artnew

The US president is essential for the US democracy to function. One of the main functions of the US president is to maintain overall balance in US internal and foreign policy. The congress was originally intended to curtail the US military from becoming excessively influential in US politics. Now days, this responsibility falls to the US president. The congress is essentially subject to excessive pressure from various lobby groups, in particular the weapons manufacurers. This results in US politicians choosing "hawkish" rhetoric which they perceive as favourable in pursuit of campaign funding from weapons manufacturers. Congressmen (members of the upper house of the US government) therefore do not constrain the president from engaging in small military conflicts. The creation of a private army in the US that could be deployed by the president was another situation that the US founders wished to prevent. Unfortunately, a private army of a kind, now reports to the president, and is used to covertly topple foreign politicians. In the last 8 years, this private army, known as the CIA has gained more influence, and it is being turned towards toppling internal US politicians. So far by control of the "fourth estate" i.e. the US news media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate Biden represents a politician that is capable of uniting factions within one political party. He was not chosen for intellect, or competence. In other words, Biden was not chosen based on merit. But he was supported by around half of the US population. The end result of the US choosing a president that is incapable of running the country, is that this president, is incapable of controlling his political colleagues, and the CIA. Now Biden has always been a Hawkish politician. However, the president usually has more ability to resist the extremes of political pressure, and create a more balanced US policy with respect to war. Because there is this lack of control, unelected officials gain political power in the US. This results in disjointed US policy, and policy that is not beneficial to Americans. Trump is universally disliked in a large part for one reason. He is not as reliant on lobbyist funding, and is therefore less controllable. But it is also one reason why he was the only president since about 1967 who did not involve the US in any new wars. Perhaps it is this unpredictability that the Russian government is concerned with, because it is unsettling to have a US president that is unpredictable and in charge of a vast array of nuclear weapons. Then again, Biden must also be concerning because effectively Biden has abdicated through incapacity his presidential role as leader of the US. Leaving US foreign policy in the hands of US political factions within the democrat party. This policy being decided, and changed unpredictably and almost without public accountability. Never the less, this is not a completely new situation for US citizens. It is a continuation of the gradual decline in the US democratic institutions. These institutions do need maintenance, and corrective actions to be taken - by a real person supported by well informed voters.

like and subscribe to https://rumble.com/c/russellbrand

Compilation Video

Its interesting to consider that countries such as France and Australia are like China and Russia censoring the content that can be received by its citizens. Incomplete list of censorship as of 1 Jun 2024:- France is censoring Russian broadcasting. Rumble objected, and so France is censoring Rumble. Australia is censoring specific content on Meta and X. Russia is censoring Rumble, DW, and BBC. EU is censoring Russian newspapers and their TV broadcasting, and is considering censoring Telegram and X.

Compilation Video In the following reports on Georgia, don't expect one party to be completely correct, and the other completely incorrect. Both have valid concerns. FirstPost Report on protests in Georgia Pascal Lottaz Detailed commentary on Georgia Pascal Lottaz interview with a history researcher. In the last topic, the new historical database will be used to facilitate "Humanitary Intervention" in overseas foreign countries (although not specifically stated in the video , by using AI). It is interesting to note that the researcher, an American, has parents from Kosovo, and wishes that "successful" "humanitarian" overseas interventions in the affairs of foreign countries occur more often. The interviewer however, was interested in promoting neutrality and the prevention of armed conflict. AI can be used for (a) neutrality and protecting countries from being involved in war, or (b) "humanitarian intervention" to achieve political goals in foreign countries by use of military force, through creating internal civil conflict and external military conflict. While arguably humanitarian intervention is at times an attractive solution. There is a danger that there becomes one government that is dominant. This combined with the very plausible (and over 80% likelyhood) that such a government is corrupt, leads me to prefer independence of nations, and the tolerance of corrupt governments. Because this prevents the possibility of the whole world being ruled by a corrupt government. The idea of global government, has no intrinsic basis, that good will dominate. Evil is just as likely to dominate. Therefore local, and regional governance is much to be preferred than global governance. Not because global governance is any better or worse than a regional government, just that statistically global governance is more likely to cause more harm to more people than local governance. Its as the saying says don't put all your eggs into one global basket.

