Unfortunately or fortunately, depends where you stand, a country does not move from peace to war instantly. You have to prepare the population for what's coming. And this is exactly what we are witnessing right now in several, not all, European countries.
I admire Russell Brand for his courage, as well as Tucker Carlson, but I am afraid that soon enough, both of them will be silenced...
If you understand how AI works, you will quickly grasp the fact that safety controls are completely meaningless.
AI experts have been talking about alignment and other nonsense for years now. It is meaningless. At this stage of the technology, whatever scheme you use to circumscribe or limit the AI will necessarily make it less performing.
I suspect all the experts understand this, well, most of them at least, and that all this discussion about security is mostly to reassure investors and authorities so that they can go on with their work quietly.
The key concept here is emergent properties which means that we really don't know exactly how it works. In practice, you create a transformer, run it a million times with huge database. Tweak it here and there to improve the results... and "things" happen! (Suddenly the computer creates a "mood neuron" for example because understanding your mood, positive or negative increases tremendously the accuracy of the language model!) We are walking ahead in the dark grasping around to try to understand AI. There is simply no control whatsoever!
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems that were trained to be secretly malicious resisted state-of-the-art safety methods designed to “purge” them of dishonesty, a disturbing new study found.
Researchers programmed various large language models (LLMs) — generative AI systems similar to ChatGPT — to behave maliciously. Then, they tried to remove this behavior by applying several safety training techniques designed to root out deception and ill intent.
They found that regardless of the training technique or size of the model, the LLMs continued to misbehave. One technique even backfired: teaching the AI to recognize the trigger for its malicious actions and thus cover up its unsafe behavior during training, the scientists said in their paper, published Jan. 17 to the preprint database arXiv.
Instead of solving bogus planetary problems as discussed in the previous article, we should attend the real immediate financial conundrum. But of course we won't. Finance is not a problem until the system implodes. This almost happened in 2008. It will happen again, sooner than later...
by James Hickman via Schiff Sovereign
Yesterday the Treasury Department announced that they expected to increase the national debt by a whopping $760 billion this quarter alone… and another $202 billion next quarter.
In short that means almost $1 trillion added to the national debt just in the first half of this year. And, again, these are the Treasury Department’s own estimates.
Obviously, that’s a pretty horrible result; even a senior Treasury official acknowledged that they have “significantly increased” their bond sales and the national debt. Not that they’re doing anything to stop the trend.
But there’s an even greater risk that the Treasury Department faces this year that is hardly being discussed anywhere.
Over the next twelve months, more than $6 trillion in existing US government debt is set to mature… and will need to be paid back somehow.
So, to give you an example, back in 2014, the federal government issued $264 billion in 10-year Treasury notes.
Well, it’s now 2024, i.e. ten years later. Meaning that $264 billion worth of 10-year notes issued in 2014 will become due and payable this year.
In 2017, they issued $368.8 billion worth of 7-year notes. And those 7-year notes issued in 2017 are due and payable this year.
You get the idea. The point is that the total sum of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills outstanding that will become due and payable this year exceeds $6 trillion.
So, in ADDITION to the $1 trillion in NEW debt that they’re forecasting just in the first six months of 2024, the Treasury Department is also going to have to pay back $6 trillion of existing debt.
Naturally the Treasury Department doesn’t have $6 trillion lying around to pay back its bondholders. So instead of paying anyone back, they just borrow new money to repay the old money.
Now, this doesn’t actually increase the national debt. If they borrow $6 trillion in new bonds, but then pay back $6 trillion in old bonds, the net change to the debt is ZERO.
So, what’s the problem?
The problem is that interest rates are MUCH higher than they were 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 years ago when those old bonds were first issued.
In 2021, for example, the Treasury Department issued almost $1 trillion in 3-year bonds back when interest rates were nearly 0%.
But since those 3-year bonds from 2021 are due and payable this year, the Treasury Department will have to borrow new money at today’s interest rates… which are hovering around FOUR percent.
And higher interest rates mean that the government’s annual interest bill will soar.
Think about it like this– $6+ trillion of existing debt needs to be refinanced. And given how much higher interest rates are, this will likely cost the government more than $200 billion per year in additional interest payments.
