[Image via Edward Slavsquat Substack]
Starting with SW Asia, as Israeli air raid pummeled Lebanon, including the capital Beirut, while Israeli troops have been told to prepare for ground operations. Meanwhile, Netanyahu spoke to the UN General Assembly this morning. He did his utmost to blame everything on the Iranian regime and the alleged failure of the world to deal with it, accusing it of seeking a genocide of the Jews living in the region (and a destruction of Western Civilization. He also used the speech to advance the 4IR, just as speakers antagonistic to Israel have. He even usurped the memory of John Lennon (by name) to call upon listeners to “ magine" a “paradise” which is actually a Blockchain-based AI-managed global digital panopticon. See if for yourself, easy to find on You Tube.
And, some real news from Lebanon, though i must remind readers that Al Jazeera, a network funded by the government of Qatar, is a major pusher of 4IR, as is the government.
What we know about Israel’s latest attacks on Lebanon. Israel says the major attacks that levelled multiple residential buildings in southern Beirut targeted Hezbollah’s ‘central command’. Al Jazeera Staff, 9/27/24.
Israel targeted the southern suburbs of Beirut in a series of attacks on Friday in the heaviest bombardment since it escalated its offensive against Lebanon earlier this month.
More than a dozen explosions were reported in the neighbourhood of Dahiyeh, which had already been targeted by air raids in recent days. Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV said the attacks destroyed at least seven buildings in the Haret Hreik suburb of the neighbourhood, turning them into a pile of rubble. The station said more than 15 missiles struck the area. Civil defence teams are working on putting out multiple fires in the area and asked people to donate blood due to the likelihood of a high number of casualties….
Dahiyeh is a densely populated area, home to more than half a million civilians, many of whom had been scrambling to evacuate to safety as Israel started attacking the area last week. Dozens of people had already been killed in air raids targeting the neighbourhood before Friday.
Biomedical. Following up on the success of Dr Sam Bailey, Christine Massey has succeeded in placing an article she wrote in the same mainstream media outlet, Canberra Daily.
https://canberradaily.com.au/its-official-no-records-of-the-covid-virus/
It’s official: No records of the “COVID virus.” Christine Massey, 9.25/24.
Before 2020, I had no reason to question the existence of viruses. The possibility that viruses had not been shown to exist had only fleetingly crossed my mind in 2017 when I stumbled across a German biologist named Dr Stefan Lanka. Trained as a virologist, Dr Lanka stunningly revealed in the 1990s that the methodologies employed in his chosen field were often unscientific and the entire virus model was flawed.
By the time the COVID-19 hype was underway I briefly forgot about this incredible revelation. However, what did capture my attention in 2020 was that there were fewer “confirmed COVID-19 cases” than “confirmed influenza cases”. Obviously, no one had panicked and told us to stay home because of the new flu viruses that we supposedly encounter each year so what was going on?…
The first fact I established, by checking the claims on the website of my local “health authority”, was that the PCR “tests” do not actually test for a virus. Or for a viral illness. Or for any illness at all.
I was stunned to learn that these tests only provide, at best, indirect evidence of a tiny genetic sequence. Not an infection, not even one copy of an intact “virion” (a single virus). Just a tiny sequence claimed to be a marker for “the virus”. And yet, Public Health Ontario had decided that samples testing positive for the tiny sequence would be, “reported as COVID-19 virus detected, which is sufficient for laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection.“
In July 2020, investigative journalist Jon Rappoport pointed out that the CDC had conceded that detection of so-called “viral” RNA “may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”. This was logical, because finding a tiny part of a (supposed) thing is not the same as finding the (supposed) thing intact. So, the test did not necessarily relate to illness and according to the official definition, the “COVID-19 symptoms” were not even new or specific. In fact, “cases” required no symptoms at all.
This meant that the statements on the website of my “health authority” were actually a confession of medical fraud – right there in plain sight. The non-diagnostic tests were being passed off as confirmation of a “viral infection” and a “coronavirus disease”.
It became more interesting when I was sent a presentation featuring the United States physician Dr Andrew Kaufman. Like Dr Lanka, Dr Kaufman discussed the methodologies employed by virologists when claiming to have “isolated a virus”. He walked through the logical steps that are required to isolate a particle (if it exists), contrasting those with what was done by those who “found SARS-CoV-2” such as the Australian team of Leon Caly. The difference was clear and the implications were stunning – the virologists had not actually identified a virus, old or new. Could this be true?