Excerpt from "Military Summary Channel" https://www.youtube.com/@militarysummary Many liberal socialists believe that Russia is evil, and acting in a manner it should not, and that Russia is unjustifiably concerned. While this might be true, it doesn't change the fact that Russia is concerned. It doesn't really matter if Russia is wrong in its assessment in that, it doesn't change the fact that millions of people can die for lack of diplomatic dialogue. Assuming that minimising the security of Russia by military defeat maximises the security of the EU, is likely false. The end of the cold war, and the dissolution of the communist block countries was based on reciprocal agreements that improved the security of both the EU and the Soviet Union. People from both sides of the Left and Right; Those who consider Russia's actions reasonable, and those who consider them unreasonable:- should understand that its only necessary for a nuclear power to be threatened, for it to re-evaluate whether it is better to have nuclear war, or to disintegrate into smaller countries. Again it doesn't matter whether the possibility of disintegration as recommended by the prime minister of Estonia is realistic or not, it only matters that a nuclear power considers it realistic. Does anyone think that China for example could win a military war against the US, without starting nuclear war? But some in Europe propose that a small scale exchange of nuclear weapons in Ukraine is advantageous to 'liberal' democracy. Both sides should sit down and talk. Was Russia's proposal that Ukraine remain neutral and not have nuclear capable US missile bases, so unreasonable? Was the Cuban missile crisis, simply an unreasonable reaction by the US? Why then do the EU and US say that Russia's reaction is unreasonable? Who has the right to judge such matters? Therefore they must be negotiated. In the nuclear age, there are no second chances.

Jack Matlock (94 years old, former American ambassador to the Soviet Union) Interviewed by TheDuran, and by Pascal Lottaz. Eli from Russia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfMtr9wD7Jw Prof Dan Bednarz interviewed on Neutrality Studies channel with Pascal Lottaz. Dr Heinz Gärtner comments on the value of Neutrality of smaller countries and as mentioned by Jack Matlock, the attractiveness of various ideologies, such as communism, democracy, multipolarity, economic prosperity through the belt and road project and trade co-operation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ1IWRX8FmI Perhaps the most interesting comment is on the attractiveness of ideology. Communism, or democracy etc. Russia currently is promoting a multipolar world. Dr Heinz Gärtner omits this as an ideology that Russia is promoting. However it does seem to be the primary ideology/policy that Russia is trying to make attractive in the form of BRICS. Which while not advertised as an alliance, it is likely (and probably undesireably) to become one, if it is placed under political pressure by opponent countries. The US unfortunately by deciding to take its role as a policeman and a judge combined, abdicates its role as being a partner among equals. To whom can one plead to for justice, if justice is administered solely by the US? [This may have been one of the great advantages of the UN security resolution - there was no one country that could make all its members agree upon resolutions.] But there are also various scenarios where a multi-polar system becomes not distinguishable from a misused unipolar system both in defacto operation, and in ideological unattractiveness. What for example is to instill confidence in small countries that China or a BRICS committee will not merely act as the US has done when it becomes sufficiently powerful? The transition to a reshuffled power structure is likely to be difficult. It is particularly difficult for a small country. In a shift from a US alliance member to a non-aligned status there will likely be political pressure not to do so. Neutrality may be a good option, but one has to have sufficient strength to make an externally promoted military or economic coup d'etat inconvenient for greater power countries. Either that or as Dr Heinz says, a small country has to show utility to great powers as an independent mediator between bi-polar or multi-polar powers. But still, a multi-polar world is attractive to countries, provided that they are treated with respect by the more powerful members. It is my great fear that both Russia and the EU will re-militarise, or that Western and Eastern countries will try and form power blocks, and choose hawkish leaders that make life unpleasant for everyone. A plan needs to be formed towards de-escalation. Dominance does not lead to an effortless peace, if it is achieved only by the sword. A sword creates a weak peace based on an iron rule, and fear. Even if there is not a spectacular plan for diplomacy, a plan spectacular or otherwise needs to be followed through. Perhaps Russia and China could begin (as they I think have already suggested) by setting up their own international version of the olympics, that is unpoliticized, as the olympics once used to be. The cold war arms reduction programs began small, by creating agreements that incrementally increased mutually the security of the US and Russia. So in this new and more complex international power structure, de-escalation should be pursued by every means possible, including considering agreements that are advantageous to opponents by way of improving their security, in exchange for obtaining some benefit for oneself and reducing the potential for military conflict.

