by Gilbert Doctorow

Response: to a pre-emptive strategic nuclear attack by Russia against the continental United States.

Once my TV interviews are posted by the hosts on their websites and Twitter accounts, I often take a look at viewers' comments to better understand the audience and their mood. After my first appearance on one of India's most broadcast English-language news channels with global reach, I was amused to see the following remark:Hey, the old gentleman doesn't say what was expected of him!". Further down the comments column, it read that the viewer was delighted to see an unusual point of view presented on the channel. Maybe the general management also reads the comments, since since then I have been invited back several times to their various programs.

Unfortunately, not all "old gentlemen" always say what is not expected of them. This is the case, for example, of the very harsh and reckless position expressed by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) during their press conference a few days ago, when explained the resolution they introduced in the Upper House on a bipartisan basis.

I say their stance was expected of them because as longtime stalwarts of the neocon majority in Congress, they champion a foreign policy that is “as American as apple pie.” That is to say, it is based entirely and exclusively on domestic political considerations… They say in the resolution that they want the warning to reach the ears of Putin and his military generals, but they focus on reality on the rallying of their peers on Capitol Hill in favor of additional military aid to Ukraine, which means additional billions for the military-industrial complex that builds or replaces this equipment.

Their message will of course be conveyed to Putin. Indeed, it is already the topic of the day on Russian state television and social media. But good senators are completely wrong about the Russian reaction, and they are completely wrong because they do not listen to Russian opinions and military doctrine which have been revised and clarified over the past year as the evolution of war. They also fail to understand the power of Russian military forces, both conventional and nuclear, the strength of the Russian economy, and the relevance of the fact that Russia is aligned with more than half of the world's population and that its producers enjoy a greater share of global GDP than the United States and its G7 allies do today.

Unfortunately, virtual reality, which is the space Blumenthal and Graham apparently reside in, isn't just a marketing gimmick from Zuckerberg and his peers in the entertainment industry. Virtual reality is the only reality known to the American political establishment. External and objective reality simply does not exist for these people. Especially since we live in a post-truth world inaugurated by Donald Trump.

I am particularly interested in "old" Richard Blumenthal, because he was a classmate of mine at Harvard in 1967, one of four classmates who rose in their respective professional fields to the government or news media and who for several decades have done their best to drag the United States into a kinetic war with Russia.

I'll come back to my gang of four classmates later, but now let's look at the current resolution in the Senate.

The resolution outlines how the United States should respond to Russia's possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian theater of war, as well as another nuclear scenario. Of course, the likelihood of the Russians using tactical nukes in Ukraine is nil, given that they are currently doing quite well in repelling the Ukrainian counter-offensive with conventional weapons and enjoying a 10:1 mortality while destroying the last Western tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery units almost as quickly as they are delivered to Ukraine by NATO countries. The authors of the resolution certainly know this. Talking about tactical nuclear weapons is just a cover for the real purpose of the resolution: to make a Russian attack on the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant a casus belli.

The execution of either of these dastardly acts by the Russians would spread nuclear clouds into neighboring NATO countries and beyond. According to the terms of the resolution, they could thus trigger the famous Article 5 of the Treaty of the North Atlantic Alliance.

The problem with this last red line is that an attack on the nuclear power plant is currently planned and could be implemented in the next few days by the Kiev regime under the "false flag" scenario that the United States and its vassals have honed over the years in operations ranging from alleged chemical attacks on civilian populations blamed on Bashar al Assad in Syria, to the crashing of MH-17 over Ukraine and the staging of the massacre of Bucha in Ukraine, allegedly perpetrated by Russia. Given that Graham was in Kiev to collaborate with Zelensky and his circle of war criminals a few weeks ago, there is good reason to assume that he was one of the co-authors of the plan to attack the nuclear power plant. .

Russian social media and even state television today are talking about a Ukrainian attack on the power plant anytime from tonight, July 5, until July 9. This deadline would allow ample time to draft and submit for prior approval by NATO members their collective response to the alleged Russian crime, for a formal vote at the July 12 meeting.

Russian social media tells us that the Ukrainians will use one or more Soviet Tochka-V missiles to hit the power plant. We saw them at work at the very beginning of the war in Ukraine, when Kiev forces hit downtown Donetsk with such missiles. It is doubtful that a normally configured Tochka missile would have the power to seriously damage reactors. But it is assumed that the missiles will be equipped with warheads containing radioactive spent fuel, a large amount of which is available in Ukraine. In this case, a missile hitting the reinforced concrete shell covering the reactors would release, during the explosion, radioactive dust that could be used in a false flag operation against Russia.

Blumenthal and Graham's press conference was rich in material incriminating them both as warmongers. Here is a brief sample of the report printed by C-Span:

“I commend President Biden for bringing to the table the threat of Putin using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, and our message is to those around Putin: if you do this, if you follow his order, if he ever gives it, you can expect a massive response from NATO and you will be at war with NATO.

I let everyone in this House and in Congress know that the threat of Russia using a nuclear device is real and the best way to deter it is to give it clarity…if they do , they will go to war with NATO.

It's based on facts and science and it's meant to send a message to Vladimir Putin and even more directly to his military: they will be destroyed, they will be eviscerated if they use tactical nukes or if they destroy a nuclear power plant in a way that threatens surrounding NATO nations.

If you think Putin is going to stop in Ukraine, you don't listen to what he says. This is the moment in the history of the world to arrest one of the most aggressive and brutal people on the planet, and to send a signal to China”.