PLUS, they’re expecting $1 trillion of new debt in the first six months of the year, plus probably another $1 trillion in the second half of the year.
Altogether, the government’s total interest bill could easily increase by more than $300 billion per year in 2024.
And this same trend will continue in 2025, 2026, and beyond.
Right now, gross interest on the debt is already roughly $1 trillion per year. But in three years’ time, annual interest could surpass $2 trillion annually. And in 10 years, annual interest could reach $4 to $5 trillion.
Anyone who thinks this isn’t an obvious, catastrophic problem in the making (which demands immediate attention) needs to have his/her head examined.
And yet the government is full of people who shake hands with thin air and happily ignore the present and future carnage that they’re creating.
Don’t hold your breath for the Inspired Idiots in charge to fix this; I’ve written before that there is a VERY narrow window of opportunity to solve this problem… but they’re doing absolutely nothing about it.
But that doesn’t mean that you or I have to be held hostage by their incompetence.
I’ve argued that one of the highly probable consequences of this mess will be SIGNIFICANT inflation. After all, most likely it will be the Federal Reserve that facilitates all this new debt.
This is what the Fed has done for most of the past 15 years. Just look at the huge run-up in the national debt between 2020 and 2022; over 80% of that money (~$5 trillion) came from the Federal Reserve.
And if creating $5 trillion in new money resulted in 9% inflation, how much inflation will we see if the Fed creates $15 to $20 trillion of new money? No one knows for sure, but it probably won’t be 2%.
But if we can make such a strong argument for inflation… and anticipate a steep rise in prices over the next 5-10 years, there’s no reason why we can’t take steps NOW to reduce the impact of future inflation, or even benefit from it.
This doesn’t even necessarily require a lot of capital. For example, one could invest in long-term options on certain assets (including gold or silver futures), so that a small amount of money could pay out very large returns down the road.
The key point is that there are plenty of sensible ways to plan for future inflation, which we will continue to discuss in future letters.
But this isn’t even Plan B thinking anymore. Anticipating inflation should be Plan A.
If you are interested by climate science, this is the article to read.
1 - There is NO climate emergency.
2 - The consensus is political, absolutely NOT scientific.
3 - The data is unreliable and the models terribly inaccurate.
(Yes temperatures have been rising very, very slowly over the last 150 years BUT:
4 - We started from a very low point in 1880
5 - The rise has been of about 1C but if you look at the raw data you will notice that the temperature goes up by a few tens of a degree over 10~20 years, then stabilize or fall slightly for 10 years and the cycle repeats over the years. 4 times already since 1880. Nobody knows why.
6 - And no model can explain this stop and go. If the rise was truly linked to CO2, you would expect a linear acceleration. This is not what we see. It's clearly far more complex. Well, then how do we know for sure it's CO2? The answer is that we do not.
...and on and on. I could give hundreds of scientific examples, both data and the models. (The article below goes into more details.) But just doing so makes you a heretic in the current environment.
Think about it: A scientific study with data today showing any discrepancy with the consensus will not be published and any mention about it will be cancelled from YouTube / Facebook and other social media platforms (Actually what they do is to shadow-ban you to limit the spread of wrong-think.). 20 years ago, this would have been unthinkable. Now, we are about to spend trillions of dollars and euros to save the planet. It has to be a consensus!
Authored by Scott Sturman and Doug Goodman via The Epoch Times,
Executive Order 14057 justifies the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions as necessary to counteract the existential threat of climate change. The program’s comprehensive and prohibitively expensive initiative proposes to transform the operational military by achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2045, purportedly on firmly established “science-based” targets that are validated by computer models and consensus within the scientific community.
The plan’s ambitious yet unrealistic goals, which are presented as an alarmist ultimatum, ignore the foundational principles of physics and battle-proven lessons of military history.
The Plan establishes emission objectives by determining “alignment with the scale of reductions required to limit global warming below 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.” These emission reduction targets come directly from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Net-Zero Paris Climate Accord. The IPCC is not a science based organization that conducts its own research but rather a governmental policy organization whose members are countries, not scientists, and whose representatives are bureaucrats who develop and promote international climate policy. The IPCC sponsors and filters climate science research generated from outside organizations to support its primary charter of establishing the man made causes and influences on climate change.