Senate Hearing Video Chris Pavlovski. Russia recenty banned Russian users from viewing Rumble. Here Chris mentions other countries, that have requested politically based censorship i.e. China, France, Brazil, Australia and New Zealand. China ... well communists are not exactly renowned for being bastions of individual freedom. France ... in a propaganda war with Russia. Brazil ... politics Australia ... ?? New Zealand ... someone published some efficacy results for the Pfizer Covid vaccine. I think everyone knows by now that mRNA vaccines used only reduced transmission rates. And as former Professor Kulldorff said, no scientist ever thought these vaccines could prevent the transmission of covid, because one would have to protect the mucosal membrane. Not only so, but given the requirement for continual booster vaccines, the effectiveness of the vaccine reducing the transmission rate was evidently of short duration.

Abridged video of Russel Brand

Thursday 18 April 2024 2:33pm House of Commons recording https://parliamentlive.tv/

Abridged video of Freddie Sayer's (CEO and executive editor of "Unherd"). "Unherd" appears to be founded based on the belief in public discussion, and listening to the unheard as a means to ensure a functional society. The original video:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dmzmJMb0fw which in turn is based on his detailed report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILEMV0xKGh4

Public Health Management In hindsight, paying attention to providing protection for the elderly from covid, and letting younger people continue to go to work, would have been a reasonable public health decision (as discussed in the video, this option was taken in Sweden by Anders Tegnell). It would have: reduced the number of cancer patients who died due to delay in screening and treatment, reduced mental health and addiction harms due to social isolation, allowed people to retain employment and therefore maintain upkeep of loan repayments and so (at least in New Zealand) to retain possession of their homes. Even if the proposals from some scientists (and there were many scientists who agreed with this proposal ... https://gbdeclaration.org/) were a poor method for protecting public health, one still has to ask: - why were experienced medical professionals silenced in a time of uncertainty? - why advice which was desperately needed, was not even allowed to exist in the public square. The answer seems clear. Although the government rightly wanted to control the pandemic health strategy, most governments also used emergency powers to prevent and silence public criticism. This video is an abridged video by 'Unherd'.

Compilation of reports about Ukraine, Georgia and Uganda. While the international 'liberal democratic' political movement wants to save countries, many countries are not so sure that they need to be saved. Georgia is a good first example of Anthony Blinken's publicly stated desire for the general population to rise up against their government, if it is unsuitable. The situation is complicated by the battle over the "sphere of influence" that the US, the EU and Russia desire to achieve in Georgia. Neutrality for Georgia, is perhaps its only guarantee of peace. If Georgia proves that it is too weak to prevent excessive external influence on their government, it sends a signal to foreign agents to become more involved. No country is an island (metaphorically), but some have more barriers to being over-run than others. Unfortunately some simple messages are kind of like lottery tickets, they promise people hope, but generally contribute to their poverty. In reality, Georgia will have to tread a fine line, between two powerful neighbours, if it wants to retain peace.

