Newsletter, 5/17/24
Biomedical, 4IR
Biomedical. Mike Stone discusses what the Germ Hypothesis is and how it became accepted as “scientific truth,” first in a two part series on this topic.
Pasteur's Problems. Mike Stone, 5/17/24.
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the germ “theory” of disease, which states that certain diseases are caused by the invasion of the body by microorganisms too small to be seen, has “long been considered proved.” Harvard University says that the “theory” was “developed, proved, and popularized in Europe and North America between about 1850 and 1920.” Wikipedia claims that the germ “theory” of disease is “the currently accepted scientific theory for many diseases.” Papers published in scientific journals claim that Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch “firmly established the germ theory of disease” and that they “first proved the germ theory of disease in the second half of the nineteenth century.”
Thus, if we were to listen to what the mainstream sources declare, it would appear that the germ “theory” of disease has been scientifically proven based upon the evidence established by Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch. We are to believe that the work of these two men allowed for the initial germ hypothesis to be “proven” in order to be elevated to the status of a scientific theory. However, is that truly the case? Did Pasteur and Koch provide the necessary scientific evidence required in order to confirm the germ hypothesis? What does it take to accept or reject a hypothesis? How does a hypothesis go on to become a scientific theory? In the first of a two-part examination of the germ hypothesis looking at the work of both men, we will begin by inspecting two of Pasteur's early attempts to prove his hypothesis in the cases of chicken cholera and rabies. We will invesrigate how he arrived at his germ hypothesis, and then look to see if his experimental evidence reflected anything that could be witnessed in nature. In doing so, we will find out whether or not Louis Pasteur was ever able to validate and confirm his germ hypothesis.
What is a Hypothesis?
To begin this investigation, we need to understand what exactly a hypothesis is supposed to be. Returning to the Brittanica for a moment, a scientific hypothesis is defined as “an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world.” Stated in another way, a hypothesis is an explanation based upon and about an observed natural phenomenon…...
The Britannica goes on to state that two very important and primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability. Falsifiability means that the hypothesis is stated in such a way that there is some capacity to be able to prove the hypothesis wrong through experimentation. This idea was introduced by scientific philosopher Karl Popper in 1935 in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery. According to this concept, someone should be able to conceivably design an experiment that could prove the hypothesis wrong. If a hypothesis is capable of being proven wrong, and yet it is supported by experimental evidence of its truth, then it can be considered as a scientific hypothesis. A falsifiable hypothesis should be formulated as an “If…then” statement that summarizes the idea established from the phenomenon, and it must have testability, meaning that it can then be supported or refuted through experimentation.
The observation of a natural phenomenon and the creation of a falsifiable and testable hypothesis is the first part of the scientific method, as noted in Chapter 2 ~ Science as a Way of Understanding the Natural World of the book Environmental Science. “The scientific method begins with the identification of a question involving the structure or function of the natural world, which is usually developed using inductive logic (Figure 2.1). The question is interpreted in terms of existing theory, and specific hypotheses are formulated to explain the character and causes of the natural phenomenon.”
“In contrast, a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for the occurrence of a phenomenon. Scientists formulate hypotheses as statements and then test them through experiments and other forms of research. Hypotheses are developed using logic, inference, and mathematical arguments in order to explain observed phenomena.”
According to Elsevier, a Dutch academic publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content, without a hypothesis, there can be no basis for a scientific experiment. We can therefore conclude that the hypothesis is crucial to obtaining scientific evidence. They state that the hypothesis is “a prediction of the relationship that exists between two or more variables.” What this means is that a hypothesis must be designed and written in such a way as to “prove” whether or not a predicted relationship derived from the natural phenomenon exists between two variables: the independent variable (the presumed cause) and the dependent variable (the observed effect).[Explanatory graphic]
This is usually then stated as the null hypothesis, which predicts that there is no relationship between the variables, and as the alternative hypothesis, which predicts that there is a relationship between the variables.[Explanatory graphic]
Once the hypothesis has been established, a proper experiment can be designed in order to test it. According to American philosopher and historian of science Peter Machamer in his 2009 paper Phenomena, data and theories: a special issue of Synthese, the experiment should show us something important that occurs within the real world. The goal is to ensure that the aspects of the observed natural phenomenon that originally sparked the hypothesis are “caught” in the design of the experiment. In this way, the experiment will be able to tell us something about the world and the phenomena studied. Thus, it is critical that the hypothesis is tested properly through an experimental design that accurately reflects the observed natural phenomenon and what is seen in nature… [Quote]….