The narrative that the earth’s climate balances precariously on the brink of catastrophe and merits the distinction of a national security priority is constantly presented to the public in familiar, apocalyptic terms. President Biden warns that global warming is the greatest threat to national security. DOD Secretary Austin alerts the public of existential climate threats, including an ice-free Arctic Ocean, although as of January 2023 the Arctic sea ice pack is at its highest since 2003. The DOD and high ranking officials from the navy, army, and air force proclaim that it is incumbent upon the armed services to implement net zero without delay to avert a worldwide catastrophe. Despite the incessant fearmongering, no one appears to pause and consider that the DOD produces only 1 percent of the United State’s CO2 emissions, which in turn is responsible for 13 percent of the world’s total. Even if the DOD achieves net zero, eliminating 0.13 percent of the world’s CO2 output would not detectably reduce global temperatures.
The McKinsey Report details the enormous costs and disruption to society to attain net zero and concedes there is only an even chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and it is far from certain whether the world will be able to keep the temperature increase to that level. The transition will require a fundamental change to the world’s economy, costing an estimated $6 trillion per year for the next 30 years. This translates to $11,000 per year for every American until 2050 for a result that cannot be ensured. Most of the sacrifice will come from the Third World, where 1/3-1/2 of GDP will be required to achieve net zero, but at a further cost of killing millions and plunging more millions into extreme poverty and starvation. Bjorn Lomborg warns that a zero fossil fuel solution is expensive, leads to misery and an impoverishment of the planet, and will fail to mitigate temperature elevation appreciably.
The hasty evolution to net zero comes at a prohibitive price, and its adherents concoct doomsday scenarios that demand and ennoble mass sacrifice. Depicting a world in complete environmental collapse due to the effects of fossil fuels promotes a theme intended to instill panic. The DOD embellishes adverse weather-related and environmental events but fails to place them in context or provide contrary interpretations. The extent and history of glacial retreat, sea level rise, desertification, forest fires, heat waves, death due to heat as opposed to cold, hurricanes, and tornados are exaggerated and depicted in emotional terms to legitimize drastic action. These contentions have been examined extensively, using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s (NOAA) and the IPCC’s own data, and refute the hypothesis that there is a climate crisis based on these criteria. The number and intensity of severe climate events have diminished, and for those that occur, poor countries lack the resources to deal with natural disasters, while wealthier societies are able to better mitigate structural damage and human injury.
Computer modeling, a useful tool for conceptualization, forms the heart of climate science. The technique, however, is unable to prove hypotheses and has been wildly inaccurate since its inception. Climate science is a complex subject of interacting variables acting over time cycles that differ by order of magnitudes from the depths of the oceans to the upper stratosphere that are in turn affected by orbital mechanics and solar perturbations. The authenticity of ground-based temperature readings, the raison d’être of climate activists, raises alarm about the IPCC’s most fundamental assessments, since the underestimation of the heat island effect may distort the temperature anomaly data by up to 40 percent.
The major problem with computer models is the resolution and averaging required to make the models computable. The atmosphere is divided into volumes with horizontal grid lengths of tens of kilometers within which parameters like temperature, pressure, and density are averaged to represent the entire volume. Atmospheric processes like cloud physics and turbulence occur at scales well below the resolution of these cells, which compels modelers to estimate the values and effects of these processes. These guesses invariably favor global warming and the deleterious effects of CO2.
Since data collection points rarely align with the grid points required by the numerical models, discrepancies of hundred of kilometers exist, which modelers homogenize to allow the data to fit the grid. This leads to false adjustments and manipulations of the real data. Computational models are inherently unstable and diverge from physical reality. At distances below the grid scale, perturbations multiply and a butterfly effect ensues. Modelers are forced constantly to realign or reset the initial conditions, which mask the deviations and give the illusion that the models accurately predict observed conditions.
DOD officials defend net-zero defense prioritization by claiming that scientific consensus and sham peer reviewed studies validate this contention. Peer review has degenerated into a process that favors a regression to the mean, and has become a form of consensus. The original 97 percent consensus claim from Cook in 2013 that humans are the major cause of global warming that will result in catastrophic climate events has been widely discredited. Investigators point out that the number is closer to 1.6 percent, but the original, inaccurate claim of near-universal consensus, advanced by Barack Obama and John Kerry, remains a favored technique of politicians to inject ideology into science.