I carefully read the methods section of each study. It wasn’t easy at first, but with time, patience, a good dictionary, and the internet, it is something that even laypeople can manage. Anyone who does this research will see that Dr Lanka and Dr Kaufman are correct. Virologists do not isolate a particle (as claimed in their studies) and show that it causes disease.
Instead, they create a brew of monkey cells, cow serum and toxic drugs, observe the monkey cells breaking down and declare that “the virus” is to blame and has been “isolated”. The experiments are nonsensical and do not adhere to the scientific method. The “logic” of a virologist is on par with claiming that Santa was shown to exist and was isolated in your house based on observing presents under the Christmas tree.
“Well, surely someone has found this supposed particle and shown that it’s a virus” you might be thinking. And I would not blame you, because what I am claiming may sound outlandish. However, I encourage you to really look into this for yourself and put aside what you assumed were facts.
Another line of evidence might surprise you. After verifying the facts laid out by Dr Kaufman, I started filing freedom of information (FOI) requests to Canadian health and science institutions. (Australia similarly facilitates these requests through its FOI Act.) I asked for all studies held by the institutions, from anywhere, that found and purified alleged virus particles from any human – because if that had not been done, then no one could have followed up with valid scientific experiments to show that the supposed virus existed and caused COVID-19.
Many people around the world helped with this project and we now have official responses from 224 institutions in 40 different countries. Not one of them was able to provide or cite such a study, hence none have scientific evidence of the alleged virus. It is clear that there is no valid independent variable to study in their experiments, which means that virology is based in pseudoscience.
We eventually expanded our investigation to other alleged viruses. No matter which institution is asked or which alleged virus we ask about, the results are always the same: no records. Put simply, this means that the “viruses” were imagined to exist but have never been found. The old saying is correct when it comes to virology: the devil is in the details. It seems just a matter of time until more people realise that the COVID “virus” never was. Then comes the sickening reality that there was absolutely no need for any of the “responses” that devastated our world.
Christine Massey is an independent researcher from Canada with a background in biostatistics. Since 2020 she has coordinated the Freedom of Information Act project that has exposed the lack of evidence for ‘SARS-CoV-2’, other alleged viruses and “pathogenic” microbes.
And, Eric Francis Coppolino features an interview with a health matter of different sort, talking to a Canadian couple who are working to enhance awareness of the effects of electromagnetic fields upon our bodies and also spread knowledge as to what to do about it. Side note: I’d guess from the names that they are both of Ukrainian ancestry, interesting to note given the prominence of Ukraine in world news the last couple of years. Canada has the largest percentage of people of Ukrainian background of any country, outside of .. Ukraine.
The Power Couple wants to know. Introducing Bohdanna Diduch and Roman Shapoval, who help people get their EMFs under control. Eric Francis Coppolino, 9/26/24
[Audio file, an hour and 46 minutes]
I was planning to send this out in the morning…but just in case you need some good vibes tonight, here are Bohdanna and Roman. These two are so adventurous they went roaming around the Love Canal neighborhood with me this past Saturday.[A Photo of them] This special edition is a production of independent Pacifica Radio affiliate Planet Waves FM and Chiron Return. It’s also being cross-posted to the Planet Waves lists. I’ll have the next regular edition of PWFM ahead of the Oct. 2 Libra New Moon/solar eclipse.
Dear Friend and Listener:
I have a lot to say about the disembodying and psychosis-inducting effects of electricity and digital. Thanks to Dr. Sam Bailey, I’ve met some people who care as much as I do, and have their own distinct angle on the issues. Please meet The Power Couple, Bohdanna Diduch and Roman Shapoval. They traveled all the way from Niagara Falls, Canada to meet me near Buffalo, which used to not be such a big deal, but these days, it is.
Their field of inquiry is the electrical problem. The “medium is the message” means that the invisible environment is the source of the transformation — rather than the content of the environment. People tend to obsess over the figure and miss the ground. In this discussion, we talk a lot about the ground: the ground you walk on, and the ground of electricity and zeros and ones.