If the hypothesis is tested correctly through proper experimental design via the scientific method, and repeated testing strengthens the correlation between two or more things happening in association with each other resulting in the observed natural phenomenon, the cause of a natural phenomenon can be proven. This would make it possible to determine the likelihood of the event happening again. If the results are confirmed through replication and reproducibility by independent researchers, this gives the hypothesis predictive power. Once the predictions provided by the hypothesis are repeatedly confirmed through independent verification and validation by the scientific community, the hypothesis can then be elevated to a scientific theory.
However, to get to the point of becoming a scientific theory, the hypothesis must be confirmed through accurate experimentation first, and it must not be falsified. This absolutely critical fact is seemingly something that was forgotten when the germ hypothesis was elevated to the status of a scientific theory. As Albert Einstein stated, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” What does it say about the evidence supporting a hypothesis if the experiments designed reflecting the hypothesis failed, and the evidence obtained that “supports” it was through experiments that were not designed properly and do not reflect the proposed explanation? If the experiments do not reflect the hypothesis that was derived from the observed natural phenomenon, can the knowledge acquired still be considered scientific knowledge that tells us anything truthful about what really occurs in nature? With these questions in mind, let's see if Louis Pasteur's hypotheses hold up under scrutiny.
According to French-American microbiologist Rene Dubos, the “central dogma of the germ theory is that each particular type of fermentation or of disease is caused by specific a kind of microbe.” While the idea that disease could be caused by invisible germs had been around since Girolamo Fracastoro published De Contagione et Contagiosis Morbis in 1546, French chemist Louis Pasteur conjured up his own germ hypothesis in the early 1860s based upon his work on fermentation. Granted, Pasteur had largely plagiarized from the work of French chemist and physician Antoine Bechamp, which he subsequently misinterpreted as Bechamp saw the microbes, which he referred to as microzymas, performing a necessary and vital function by breaking down substances and tissues in order to carry away dead cells and other waste products. In other words, germs are nature's clean-up crew and are not the cause of disease. As he noted in The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element, Bechamp viewed these processes as being born within all living things based upon the internal environment of the individual:
Pasteur, on the other hand, viewed the germs, such as yeasts involved in the fermentation of sugar to produce alcohol as well as other microbes responsible for putrefaction and the decay of tissues, as outside invaders. He proclaimed that the microbes, isolated from wounds and other degenerative tissues, were the cause of the destruction of the normal tissues, leading to disease. His views ran contrary to the popular notion at the time that microbes were the result of, and not the cause of, disease. Pasteur, along with a minority of other scientists, believed that diseases arose from the activities of these microorganisms, while opponents such as Bechamp and German pathologist Rudolf Virchow, believed that diseases arose from an imbalance in the internal state of the afflicted individual. As noted by Bechamp, just as Pasteur had assumed that there was a specific microbe for each ferment, he did the same by assuming that this must hold true for human and animal diseases as well.
However, there was a bit of a problem for the germ hypothesis as Pasteur was unable to ever observe any germ “infecting” anyone in order to cause disease. The only natural phenomenon that he could observe were the signs and symptoms of disease, and he tried to correlate a tentative relationship between microbes and disease based upon finding microbes in wounds and diseased tissues. As we know, correlation does not equal causation. The fact that microbes are found on the body of a decaying animal does not mean that the microbes caused the animal to die. The microbes occur after the fact in order to perform a necessary function, in this case decomposition. Rather than concluding that the microbes were present in wounds due to the need to heal the injury, Pasteur assumed that the microbes, which he claimed were present all around us within the air, became attracted to the wounds, taking advantage of the weakened state. With this a priori assumption in mind, Pasteur set out to create evidence to support his preconceived idea. [Extensive examples]….