John Clauser won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work with particle entanglement and serves as an example that the most distinguished and competent scientists are not immune from rebuke for challenging the climate change narrative. Dr. Clauser stated publicly that there is no climate emergency and the dangerous corruption of science threatens the world economy and welfare of billions of people. Mainstream media outlets allied to climate science activism predictably marginalized the distinguished physicist with ad hominem attacks and inferred that only bona fide climate scientists like Dr. Michael Mann, the originator of the widely debunked hockey stick shaped temperature acceleration profile, are qualified to speak on the subject.
The DOD plan to reduce greenhouse emissions makes no mention of the stabilizing benefits of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations in terms of food production or the weak correlation between temperature and CO2 levels over the last 570 millions years. There has been a 20 percent increase in the world’s biomass over the past 40 years, and CO2 is responsible for 70 percent of this benefit. Some of the world’s most unstable regions have achieved an element of food security, as exuberant plant life has reversed desertification and conferred a degree of economic stability—a benefit for developing more accurate military contingencies.
A nation’s military priorities must optimize its access to natural resources, develop war plans that allow for flexibility and maximum projection of power, and to conclude that one’s enemies will not be concerned with carbon footprints when it comes to surviving and winning a major military conflict. No commander purposely informs potential enemies that the armed forces will be restricted for decades to specific, unproven technologies and untested operational strategies that are established solely to comply with climate change dogma. Future and present adversaries are under no such constraints and will devote resources predicated on the best opportunity for success. Virtue signaling climate scientists and their dutiful DOD disciples, whose premises are based on computer modeling, enact policies that weaken the military and serve as classic examples of those who hijack science to advance political agendas.
In the US, I listen to Tucker Carlson. THE one journalist left in the US not on the payroll of the Deep State.
Concerning international strategy, Douglas Mcgregor has become the voice of reason that cannot be found anywhere on the mainstream medias now that they are spilling propaganda full time.
and in the UK, we have Russell Brand, a more colorful personality but who in the end focus on the same freedom centric messages. Here's his latest video below, but you can also find him on Rumble by typing his name, a less censored platform for now.
Another superb interview of Douglas Mcgregor. The man should be in charge of the American foreign policy, He has the knowledge and experience needed for the job. But of course he is not. It is Neo-con nuts like Nuland who are, pulling the strings behind the curtain towards war with Iran, Russia and eventually China.
Our only chance for now is that nobody's ready for war although of course these kind of events tend to quickly take a dynamic of their own. The war in Gaza is radicalizing the Middle East. Eventually we'll reach a boiling point. At that stage, whatever happens, oil will quickly shoot from 80 USD per barrel to... 1,000 Yuan per barrel! And suddenly the world will look very different.
How likely is this to happen? It looks distant and improbable for now but change the international context and what looked impossible becomes unavoidable. We are moving closer to a tipping point...
Who's talking about a better world? Covid-19 was just the appetizer!
Authored by Charles Krblich via The Brownstone Institute,
Il nous faut de l’audace, encore de l’audace, toujours de l’audace!
(We need audacity, more audacity, always audacity!)
Georges Jacques Danton
Just a short time ago, on a Saturday, before a flake of snow glistened in the air on the following Sunday, an imminent weather emergency caused New York Governor Kathy Hochul to “ban travel” and postpone the Steelers-Bills super Wild Card game until the following Monday.
Certainly, severe weather is a legitimate reason to cancel or postpone events, and to stridently warn against travel during white-out conditions in a blizzard, but a travel ban?
Banning isn’t limited to travel during white-out conditions in blizzards though.
It is truly a bipartisan pastime.
Ban gas stoves; Ban gas-powered generators; Ban books; Ban misinformation; Ban fake news; Ban gender affirming care; Ban parents from being notified of gender transitions; Ban abortions; Ban the banning of abortions; Ban gasoline powered cars and trucks; Ban the unvaccinated; Ban the unmasked; Ban DEI; Ban gas boilers; Ban coal; Ban nuclear; Ban high-capacity magazines; Ban guns; Ban incandescent lightbulbs...