Wireless signals (such as wifi and Bluetooth) are not the only source of EMFs. Most of the problem is coming right from the wiring system in your home, apartment or office. And among the many things I learned in this conversation is that due to a problem with the North American power grid, we not only have messier current here in the U.S. and Canada, but also the ground itself emits a strange kind of messy electrical signal due this issue.
You can reach The Power Couple via their website, or their Substack.[Links to both] Please share this widely — it’s essential information everyone needs.
Thank you..back soon… With love,
My comments at the page.
Jeffrey Strahl, Lockdown Times, 9/26/24.
This was GREAT! Thanks so much, Eric, for exposing me and the rest of your audience to Bohdanna Diduch and Roman Shapoval. WOW. So much information, glad they have a Substack. And yes, digital disembodiment has a physical aspect to add to the spiritual/existential one, our bodies are being subjected to slow motion electric chair treatments, constantly! A lot to address here.
And, a prominent member of the “health freedom” movement, Jonathan Engler, is removing his name from the Great Barrington Declaration. On this matter, i agree with him, will remove my name too.
I now believe it is part of the problem, not the solution. Jonathan Engler, 9/24/24.
Like Jessica Hockett’s post the other day (here) this isn’t likely to make me any new friends and is highly likely to result in me losing some of my existing ones. Well, so be it. I am not going to stand by while one humongous lie is allowed to become established just because people find the entire truth unpalatable, nor because of some misguided desire to coalesce behind “consensus” for tactical reasons.
(Maybe my recollection is mistaken, but I am pretty sure that allowing a manufactured “consensus” to drown out all other viewpoints was what got us into much of the mess we are now in.)
I just sent the email below to [email address] (the only address I could find at their website). However, whether or not I receive a response is largely irrelevant as I don’t think the names (other than those on the main page of their website) are publicly viewable. Regardless, I thought I’d send and then publish this anyway as a record of my thinking and as a public declaration of my own, especially as I did sign the GBD and encouraged others to do so.
Hello,
Please could you remove my name from the signatories to The Great Barrington Declaration.
When I signed this document, I believed the story that there was a novel virus around which was causing a novel illness, and that some sort of protection for some people was deemed desirable. However, I am now firmly of the belief that the pandemic construct was staged. Any and all harms observed and reported can be explained by a combination of: mistreatment, maltreatment, non-treatment, neglect, abuse and data fraud.
The key tools used to stage the event were propaganda, data fraud (of several varieties) and the mass rollout of a fraudulent test.
Without these:
• nothing out of the ordinary would have been noticed at any time
• the status quo observed before the “pandemic” was declared (a total lack of excess mortality or reported clusters of unusual illnesses despite widespread presence of whatever it was which turned “covid tests” positive) would have continued uninterrupted
The “pandemic” - such as it was - was created by the response to the misguided and false perception of a novel virus in circulation.[I do NOT think this was “misguided,” it was intentional]
There is no epidemiological model - other than one twisted and tortured beyond reasonableness - which can explain a number of key observations about what happened in spring 2020, notably:
• unnoticed pre-pandemic presence of the putative pathogen (as measured by the same tests to track its progress later)
• lack of ripples and clusters of excess mortality
• waves of deaths congruent with administrative and political actions
• vastly differing “pandemic outcomes” between countries and other regional units sharing administrative boundaries.
“Focused protection” would, in practice, have meant more testing, more isolation and more dystopian treatment generally of those “testing positive”. Since the pandemic narrative essentially emerged because of the maltreatment of the most vulnerable which was only able to happen because of their isolation and the resultant lack of witnesses, the strategies espoused in the declaration would not have improved matters, and probably would in fact have made them worse.
Hence my analysis of the “pandemic” (here) and what ought to have been done (ie nothing out of the ordinary) - is totally antithetical to that espoused in your declaration. Your document can only act to embed a heinous lie in the consciousness of humanity, priming us all for regular re-runs of the disaster which has befallen us.
To quote from my own summary of the covid “event” (which ought not to be reified by the use of the word “pandemic”):
"Lab leak” and “zoonotic spillover” theories are the two constituent parts of a deliberately engineered false dichotomy. By permitting argument between these two choices alone, the question as to whether we actually had a pandemic at all—and what therefore caused the myriad harms—is avoided. Yet BOTH theories have the same endpoint: the sustenance of the “Pandemic Preparedness Industry” which, flush with a hugely successful “Covid” episode will no doubt delight in the prospect of lucrative reruns.