As discussed, the purpose of the hypothesis is to propose an explanation for an observed natural phenomenon that can be tested and confirmed through experimentation in order to gain knowledge about natural events or processes that occur within nature. The experiments and evidence generated to support said hypothesis should reflect the observed natural phenomenon. In no way did Louis Pasteur provide any evidence that could be said to be close to achieving this. To “prove” his hypotheses, Pasteur fed chickens the remains of diseased chickens, injected animals with coagulated substances into the muscles and skin and drilled holes into the heads of dogs and injected them with diseased brain and nervous system matter. None of these methods of exposure reflect any event or process that was observed in nature.
Why did Pasteur have to resort to such grotesque methods in order to create experimental disease if his hypothesis was correct that the natural exposure to germs themselves were the cause of the disease? It is because exposure to microbes through a natural route, either aerosolized or with pure cultures applied to their regular feed, did not produce disease. Thus, unnatural and invasive methods that did not reflect nature had to be substituted in place until the desired results were created. Therefore, the actual proposed hypotheses for how the diseases were said to occur in nature were falsified by the repeated failures to recreate the disease naturally in said manner. Based upon the work of Louis Pasteur, the germ hypothesis was disproven from the very beginning, and it should have never been elevated into the status of a scientific theory.
Regardless, the work of Pasteur's contemporary and bitter rival, the German bacteriologist Robert Koch, ultimately provided a lifeline to Pasteur's disproven germ hypothesis. As Koch's work was instrumental in elevating the falsified hypothesis to its status as a scientific theory, we will examine his contributions in Part 2. We will explore whether Koch's experimenal results, combined with his revolutionary methods and logical postulates, were enough to overcome the fatal flaws of Pasteur.
4IR. Yesterday, i found that the blog from which i reproduced “In Defense of Woke Zombines” last week has a regular weekly feature. This was the most recent i found, there was another one today, too late to make it into this edition, but next time!
Vincent Kelley, 5/10/24.
“Is AI About to Kill What’s Left of Journalism?”
Rana Faroohar reflects on The Financial Times’ recent deal with OpenAI, which permits the tech company to train its large language models on FT content. The details of the deal were not disclosed to FT journalists, and Faroohar “worr[ies] that we are about to see a repeat of what happened in the mid- to late-1990s, when media companies bought into Silicon Valley’s line that ‘information wants to be free’ and didn’t take a hard line on protecting the copyright and value of their content.”
Faroohar observes that “These days, there are two ways to be in news. You can be the 1,000-pound gorilla, like The New York Times, which has reached escape velocity with more than 10mn subscribers. Or, you can be a high-end premium subscription organisation, which is the FT model. I’ve always thought that the latter was the better proposition, and an easier one to defend. It survived the last round of digital ‘creative destruction’ over the past 20 years. How will it fare in the next? I honestly don’t know the answer to that question.”
“Triggered: Free Speech and the Brazen Hypocrisy of the Right”
Leighton Woodhouse
exposes the American right’s hypocrisy on free speech at
Social Studies
. He contrasts the right’s (commendable) defense of those protesting covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates with its subsequent calls to quash the current anti-war demonstrations: “But now that there’s a protest movement they disagree with, the right has adopted wholesale the authoritarian tactics they once claimed to deplore. After demonstrations broke out in multiple American cities against Israel’s war on Gaza, [Congressman Dan] Bishop pantomimed Trudeau’s demagoguery, asking whether ‘pro-Hamas protests’ constitute a ‘foreign malign influence operation.’ Elon Musk, who once tweeted that ‘Canadian truckers rule’ and has denounced restrictions on free speech in Canada, Brazil, and the U.S., now claims that the pro-Palestinian student movement is ‘openly antisemitic’ and boosts accounts that have called for its censorship. Donald Trump, who complained for years about online censorship of conservatives including himself, called for the banning of pro-Palestinian groups from college campuses.”