Excerpt from The Duran, discussing Cofer Black who was a former chief of counter terrorism CIA and subsequently was on the board of the Latvian "Baltic International bank" and also on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings together with Hunter Biden. Full video: https://rumble.com/v4ps0v8-off-ramp-or-wider-war-w-larry-johnson-live.html Cofer Black joined Burisma in 2017. Not clear to me when or if he ceased being a board member. Hunter Biden was a board member at Burisma at the same time as Cofer Black. He joined in 2014 and ceased in 2019. Cofer Black joined Baltic International Bank in Nov 2016. Hunter Biden was on the board from 2014 to 2019 - when his laptop data was leaked. Hunter Biden and Cofer Black were both on the board of Burisma holdings from 2017 to 2019. The Baltic International Bank was closed for money laundering in December 2022 (During the first year of the Ukraine war). Its unclear what Larry Johnson meant by the Baltic International Bank being "sanctioned" in 2018. Latvian banks are pretty corrupt banks. Baltic International Bank, I suppose was regularly fined for corruption before and during the time Cofer Black was there. e.g. 2013 Latvian govt fines Baltic International Bank. http://lawandorderinrussia.org/2013/latvian-regulator-imposes-largest-possible-fine-on-a-latvian-bank-involved-in-money-laundering-connected-to-the-magnitsky-case/ Report on closure of the bank in 2022: https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/17199-latvia-shutters-baltic-international-bank-for-not-preventing-money-laundering Yes its interesting that an ex-CIA cheif and Hunter Biden (the son of the US vice-president), were employed by a Ukraine gas company.

Abridged interview with Marjorie Taylor green. The full interview can be found at https://tuckercarlson.com/

Pascal Lottaz interviews Ulrike Guérot who was dismissed without notice, and is without pay for 15 months. It appears coincidental that this occurred 10 days after her personal (not representing the university) publication of a book on Europe's place in the world and the Ukraine war. Full video located here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_996rOx2zxo

Ireland's referendum on the 8th of March 2024 concerning family and marriage.

Victoria Nuland's involvement in supporting the 2013 political swing towards the European Union. The interim governments decision to remove Russian as an official language causes a wider rift in the ethnic differences between the east and the west of Ukraine. The Risk of Nuclear War

- Victoria Nuland's phone recording in 2014 - JFK Juniours comments on the causes of the Ukraine war - General Harald Kujat's comments on the failed Peace Treaty negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in March 2022 - Russel Brand's comments on EU troops and Nuclear war

I recommend seeing the original if you have time. This abridged version concentrates on Ukraine, but the original concerns Germany's place in the current scheme of international politics. It does seem that the retired general supports Germany militarising. But at the same time, he advocates a negotiated solution to the war in Ukraine, rather than risk a Europe wide war, that could result in a limited exchange of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The original video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U21-RrB8E6Q Acknowledgment - Pascal Lottaz, neutrality studies. And https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=111161

Interview of Emeritus Prof. Richard Sakwa at University of Kent. https://www.kent.ac.uk/politics-international-relations/people/2273/sakwa-richard Full interview with Alexander Mercouris and Glenn Diesen can be found here https://rumble.com/v4imp3c-the-lost-peace-richard-sakwa-alexander-mercouris-and-glenn-diesen.html

Pascal Lottaz, discusses the limitation of knowledge, and certainty. https://neutralitystudies.com/ There is always a possibility that an analyst gets things wrong. Statistically, its highly likely given sufficient quantity of decisions that a small number of them will classify the correct answer, as a false answer. And the false answer as the correct one. i.e. A false positive, or a false negative. Asking anyone (even a trained academic) to provide the correct answer 100% of the time, is unreasonable, and irrational. Also in information warfare, publishing information that causes misclassification is the objective. The obvious danger to the academic is one of their misclassifications is used as a basis by political opponents to terminate their employment. For this reason academics, like lawyers, are very reluctant to make statements unless they can be proved irrefutably. This often leads to weak statements, and slowness in building the structure, of a comprehensive analysis. Slow case building, but necessary. There are also a lot of religious philosophies, about the truth being unknowable, or being something that is created autonomously by the individual. Both theories I reject. Pascal correctly points out that if you have sufficient quantity of facts that have independent high probabity of being correct, all corroborating a theory, then the probability of error is reduced, and the likely hood of the theory being correct is high. e.g. If I can explain 10 reasons why Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, probably it can be verified that it occurred. Objective truth is disputed nowdays by some theoreticians. But in reality, do I care if some theoretician disputes the existence of the light bulb being on in the kitchen? No, I base my assessment on reality that I can see the lightbulb shining. - These theoretical arguments are simply impractical. If I want to check whether the US lies about overthrowing governments, I just read the history books. Or the public newspaper statements about Iraq, or Lybia or the invasion of Syria. etc. Yes its possible to make a mistake, but even with errors, there are checks one can make. Does the conclusion of assessment withstand new information. Therefore if new information is continually analysed, there will always be the possibility of changing a false classification, into the correct category. This review of a fact, should never end until the probability of misclassification is acceptablely low. Does that make you correct? If you follow this procedure? No, it doesn't. But it does ensure that one is very very likely to be correct.