Those bans are just to fix all of society’s important problems, but there are presumably less important things that need banning as well. What would really help is banning honors classes to produce equity, banning youth tackle football, and even banning sledding! In Canada!
If we pass just a few more laws that ban the things we don’t like and banish the people who support them, utopia will arrive and thou-shalt-not do anything.
Maybe you agree with some of these bans and maybe you disagree with others. Certainly if you have any political leanings at all, some of these bans will find your enthusiastic support and others your passionate fury. The most difficult position to hold is that none of these things should be banned, and people should largely be free to do as they please. That position infuriates everyone!
Yet it is clear beyond any doubt that bans simply don’t work. I was a child during the “Just Say No” anti-drug campaign. Drugs were banned, and yet always available. Chicago has banned guns for years and yet has incredibly high gun violence. We banned smiles, playgrounds, and normal personal interaction for years in order to ban Covid and we still catch Covid.
Ironically, it is the rebels who pay no attention to the bans that are often celebrated by history. This is true both in real life and in fictional epics familiar to everyone.
In real life, the Russian Samizdat reproduced, often by hand, great works of literature like Doctor Zhivago and The Gulag Archipelago. Much of their work was producing political texts and personal statements – editorials – that often criticized the Soviet Government and offered alternative solutions to the government’s handling of events. The members of the Samizdat faced severe punishment involving torture and death if they were caught, and we celebrate their courage today.
Fictionally, we celebrate the scrappy rebels in the Star Wars franchise, we root for Neo to win back humanity’s freedom from the scourge of the machines in the Matrix franchise, and we feel the passion and duty of Atticus Finch as he does the unthinkable in his society and defends a black man accused of raping a white woman because it’s the right thing to do.
There are so many more examples, but what is important is that in each example there are laws – either written or unwritten – that are being broken in service of true liberalism. In the Samizdat example, there are often steep personal costs paid, but the delusions of the Soviet state eventually faded and the members of the Samizdat became celebrated heroes rather than vicious criminals spreading misinformation.
In each of the stories there is inevitably a society, culture, or villain that is unbearably cruel and filled with hypocrisy and judgment. Whereas the villain wants complete control, abject anarchy, or the banishment of all non-conformers, the heroes always have the strength to follow their own conscience.
Isn’t this the world we live in? Both sides see themselves as the heroes resisting the unbearable cruelty and hypocrisy of the other. To quote Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:
They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist. It’s a very small group of people, but that doesn’t shy away from the fact that they take up some space.
This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?
What are the means and methods for not tolerating someone? Banishment is, of course, one of them, and thus bank accounts were frozen, disabled grandmothers assaulted, and rebel ringleaders jailed. The state does not need Gulags if on one hand they can approve of some riots but use unapproved protests to turn off your ability to bank, transact, work, and live with the flip of a switch.
The last few years have taught us how fast a person can be turned into swine and banished without remorse.
This moral dilemma is highlighted in one of the allegedly “banned” books. “Banned” because it has racist language, yet still freely available in every book store and on Amazon, there is a character who is a strict disciplinarian who often chastises the main character for his recklessness. She is on a mission to ban his audacity and wildness. She desires to “civilize” him.
That is ultimately what banning is trying to bring about: one’s idea of proper civilization.
Yet civilization thrives in the cracks and margins, in the collective behavior of individuals striving to live the lives they desire despite their circumstances. The Samizdat copied the great literature because it was worthwhile, and in our “banned” book, our main character discovers his friend has been betrayed and will be returned to slavery if our character stands by idly.
So Huck Finn, who values his own sense of freedom more than anything, does what we all should do in the face of the “civilizers:” drop our pretenses and say, “All right, then, I’ll go to hell.”
In doing so, he follows his gut instincts and makes one of the most important moral decisions of his life. Maybe, if we follow that example, we wouldn’t be so concerned with fixing society by banning things like sledding, and would in turn find the lost joy that lives in untamed audacity and recklessness.
A dose of Russell brand about Trump. 😀
The fact is that people now understand that if you want to fight the Deep State, like him or not, Trump is the only path available and so they flock towards him creating a landslide! As simple as that.
But can trump deliver? Hard to tell. Some people are talking of Douglas McGregor and Tucker Carlson joining him to govern. That could make a difference!