Woodhouse concludes: “Many Americans would be surprised to learn that, unlike in many Western European countries, in the United States, so-called ‘hate speech’ is also protected speech. Because of this failure to appreciate the First Amendment’s scope, it sounds more reasonable to suppress it. This is why the left portrays the articulation of every conservative view as an expression of bigotry while pleading for it to be censored. In the world before October 7, 2023, the right ridiculed the left for this transparent ploy. Now, they’re doing the exact same thing. The most astonishing part is that they seem to expect us not to notice.
For more on this topic, see my articles at Handful of Earth, “The ‘Free Speech’ Right Embraces Cancel Culture” and “In Defense of Woke Zoomers.”
“How Counterprotesters at U.C.L.A. Provoked Violence, Unchecked for Hours”
The New York Times chronicles how campus security and police allowed Zionist counterprotestors to violently attack the protest encampment at UCLA for nearly five hours: “The videos showed counterprotesters attacking students in the pro-Palestinian encampment for several hours, including beating them with sticks, using chemical sprays and launching fireworks as weapons. As of Friday, no arrests had been made in connection with the attack.”
The response was to punish the protestors rather than the counterprotestors: “The night after the [counterprotestors’] attack began, law enforcement warned pro-Palestinian demonstrators to leave the encampment or be arrested. By early Thursday morning, police had dismantled the encampment and arrested more than 200 people from the encampment.”
“Has the War Against Palestine Killed Jewish Comedy?”
At Counterpunch, Stephen F. Eisenman recounts the golden age of Jewish comedy in America followed by its steady decline. He writes that “The war against the Palestinians in Gaza has been the coup de grace for Jewish comedy. Not only are images of parents cradling dead children not funny, Israel’s response to global criticism has turned Jews everywhere into pariahs, but not like the itinerant schlemiels and schlimazels of traditional Jewish humor. By insisting the war is being fought not just on behalf of Israeli Jews, but the entire diaspora, Jews everywhere are made accessories to crime. When the Columbia University chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, renounced that claim, they were themselves condemned as anti-Semitic, and suspended from the university. There may be irony in an Egyptian-born, British-American university president, Minouche (Baroness) Shafik, suspending a Jewish peace organization on charges of anti-Semitism, but little comedy.”
“A Pagan and an Orthodox Christian Walk into a Podcast”
Rhyd Wildermuth
interviews
Paul Kingsnorth
on the Re/al/ign podcast at
From The Forests of Arduinna
. They discuss the definition and timeline of “the Machine,” the impulse behind transhumanism, the differences between the Western church and Eastern Orthodoxy, and the relationship between paganism and Christianity, among other topics. It’s well worth listening to in full.
“The Ambling Mind”
L. M. Sacasas
meditates on the “revolutionary” act of walking at
The Convivial Society
: “I’ve lately heard a great deal about how writing is a form of thinking. There is a stronger sense in which one could take that claim, but it at least means that the practice of writing, in its material and embodied dimensions, is conducive to and even sustains specific forms of thinking. In the same way, we might perhaps say that walking is a practice that is conducive to certain modes of thought. We can walk in order to think, just as some might write in order to think. My sense is that this has something to do with the pacing of our thoughts. Both writing and waking, each in their own way, seem to calibrate the tempo of our minds to the rhythm of thought.”
He concludes: “To walk, then, is to inhabit a fitting scale and speed. It is the scale and speed at which our bodies are able to find their fit in the world, and the world rewards us by spurring our thinking and disclosing itself to us. Perhaps this is the deeper fitness we should actually be after.”
My comment at the page.
Jeffrey Strahl, Lockdown Times, 1PM, 5/16/24, US Pacific Time.
The point of AI is to replace humans, period, in every facet of society.