The oft-repeated references to “the next pandemic”— even by some apparent “Covid dissidents”— is a foreshadowing of their intentions, because, remember, as they say: “Any rogue lab can engineer these viruses now.” After all, as we have argued, the actual escape of something from a lab is not required to generate a “pandemic”; the mere seeding of the narrative of escape, rollout of testing and resultant social contagion is all that is needed."
I believe that the GBD has – even if unwittingly so - become part of the machinery which is:
• distracting people from seeing the true nature of the events of 2020
• embedding the “pandemic” trope into our mindset
• creating / maintaining a state of permanent fear - likely to be self-fulfilling – over the likelihood of another “engineered virus” causing “the next pandemic”
In my view, the only way to prevent “the next pandemic” is to demonstrate to people the utter ridiculousness of the story they have been told about the past few years. Declarations which fail to challenge the central lie of that story are unhelpful and counterproductive to that aim. For that reason, I disassociate myself from the GBD.
Kind regards - Dr Jonathan Engler (United Kingdom), MB ChB LLB
The Jessica Hockett’s post referred to is here. Subscription not required to read, but is required to even like, let alone comment.
Jessica Hocket, 9/22/24.
And, Mike Stone one again discusses antibodies.
Tag line here. Mike Stone, 9/27/24.
“It would be absurd to imagine that the mechanical diagrams have any representation in the world of fact. They are figments of the imagination and may serve some useful purpose as picture books serve in teaching a child the alphabet.” -Henry Smith Williams and James Beveridge in the 1915 book The Mechanism of Immunization
When I originally went scouring through the history of “antibody” research back in April 2021, I was primarily searching for two key pieces of evidence: first, I wanted to see if researchers had ever actually demonstrated that they had purified and isolated the so-called “antibodies” directly from the serum of a host and fully characterized these entities. Second, I wanted to see if they had ever taken these purified and isolated entities and demonstrated experimentally that, by exposing them to a sample containing a purified and isolated pathogenic “virus,” this actually resulted in the assumed effects of the “antibodies” attaching to, and ultimately eliminating, the “virus.” Since I knew through my prior research that finding purified and isolated “viruses” was an impossibility, I anticipated that finding the evidence I sought for the much smaller “antibodies” would be a rather tall order. Regardless, if researchers were able to achieve purification and isolation of the “antibodies,” I wanted to see clear electron microscope images of these Y-shaped particles looking exactly as they are depicted through computer-generated artist renderings in the textbooks, the mainstream media, and the scientific literature. I sought direct clear visual evidence that these uniquely shaped substances existed within the fluids as described, and not only as cartoons and models.
As noted by the 1993 paper Ehrlich's "Beautiful Pictures" and the Controversial Beginnings of Immunological Imagery, it is a belief that “antibodies” are biochemical entities in the blood, and the idea of these entities as Y-shaped molecules is due to the popularization of the images found in textbook, scientific articles, advertisements, and even as logos in biotech companies………..[LOTS of details]
What became clear from my investigation attempting to find the earliest images of purified and isolated Y-shaped “antibodies” taken directly from serum is that such an endeavor is nearly impossible. Instead, what I discovered were schematics and representations of what these particles were proposed to look like, developed over many decades through inference from indirect methods. The TEM images I found from the 2010s were either extremely vague snapshots of particles claimed to be monoclonal “antibodies” or appeared to be artifacts that were modeled into the presumed Y-shape via 3D reconstruction using computer algorithms. Each imaging method faced its own limitations, which cast doubt on the validity of the findings inferred from the data.
While the Y-shaped particles may exist within the serum of humans and animals, the evidence presented is not convincing. Even if these particles do exist, there is no experimental evidence demonstrating that they perform the functions attributed to them. The Y-shaped “antibody” is simply a logo—a representation of a hypothetical entity used to explain effects observed in the lab but not in nature. This logo has been used not only to support the “virus” hypothesis but also to promote the idea that vaccination is safe and effective, and to sell pharmaceutical treatments claimed to protect against disease. In the end, it became clear that the Y-shaped logo is simply a catchy mascot used to market the story and sell the products to the consumers. Whether such an entity actually exists in nature is still a mystery.