Isn't it obvious by now?
In the end EV are perfect second cars for urban families but unworkable outside large cities. More ominously, they pollute just as much as gas powered cars just differently.
Toyota's chairman and former CEO, Akio Toyoda, is at it again: providing the public with a dose of reality that electric vehicles will never dominate the global car market.
Toyoda, grandson of the founder of the world's largest car manufacturer, expressed at a business event this month, as reported by The Telegraph, that EVs will never capture 30% of global market share.
He explained that petrol-burning vehicles and hybrids, along with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, will dominate.
Toyoda made the point: How can EVs be the future when a billion people on Earth have no electricity?
Data from Statista shows nearly a billion people in the world are living without electricity.
He noted: "Customers — not regulations or politics — should make that decision."
Over the years, Toyota has openly demonstrated defiance against governments and NGOs pushing for 100% EVs in just a few decades, if not earlier.
In October, Toyoda told reporters at an auto show in Japan that EVs aren't the silver bullet against the supposed ills of carbon emissions they're often made out to be.
Toyota has a history of being at the forefront of adopting new technologies. However, its slow EV adoption is because of its mistrust of lithium-ion batteries, and it has positioned itself to be a leader in hybrid vehicles.
Perhaps Toyoda has been vindicated to some extent as EV demand slumps.
In recent days, Ford announced plans to slash production of its all-electric F-150 Lightning in April "to achieve the optimal balance of production, sales growth and profitability."
For those who purchased EVs during the Covid mania, the average price of a used Tesla has collapsed.
And used Tesla prices are likely to slide more as rental car company Hertz Global Holdings has decided to dump 20,000 EVs onto the already sliding used car market.
BloombergNEF data shows prices of EVs that were part of rental car fleets have also crashed.
Toyoda concluded: "Engines will surely remain."
Will Elon Musk respond to Toyoda's comments?
Another conspiracy theory confirmed?
In fact, it looks more and more that almost every story is true to some degree, except of course when it concern flat earth, space and UFOs, or when they are disinformation planted to misled or to discredit. The rest is unfortunately all true.
Authored by Michael Shellenberger and Alex Gutentag via Public subsatck,
FBI’s entire 25-person Chinese intelligence squad knew of reliable human intelligence that SARS-CoV-2 Covid leaked from a lab...
Over the last several months, Public has reported on a growing body of evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused the Covid pandemic escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China. Last year, Public and Racket were the first to report that US government officials had identified that the first patients to become sick with Covid worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Now, Public has learned from multiple sources that the FBI knew since at least March 2020 that Covid was the result of a lab leak. A Chinese national from Wuhan, working as a confidential human source (CHS) for the FBI, told their handler at the FBI’s Chinese Intelligence Squad. The sources said it was probable that the whole squad of 25 people knew.
“A person working at the Virology Institute lab in Wuhan, China was infected, left the building, and spread the virus outside the lab in Wuhan,” the CHS told the FBI, according to a source.
“It didn’t have anything to do with the wet market or the bat soup story they were going with.”
The sources asked Public to protect their identities and those of their colleagues. The sources say they are speaking up now out of concern over abuses of power within the FBI. They reached out to Public after seeing our story yesterday about how scientists, who Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) had in the past funded, sought to insert a furin cleavage site right where it exists on SARS-CoV-2.
The sources added that the FBI trusted the CHS because the person’s information had been corroborated at least three times previously.
“The CHS was from Wuhan, had been vetted, and the person had provided information on three prior occasions that they were able to corroborate as true and reliable.”
Another source said the FBI had considered the information “good intel.”
...
Two sources said that the CIA may have been conflicted in investigating its origins because it didn’t want to compromise investigations of the Wuhan lab that predated the outbreak of Covid-19.
“There was a clear lack of interest in a robust analysis of Chinese military connections to WIV research, connections between Chinese military and civilian research, and connections that could be drawn between US research and WIV activity,” the whistleblower said.
Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe suggested that there could be additional reasons behind the CIA’s lack of disclosure about COVID’s origins.
...
Fauci may have also tried to influence the FBI.
A catchy tittle but in fact just a translation of the previous video without the jargon. In other words: AGI is here!