And good one by Woodhouse about the pro-censorship turn by the "right." "Left" and "right" have for a long time been two wings of the same capitalist bird. One could say this has been the case since the first time social democrats took over a national government, in Germany on 11/9/1918, two days before the Armistice which ended the WWI fighting between the big powers. The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) went on to bloodily put down a mass nationwide insurrection by workers and rank and file military personnel, a process which went on for several years. Among the dead were former SPD parliament members Rosa Luxemburg and Kerl Liebknecht. This has set the pace, right to today's lockdown-enforcing social-democrat-run regimes.
"They discuss the definition and timeline of “the Machine,” the impulse behind transhumanism, the differences between the Western church and Eastern Orthodoxy, and the relationship between paganism and Christianity, among other topics. It’s well worth listening to in full. "
Sounds very interesting, thanks. Indeed thanks for every single item here. So glad to have come upon this Substack, which i've added to my list of recommendations.
And, a very short video provides stark evidence, there is something happening here on Planet Earth.
Climate Casino (Eliot Jacobson), 5/12/24. A minute and 20 seconds.
A short video illustrating the progression of global sea surface temperatures, 1854 - 2024. Best viewed full screen.
And, a followup to the last edition of Lockdown Times, the item about Eric Francis Coppolino about his presentation to the SUNY Purchase activists. He mentioned Jane McAlevey, who was instrumental in the campaign to pressure the SUNY System to divest from South Africa in 1985. She went on to become a union organizer, working especially with the UAW. She was interviewed recently by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, and revealed that she had terminal cancer and was in the hospice stage of her life. VERY sad. What a spirited person, great heart. It is with total respect that i still say i have fundamental problems with her notion that capitalism can be overcome via the system with some direct action pressure. And the UAW has made a series of choices over the years which have aligned it with the power structure on many basic matters, including the entire "Pandemic"/"COVID-19"/"SARS-Cov-2” disinformation narrative which has enable;mega-fraud, mass murder and global tyranny.
And, seems like pressure by pro-Israel billionaires facilitated the crackdown at Columbia U and other campuses.
Pro-Israel billionaires urged New York crackdown on Gaza protests: Report WhatsApp leaks reveal group of business leaders discussed ways to pressure officials to clear pro-Palestine protesters. Al Jazeera Staff, 5/16/24.
A handful of powerful businessmen pushed New York City Mayor Eric Adams to use police to crack down on pro-Palestinian student protesters at Columbia University, donating to the politician and offering to pay for private investigators to help break up the demonstrations, the Washington Post has reported, based on leaked WhatsApp conversations.
The story, published on Thursday, says that several billionaires seeking to influence public perception of Israel’s war in Gaza discussed means of pushing the mayor and the university’s president to end the protests, which were eventually cleared last month amid criticism of the police’s heavy-handed response.“One member of the WhatsApp chat group told The Post he donated $2,100, the maximum legal limit, to Adams that month,” the story reads.
“Some members also offered to pay for private investigators to assist New York police in handling the protests, the chat log shows — an offer a member of the group reported in the chat that Adams accepted.” The story states that city authorities denied that private investigators were used to help manage the protests. The report comes as universities across the country continue to employ force against pro-Palestine activism, raising concerns over the repression of political expression. A number of universities have successfully negotiated with student encampments, which have called for divestment from companies involved in Israel’s war in Gaza and boycotts of Israeli institutions.
The WhatsApp chat cited by the Washington Post included prominent businessmen such as former CEO of Starbucks Howard Schultz, Dell founder and CEO Michael Dell, hedge fund manager Bill Ackman [supporter of RFK Jr, last October called for repression of protests at Harvard, got strong support from Junior!] and Joshua Kushner, brother of former President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and adviser on Middle East issues, Jared Kushner.[Thus, supporters of all three presidential candidates!]
Other leaders, such as snack company founder Daniel Lubetzky, hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb, billionaire Len Blavatnik and real estate investor Joseph Sitt also said that they held a video meeting with Mayor Adams on April 26.
Sending in the police has done little to dampen the spirits of pro-Palestine protesters, and in some cases, has led to heightened support from faculty and fellow students. While supporters of the crackdowns say they are necessary to ensure the safety of Jewish students, some of whom say they have felt discomforted by anti-Israel rhetoric at the protests, pro-Palestine students – many of them Jewish – have faced the brunt of the violence at protests across the country, with few expressions of concern from authorities.