4IR. Some pretty startling stuff about Telegram founder/owner Pavel Duvrov, widely portrayed as a victim of the global power structure. I have zero empathy with charges involving the Free Masons and non meat eaters’ ability to father children, but there are some very serious charges here, if even half of them are true it’s a huge matter, and i don’t see any way to quickly exculpate Pavel Duvrov.
Message like everyone is watching. Anthony Colpo, 9/23/24.
Ending this segment and this edition, Riley Waggaman looks at an international pact agreed to by the UN General Assembly by consensus a few days ago, a blatant push of the 4IR agenda.
An open, inclusive, clean and beautiful world of lasting peace, universal security and shared prosperity. Edward Slavsquat, 9/26/24. Lots of screen shots, links]
The “Pact for the Future”, hailed by our space lizard overlords as “the most-wide ranging international agreement in many years”, was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on September 22. Probably you heard about it. But maybe you would like to hear more about it?
What does this fancy Pact say about the Future? As per UN tradition, the Pact for the Future was written in incomprehensible space lizard hieroglyphs. James Corbett was kind enough to provide an abridged English translation. But if you want to marvel at how the UN decodes its own mystifying word salad, I encourage you to read this press release:{link, shot]
United Nations adopts ground-breaking Pact for the Future to transform global governance
New York, 22 September 2024 – World leaders today adopted a Pact for the Future that includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations. This Pact is the culmination of an inclusive, years-long process to adapt international cooperation to the realities of today and the challenges of tomorrow. The most wide-ranging international agreement in many years, covering entirely new areas as well as issues on which agreement has not been possible in decades, the Pact aims above all to ensure that international institutions can deliver in the face of a world that has changed dramatically since they were created. As the Secretary-General has said, “we cannot create a future fit for our grandchildren with a system built by our grandparents.”
Overall, the agreement of the Pact is a strong statement of countries’ commitment to the United Nations, the international system and international law. Leaders set out a clear vision of an international system that can deliver on its promises, is more representative of today’s world and draws on the energy and expertise of governments, civil society and other key partners.
“The Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations open the door to new opportunities and untapped possibilities,” said the Secretary-General during his remarks at the opening of the Summit of the Future. The President of the General Assembly noted that the Pact would “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order – for all peoples and nations.”
The Pact covers a broad range of issues including peace and security, sustainable development, climate change, digital cooperation, human rights, gender, youth and future generations, and the transformation of global governance. Key deliverables in the Pact include:
In the area of peace and security……
On sustainable development, climate and financing for development
• The entire Pact is designed to turbo-charge implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.
• The most detailed agreement ever at the United Nations on the need for reform of the international financial architecture so that it better represents and serves developing countries, including:
• Giving developing countries a greater say in how decisions are taken at international financial institutions;
• Mobilizing more financing from multilateral development banks to help developing countries meet their development needs;
• Reviewing the sovereign debt architecture to ensure that developing countries can borrow sustainably to invest in their future, with the IMF, UN, G20 and other key players working together;
• Strengthening the global financial safety net to protect the poorest in the event of financial and economic shocks, through concrete actions by the IMF and Member States;
• and accelerating measures to address the challenge of climate change, including through delivering more finance to help countries adapt to climate change and invest in renewable energy. [The rest of the section is utter claptrap, including keeping "global temperature rise to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.” This rise is already 2 deg C., and fossil fuels are needed to produce, maintain and back up “renewable energy,,” which only supplies electricity, 20% of global energy need.]
On digital cooperation
• The Global Digital Compact, annexed to the Pact, is the first comprehensive global framework for digital cooperation and AI governance.
• At the heart of the Compact is a commitment to design, use and govern technology for the benefit of all.[Detail;s]……
The Summit process and the Pact have been deeply enriched by the contributions of millions of voices and thousands of stakeholders from around the world.
The Summit brought together over 4000 individuals from Heads of State and Government, observers, IGOs, UN System, civil society and non-governmental organizations. In a broader push to increase the engagement of diverse actors, the formal Summit was preceded by the Action Days from 20-21 September, which attracted more than 7,000 individuals representing all segments of society. The Action Days featured strong commitments to action by all stakeholders, as well as pledges of USD 1.05 billion to advance digital inclusion.
