I don’t think this is a semantic or trivial question. Back in 1948 Eric Blair already had a more sophisticated understanding of the applications of war than most of us seem to have today. In 1984 he defines a world in which the ruling elites of the three major power blocks understand the mutual benefit of a forever war that
– cements the power structure
– consumes resources and creates (or excuses) perpetual shortages
– creates binary thinking and loyalty to the system.
He is well aware that this forever war is actually vertical not horizontal – a global war of the global elites against their own populations –….
How far are we today from Eric Blair’s definition of war? I think this is one of the major questions of our time. Because “war” is very much de rigeur right now, with the mainstream and most of the alt media. We are told to pick a side and that the divide is simple – between right and wrong, good or evil. But oh look – ALL the sides we get to pick from are on the X-axis. And NONE of the popular narratives look much beyond the classic concept of what war is or can represent. Nation A versus Nation B. One good, one bad. Simple binary. End of.
Even suggesting we look beyond the A versus B story is derided as “anti-{insert preferred term her}] propaganda. Even pointing out the obvious signs of continued cooperation and mutual benefit between these “sides” is deemed outrageous, and inevitably you will be accused of being a “CIA troll” or a “Putin bot” by people who seem genuinely unable to disentangle their thinking from the binary.
Is this enough? Post-covid and what it told us about how closely our ruling classes really work together behind the scenes, is this really enough? Are we just going to ignore the fact that right when the pandemic narrative was failing along came the first of a series of wars that miraculously picked up every aspect of that failing narrative and repurposed it?
My comment at the page, a response to it, and my response in kind. Time stamps are in UT.
Jeffrey Strahl, Apr 20, 2024 5:25 PM
The powers-that-shouldn’t-be are cooperating in pushing 4IR. But simultaneously, there are irreconcilable differences among them, primarily over how the loot extracted from the world’s population and from the planet is to be divided. And when that loot, surplus value, is shrinking (especially given growing shortages of supplies of energy and critical raw materials, and spreading catastrophic ecological destruction), while capital accumulation needs continue to grow exponentially, very real conflicts will grew between the various global ruling factions. Pretending that “it’s all just for show” is just as myopic as getting taken in by the propaganda narratives.
Sociolog, Apr 20, 2024 5:32 PM. Reply to Jeffrey Strahl
Basically correct, with the exception of “pushing” the 4IR. 4IR is happening regardless of the powers that be. It’s where humanity is developing. [As if it’s not being implemented by humans with names and faces? Digital disembodiment] They’re simply fighting to have the upper hand over what’s coming because that will determine the global hegemon in the world that emerges from the current turmoil. If there is a hegemon – maybe that multipolar world is a thing after all. The way it looks is that the West will lose its privileged status, mainly on account of its decadent weakness, hubris, and perceived exceptionalism, while the East is on the rise, working hard to stop the centuries of subjugation.
As far as the conflict, the biggest danger is that the US will resort to nukes to maintain its hegemonic status.
Jeffrey Strahl, Apr 20, 2024 7:35 PM. Reply to Sociolog
The conflict will not be resolved peacefully, no empire has ever given up its hegemony. And this is about individual capitalist interests, or rather interests of capitalist cliques. It has nothing to do with East vs West As the spoils shrink, the battles will get only worse, and this while the ecosystem’s ability to support human life and the supplies needed to keep industrial civilization shrink ever more.
I’m not surprised at all the downvotes we’ve drawn. People on this forum are for the most part living in a digital illusion, believing the world has infinite resources, as after all they’ve never known what it’s like to live in an age of shrinking supplies. The worse things will get, the more the digitized disembodied people will cling to their illusions.
Ending this segment and this edition, Electronic Intifada’s weekly summary of news.
Breaking news and analysis on day 194 of Gaza's Al-Aqsa Flood | The Electronic Intifada Podcast, 4/17/24. Two hours and 40 minutes.
00:00 Introduction
01:21 Nora Barrows-Friedman gives the news report
22:10 Aseel Mousa on reporting from Gaza
46:53 Paul Biggar on Israel's use of artificial intelligence and how tech workers are organizing
01:22:39 Jon Elmer analyzes videos from the resistance in Gaza and the West Bank as well as the Iranian missile counterstrike against Israel
02:07:03 Group discussion on Iran, and political repression in Germany
My comments. Biggar’s segment was very informative, including a report about how Google is repressing expressions by employees objecting to the company’s cooperation with the Israeli regime. See the NY Times, 4/18/24. Elmer made an excellent point: The Iranian launch of missiles at Israel a week ago was a brilliant move on the part of Iran’s state managers. For the price of cheap drones and cruise missiles, they caused the Israeli and US militaries to basically expose their entire framework of air defense in the region which required the engagement of Israeli, US, British and even Jordanian and Saudi units.
Ali Abunimah expressed disgust with the Jordanian government for participating in this effort, even allowing Israeli jets into its air space to shoot down drones and cruise missiles. He also reported on how he was banned from participating in the Palestine Congress in Berlin, which was shut down by the police, with people arrested, and even banned from appearing on Zoom, warned that if they did so they would be subject to arrest if they ever visit Germany. But his outrage also reminded me of a piece by CJ Hopkins which i posted in the 4/17/24 edition of LT, which took to task all the pro-free-speech Palestine advocates who were silent about the German police state tactics used against opponents of Operation “Pandemic.” EI totally parrots the official narratives about both 9/11 as well as Operation “Pandemic.”