Earlier this week, a union representing about 48,000 graduate student workers in California, authorised a strike over the treatment of student protesters at universities such as the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), where a pro-Israel mob attacked a pro-Palestine encampment with metal pipes and mace while police stood by. Several pro-Palestine activists were hospitalised. The following day, police moved in to clear the pro-Palestine encampment.
And, Owen Jones has a very interesting interview.
w/. Prof. Lee Mordechai, Owen Jones, 5/15/24. 45 minutes.
"Prof. Lee Mordechai is a leading Israeli historian - and he went viral after he spoke out against what he describes as genocide:[Link] We have a lot to talk about - but history tells us how important figures like Prof. Mordechai are."
My comments, Mordechai discusses his on going project of documenting how what’s going on in Gaza constitutes genocide. Here is an article about it, as distasteful as that outlet is.
And, Jones has a solo video about the IDF targeting aid workers.
Owen Jones 5/16/24, 12 minutes.
"This should be the mother of all scandals."
My comments, Jones discusses how the ideas of Giora Elland, top adviser to Yoav Gallant, the commander of the IDF, are being translated in actions which amount to genocide. This article details what Elland has called for. (Dec 2023)
And, Riley Waggaman with further reporting via Russian media sources as to what’s going on with Alexander Shoigu, no longer to be Russia's “Defense” Minister, and how this reflects on much of the “alternative” media in the “collective West."
Maybe Shoigu was actually PROMOTED? Allow me to calmly explain why the answer to this question is 100% nope. Edward Slavsquat, 5/17/24.
Sergei Shoigu’s removal from the Defense Ministry, and his new appointment as Secretary of the Security Council, has put the Very Serious & Independent Alternative Freedom Media in a bit of an awkward spot. Let’s call it “5D Zugzwang.” You see, Shoigu’s resignation from the Defense Ministry has certain implications. And these implications must be ignored and/or denied at all costs. We must never speak of these implications or even allude to their existence. If we did these terrible things, Satan would win. Ergo, Shoigu was not relieved of his duties at the Defense Ministry. I mean, he was; technically. But he was also promoted. Yes. That is what some people are saying. Even though observable reality says the exact opposite of this.
I will demonstrate. Shoigu’s promotion: Explained. Before Shoigu was “promoted”, he was Minister of Defense and a Permanent Member of the Security Council. [Graphic] (We’ll return to the Security Council and its functions in a moment.)
According to the MoD’s website, Shoigu had no less than 46 distinct powers and responsibilities as minister of defense: [Screen shots] But here’s the Too Many Powers; Didn’t Read summary of Shoigu’s job as defense minister:
• He was responsible for one of the world’s largest and most powerful militaries
• He was entrusted with 5 trillion rubles ($54.8 billion)
• The giant military he was tasked with supervising was fighting the largest land war in Europe since WWII
• If you subscribe to the notion that Russia is embroiled in an existential war for its survival against the Collective West, then Shoigu arguably held the most consequential post in the Russian government.
Now let’s examine Shoigu’s “promotion” after he left the Defense Ministry:
• Secretary (not chairman; that’s Putin) of a council that he was already a member of.
• “curator” of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (FSMTC), which oversees military cooperation with foreign states.
But in order to fully appreciate this impressive “promotion”, we need to understand what the Security Council is. What is the Security Council of the Russian Federation? Here’s the official description of the Security Council, compliments of the Kremlin’s website:……
Political scientist Pavel Salin told the outlet:"The Security Council is still a “sleeping” structure; if a person has some status and clientele, then the structure flourishes. Shoigu does not have such a clientele without resources, and we see that the first blow was dealt to his command and, most likely, it won’t be the last [blow]. It may well be that the new minister will sort things out, and the heads of the deputies from Shoigu’s team will roll. That is, Shoigu [will be secretary of the Security Council] without a team and without resources, so for him this is definitely not a promotion, but rather even a significant demotion."