A video by Glenn Diesen and Alexander Mercouris that argues that the primary cause for the Ukraine war is the rise of the economies such as China, India and Russia. Russia is proposing a Westphalia type "world order", that is very similar to the basis on which the UN was founded immediately after the second world war. Westphalian system that was formed in 1648 has: - the idea of national sovereignty, - the idea that small nations have "equality" with powerful nations, - and that external interference in national politics is a breach of international law. The approach supported by UK, the EU, Canada and the US is the "sovereign inequality" approach. The term used is based on the idea that there is an ethical need for certain countries to have more power than others to bring stability and order to international relations. Evidently some countries have always been (and will always be) not equal with their peers, even if the direction the international order takes is the Westphalian one. Irrespective of predictions, the ranking of national power is currently under dispute. India for example appears to have increased its economic wealth/power by 50% over the last 10 years. The change in relative power of individual countries is a contributor towards predisposing countries to engaging in wars of various kinds, (e.g. military, economic, technological and cultural) as they vie for improved strategic positions. Glenn Diesen suggests that the Westphalian system (if the world takes this direction) proposed by Russia and China may result in less conflict, than the current situation where political and military strength is being tested. Glenn Diesen's book is available at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Ukraine-War-Eurasian-World-Order/dp/1949762955 Full, unabridged video (1 hour 20 min) of discussion: https://rumble.com/v4h39vw-the-ukraine-war-and-the-eurasian-world-order-alexander-mercouris-and-glenn-.html see also Pascal Lottaz's interview https://youtu.be/dr5fAFlYBqE?t=56

Critical comment by Max Blumenthal of the ethically dubious use of an app "The State and Me" developed by the US government in conjunction with Ukraine. "The State and Me App" is used as a portal for the public to interact with government institutions. In this video, Max Blumenthol considers the potential of the app for social control by the state, and the role of misallocation of US government military funding in causing poverty in the US. Unfortunately, Max seems to overstep the mark of publishing and notifying the public, to additionally seeking reputational damage. Reputational damage maybe an indirect result of publications, but should not be the aim of a reporter. The aim of a reporter is to identify the truth, and to publish it. Max's work, which is never the less important, can be found at "The grey zone". Note: Comments on the use of "The State and Me" app in the covid vaccination payments, and I suppose a reference to its use as a vaccine passport was omitted. The app can be used: as an alternative to a plastic Ukrainian ID card, as evidence of residency in Ukraine, and it can be used to enter or exit Ukraine from a foreign country. See link below. Unfortunately, the wayback machine doesn't seem to store this site. https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/news/mihajlo-fedorov-ukrayina-persha-derzhava-svitu-v-yakij-cifrovi-pasporti-u-smartfoni-stali-povnimi-yuridichnimi-analogami-zvichajnih-dokumentiv Excerpt:- Ukrainians can already use digital passports in most life situations. They are accepted by CASPs for the provision of public services, government agencies and courts. Digital passports can be used to receive deliveries in the post office, to confirm age in supermarkets, in banks - to confirm identity and cash transactions, as well as to open a bank account online. With digital passports, you can also travel to Ukraine by plane and train, check into a hotel and more. Digital documents in the smartphone are also used in Poland and South Korea. Similar projects are being implemented in the UK, Finland and the USA. Estonian citizens use a digital ID card, with which they can receive public services online, manage bank accounts and vote online. However, Ukraine is the first country in the world where digital passports in smartphones have legally gained the same force as paper and plastic documents. In September 2021, Ukraine will begin entering the "paperless" regime - public authorities will not have the right to require paper documents if the necessary information is already in the registers.