The utter indifference of these senators to the situation on the ground in Ukraine, let alone the real personality and public statements of Vladimir Putin, speaks for itself. Their understanding of the Russian leader is on the level of juvenile caricature or, to put it in terms familiar to Americans, on the level of one of the last White House dunces, George W. Bush, who once sought to punish Vladimir Vladimirovitch by depriving him of a hot-dog party for the 4th of July on the lawn of the White House. Today, the stakes for this type of kindergarten strategy have risen to the point of declaring war on Russia for any crimes our vassal Kiev may commit.

READ MORE: https://en.reseauinternational.net/ou-peut-nous-mener-la-resolution-lindsey-graham-richard-blumenthal-du-senat-americain-sur-les-menaces-nucleaires-russes/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..............

On the day Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta launched Threads, a text-based companion to Instagram, a Silicon Valley law firm representing Elon Musk sent them a cease-and-desist letter, accusing the app of “systematic, willful and unlawful misappropriation” of Twitter’s intellectual property, trade secrets and data.

The letter from Quinn Emanuel attorney Alex Spiro, dated July 5 and published on Thursday by the outlet Semafor, is addressed to Zuckerberg and Meta’s chief legal officer, Jennifer Newstead.

Spiro claims that Meta has hired “dozens of former Twitter employees” over the past year, with access to the company’s trade secrets “and other highly confidential information,” which they used to develop Threads as a “copycat” app.

“Twitter intends to strictly enforce its intellectual property rights, and demands that Meta take immediate steps to stop using any Twitter trade secrets or other highly confidential information,” Spiro wrote.

Musk himself commented on news reports about the letter by tweeting, “Competition is fine, cheating is not.”

Meta spokesman Andy Stone dismissed Twitter’s accusations. “No one on the Threads engineering team is a former Twitter employee – that’s just not a thing,”he told Semafor.

Zuckerberg launched the Twitter-lookalike app on Wednesday, offering users the ability to port their entire network from Instagram, another Meta-owned platform. More than 30 million users have signed up so far, he said on Thursday. The app’s rollout in the EU has been delayed due to privacy concerns.

At the end of June, Musk imposed limits on how much data can be read on Twitter, saying the temporary measure was designed to combat “data scraping and system manipulation.” He also turned off the ability to read Twitter without an account.

Federal regulators had previously scrutinized Meta for its habit of buying rivals or creating copycat products to run them out of business. The company, which began as Facebook, bought Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. Since then, it has rolled out Instagram Stories to compete with Snapchat, and Facebook Reels as a rival to TikTok.

READ MORE: https://www.rt.com/news/579308-musk-zuckerberg-threads-lawsuit/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...............................

Musk believes ‘ESG is the devil’ and he’s not the only one

The environmental, social, and governance (ESG) agenda once had the staunch backing of billionaires, but now corporations are backtracking

In a June 10 Tweet, Elon Musk, the embodiment of the electric vehicle (EV) revolution, declared that “ESG is the devil.”

ESG stands for the “environmental, social and governance” principles which dictate that certain aspects of a company’s work must be taken into account when deciding whether to invest in it. An investment-worthy company must have a good score on things like climate change, sustainability, energy efficiency, diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as corruption and bribery prevention, among others.

Musk’s outburst was sparked by the shockingly low ESG scores assigned to Tesla by S&P Global, a ratings and market intelligence heavyweight. Tesla earned 37 points (out of a possible 100, where anything above 70 is considered “good” and anything below 50 is deemed “poor”) on its ESG scorecard while Philip Morris, the global tobacco giant, received a commendable score of 84. Similarly, as the Washington Free Beacon discovered, the London Stock Exchange gave British American Tobacco a score of 94.

Perhaps, lighting up 20.3 billion tobacco products daily worldwide does wonders for the environment and sustainability.

The ESG turnabout wasn’t entirely unexpected. I had even published a recent analysis on how the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its factotums would ultimately take the fall for our crumbling liberal-globalist order. Musk is just one among a growing number of stalwarts to turn their backs on the global ESG train wreck. Insurance behemoth Lloyd’s of London recently announced that it was exiting from the net-zero alliance for insurers, and it was the sixth such organisation to do so within a week. There are good reasons for this shift. For starters, hundreds of ESG managers were stung by the recent collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, that had prioritized woke agendas over the security of its depositors.

The ESG agenda effectively forces firms to sacrifice business logic in favor of liberal lunacies marked by gender dysphoria, pseudo-diversity and climate militancy. As banks promoting this mania get bankrupted, one wonders how ESG initiatives are going to be funded down the line. Investment behemoths like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street (aka Big Capital) are leading the global ESG rollback. The trio manage assets worth $22 trillion worldwide, amounting to a quarter of the global GDP, and they can no longer pander to socialist pies-in-the-sky. Big Capital thrives on trillion-dollar profits, not trillions of social media soundbites and hissy-fits.

Punitive threats, like the following prediction from KPMG, will not faze Big Capital: “By 2030, poor performers [will] have been weeded out and consistent non-compliance will be met with severe consequences including penalties, public naming, a prohibition to operate and even imprisonment. The C-Suite and Directors will now be personally liable for ESG breaches.”

Does anyone really believe that the Big Four (Deloitte, Ernst & Young (EY), KPMG and PwC, the world’s largest accounting networks) will agitate for punitive actions against their sacred cows? Big Capital virtually owns them. Even the British government plans to drop its flagship £11.6 billion climate pledge, prompting an infuriated Guardian to accuse Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of “betraying populations most vulnerable to global heating”.

Incidentally, KPMG had provided Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank (another failed entity) with a clean bill of health just weeks before their collapse. Neither the professorial definition of The Science nor the science of accounting added up in these cases. These champions of sustainability are also unable to sustain themselves as they have begun firing thousands of employees.

Here are five big reasons why the ESG agenda is doomed.

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/news/579403-corporations-esg-goals-backtrack/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...............................