Finally, here’s a few words from the pro-military hardliners at Military Review, Russia’s most popular military news portal:
“{We have just witnessed} the arrest of a Deputy Minister of Defense {Timur Ivanov} and the resignation of the Minister {Sergei Shoigu}, who was transferred to the frankly puppet position of Secretary of the Security Council.
Actually, this body with vague powers (the Security Council of the Russian Federation is a constitutional state and advisory body under the President of the Russian Federation, which prepares presidential decisions on issues of ensuring the protection of the vital interests of the individual, society and the state from internal and external threats, and the implementation of a unified state policy for ensuring national security) has long become a kind of backwater for “insiders”, such as one former president and prime minister, who are entrusted with nothing."
Yeah, but … Simplicius told me …Actually, I want to zoom in on Military Review’s observation that the Security Council is basically a nursing home for “insiders” who have outlived their usefulness. Dmitry Medvedev is the obvious example not-so-subtly provided by Military Review. Most people in Russia who aren’t on the Kremlin’s payroll understand that Medvedev’s real job is “getting drunk and writing strange things on Twitter.”He’s basically a blogger. This is not a prestigious profession. Please just trust me on this one.
But I’ll give you another example to demonstrate the Very Big Prestige of the Security Council. There is a gentleman by the name of Yuri Kokov who, since 2018, has served as Deputy Secretary of the Security Council. Before receiving this prestigious post, he was governor of Kabardino-Balkaria. He was “promoted” to the Security Council after he asked Putin if he could have a job in Moscow. This information can be found on Kokov’s TASS bio:[Screen shot]…..
From October 2021: "Terrorist organizations are actively working on social networks to “discredit the actions of local authorities in the fight against the pandemic, creating a mood of confusion and uncertainty among the population,” Kokov noted.” Yes. Kokov compared people who opposed lockdowns, compulsory genetic injections, and “vaccine passports” to terrorists. This is why they pay Kokov and the six other Deputy Secretaries the big bucks. Patriots: 1; Terrorists: 0. National Security: Secured. Deputy-Secretary-Security-Advising: Complete.
As for Shoigu’s “curation” of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (FSMTC): It appears he will be working in an advisory capacity to make sure that Russia is able to pump out weapons for its own use in the Not-War, while also fulfilling weapons contracts and agreements with foreign states. As Putin explained during a meeting with commanders of Russia’s military districts:
"I think that {Shoigu}, like no one else, understands the need to ensure our obligations to partners in the field of supplying weapons and military equipment to the foreign market, taking into account the fact that first of all we must meet the needs of our Armed Forces. This combination is very subtle, important. Sergei Kuzhugetovich [Shoigu], together with the Ministry of Defense, with the leadership of the Ministry of Defense, together with the Chief of the General Staff, will also be involved in this work."
But the Kremlin stressed that Shoigu is not the head of the FSMTC:[Screen shot] Shoigu is basically being kept on as a consultant with zero real power:"“Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Sergei Shoigu will specifically oversee the work of the FSMTC. There is no talk that he will be the immediate head of this service,” {Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry} Peskov said, answering a question about Shoigu’s powers in his new position."
(I’m genuinely impressed by Peskov’s ability to completely humiliate the people he’s supposed to be defending with walls of Spokesman Lingo word salad. You might even call his special talent a superpower.) (To be perfectly honest, I don’t much care for this Peskov fellow.)[Screen shot] (But we’re getting off-track. Back to Shoigu’s promotion.)
The detention of Shoigu Creature Timur Ivanov was followed by the arrest of the head of the personnel department of the Ministry of Defense, Lieutenant General Yuri Kuznetsov. There are reports that several other former Shoigu deputies have resigned or are in the process of doing so. To be fair to Shoigu’s former underlings, it’s not uncommon for a new minister to clean house and bring in his own team. So I’m not going to equate resignation as explicit proof of wrongdoing.