{End of UN Gobbledygook}
You can read the adopted document here (.pdf). But why do that when you can search for Multipolar Keywords? Allow me to demonstrate: [Screen shots, with highlighted segments in them, including “public-private partnerships," "digital transformation, “equitable access to vaccines, medicines,” and “sustainable development.” In fact, that last one gets a special treatment by the author and posted as text]
But if you’re looking for a one-sentence summary of the Pact of the Future it would have to be: “Our friendly and selfless governments promise to turbocharge the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” [REMINDER: Agenda 2030/Sustainable Development Goals = 4IR = Great Reset]
How was this extremely sustainable accord adopted? Without a vote.
The Pact was adopted via “consensus”. What is “consensus”? Good question. The UN explains: "When a decision is taken by consensus, no formal vote is taken. A 2005 Legal Opinion distinguishes consensus as follows: consensus “is understood as the absence of objection rather than a particular majority” (UN Juridical Yearbook 2005, page 457). So basically you can force through a UN resolution without a vote and even without majority support, so long as no one points out that that’s an insane thing to do. Not the global governance we need, but probably the global governance we deserve.
However, all it takes is one party-pooper member state to spoil the multipolar no-vote “consensus” happy times: "Member States consider it very important to adopt a resolution that has the widest possible agreement among Member States. Before taking action on a draft resolution, Member States spend hours discussing every word in the resolution to reach agreement on the text.
When consensus on the text is reached, in the General Assembly all Member States agree to adopt the draft resolution without taking a vote. Adopting a draft without a vote is the most basic definition of what consensus means. If 192 Member States agree on the text, but just one Member State requests a vote, then consensus is not reached."
By the UN’s own admission, roughly 80% of the General Assembly resolutions are adopted by consensus.
Anyway. The Pact for the Future was adopted without a vote using “consensus”, and now that you understand what that means, we can move on to the next topic: Moscow’s perplexing objection-but-not-actual-objection to the Pact of the Future.[Details]…..
To summarize: Moscow allowed the pact to be adopted without a vote via “consensus”, but then after the pact was approved said it would distance itself from certain aspects of this “consensus”—which is sort of confusing? Obviously Washington got gay-married to the Pact. But where was BRICS to defend the Multipolar World Order from this Fake Unipolar Consensus? Actually, China is quite fond of the Pact for the Future
On September 19, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a “Position Paper of the People’s Republic of China for The Summit of the Future and the 79th Session of The United Nations General Assembly”:
"In the new era, faced with the major question of our times, i.e. what kind of world to build and how to build it, China has given its answer—building a community with a shared future for mankind. The goal of building a community with a shared future for mankind is to build an open, inclusive, clean and beautiful world of lasting peace, universal security and shared prosperity; the pathway is promoting global governance that features extensive consultation and joint contribution for shared benefit; the guiding principle is to apply the common values of humanity; the basic underpinning lies in building a new type of international relations…
China supports the U.N. Summit of the Future, and calls on the international community to take this opportunity to focus on the common well-being of humanity, build consensus and synergy, and support the central role of the U.N. in international affairs."
In a speech before the General Assembly on September 23, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang said that “countries are not riding separately in some 190 small boats, but rather we're all in a giant ship on which our shared destiny hinges”:[More details]….Meanwhile, Chinese state media published glowing reviews of the Summit and the resulting Pact: [4 screen shots]
My comment at the page,
Jeffrey Strahl, Lockdown Times, 9/26/24.
My immediate thought was to say that this following sentence said enough: "The entire Pact is designed to turbo-charge implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals."
But you found an even better one: "Our friendly and selfless governments promise to turbocharge the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
Thanks, Riley, good to see you flushing out the globalist 4IE dirt once again. And yeah, Russia's government goes along but "dissents" afterwards, while China's government is enthusiastic, demonstrating how BRICS is working for all of us. :-)
And great graphic to headline the piece, by the way!!
There's a hecka lot here to digest (or not). Thanks. And on top of the fact that the UN has done NOTHING to stop the slaughter in West Asia this time (or back in 2003 either), doesn't anyone wonder why we have a UN at all? It certainly is United -- against the rest of us.