But the arrests are an entirely different matter and reflect very poorly on Shoigu. (Sorry, that’s just a fact!) Russian media outlets are already predicting that more detentions and resignations are coming, with the possibility of Shoigu being dragged into future legal proceedings.[Screen shot] All of this is coincidence, though. The arrests were orchestrated by the CIA in a desperate, satanic attempt to undermine Shoigu’s promotion. It is really sick, how low Washington will sink to discredit one of Russia’s most popular patriots, and arguably the most accomplished military leader since Alexander the Great.
Guys …. Can we have a little talk? Sit down. Make yourself comfortable. So …[Caps are the author’s]
WHY IS IT THAT “PRO-RUSSIA” MEDIA AIMED AT WESTERNERS IS 100% INCAPABLE OF CONVEYING WHAT “PRO-RUSSIA” MEDIA INSIDE RUSSIA IS SAYING ABOUT RUSSIA? WHY IS THIS? I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE DISCONNECT HERE. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY “ALTERNATIVE WESTERN MEDIA” IS SPOON-FEEDING YOU A MAKE-BELIEVE PINK PONY ALTERNATE REALITY ABOUT RUSSIA.
WHEN IS THE INCREDULOUS, INDEPENDENT, FEARLESS, TRUTH-LOVING, QUESTIONING-MORE ALTERNATIVE WESTERN MEDIA GOING TO START REPORTING ON WHAT RUSSIANS INSIDE RUSSIA ARE SAYING ABOUT RUSSIA? WHEN? WHEN? TELL ME WHEN OR I’M SENDING THE COWS AFTER YOU.[Photo]
THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
In conclusion: Shoigu, who was already a member of the Security Council, is now the secretary of this advisory board of deranged dunces; and instead of having a budget of 5 trillion rubles, he has been entrusted with zero kopecks; and instead of having 46+ powers he is now almost completely powerless. And all of his former deputies are being arrested or forced to resign.
And I’m sorry for yelling and threatening you with my cows. That was uncalled for. I apologize.. Have a nice Friday.
My comment at the page.
Jeffrey Strahl
Lockdown Times, 11:30AM, 5/17/24, US Pacific Time.
just now
Oh no, anything but cows, please! :-)
The Pro-Russia Westerners-aimed media exist to disseminate disinformation. Why would they *want* their consumers to know what Russian media are saying? Next you'll tell me they want to get out the facts. LOL.
Thanks, Riley!
Ending this segment and this edition, Berkeley is being turned into a small version of midtown Manhattan.
Planned 26-story student housing tower meets environmental goals, report says. A Chicago-based student housing developer plans to build an all-electric, mixed-use tower in downtown Berkeley. Supriya Yelimeli, 5/15/24.
Berkeley has released a draft environmental review for one of its tallest planned apartment towers, Hub Berkeley, a 26-story building set to rise at 2128 Oxford St. in downtown Berkeley. The mixed-use plan includes 463 housing units with 40 affordable housing units, 15,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, including a rooftop restaurant, 36 ground-floor parking spaces [36 spaces for 463 units? Seriously?]and a room with 264 bicycle parking spaces. The building will be all-electric, according to the environmental document.
Chicago-based Core Spaces, the student housing developer behind the project, plans to demolish two existing buildings at 2128 Oxford St. and 2132-2154 Center St. prior to construction. Numerous businesses that used to be on the corner block set for demolition, including Cinnaholic, Top Dog and Starbucks, closed down or shifted operations to other locations over the last year….
The 285-foot apartment tower is moving forward in an expedited process under a 2019 state law that shortens a building’s permitting journey if it complies with affordability requirements. The 40 affordable housing units in the draft plan are broken down into 34 units for very low income residents and 6 units for extremely low income residents. In Alameda County, very low income is considered $77,850 for a family of four, and extremely low income is $46,700. Core Spaces will also pay $11 million toward Berkeley’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund in lieu of hitting Berkeley’s 20% affordable housing requirement.
The building is one of several large housing projects planned for downtown Berkeley over the next few years, along with a 28-story project planned for 2071 University Avenue (over a current McDonald’s) and a 25-story high-rise at 2190 Shattuck Ave., which became the first of the three to receive Zoning Board approval last year.